"Obamania" is over...Clinton will take TX and OH
DeserTBoB
How? Easy.
1.) Starting on tomorrow's gab fests, and after getting stung by the
SNL lampoon of the press' coddling of Obama, the media will start
treating Obama like a front-runner, instead of all this effusing
"white/liberal guilt" crap they've been giving him gratis to date.
Come Monday, CNN, Faux and MSNBC will be UP HIS ASS with Rezko.
2.) Canada is the U.S.'s biggest oil source, and the Canadian
government has today voiced its displeasure with Obama's NAFTA jabs
(and Clinton's, as well, but not as much). Once people figure out
that NAFTA is NOT the enemy that's taking all their jobs across the
oceans AND a unilateral pull-out from NAFTA will imperil their oil
supply, Obama's stump rhetoric goes down in
flames...immediately...while Clinton's been hitting hard at the true
enemy to Ohio (and everywhere else)...China. Bad strategic move by
Obama. Already, Obama's been taking heat on this, notably on
McLaughlin, where the "NAFTA scapegoating" was laid bare.
3.) Lastest polling shows "Obamania" in Texas has been at a
standstill for over a WEEK...BAD news for him, and Obama cannot make
any further headway in the Latino vote there...it's over. He's never
been able to get past a statistical dead heat in Texas, and now
Hillary's jobs into his eyes are going to appeal to Latinos who want
a.) someone they know, and b.) someone who's tough enough. Meanwhile,
the electorate in Texas is 36% Latino and 11% black...there aren't
enough blacks in Texas to put him over the top this time, just like
there weren't enough (7%) in California to put him over. So much for
THAT idea. PLUS...there ARE WHITE INDIES AND REPUBLICANS who have
crossed over to vote in the Democratic primary and caucuses...FOR
HILLARY. Obamites have been too smug with their organizational
skills. Hillary's had 46,000 (yes...THOUSAND) troops on the ground
there for over a month.
4.) The press is already sick of the "change/hope/change/hope"
charade, especially since the SNL skit. Now Hillary's picked up on it
on the stump..."the clouds will part...light will come down...choirs
will start singing...." Excellent right jab, Hillary.
5.) McCain has been getting good coverage regarding his direct jabs
as some of Obama's convoluted Iraq platform. "I have news! Al Qaeda
is in Iraq!" <stunned look on McCain's face> Obama's retort moments
later (ya gotta love "war room" campaigns!) was "I have news for YOU,
John McCain...Al Qaeda wasn't IN Iraq until George W. Bush AND John
McCain let them in!" (True statement, but the damage was already
done.)
Result: Hillary runs the table on March 4, we go to a brokered
convention. SORRY, GOP! You won't have Obama to kick around much
longer!
Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names
And a brokered convention means -- THE BIG DAWG saves the day -- AL
GORE by a landslide at the convention and in November.
Don't Taze Me, Bro!
Obama will win Texas, without a doubt.
"DeserTBoB" <des...@rglobal.net> wrote in message
news:016ks3tq6j0rtbneh...@4ax.com...
DeserTBoB
<No1Ex...@Earth1.net> wrote:
>Hillary is the only candidate McCain has a chance of beating.
>
>Obama will win Texas, without a doubt. <snip>
You need to be tazed back into reality...it's called
"electroconsulsive therapy."
Read my article again...this time, try to comprehend.
It's over...Texas only has 11% blacks...not enough to play the game
this time.
Judge Dredd
"Don't Taze Me, Bro!" <No1Ex...@Earth1.net> wrote in message
news:P5pyj.1403$6R.143@trnddc04...
> Hillary is the only candidate McCain has a chance of beating.
>
> Obama will win Texas, without a doubt.
Naw, McLame can't beat himself. McLame is a loser.
Itchy
news:016ks3tq6j0rtbneh...@4ax.com:
>
> 4.) The press is already sick of the "change/hope/change/hope"
> charade, especially since the SNL skit. Now Hillary's picked up on it
> on the stump..."the clouds will part...light will come down...choirs
> will start singing...." Excellent right jab, Hillary.
