Special DL caucus tomorrow night!

Just a reminder that while our regular Drinking Liberally has been canceled tonight due to the holiday (ie, the Montlake Ale House is closed,) we will be holding special Wednesday night gathering tomorrow, to conduct our first in the nation presidential caucus!

That’s right, tomorrow night, Democrats and Republicans alike are invited to come on over to the Alehouse at 8PM to caucus for your favorite candidate… all caucus rules will apply. My guess? Edwards manages a comfortable win over Obama, with Clinton coming in a distant third.

Stop on by and help us make history.

Comments

  1. 1

    spews:

    Well as white men are a bit over represented at DL, I think a strong showing for Edwards isn’t out of the question. I wouldn’t be surprised if Dodd came in second.

  2. 3

    spews:

    One correction:

    On Jan 1, the bar is closed because it is SJ’s birthday and the 2,008th anniversary of the circumcision of the Christian Messiah, a feast day sometimes known as the feast of the Holy Prepuce. I am told this relic may be of benefit to those with electile fixation.

    BTW, given the penchant for collection of various relics, does anyone know where the foreskin might be stored? I am willing o up for the DNA analysis. Imagine what might be learned?

    On a more serious subject, it is my understanding that the Clinton machine has bought box lunches for its caucusers in IA.

    In that spirit, the SJ family will offer an IOU of one free Chicago Brat from Costco to all votes who choose Obama tomorrow night. Onions, relish, kraut, and mustard and all the Coke product you can drink included. Pepperoncini and kosher dill on request. Multiple dates will be available with proof of purchase or receipt of a contibution of $50 or more to either the Obama or the Darcy campaign.

    For those too fastidious to test the limits of election law, I have checked with DL Attorney in Chief, Roger Rabbit, and he assure me that this is fully legal since the DL exercise is merely a straw poll.

    I challenge the Clintonistas and Edwardians to outbribe the Obamoids!

  3. 4

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Roger Rabbit Endorses Mike Huckabee!

    That’s right, I’ve decided to vote for The Huckster in the Feb. 19 primary!

    And why not? I can easily pass for a Republican at any polling place — after all, I behave like one. And it’s pointless to vote for a Democrat, because all the Democratic delegates will be chosen in the Feb. 8 caucuses, whereas the stupid Republicans have allocated half of their delegates to the primary.

    In any case, I’m a Republican at heart, having been a Goldwater conservative in ‘64. And given that all of the top Democratic candidates are relatively ineffective in debates, I want to help my GOP friends select a candidate who will really grab voters’ attention in the fall debates. Huckabee is the man!

    I want to hear Gov. Huckabee tell America’s voters about his plan to ban science education from public schools and force teachers to indoctrinate our kids in creationism, so future doctors, biologists, scientists, and engineers will think mutant viruses come from bad behavior, not government biological warfare labs.

    I want to hear Gov. Huckabee explain why little girls deserve to be raped if they’re related to Bill Clinton, while it’s okay for little boys to lynch dogs in Boy Scout Camp if they’re related to Mike Huckabee.

    I want to hear Gov. Huckabee tell the American people he wants to replace the progressive income tax with a 40% sales tax.

    Yep, Mike Huckabee is my go-to guy for the November election — the guy I’m counting on to carry the GOP and its downticket candidates to an electoral disaster for the history books.

    And, best of all, he’s an Arkansas cracker. That’ll play just right in America’s urban areas where the 2008 election will be decided. He might even take all 22 GOP senatorial candidates down with him! I sure hope so.

    I’m voting for Mike Huckabee in the Feb. 19 primary because he’s the best GOP candidate that Democrats could choose.

  4. 5

    Dave Gibney spews:

    Richardson is the most qualified. Do your “all rules” include the possibilty of surrogates (It’s a little far to go just to drink when I’m starting in Pullman) yet are relaxed enough that a eastsider could get a vote :)

  5. 6

    spews:

    4. Roger .. I LIKE the idea!!!

    Asuming the real race is over by then, lets see how many memebrs of the rational intelligentia we can get to go.

    I like Huckleberry too. He seems to spitomize a true compassionate conservative.

    BTW, I hope I did not take your name in vein above. .

