Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Sun 16 Dec, 2007 09:20 am
maporsche wrote:
Walter Hinteler wrote:



50% would vote for him, but only 37% think he can win....


You need to read the poll question again. Those surveyed were not asked if they thought he could win or not.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Sun 16 Dec, 2007 09:32 am
Surely that will change.

But I found it just interesting, a poll about the "favorite son" vs. the "native daughter".
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Sun 16 Dec, 2007 09:52 am
Roxxxanne wrote:
maporsche wrote:
Walter Hinteler wrote:



50% would vote for him, but only 37% think he can win....


You need to read the poll question again. Those surveyed were not asked if they thought he could win or not.


Well, 37% thought he had the "best chance" of winning... but as I write that I see your point. Having the "best chance" doesn't mean that 63% think he CAN'T win.

Walter, I forgot that Hillary has Illinois ties as well. I saw the poll last night and kind of dismissed it because, well, it's Illinois. Of course he'd be polling high there. But yeah, there are reasons Hillary could be doing better than she is, currently.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Sun 16 Dec, 2007 09:58 am
Hor what it is worth: The Des Moines Register has endorsed Clinton in the Dem caucuses and McCain in the Repub. The Boston Globe, which reaches into NH, endorses Obama and McCain.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sun 16 Dec, 2007 11:46 am
Interesting mix of "favorites" in this election cycle.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Sun 16 Dec, 2007 12:20 pm
realjohnboy wrote:
Hor what it is worth: The Des Moines Register has endorsed Clinton in the Dem caucuses and McCain in the Repub. The Boston Globe, which reaches into NH, endorses Obama and McCain.


What does it say about ANY voter that decides who to vote for based on what newspaper endorses what candidate?
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Sun 16 Dec, 2007 12:26 pm
mysteryman wrote:
realjohnboy wrote:
Hor what it is worth: The Des Moines Register has endorsed Clinton in the Dem caucuses and McCain in the Repub. The Boston Globe, which reaches into NH, endorses Obama and McCain.


What does it say about ANY voter that decides who to vote for based on what newspaper endorses what candidate?


Which is why I included "For what it is worth..." Endorsements plus a few bucks will buy you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Sun 16 Dec, 2007 12:37 pm
mysteryman wrote:
What does it say about ANY voter that decides who to vote for based on what newspaper endorses what candidate?


about as much as it says about any poster who consistently posts articles from one media source or another <shrug>
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Sun 16 Dec, 2007 12:49 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Illinois Democrats favor Obama 2-1

And this is why I plan on voting in the Republican primary. Illinois is an open primary state which means that any voter can vote in the primary election of choice -- no party affiliation necessary.

If the dem polling was close I would vote in the Democrat primary to vote against Hillary but there doesn't appear to be a need for that. So, that opens up the Republican primary for consideration. Difficult pickings over there indeed.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Sun 16 Dec, 2007 02:53 pm
JPB wrote:
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Illinois Democrats favor Obama 2-1

And this is why I plan on voting in the Republican primary. Illinois is an open primary state which means that any voter can vote in the primary election of choice -- no party affiliation necessary.

If the dem polling was close I would vote in the Democrat primary to vote against Hillary but there doesn't appear to be a need for that. So, that opens up the Republican primary for consideration. Difficult pickings over there indeed.


Ron Paul....I sent him $25 this morning.

I'll vote for Hillary in the general election, unless RP is running.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Mon 17 Dec, 2007 12:36 pm
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Mon 17 Dec, 2007 01:47 pm
Krugman has hit the nail on the pin-head; saying "we're going to unify the country" is not the same as the potential for doing so. Politics is a messy business where differing interests wins over interests for the majority.

History will continue to repeat itself in US politics and politicians. Even the best politicians failed in many of their goals.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Mon 17 Dec, 2007 03:14 pm
CI

Talk is cheap experience is golden
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Mon 17 Dec, 2007 03:20 pm
Krugman's piece was interesting and insightful. However, it was clearly written from the populist perspective and based on the assumption that no other approach will either be successful or do any net good. Those are arguable assumptions, and it is unfortunate that the author did not at least acknowledge that.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Mon 17 Dec, 2007 07:19 pm
Why We Wish the Clintons Would Just Go Away

Because they surround themselves with people like Mark Penn and James Carville (Rove-like figures, just dumber and more duplicitous than Karl), and rather than making the Clintons look pure by contrast, they make them look even sleazier.

Because they lie more often than they tell the truth, and we can't take it anymore (where to begin? Ah, perhaps, one of Bill's freshest: he was always against the war in Iraq).