>
> 5.) McCain has been getting good coverage regarding his direct jabs
> as some of Obama's convoluted Iraq platform. "I have news! Al Qaeda
> is in Iraq!" <stunned look on McCain's face> Obama's retort moments
> later (ya gotta love "war room" campaigns!) was "I have news for YOU,
> John McCain...Al Qaeda wasn't IN Iraq until George W. Bush AND John
> McCain let them in!" (True statement, but the damage was already
> done.)
>
> Result: Hillary runs the table on March 4, we go to a brokered
> convention. SORRY, GOP! You won't have Obama to kick around much
> longer!
Sorry Bob but it doesn't seem likely. Obama seems to really have the edge.
bval...@aol.com
.
> And a brokered convention means -- THE BIG DAWG saves the day -- AL
> GORE by a landslide at the convention and in November.
And Algore gets to be the canddiate that NO A SINGLE DEMOCRAT VOTED
FOR. Naaaaaa, THAT won't piss of the base, will it?
Author Archive
Send to a Friend
Print Version
February 29, 2008 12:00 AM
Cold Water on 'Global Warming'
Next week, skeptics will gather in Gotham to discuss the cold, hard
facts.
By Thomas Sowell
It has almost become something of a joke when some "global warming"
conference has to be cancelled because of a snowstorm or bitterly cold
weather.
But stampedes and hysteria are no joke -- and creating stampedes and
hysteria has become a major activity of those hyping a global-warming
"crisis."
They mobilize like-minded people from a variety of occupations, call
them all "scientists" and then claim that "all" the experts agree on a
global-warming crisis.
Their biggest argument is that there is no argument.
A whole cottage industry has sprung up among people who get grants,
government agencies who get appropriations, politicians who get
publicity, and the perpetually indignant who get something new to be
indignant about. It gives teachers something to talk about in school
instead of teaching.
Those who bother to check the facts often find that not all those who
are called scientists are really scientists and not all of those who
are scientists are specialists in climate. But who bothers to check
facts these days?
A new and very different conference on global warming will be held in
New York City, under the sponsorship of the Heartland Institute, on
March 2nd to March 4th -- weather permitting.
It is called an "International Conference on Climate Change" that will
examine the question "Global Warming: Crisis or Scam?" Among those
present will be professors of climatology, along with scientists in
other fields and people from other professions.
They come from universities in England, Hungary, and Australia, as
well as from the United States and Canada, and include among other
dignitaries the former president of the Czech Republic, Václav Havel.
All told, there will be 98 speakers and 400 participants.
The theme of the conference is that "there is no scientific consensus
on the causes or likely consequences of global warming."
Many of the participants in this conference are people who have
already expressed skepticism about either the prevailing explanations
of current climate change or the dire predictions about future climate
change.
These include authors of such books as Unstoppable Global Warming:
Every 1500 Years by Fred Singer and Dennis Avery, and Shattered
Consensus, edited by Patrick J. Michaels.
This will be one of the rare opportunities for the media to hear the
other side of the story -- for those old-fashioned journalists who
still believe that their job is to inform the public, rather than
promote an agenda.
Several films will be featured at the conference -- including The Great
Global Warming Swindle, a British television program that is now
available on DVD in the United States. It is a devastating debunking
of the current "global warming" hysteria.
Nobody denies that there is such a thing as a greenhouse effect. If
there were not, the side of the planet facing away from the sun would
be freezing every night.
There is not even a lot of controversy over temperature readings. What
is fundamentally at issue are the explanations, implications, and
extrapolations of these temperature readings.
The party line of those who say that we are heading for a global
warming crisis of epic proportions is that human activities generating
carbon dioxide are key factors responsible for the warming that has
taken place in recent times.
The problem with this reasoning is that the temperatures rose first
and then the carbon dioxide levels rose. Some scientists say that the
warming created the increased carbon dioxide, rather than vice versa.
Many natural factors, including variations in the amount of heat put
out by the sun, can cause the earth to heat or cool.
The bigger problem is that this has long since become a crusade rather
than an exercise in evidence or logic. Too many people are too
committed to risk it all on a roll of the dice, which is what turning
to empirical evidence is.