  6. 7

    Sam spews:

    I apologize in advance for this off-topic post. However, I’m looking for links to a couple of intellectually honest and reasonable-in-tone righty websites (if such exist) with a goal of attempting to better understand what I now dismiss out of hand. Any suggestions? Thanks in advance.

  7. 8

    Irv Kupcinet spews:

    re 1: Edwards is holding his own quite well with black voters. The message is the medium.

  8. 9

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @6 Your legal analysis @4 is probably okay. I don’t think Sam Reed gives a shit about voting irregularities at Montlake Ale House.

  9. 10

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @7 I suppose National Review Online might be an option for you. They’re not as shrill as the rest. Trouble is, they’re real conservatives, so that web site problem won’t give you much insight into Wingnut Trotskyism.

  10. 11

    FricknFrack spews:

    Sorry Goldy. After standing out lastnight watching for fireworks in the cold (gave up before they started late), I’m down for the count with cold and chills. Don’t want to share with you all.

    Sure hope you’re right about Edwards! One thing scary about Obama, IMO, may be the Oprah factor. A whole lot of middle aged housewives avidly believe everything she says. She even picks their reading lists, their charities quite often, wouldn’t be surprised if they let a talkshow host select their POTUS. I just don’t think Obama’s gift of gab is enough to get the trainwreck back on the tracks. I would prefer to see an Edwards w/VP Obama at the helm. Clinton, being funded by the pharm/insurance industries is too terrifying to contemplate, even to a female like me!

  11. 12

    Irv Kupcinet spews:

    re 4: I would not be so sanguine about a Huckabee presidential run. He has a populist streak that will resonate with many voters and a religio/conservative posture that many will see as the paragon of ultra regular- guy normalcy.

  12. 14

    FricknFrack spews:

    @ 4 RR: “Roger Rabbit Endorses Mike Huckabee!”

    Fantastic idea! The same wingnuts that gave us shrub would fall all over themselves voting for him. While the intelligent folks in the Libs would be running for the hills. The debates would be pure FUN to watch!

  13. 15

    FricknFrack spews:

    @ 12 Irv,

    Did you see the YouTube from Huffington Post? Bizarro, indeed!

    http://tinyurl.com/2t3nkg
    “By now you’ve probably heard that Mike Huckabee held a very bizarre press conference today in which he announced that his campaign had decided not to run an Iowa ad attacking Mitt Romney — but played the very same ad in front of a roomful of national reporters, anyway.

    Here’s some video of the presser that was taken by an operative on the scene, so you can watch for yourself the explanations Huck offers to reporters who grilled him about his rather odd play here. It’s quite a scene.”

  14. 17

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @15 It’s not surprising. The Huckster has no campaign organization, no campaign staff, no nothing … his “staff” is his wife and kids. You think that one’s a doozy, just wait — as his amateur campaign unfolds, Governor Huckleberry will be good for more gaffes than the rest of the both parties’ candidates put together.

  15. 18

    spews:

    @11 FricknFerack

    Can someone PLEEZ tell me why they consider Edwards experienced? He was a very succssful tort lawyer in the courtoom (and it shows .. he would be an awesome replacemtn for Fred T on Law and order). Other than that and his role as a lieutenant in the Kerry campaign, Edwards was a 1 term senator (unpopular too) and after that ran a non profit foundation that barely manged to disburse funds. Oh byeh he got some pretty good curs from one of those now infamous Wall Stret leverage deals.

    Methinks the jury is being worked on by a very good lwyer

  16. 19

    rob spews:

    Re: 7. Sam try sondrak.com, Blackfive.net, michellemalkin.com, captiansquartersblog.com, anncoulter.com, gatewaypundit.blogspot.com, townhall.com.

    Those are just a few but there are several links from those.

    It’s good to see a liberal that is intellectually curious for a change.

  17. 20

    rob spews:

    Re: 18. I can’t say anything good about Edwards experience other than he lost along with Kerry to George Bush which surprised me and I voted for Bush.

    It isn’t very evident that the democrats are interested in experience though. Your top three have the least experience. If you want someone with experience on the democrat side I would say Richardson, Dodd or Biden but they don’t even show up in the polls. I like Dodd but you guys don’t so you will have to run Clinton and she can’t even get a stain out of a blue dress!

