Could this get too touchy?
This might be the first year that I actually care...
Mm, I'm giving it a shot.
If I had a vote, I'd go for Kucinich, even though he's not done very well in the Primaries so far. Obama's looking pretty good, too... I guess I'll have to wait for 2012, though...
I like Ron Paul, but it doesn't look like he's doing real well at this point.
Can't get any touchier then the NCCA Football one....
I have asked the local Dem office to please place the largest Obama sign possible in my yard. I'm encouraged by the large turnouts in IA and NH.
Colbert still running? ::) ;D
I don't understand why Kucinich isn't doing better.
I just found out that apparently, if Romney doesn't win the Michigan primaries, he's gonna have to drop out. he's already spent about $55 million dollars, most from his own pockets, getting himself out there in places like IA and NH, yet he obviously hasn't had the turn out he's expected. I'd personally be okay with that... very okay with that. He'd be one of the people that I would be flat out objected to having in office... same with Huckabee. Yet, I feel fairly confident that if Huckabee wins the Republican candidacy, the democratic party will come up on top.
And i'm pretty fed up with Hillary... she seems to be being awfully immature and petty towards her competition... crying, personal attacks, blah blah blah. (just talking sound bytes here, but she compared herself to Lyndon Johnson and Obama to Martin Luther King. I don't know if I'm okay with that...) but Edwards and Obama got eachother's back. yet she's also the only candidate that's mentioned anything about family and children - which is attracting the younger women.
Mm whatever. I guess there's very little I can do.
I wouldn't mind seeing an Obama/Edwards ticket for the Dems. I don't think any combination of candidates from the GOP could come close to beating that. The black vote, the under 30's vote, the middle class would be a strong battle but that's what Edwards is all about. Plus they seem to be the smartest and most reasonable candidates out there. I don't really like Hillary Clinton, she just seems to be more of the same partisanship that we've had for the past 12 or so years. Plus I think the GOP would have a better shot at beating her.
I like Ron Paul alright but he's a bit extreme in some areas. And I like Huckabee too as he's the only candidate that has brought up the fact that music is getting cut from public schools. It will be interesting to see who the Republicans end up picking. I think it'll be McCain/Huckabee. Anybody but Romney and Guliani is really ok with me. Those to are f*cking nuts.
QuoteI wouldn't mind seeing an Obama/Edwards ticket for the Dems. I don't think any combination of candidates from the GOP could come close to beating that. The black vote, the under 30's vote, the middle class would be a strong battle but that's what Edwards is all about. Plus they seem to be the smartest and most reasonable candidates out there. I don't really like Hillary Clinton, she just seems to be more of the same partisanship that we've had for the past 12 or so years. Plus I think the GOP would have a better shot at beating her.
Spot on mate. I just do not believe a word that comes out of her mouth. She's way too polarizing.
More than anyone, I want to see Obama in office. I have a feeling that he might be the only one that can get us out of the mess we're in right now. I wouldn't mind Edwards, Paul, or McCain, either. Hilary would screw up everything in her first month spending money we don't have like a teen girl at a shopping mall and also botching up the Iraq exit. Hopefully cooler heads prevail and she gets taken out by Obama or Edwards. And Guliani's campaign is beyond a joke. I laugh at the 5% of votes he got in Iowa.
Ron Paul won't win, but he is changing the way that people run for president. He's shocked people with his ability to raise lots of money through technology and a real grass-roots campaign. It's funny the way the media covers (or refuses to cover) him. He was basically even with Rudy for a good part of the night in NH, but CNN didn't even put his name on the graph.
can someone post some good Ron Paul links?
Thanks.
I'm onto the Wikipedia....
"Paul charged his fellow legislators with voting for the Patriot Act without reading it first; more than 300 pages long, it was enacted into law less than 24 hours after being introduced." :)
I think I'm leaning towards this guy.
"He advocates a non-interventionist foreign policy, having voted against actions such as the Iraq War Resolution, but in favor of force against terrorists in Afghanistan. He is against partisan politics and favors withdrawal from NATO and the United Nations, instead supporting the idea of strong national sovereignty citing the dangers of "foreign entanglements" as expressed in the wishes of George Washington's Farewell Address"
Ron Paul won't win - Obama/Edwards looks like the best bet for some kind of move in the right direction.