Because when they don't lie, they avoid telling the truth, prevaricate and try to laugh it off.

Because they have spun us into complete exhaustion (she, the most famous woman in America, complains that Iowa is difficult because she is less well known than a failed vice presidential candidate and a half-of-one-term senator).

Because they live on another planet, one where attacking a candidate's kindergarten record is appropriate and useful preparation for a general election.

Because he's the first black president as long as it doesn't interfere with their plans for world domination (when it does, they can turn into Jesse Helms and Trent Lott on a dime, from the Sista Souljah absurdity to the suggestion that the first black candidate with a shot at winning the presidency is a drug dealer).

Because she's a feminist until it is her own husband who abuses his power by engaging in sexual relationships with women who are his subalterns. Then she becomes a woman who stands by her man.

Because she's a strong, independent woman until she needs to ride the coattails of her husband's popularity. Then she is two for the price of one.
Because long before New York City taxpayers were subsidizing Rudy Giuliani's extramarital affair, Arkansans were paying for Bill's.

Because when she says there will be no surprises about her past in this campaign, we remember all the scandals we glossed over because it was all a right-wing conspiracy, and realize how little we know about the Clintons.

Because they, the reason why heterosexuals should be banned from getting married (or at the very least should be prosecuted for breach of contract), oppose marriage for gay people.

Because they'd rather die than admit a mistake.
Because Republicans would rather run against her than against Dennis Kucinich.

Because the prospect of 16 years of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton would make us seriously consider voting for Cynthia McKinney and the Green Party. Or Ron Paul. Or Michael Bloomberg. Or whoever's on the Socialist Party line.

Because the Clintons are angry that America doesn't just roll over and elect her president the way New York rolled over and elected her senator.
Because we don't have to settle for them.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-jenkins/why-we-wish-the-clintons-_b_76930.html
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Mon 17 Dec, 2007 10:18 pm
The recent expressions of antipathy for Hillary among Democrats surprise me. I assume this represents some combination of resentment for her centrist positions and possibly emerging support for Obama and Edwards.

I still find it hard to believe that either of these two will fare well in the election if they are nominated. Democrats have long faced a situation in which the emotional favorites of party activists were generally not favored by the majority of the electorate. In fact his early understanding of this (together with a little help from Ross Perot) is what got Clinton into the White House in the first place. I should be pleased - Hillary will be hard for the Republicans to beat, while the others provide opportunities.

One term in the Senate isn't much experience with which to gain the gravitas that becomes much more important in the election than it seems in the primaries. Hillary and Edwards both benefit from much longer public exposure. Obama is attractive and well-spoken, but too often reveals his inexperience and what often looks like a lack of depth.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Mon 17 Dec, 2007 10:29 pm
snood wrote:
Why We Wish the Clintons Would Just Go Away


Well posted words, snood, in regard to the Clintons. I too heard about Bill claiming he always opposed the war. He is truly pathological, and many of us have known this since 1992, and I am glad that many in the Democratic Party are almost fed up, finally.

I am of the opinion that once the ship does truly begin to sink, it will go fast, very very fast. I hope we are seeing signs of it now. Holes are forming in the hull, and it remains to be seen if she is savvy enough or smart enough, or lucky enough to be able to patch them. My hopes of the demise of the ship may be premature, we will just have to watch this closely. If the press fully turns against her, the sinking will happen fast. And she will be one angry woman. But she has been for years, anyway.

She wants the Whitehouse bad, and if she should lose the Democratic nomination, Rush warned us about an independent run, no guarantee but a possibility. These people are relentless and this is what their entire lives are centered around, which is power.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Mon 17 Dec, 2007 10:42 pm
Bush's ship is sinking
Deseret News (Salt Lake City), Aug 29, 2005

The good ship "Bush" is sinking, folks; perhaps not as fast as the Titanic, but it is headed to the same watery grave, with Bush, Karl Rove and Orrin Hatch enjoying nutcakes with silver spoons in the pilot house as the angry sea closes in. This freighter has holes the size of oil drums and no rudder. It should never have been allowed to leave port.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Tue 18 Dec, 2007 06:51 am
Wow! Love the Huffington piece on the Clintons! Well said!
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Tue 18 Dec, 2007 07:17 am
David Brooks seems to be getting less evil... I blame Mark Shields.

While I medium-agree with what he says about Hillary, I very much agree with what he says about Obama. You'll recognize a lot of it, but I think he says it well.

A chunk from the middle, not the whole thing:

Quote:


Whole thing:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/opinion/18brooks.html
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 291
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 06/28/2025 at 06:24:43