  18. 21

    rob spews:

    Re: 18. of course Clinton has real international experience and knowledge. On George Stepnolopus show she made the folling statement regard the assasination of Banazhir Bhutto.

    Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton was praised in the wake of the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto for demonstrating her command of the players and the issues at stake in Pakistan, even as another candidate, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, was criticized for stumbling over details.

    But in two confident television appearances, on CNN and ABC, Clinton made an elementary error about Pakistani politics: She described President Pervez Musharraf as a “candidate” who would be “on the ballot.”

    In fact, Musharraf was reelected to the presidency in October. The upcoming elections are for parliament, and while Musharraf’s party will be facing off against opposition parties, the president himself is not a candidate.

    “He will NOT be on the ballot,” said a Pakistan scholar at Columbia University, Philip Oldenburg, in an e-mail. “These are parliamentary elections, where the contests are for a seat in the national assembly.
    The prime ministerial candidate typically fights for victory in a local constituency, as well as lead[ing] the party in a national campaign.”

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/.....stan_.html

    And this there was this about her harrowing bravery when flying into Kosovo

    Hillary says she risked life on White House trips

    It turns out that Clinton wasn’t quite flying solo into harm’s way that day.

    She was, in fact, leading a goodwill entourage that included baggy-pants funnyman Sinbad, singer Sheryl Crow and Clinton’s daughter, Chelsea, then 15, according to an account of the March 1995 trip in her autobiography “Living History.”

    As the plane approached the runway, the pilot ordered the Clintons into the armored front of the plane, Clinton writes.

    What’s not clear is whether Sinbad or Crow were invited to the cockpit or had to brave it out in the unprotected rear.
    http://www.newsday.com/news/na.....5440.story

    All that experience thing is going to make for a fun 2008. Happy New Year!

  19. 22

    FricknFrack spews:

    @ 18 “Methinks” Obama and Clinton were/are lawyers, too.

    So, a successful lawyer is automatically getting a non-vote from you? One thing I like about Edwards is the fundraising aspect (even though a pain to receive endless solicitations) and his shooting for the ‘matching fund option’. Not going via the lobbyist funding, where later he would automatically be beholden to the pharm/insurance shags that had financed him. The trial lawyer cases Edwards won more often benefited the little people. I think he would be more able to connect with the common people and smart enough to bring in people in his Admin that could make things happen.

    Time to bring in someone that can appreciate the struggles of the rest of America. THAT was one of the things Bill Clinton (not his wife) brought in with his Admin. (I was a caregiver for a coworker struggling with AIDs before/after Clinton’s Inauguration, filling out the paperwork and seeking the help. I experienced BOTH sides of the struggle to seek assistance – from the trenches! It was shockingly different/easier the instant Clinton came into office.)

    I think there are a LOT more voters (who might NOT YET be ready for a woman or black president, albeit DISAPPOINTEDLY in this day and age) than people might wish to believe. I say this election is one that the Democrats themselves could only lose for themselves, if they don’t think strategically. The ABSOLUTE LAST thing this country can afford is finding another 4-8 years of having some dimwit Repub in the WH!

  20. 26

    rob spews:

    Re: 24, figured you were to stupid. You do have the typical liberal meme of changing the subject though. Liberals are such lemmings.

  21. 27

    rob spews:

    by the way liberal, @ 24 it’s spelled oops. Just so you don’t embarrass you silly ass again. You don’t have to thank me. Did you go to grade school in Seattle or California, you would pass for either. It’s obvious you didn’t get much further than that.

  22. 28

    FricknFrack spews:

    Brain fucked trolls DO find the silliest little nothings to focus on. Why don’t you go play with puddybutt?

  23. 29

    YLB spews:

    Silly robtard…

    Are you here to convince the dead air that a Republican is going to win in Nov?

  24. 30

    rob spews:

    It is funny that “brain fucked trolls” can spell oops and crack crazed hippy’s can’t. Go heat up your pipe fuckstick.

  25. 31

    rob spews:

    Re: 29, have you reduced the spelling of your name (Yos Libtard) to go along with your other depreciation of motor skills or is this someone else?