I still feel like I'll vote for Ron Paul.
I don't know about "withdrawal" from the UN but if we are going to be part of it we could at least show some respect.
Ron Paul really seems like a guy that has built himself from the ground up. If he can make some real noise this year mabey he can have some kind of chance 4yrs. from now.
Agreed! I hope people who like him will vote for him and not worry about the fact "that he's not going to win". Stick with who you like, I say, and make a statement! Don't let the polls and early results sway your vote.
Libertarianism is a political philosophy or a family of related political philosophies based on support for individual liberty. Libertarians believe that allowing individuals to own, and be responsible for, their own property and their own bodies is a necessary aspect of liberty. Libertarians believe in limiting the power and ability of government to restrict liberty. While libertarian philosophy has deep roots in the historical philosophy and values of the United States of America, in modern times, freedom and recognition of rights of self-determination have become central issues throughout the world.
QuoteAgreed! I hope people who like him will vote for him and not worry about the fact "that he's not going to win". Stick with who you like, I say, and make a statement! Don't let the polls and early results sway your vote.
There is a line there somewhere.....but yeah, I agree.
I'm voting Republican...
QuoteI'm voting Republican...
Which one?
I don't know, but I would probably put them in this order...
Top 3
Romney
Thompson
McCain
Bottom 3
Huckabee
Paul
Giuliani
...but that is subject to change every time I hear one of them speak.
http://www6.comcast.net/news/articles/general/2008/01/18/Democrats.Reagan/
What the %#$@ is this? Shouldn't we be glad that someone respects the other side? These people seem to think that the president is just the spokesperson for that political party. Following your party mindlessly is the last think we need in a president. These democrats seem to have forgotten that Reagan helped end the Cold War. Surely we should be thankful for that?
Obama for president.
Have been watching a lot of coverage on BBC World & CNN and I've yet to hear a single candidate mention the environment, which is both unfortunate & scary.
Are any of the candidates big on environmental issues, climate change & global warming?
Food for thought:
http://www.236.com/blog/w/will_durst/balkanizing_reagan_1_3638.php
January 18, 2008
Balkanizing Reagan
Will Durst | Bio
Thinning the Republican herd in this year's Presidential Sweepstakes is proving to be harder than 3-D chess with transparent pieces. In their first three primaries, the GOP has mounted three different heads on their electoral wall. And yeah, that means I'm disregarding the great state of Wyoming, for the simple reason they're responsible for Dick Cheney and deserve to be ignored, if not flogged en masse and shipped to China to be coated in a lead-based paint, then towed to sea by the FDA. But the exciting part is if Fred Thompson breaks out of his somnambulant trance and wins South Carolina and Rudy Giuliani reminds enough withered transplanted Floridians of the post-squeegee wonder years up north, the GOP could roll into Minneapolis for their national convention this September with an entire starting basketball team of prospective candidates posing as Ronald Reagan.
Because that, apparently, is the current fashion, parading around as spitting images of the 40th President, with an emphasis on the saliva. The problem is they can't find the whole package in one guy. They've Balkanized the Gipper. The Christian Right is genuflecting towards Mike Huckabee. The charm contingent is sidling up to his Rudyness, while the Screen Actors Guild wing is Clapping For Fred, Mr. Law & Order himself. Reagan Democrats are big fans of John McCain, and the conservative money boys from Wall Street love that Mitt Romney character. Romney went so far as to appropriate Reagan's bulletproof hair, undoubtedly garnering the Secret Service's endorsement due to the added protection his hard candy shell would provide in the unlikely event he adopts a single position long enough to get a bead on. One has to consider Ronald Reagan lucky he's in the ground and doesn't have to watch these poseurs go through their paces or he'd be spinning in his grave like a rotisserie chicken during a power surge. Not to mention being royally pissed off about being buried alive and all.