Those who have a big stake in global-warming hysteria are unlikely to
show up at the conference in New York, and unfortunately that includes
much of the media.
-- Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and
author of Economic Facts and Fallacies.
bval...@aol.com
wrote:
> Hillary is the only candidate McCain has a chance of beating.
Problem is, McCain is ahead of Hussein at the moment.
Don't Taze Me, Bro!
<bval...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:e1aad7d2-0739-4885...@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
and anyone dumb enough to believe that... is just that; dumb...
Don't Taze Me, Bro!
"DeserTBoB" <des...@rglobal.net> wrote in message
news:ph8ks3lhlr025g8mr...@4ax.com...
cmdr buzz corey
wrote:
> <bvall...@aol.com> wrote in message
Several polls give McCain a lead over both Hitlary and Osama Hussein
Obama including one of the most reliable, Rasmussen.
Saturday, March 01, 2008
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday
shows John McCain with a slight lead over both Barack Obama and
Hillary Clinton. McCain now leads Obama 46% to 43% and Clinton 48% to
44%. Do try to keep up.
Don't Taze Me, Bro!
"cmdr buzz corey" <cmdr-bu...@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:d620b39f-bf2c-4ed5...@64g2000hsw.googlegroups.com...
> The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday
> shows John McCain with a slight lead over both Barack Obama and
> Hillary Clinton. McCain now leads Obama 46% to 43% and Clinton 48% to
> 44%. Do try to keep up.
If you believe the citizens are truly going to vote for McCain over Hillary
or Obama, with the way he is flubbering all over the place.. then you are an
idiot... and rasmussen and other tracking polls mean diddly squat...
DeserTBoB
>Problem is, McCain is ahead of Hussein at the moment. <snip>
LA Times, last week. In fact, he was ahead of BOTH Clinton and Obama.
Operative word here: "was", past tense declension of the verb, "to
be."
He's not anymore. The FEC rule violation thing will peel off lots of
support.
DeserTBoB
<cmdr-bu...@mailcity.com> wrote:
>Several polls give McCain a lead over both Hitlary and Osama Hussein
>Obama including one of the most reliable, Rasmussen. <snip>
You mean the right wing GOP spin poll? LMAO!
You mean the one that called New Hampshire for Obama by double digits?
Oh, THAT Rasmussen!
They're down there in the cellar with Matt Drudge in terms of
credibility. Not only that, but Razzy stole the results of the LA
Times/Bloomberg poll and called it their own, so it would seem. The
figures are identical.
Joe
I predict Obama will win both Texas and Ohio. Hillary is washed up.
Obama will beat McCain in a landslide. What some conservative pundits
like fox news haven't figured out is that masses who once supported W
Bush and the war in Iraq have all deserted the republican party.
Joe
> On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 03:24:31 GMT, "Don't Taze Me, Bro!"
>
> >Hillary is the only candidate McCain has a chance of beating.
>
> >Obama will win Texas, without a doubt. <snip>
>
> You need to be tazed back into reality...it's called
> "electroconsulsive therapy."
>
> Read my article again...this time, try to comprehend.
>
> It's over...Texas only has 11% blacks...not enough to play the game
> this time.
Iowa had less than 5% black. The traditional stereotypes that groups
like women, hispanic, white males, etc vote all in a block is
disappearing.
Joe
wrote:
The majority of polls seem to show Obama ahead of McCain. I don't
think Americans want another 4 years of Bush's war in Iraq, do try and
keep up:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html
robw
But you choose to ignore that, didn't you?
<bval...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:e1aad7d2-0739-4885...@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
Kevin Cunningham
Were????? Mars???? The moon?????
Geez, Sen. Obama beats McCain in every poll, got that? Every poll.
DeserTBoB
wrote:
>The majority of polls seem to show Obama ahead of McCain. I don't
>think Americans want another 4 years of Bush's war in Iraq, do try and
>keep up:
>
>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html <snip>
NO one uses "realclearpolitics" for anything. It's a dumbed down
source, using old data. Do please try to wise up.