  26. 33

    rob spews:

    Yes by the way I do think a republican will win in 2008. The only reason I think that will happen is that you libtards are going to select Clinton.

    I am leaning towards McCain but Romney or Guliani could also beat that hag.

  27. 35

    YLB spews:

    Ahhh. McCain yes. A pretty good candidate if people can shake the image of him with his arms around that thieving, lying chimpanzee.

    You know, Mr. 30 percent?

  28. 37

    rob spews:

    Yeah I agree, neither one of us have too good of options. You libtards are going to select Clinton who couldn’t even remove the stain from a blue dress.

  29. 38

    YLB spews:

    I hope McCain can read an NIE report too – he’s going to have to live down that bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran remark..

    I don’t think most folks are too keen on yet another front on the war on Terra.

    If he can read an NIE than he can at least show he’s a step above the current joke in the WH who couldn’t read a PDB.

  30. 40

    rob spews:

    Uhmm Yos Libtard, Your witch of a candidate already admitted she didn’t bother to read the NIE before she voted for the Iraq War.

    You should read my post at 21 though if you want to learn more about the “War Hero” Hillary Clinton. What joke’s you people run for president.

    Maybe you should find someone who have actually served in the military.

  31. 42

    spews:

    @22
    FricknFrack says:

    @ 18 “Methinks” Obama and Clinton were/are lawyers, too.

    Sure, but Hillary has never really practiced and Barack’s work was in cicvil right. Her work surely does little to qualify her to be Prexy. BHO’s work comes closer but is hardly impressive eoter, Edwards? His work is more relevnat to his becoming Fred Thompsons’s replacement on TV..

    One thing I like about Edwards is the fundraising aspect (even though a pain to receive endless solicitations) and his shooting for the ‘matching fund option’. Not going via the lobbyist funding, where later he would automatically be beholden to the pharm/insurance shags that had financed him.
    This is BS. Obama has shown that a well run web effort can raise mega dollars. Edwards made his choice because he hasn’t raised enough $$. Hilleary is Hillary.

    The trial lawyer cases Edwards won more often benefited the little people. I think he would be more able to connect with the common people and smart enough to bring in people in his Admin that could make things happen.

    Are you serious? The Prex has a lto of things he needs to do, telling people he feels theior pain is not big on my list.

    Time to bring in someone that can appreciate the struggles of the rest of America. THAT was one of the things Bill Clinton (not his wife) brought in with his Admin. (I was a caregiver for a coworker struggling with AIDs before/after Clinton’s Inauguration, filling out the paperwork and seeking the help. I experienced BOTH sides of the struggle to seek assistance – from the trenches! It was shockingly different/easier the instant Clinton came into office.)

    you remind me of Piper in reverse here. It seems ot me you accept on faith that Edwards is not simply arguing a case.


    I think there are a LOT more voters (who might NOT YET be ready for a woman or black president, albeit DISAPPOINTEDLY in this day and age) than people might wish to believe. I say this election is one that the Democrats themselves could only lose for themselves, if they don’t think strategically. The ABSOLUTE LAST thing this country can afford is finding another 4-8 years of having some dimwit Repub in the WH!

    I really think we are past this shit. AA are being elcted to office around the US in noin AA communities because there are soe bright folks in blackface. A lot of polling suggests Reprican Xtians see BHO as more like THEM than Romneye or Ruedi.

    I tend to agreee about Mc Cain But at 73 that is a hard bet unless he find someone good to be backup/veep.

  32. 45

    Marcel spews:

    @23, the right wing disdain for the “trial lawyer” is so interesting. “the trials that Edwards faced more often benifited Edwards than anyone else” then you compalin he has a big house.

    Right wing people like the free market, risk, investment, entrepreneurism, reward for risk, no? So a “trial lawyer” makes a partnership with the client agreeing to share any recovery 1:3. So, if there is a loss, the client, typically an injured person, pays nothing. If there is a win, then automatically, by definition, the client gets 2/3 and the lawyer gets the 1/3. If there is a loss, the lawyer has invested time and overhead and often times tens of thousands of dollars in case costs, and then they bear the loss, totally.