Curiously, two names you never hear mentioned in these celebrity look-a-like pageants are "George" and "Bush." The President is studiously being avoided like a broken pallet of eight penny nails in the center lane of the Beltway. It's a vacuum almost big enough to suck an elephant through. They hope. Among the names that do crop up on the campaign trail more often than that of Herbert Walker's son, are Barry Goldwater, John Wayne Gacy and Bjork. And the Prez is returning the favor by ducking out of town whenever possible, leaving the field wide open for whichever of the Dutch wannabees can best assume the mantle of looking presidential. Of course, the impact of that little trick has diminished somewhat due to seven years of exposure to it.
Playing the "Reagan-Good, Bush-Bad" game has become so popular, candidates are clambering over each other like blind lemmings outrunning a burst dam, with their claims to be the ONLY one TRULY capable of bringing CHANGE to Washington. Living in the shadow of the last year of consecutive Republican presidential terms (5 out of the last 7: 7 out of the last 10), and all the Republicans can talk about is...change. You know what, that can't be good. Must be considered a back-handed slap at Dubyah. Unfortunately, it's just a figurative slap and not a real one upside the head with a chain mail glove. Which might be more cathartic of an experience for the nation. And more deserved too.
QuoteHilary would screw up everything in her first month spending money we don't have like a teen girl at a shopping mall and also botching up the Iraq exit.
'kay I'm just gonna be the girl here and point out that this comment is rather sexist. And this is the thing that's pissed me off about this election so far, and I've followed it very closely:
When Huckabee stalled in the polls in South Carolina, he decided to go for broke and bring up the whole confederate flag insanity of yore, saying, "If some outsider tried to tell us what we should do with our flag in Arkansas, we'd tell 'em where to put the pole." In this day and age, a lot of people would see that as code – Huckabee winking at the racists in that state – I'm your guy. But he wraps it a state's rights cloak, and thus maintains plausible deniability, because outright racism is (thank god) not so well received in the mainstream media.
Hating Hilary is so widely accepted that people can have a field day with all manner of color commentary – giving cover to every sexist person who really just wants to say, "I'm not comfortable with a woman as President." You can say the most belittling and dismissive things about women in power and as long as it's about Hilary – you're totally covered.
Now, The DARK, your comment is one of the least strident, least offensive I've read/heard and you may very well have no problem at all with women in power. I'm using your small quip as a jumping off point to a much bigger thing – I know that. All I'm saying is that if you replaced the mall bit with some sort of racial stereotype in a slag on Obama, I think you might have cringed writing it. All Hillary's candidacy is showing me is that sexism is probably this country's last form of acceptable discrimination, and it's so ingrained people don't even realize they feel the way they do about the prospect of a woman President until they try to formulate a criticism of Hilary and come up with an easy girly slag rather than a political position slag.
You might honestly disagree with her withdrawl plan in Iraq - which is, incidentally, very close to Obama's - but based on the first half of your comment, I can't tell if that's the case, or you just think women are too girly to be Commander in Chief.
QuoteQuoteHilary would screw up everything in her first month spending money we don't have like a teen girl at a shopping mall and also botching up the Iraq exit.
'kay I'm just gonna be the girl here and point out that this comment is rather sexist. And this is the thing that's pissed me off about this election so far, and I've followed it very closely:
When Huckabee stalled in the polls in South Carolina, he decided to go for broke and bring up the whole confederate flag insanity of yore, saying, "If some outsider tried to tell us what we should do with our flag in Arkansas, we'd tell 'em where to put the pole." In this day and age, a lot of people would see that as code – Huckabee winking at the racists in that state – I'm your guy. But he wraps it a state's rights cloak, and thus maintains plausible deniability, because outright racism is (thank god) not so well received in the mainstream media.
Hating Hilary is so widely accepted that people can have a field day with all manner of color commentary – giving cover to every sexist person who really just wants to say, "I'm not comfortable with a woman as President." You can say the most belittling and dismissive things about women in power and as long as it's about Hilary – you're totally covered.
