OCCOM BILL wrote:Berkeley earns more and spends less on a house than New Yorkers. I think both collectives are nuts.
That's the price you pay for an incredibly beautiful, convenient and nice place to live.
I have no idea why the New Yorkers do it, though, hehe.
On another thread, you asked why I thought Obama and Guiliani were the 'best of a bad lot.' Here's why -
I think Guiliani is better than the other Republican candidates, but that's primarily because his personal issues don't mean much to me and I agree with him on some social issues. His platforms are more agreeable than any other Republican I might vote for.
But his social issues are a major drag on his viability. They do matter. Republicans can't own the evangelical vote one day and deny it the next when it isn't convenient. I find the idea that he will maintain the levels of support amongst these people to be laughable; he has name rec. but the knives most certainly haven't come out for him. When more southerners are exposed to his dirty laundry, and you can guarantee they will, you won't see the support for him you do now.
Obama, what can I say? I like the guy a lot, but he's also the best of a bad lot due to inexperience, his name (Barak Hussein Obama? Doesn't matter a whit to me, but it will be used against him. We should have a pool for the first obama=osama attacks). If it wasn't for the imminence of the situation, I would have counseled him to wait another four years. Not that he would listen to me, but...
Two years is a long primary, and I hope that both candidates can weather the storms they face to run a good race in '08. I'd rather see either of them than anyone else, 'cept for maybe bill richardson or wes clark.
Cycloptichorn