    This is a classic incentive based system of connecting risk and reward, in a free market (the lawyers “shop” fopr cases with merit) …very pure capitalism…so why do you object?

    And if Edwards acquired wealth, or has a big house, this only means his clients got even more reward.

    So your statement that the cases benefit the lawyer the most are are ignorant, or stupid, or just deliberate slanders, no?
    Why do you lie like that?

    You may also note that in attacking the justice system you in effect seem to want the corporations to escape personal responsbility for breaking the law. This is very communist of you: you want them to have socialized protection from risk.

    It is so childish of you to take such positions. So inconsistent. So like a little boy who only wants what he wants, and cannot use reason faculties at all.

    And more: Romney points to his non governmental experience a very great deal. Why should not Edwards or Obama do the same?

    Yes, we are aware that Romney and Reverend Huckabee have more experience in public office. But if Romney’s private sector experience is valid, why is not Edwards? He created a small business, his law firm, that was wildly successful. He took risks and was rewarded accordingly.

    I can guarantee you, if you were left paraplegic through the irresponsbile negligence of a large corporation, you could not afford $1,000,000 in cash up front to pay a lawyer. You would hire a trial lawyer on the 1/3 fee basis. You would pray that such a lawyer would take your case.

    Because then you would believe in corporate responsibility, and your freedom to make any contract you like with your own lawyer, and you would certainly want to know that she or he has an interest in actually winning the case and not just in running up a large hourly-fee bill for you to pay.

  33. 46

    Mick spews:

    Hillary will win .

    If your a liberal , be glad .

    But understand , you have as much involvement in this decision as all the conservatives had for George .

    Very little . It is your only choice .

  34. 47

    rob spews:

    Re: 45, actually I have two points.

    1. I own alot of stock and every once in awhile I get a bunch of hoops I can go through to collect one or two hundred dollars. I generally don’t participate because for one I didn’t ask for it and the other reason is that going back through my records for 3 or 4 years isn’t worth it. The trial lawyers (vampires) on the other hand collect millions of dollars in those suits that I didn’t even know were happening.

    2. You idiotic premise that if the trial lawyers get more money the supposedly victims get more is a flat out lie.

    Even if a trial lawyer was representing me personally. I would be responsible for all expenses. The Trial vampire is responsible for none. Expenses such as expert witnesses etc. are most time greater than the lawyers fee.

    THOSE EXPENSES COME OUT OF THE VICTIMS ACCOUNT, NOT THE TRIAL LAWYERS.

    You must be a fledgling trial lawyer to not point out the real story. Or you are a seasoned trial lawyer comfortable with lying.

    Sorry but you guys have a worse approval rating than the democrat congress, much less George W. Bush and you should

  35. 49

    rob spews:

    Just so everyone knows about expenses that you are repsonsible for when you hire a trial lawyer they include the following

    1. Expert witness
    2. Copies
    3. Having to go to trial ( this includes the lawyers time billed hourly)
    4. Phone calls
    5. Paralegals
    6. Office expenses
    7. Research by paralegals or outside sources.

    That’s all I can think of right now but you can have Marcel email you his contract. I am sure there are more.

  36. 50

    rob spews:

    Ha, Marcel, if I was a paraplegic and all I had was a trial lawyer to make me right. I truly would be fucked. As for the “Evil Corporations” that you claim would have got me fucked.

    All my friends work for that company you are trying to put out of business asshole.

  37. 51

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @20 Sorry, rob, but Kerry and Edwards didn’t lose the election. The Constitution and the will of the people were thwarted by Republican cheating in Ohio. Your trained chimp was never elected — he and his party are mere thieves. That’s the way it is.

  38. 52

    Another TJ spews:

    I’d just like to add that comment #19 is wingnuttia distilled to its essence. Anyone who thinks that those sites, with one exception (Special Ed isn’t completely out to lunch), are “intellectually honest and reasonable-in-tone” has drunk the kool-aid, big time.

    But, if you’re looking for an intellectually honest conservative, try John Cole at Balloon Juice.

    Also, if you read NRO too often, you’ll lose your job. You’ll never stop laughing long enough to get anything done.