Now, The DARK, your comment is one of the least strident, least offensive I've read/heard and you may very well have no problem at all with women in power. I'm using your small quip as a jumping off point to a much bigger thing – I know that. All I'm saying is that if you replaced the mall bit with some sort of racial stereotype in a slag on Obama, I think you might have cringed writing it. All Hillary's candidacy is showing me is that sexism is probably this country's last form of acceptable discrimination, and it's so ingrained people don't even realize they feel the way they do about the prospect of a woman President until they try to formulate a criticism of Hilary and come up with an easy girly slag rather than a political position slag.
You might honestly disagree with her withdrawl plan in Iraq - which is, incidentally, very close to Obama's - but based on the first half of your comment, I can't tell if that's the case, or you just think women are too girly to be Commander in Chief.
thank you for saying that! this is bound to be a contentious election. but I have a serious problem with people throwing around silly and unfounded generalities about any candidate. hilliary has more experience in politics and foreign affairs than most of the other candidates. she has not wholly won my vote, but she does has some experience. especially in foreign relations. which, we SHOULD all agree, is one area that has been in sharp decline in the last 7 years...........
oh and one more note....just about every family I know has their budget managed by the matriarch of the family (with much success...thank you very much).
Quotehilliary has more experience in politics and foreign affairs than most of the other candidates.
Really?
QuoteQuote from the wizzard on Today at 4:44am:
hilliary has more experience in politics and foreign affairs than most of the other candidates.
Really?
Well, yeah.
Let's take a look:
Edwards: US Senate '99-'05 (member of Senate Select Committee on Intelligence)
Obama: US Senate '05 – present (member of Foreign Relations Committee and Homeland Security Committee)
Clinton: US Senate '01 – present (member of Armed Services Committee)
Romney: Governor of Massachusetts '03-'07
Huckabee: Governor of Arkansas '96-'07
Giuliani: Mayor of NYC '94-'01
McCain: Is a gazillion years old. He has served in foreign countries, been held in foreign countries, he has played a part in every major foreign policy decision since, like, the dawn of time. Nobody beats McCain on experience. He is Mr. Experience.
Say what you will about executive experience – Governors/Mayors have it in spades – but if we're talking foreign policy experience here, you have to be a member of Congress or higher to even be privy to the intelligence briefings that would allow you to have an informed opinion of most foreign policy decisions. And then you have to make those opinions into policy and get your policy reccomendations thru months and months of committee meetings and then you have to vote on them and choose how you make them reality. I would argue no Republican besides McCain has any foreign policy experience at all – has ever had any roll in crafting any sort of foreign policy.
Now, experience does not necessarily equal good judgment. Strom Thurmond had more experience than even McCain and whoa what a jackass. But if the question is, "Does Hillary have more foreign policy experience than most of the other candidates?" Then yeah, she does.
Obama wins SC primary by a landslide:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SOUTH_CAROLINA_PRIMARY?SITE=MOSPL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
These primary things confuse me, what function do they serve (in simplest terms possible)?
When we have the presidential election there will be one candidate from each party. The primaries are to vote for who that one person from each party will be. I think that is the most simple way of explaining.
QuoteWhen we have the presidential election there will be one candidate from each party. The primaries are to vote for who that one person from each party will be. I think that is the most simple way of explaining.
Okay, that's exactly what I figured.
Well, for what it's worth... I think I'm going with Romney.
QuoteQuoteQuote from the wizzard on Today at 4:44am:
hilliary has more experience in politics and foreign affairs than most of the other candidates.
Really?
Well, yeah.
Let's take a look:
Edwards: US Senate '99-'05 (member of Senate Select Committee on Intelligence)
Obama: US Senate '05 – present (member of Foreign Relations Committee and Homeland Security Committee)
Clinton: US Senate '01 – present (member of Armed Services Committee)
Romney: Governor of Massachusetts '03-'07
Huckabee: Governor of Arkansas '96-'07
Giuliani: Mayor of NYC '94-'01
McCain: Is a gazillion years old. He has served in foreign countries, been held in foreign countries, he has played a part in every major foreign policy decision since, like, the dawn of time. Nobody beats McCain on experience. He is Mr. Experience.
