Divided Democrats could boost McCain

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

blatham wrote:

Retirement is set at 65 for what reasons?

Frankly?

So corporations can rid themselves of the compensation burdens of employees that have been receiving progressive raises over 20 to 30 years.

This is unusually silly of you blatham, and so must be a base partisan attempt at casting McCain in a false, but dark light.

Do you really believe that people aged 66 and over should be turned out to pasture? I don't believe you do, but right now this and the C-Bomb is all you have against our boy.

Do you truly intend to pursue this line of attack?

The question referred to retirement of pilots at 65.

Nonsense, the question referred to McCain and you are intellectually dishonest if you suggest otherwise. Who is playing games?

Feel free to play whatever games you'd like re this issue but the simple fact is that it WILL play a part in the campaign quite regardless of what anyone might say about it (positive or negative). McCain's team will understand that and develop and put into play whatever strategies they can imagine which might serve to counteract.

As you can see from this poll noted at Fox TV, 27% believe McCain is too old to take the office with an additional 17% unsure while 56% consider it not a problem.

http://www.myfoxny.com/myfox/pages/News/Politics/Detail;jsessionid=DB7C6904C1301D37B06D4138E7D353FE?contentId=5600309&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.14.1&sflg=1

I am certain that Senator Obama will not even have to raise the issue of McCain's age. When the debates begin, the US audience will be able to judge for themselves. On one hand, an obviously aging, pasty faced, nearly bald man will attempt to respond to a handsome, charismatic, and virile Senator who is probably the most intelligent candidate of all time.
You don't become the President of the Harvard Law School Review unless you are on the highest intellectual pinnacle.

barackman28 wrote:

I am certain that Senator Obama will not even have to raise the issue of McCain's age. When the debates begin, the US audience will be able to judge for themselves. On one hand, an obviously aging, pasty faced, nearly bald man will attempt to respond to a handsome, charismatic, and virile Senator who is probably the most intelligent candidate of all time.
You don't become the President of the Harvard Law School Review unless you are on the highest intellectual pinnacle.

Could there be a more superficial and yet pernicious analysis?

What is up with the modern Liberal?

Embracing discrimination based upon perceived weakness and glorifying male virility!

You folks are supposed to be above such obviously primative impulses.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

barackman28 wrote:

I am certain that Senator Obama will not even have to raise the issue of McCain's age. When the debates begin, the US audience will be able to judge for themselves. On one hand, an obviously aging, pasty faced, nearly bald man will attempt to respond to a handsome, charismatic, and virile Senator who is probably the most intelligent candidate of all time.
You don't become the President of the Harvard Law School Review unless you are on the highest intellectual pinnacle.

Could there be a more superficial and yet pernicious analysis?

What is up with the modern Liberal?

Embracing discrimination based upon perceived weakness and glorifying male virility!

You folks are supposed to be above such obviously primative impulses.

You fell for it! Barackman28 is just the latest incarnation of Possum R. Fartbubbles[/url]. Not a liberal, just a troll.

I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton said. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

Clinton further displayed tough talk in an interview airing on "Good Morning America" Tuesday. ABC News' Chris Cuomo asked Clinton what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons.

Heres an interesting Hillary quote...

"

Quote:

I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton said. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

She made that statement in response to this...

Quote:

Clinton further displayed tough talk in an interview airing on "Good Morning America" Tuesday. ABC News' Chris Cuomo asked Clinton what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/WN/Vote2008/Story?id=4698059&page=1

Is she threatening Iran?
Does she want war with Iran?

At present, according to Gallop and USA Today polls, McCain is about even in one-to-one races with either Obama or Clinton. I think that this does not bode well for McCain inasmuch the Dems have really not yet attacked him. Once that begins, McCain's support should, I think, plummet.

At present, according to Gallop and USA Today polls, McCain is about even in one-to-one races with either Obama or Clinton. I think that this does not bode well for McCain inasmuch the Dems have really not yet attacked him. Once that begins, McCain's support should, I think, plummet.

Advocate wrote:

At present, according to Gallop and USA Today polls, McCain is about even in one-to-one races with either Obama or Clinton. I think that this does not bode well for McCain inasmuch the Dems have really not yet attacked him. Once that begins, McCain's support should, I think, plummet.

Hillary's too busy beating up on Obama, to notice what's she's done and when she does, will be profusely sorry, but too late! The damage to the Democrat Party is all but over! I see why the repugs win! We allow it!

Advocate wrote:

At present, according to Gallop and USA Today polls, McCain is about even in one-to-one races with either Obama or Clinton. I think that this does not bode well for McCain inasmuch the Dems have really not yet attacked him. Once that begins, McCain's support should, I think, plummet.

But McCain hasnt really gone after them either.
Right now, he seems to be concentrating more on winning voters, not attacking the dems.

What does "can't stand" mean?

Obama and his supporters (and Hillary's supporters too, like the NYT editorial board) don't like what Hillary is doing, and especially don't like that she's making the Republicans' job easier.

This can be entirely separate from whether more, and worse, stuff will be coming from the Republicans later. The working assumption is that there will be.

[Hillary]And I think that it wasn't only the specific remarks but some of the relationships with Reverend Farrakhan, with giving the church bulletin over to the leader of Hamas, to put a message in.

You know, these are problems. And they raise questions in people's minds. And, so, this is a legitimate area, as everything is, when we run for office, for people to be exploring and trying to find answers.

But, look, the fact of the matter is, is that both of us are working as hard as we can to make sure that we're delivering a message to the American people about what we would do as president. Sometimes that message is going to be imperfectly delivered because we are recorded every minute of every day.

And I think Senator Clinton deserves the right to make some errors once in a while. Obviously, I make some as well.

I think what's important is to make sure that we don't get so obsessed with gaffes that we lose sight of the fact that this is a defining moment in our history. We are going to be tackling some of the biggest issues that any president has dealt with in the last 40 years.

[D]oesn't she see how the Hillary of today would accuse the Hillary of the Sixties of associating with black revolutionaries who fought gun battles with police officers, and defending pro-communist lawyers who backed communists? Doesn't the Rev. Jeremiah Wright whom Hillary attacks today represent the very essence of the black radicals Hillary was associating with in those days? And isn't the Hillary of today becoming the same kind of guilt-by-association insinuator as the Richard Nixon she worked to impeach?

It is as if Hillary Clinton is engaged in a toxic transmission onto Barack Obama of every outrageous insult and accusation ever inflicted on her by the American Right over the decades. She is running against what she might have become. Too much politics dries the soul of the idealist.

It is abundantly clear that the Clintons, working with Fox News and manipulating old Clinton staffers like George Stephanopoulos, are trying, at least unconsciously, to so damage Barack Obama that he will be perceived as "unelectable" to Democratic super-delegates. It is also clear that the campaign of defamation against Obama has resulted in higher negative ratings for Hillary Clinton. She therefore is threatening the Democratic Party's chances for the White House whether or not she is the nominee.

In A Woman in Charge, I wrote about [Hillary's] ability to evolve, observable especially in the years before she met Bill Clinton and in the Senate: to learn from her mistakes. Events have proven me wrong on that count.

The 2008 Clinton campaign, in fact, has been an exercise in devolution, back to the angry, demonizing, accusatory Hillary Clinton of the worst days of the Clinton presidency, flailing, and furtive, and disingenuous; and, as in the White House years, putting forth programs and ideas worthy of respect and deserving of the kind of substantive debate she claims she wants her race against Barrack Obama to be based upon.