Say what you will about executive experience – Governors/Mayors have it in spades – but if we're talking foreign policy experience here, you have to be a member of Congress or higher to even be privy to the intelligence briefings that would allow you to have an informed opinion of most foreign policy decisions. And then you have to make those opinions into policy and get your policy reccomendations thru months and months of committee meetings and then you have to vote on them and choose how you make them reality. I would argue no Republican besides McCain has any foreign policy experience at all – has ever had any roll in crafting any sort of foreign policy.
Now, experience does not necessarily equal good judgment. Strom Thurmond had more experience than even McCain and whoa what a jackass. But if the question is, "Does Hillary have more foreign policy experience than most of the other candidates?" Then yeah, she does.
she also has the most experience at being (in general) the most corrupt of the bunch--and this experience doesn't matter if you ARE polarizing like a poster said earlier. this country doesn't NEED that. it needs someone who can unite--
i'm a republican but switching sides this year because i'm going to put my own opinions on healthcare/sub prime market fixes aside in order to do what's best for the country--all the pundits are correct in that mccain is more of a democrat than hillary so if she doesn't beat obama this is going to be the most bass-ackwards election ever. they're running on each other's tickets and it's going to cause even more downfall in the country. obama is dynamic and can probably unite better. yeah, the only candidate w/a soul (kucinich-from my home state) of course has no chance of winning.
and yeah, notice how hillary DID campaign in Fl even though she wasn't supposed to? (stemming from the punishment? their votes don't even count? they were not supposed to be down there but look who was) why did no one bring this up?
the only good choice is obama--not that he's that great either.
Quote
she also has the most experience at being (in general) the most corrupt of the bunch--and this experience doesn't matter if you ARE polarizing like a poster said earlier. this country doesn't NEED that. it needs someone who can unite--
That's the thing that cracks me up about her especially during the whole Rezco thing. As many skeleton's she has in her closet (hello VINCE FOSTER!), she has no business throwing any stones at anyone. I hated her when Bill was in office and my opinion of her has not changed. To me, and this is just my opinion folks, is she is fake. She doesn't really believe in what she says. Yeah, the FL thing is interesting. I hope people see her as someone who will do anything to secure a win...including some less then ethical practices (again hello VINCE FOSTER!).
Vote Obama!
QuoteQuote
she also has the most experience at being (in general) the most corrupt of the bunch--and this experience doesn't matter if you ARE polarizing like a poster said earlier. this country doesn't NEED that. it needs someone who can unite--
That's the thing that cracks me up about her especially during the whole Rezco thing. As many skeleton's she has in her closet (hello VINCE FOSTER!), she has no business throwing any stones at anyone. I hated her when Bill was in office and my opinion of her has not changed. To me, and this is just my opinion folks, is she is fake. She doesn't really believe in what she says. Yeah, the FL thing is interesting. I hope people see her as someone who will do anything to secure a win...including some less then ethical practices (again hello VINCE FOSTER!).
Vote Obama!
i am hoping that Ann Coulter's support for her over McCain last night on Hannity will throw some votes Obama's way! (nothing like fooling a few of the lefties into voting for Obama!) Nice one.
Yeah, I was wondering what her motivation is there. I'm betting she's hoping that it will push the Right into voting for Mit or Huck.....which scares me. I realy do hope it backfires and does push more into Obama's camp.
QuoteYeah, I was wondering what her motivation is there. I'm betting she's hoping that it will push the Right into voting for Mit or Huck.....which scares me. I realy do hope it backfires and does push more into Obama's camp.
she probably thinks an obama/mccain ticket is more winnable than a hillary/mccain ticket--either way, it was hilarious to watch last night.
You're missing the point of what she was saying... The way a lot (probably most) of us conservatives and some of the Republicans are thinking, is that if the Republican party nominates McCain, a liberal running as a Republican, then we'd rather vote for a liberal running as a Democrat... Why? Frankly, I'd rather a member of the Democrat party fuck things up than a member of the Republican party. Hopefully, the conservatives would end up being better represented the next time around.
QuoteQuote
she also has the most experience at being (in general) the most corrupt of the bunch--and this experience doesn't matter if you ARE polarizing like a poster said earlier. this country doesn't NEED that. it needs someone who can unite--
That's the thing that cracks me up about her especially during the whole Rezco thing. As many skeleton's she has in her closet (hello VINCE FOSTER!), she has no business throwing any stones at anyone. I hated her when Bill was in office and my opinion of her has not changed. To me, and this is just my opinion folks, is she is fake. She doesn't really believe in what she says. Yeah, the FL thing is interesting. I hope people see her as someone who will do anything to secure a win...including some less then ethical practices (again hello VINCE FOSTER!).
Vote Obama!
I'm with you! I've hated Hillary for many years because of her fake persona. She cannot be trusted.
Help us Obama! You're our only hope!
At this point, I'm starting to see how important it is that Obama wins this. Much as I like Mccain and Paul, I don't see the stubbornly democratic congress doing anything for them. Again we will have the idiocy that we have right now with a congress and president who won't agree on anything. Obama is right in saying that he is the one that can unite the country. Hillary has done three things that will make me not vote for her. First, she naturally assumes that because she is a woman, that she should be president. I don't see how that works. I don't have a problem with her being a woman, but is that really a good reason to vote for her? We don't want change for the sake of change. Second, she is the one who is attempting to dig up all the dirt on Obama, not vice versa. She has absolutely no justification for accusing Obama of playing dirty for making an occasional bitter comment about her. Third, she won't listen to anyone but the agenda of the Democratic party. She has made this absolutely clear in her speeches. But I seriously doubt that many people are pure Democrats, who actually believe in every single thing the party stands for. Obama, on the other hand, has great respect for some Republicans and agrees with some of their policies. A man like Obama will get things done.
QuoteI don't have a problem with her being a woman, but is that really a good reason to vote for her?
I cringe everytime I hear someone call Hillary Clinton a woman.
QuoteWe don't want change for the sake of change.
What makes anyone think that Hillary fucking Clinton would be change in the white house?
Here's a really insightful breakdown of all the presidential candidates. Everyone should take a look at this, certainly all undecided voters.
http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/sfo/526482501.html
QuoteHere's a really insightful breakdown of all the presidential candidates. Everyone should take a look at this, certainly all undecided voters.
http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/sfo/526482501.html
;D
Since Mcain won't tell it like it is and call himself an independent there is no way I'm voting for him. Mitt's gonna have to be my man now that Thompson is gone :(
I'm not claiming to understand it, but I absolutely acknowledge as fact the passionate, palpable hatred for Hillary. But I think if any democrat actually looked at her health care plan (and I'm going to go out on a limb and say nobody here has), you'd have a hard time arguing against it. It is 15 years in the making and completely fiscally sound. It covers everyone. Obama's plan leaves out anywhere from 15-50 million people. Up until a couple weeks ago, that was my main reason for voting for Hillary.
I've liked Obama since the Democratic Convention in '04. He is stone cold brilliant – no one's arguing that. He is not as tied in to lobbyists/K Street/closed-door dealings as Hillary. I dig that about him. An embarrassment of riches on the democratic side this year and it's about time. But I feel like I know what I'm getting with Hillary. Obama is the shoot the moon candidate. He could be Glorious. He could change the world overnight. Or he could get lost in the mess that is day to day governing. It's a tough learning curve for anyone. If I end up voting for him, it's because I've just had enough and want a fresh start for the country. No more Clintons up front for people to focus their vitriol on. It's getting ridiculous and it's bad for the process. It is not what is needed right now.
But for those of you who spit venom over the mere mention of her name... I hear LBJ was no sweetheart but he had a lot of great ideas and did a lot of good. Same with FDR and most of the Founding Fathers. We've had a president who you want to sit and have a beer with for the last eight years and my god what a f*ck up that guy is. Please note, I say that because I have a laundry list of his POLICIES I disagree with - no child left behind, tax cuts for people at the highest income levels, warrantless wiretapping of American citizens, the redacted and classified energy policy Cheney brokered, hiring Blackwater as a black-ops military adjunct in Iraq. Somebody, please tell me an issue you disagree with for Hillary. Something besides the third grade name calling.
To wit - whoever said "Hillary thinks she should be President just because she's a woman" – that's asinine. Bring me that quote. It doesn't exist. It's this echo chamber of crap that eats at me. Please actually research your candidates and take the process seriously. Try not to just regurgitate half the thing the guy on the radio said.
I think McCain could beat Hillary, and that's a good reason to vote for Obama. But if there's some kind of terrorist something in the run up to the election, I worry for Obama against McCain. We'll see...
I just cant bring myself to trust either Clinton or Obama - HC definitely has more experience, but she's a kind of shady character, & Obama has this air around him like he's santa claus here to make everything better. It was the same thing here in Louisville when John Yarmuth got elected, & I can't think of anything that he's done yet (i could be mistaken) His general lack of experience is reason enough for me to not vote for him. I'm still way undecided on where my vote's going
looks like obama has a couple more electoral votes as of today! (and i went to bed all depressed)...fingers crossed they don't lift that FL/MICH ban
[quote
I think McCain could beat Hillary, and that's a good reason to vote for Obama. But if there's some kind of terrorist something in the run up to the election, I worry for Obama against McCain. We'll see...
[/quote]
you're right in-there's no way hillary can win the general election--if the dems are crazy enough--watch what happens on election day....watch what happens in the south and in middle america---
as for her health plan, it's going to be impossible for her to do anything if she wins--congress will turn again and just like before, she won't get anything passed--(just like her time as a NY senator)
Yep. My wife sent me a note that the delegate margin is much better looking for Obama then thought last night when we crashed. I think he is in perfect position with Texas, PA, and OH still to come along with the other states. PA and OH both have a lot of Union voters and he should be able to take them. If she tries to fight the ban (if it's close you know she will) it will hurt her... I hope. If the Dems truly want to win the General Election, Obama needs to be the candidate.
i don't think they'll lift the ban because it wouldn't be fair since there wasn't actually any official campaigning---if they do it, i think it will be at the end after it doesn't matter anymore (once someone's already got it in the bag) it's funny because she's got the DNC machine behind her and i'm SURPRISED they put the ban in to begin with...this could cause some constitutional issues as well (perhaps a long court battle at the end)--there are a lot of angry FL and Mich people whose votes didn't count
i hope you are right about it and i'm emailing all my family and friends back in ohio to vote obama--whoever wins in ohio always wins the election
Quotethere's no way hillary can win the general election--if the dems are crazy enough--watch what happens on election day....watch what happens in the south and in middle america---
But see, if this were the general election, Hillary would win (as of today - I know Obama's surging.) Just look at the splits:
Obama's getting the youth vote, hands down. People with a college degree or higher go for Obama. Whites in states where there is little racial diversity (Iowa, Minnesota, Idaho, Alaska) go for Obama. He's getting the african american vote 4 to 1.
But places with huge urban centers are swinging Hillary - California, New York, Masachusetts, New Jersey. She gets the hispanic vote 2 to 1. She has about an 8 point gap with women. She gets men and women w/o college degrees by almost 20 points.
Obama won 13 states yesterday, but only 4 of those states traditionally vote Dem in the general election: CN, DE, IL, MN.
Hillary won eight states, four of which will go Dem in the general: CA, MA, NY, NJ.
Obama would have 43 electoral college votes with those states. Hillary would have 114 with her four states.
Even if Obama somehow changed Alabama, Georgia, and Kansas into blue states - and I would be shocked if he could, he'd still be 40 electoral votes behind her in a hypothetical election.
I think this is gonna be a squeaker of an election all the way thru. The more union endorsements Obama picks up, the better I'd feel about his staying power.But I don't think Obama is the lock everyone wishes he was.
***
PS - pennylane, you're absolutely right. Hilalry would have a hell of a time getting her health plan thru Congress, but I'd like to see that fight. I think the country is in a different place than we were in... whatever... 1994? I was 13 then so I might be wrong.
PPS - Obama's victory speech, "We are the ones we've been waiting for" so makes me swoooon. I get the draw. I want them both.