DeserTBoB
wrote:
>I pointed out to you how polls might not have the same meaning. <snip>
Exactly, plus the "theoretical match up" polls are meaningless in
determining the outcome of an election 8 months away. They're simply
a tool with which to gauge stratagem success.
>But you choose to ignore that, didn't you? <snip>
They all do.
DeserTBoB
<sms...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Were????? <snip>
"Were?" Were you shooting for "WHERE?"
> Mars???? The moon????? <snip>
No, LA Times/Bloomberg, for one.
>Geez, Sen. Obama beats McCain in every poll, got that? Every poll. <snip>
Wrong again.
BenitoJr.
Yeah! You prepare for Clintomania!
OneTwoThree
DessertBoob, I've got my money on Obama, now that you have made your
prediction. You have been wrong every time this season, haven't you.......
.
OneTwoThree
keep believing that, DessertBoob. Your track record speaks for itself. Wrong
wrong wrong and wrong again.
.
toddx7
weak among women, white males,
and moderate democrats.
A big sweep for Hillary in Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island, and Vermont will
give her the nomination. If Obama
wins in Texas it would show he can win a big state, and would make him
appear electable to the
superdelegates.
The superdelegates already favor Hillary, so Texas is must win for
Obama. If Obama loses Texas he will
have lost all the big states except Illinois. Clinton has already won
New York, and California.
If Clinton wins both Ohio, and Texas. She just has to win in
Pennsylvania, and then be ahead or nearly tied
in the delegate count going into the convention. Then Hillary can take
the nomination by using her influence
with the superdelegates.
It should be interesting this Tuesday as to what the voters actually
decide in Ohio, and Texas.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aTI5uR3NTGv4&refer=us
http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-list.html
Joe
> On Sun, 2 Mar 2008 00:58:42 -0800 (PST), Joe <josephbl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >The majority of polls seem to show Obama ahead of McCain. I don't
> >think Americans want another 4 years of Bush's war in Iraq, do try and
> >keep up:
>
>
> NO one uses "realclearpolitics" for anything. It's a dumbed down
> source, using old data. Do please try to wise up.
These are of course independent polls, something a brainwashed
braindead neocon wouldn't look at. Go back to listening to Rush,
he'll do the thinking for you.
DeserTBoB
wrote:
>These are of course independent polls, something a brainwashed
>braindead neocon wouldn't look at. Go back to listening to Rush,
>he'll do the thinking for you. <snip>
Here is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. I'm a life long Democratic
Party warrior, a Clinton supporter, a union activist and official, and
this dumb kid thinks I'm a neocon.
These are Obama supporters. They do not have a clue. They need to
step away and let the grown-ups run the show. Watch, and
learn...maybe someday, you TOO can be effective at politics!
DeserTBoB
<you...@notverysmart.ru> wrote:
>DessertBoob, I've got my money on Obama, now that you have made your
>prediction. You have been wrong every time this season, haven't you....... <snip>
Do the research, dumb Obama supporter. I was RIGHT on New Hampshire.
Go look. Everyone else, including the "pros," was wrong. I was wrong
on Iowa, and so were the "pros." I was WRONG about Washington state.
I was RIGHT ON IT, within a couple percentage points on California. I
was also RIGHT on Nevada, when all the "pros" were calling it for
Obama.
If you want to tangle with me, or play real politics, have some
information, instead of shooting yourself in the foot.
DeserTBoB
wrote:
>Hillary will probably win both Ohio, and Texas. Obama's support is
>weak among women, white males,
>and moderate democrats.
>
>A big sweep for Hillary in Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island, and Vermont will
>give her the nomination. If Obama
>wins in Texas it would show he can win a big state, and would make him
>appear electable to the
>superdelegates. <snip>
Agreed with all the above. As I said, the dumb GenY and GenZers who
have been additive to the ghetto black vote will NOT buoy Obama this
time out. Obama will be strong in Cleveland's and Cincinnati's urban
core precincts and nowhere else. Obama will be strong in DFW and
Houston, where most of the Katrina refugees live. He will NOT be
strong elsewhere, and there will be a lot of give and take.
It's too soon to really handicap, but I'm thinking, in terms of pop
vote:
Clinton runs the table in all four, with this spread:
Texas: By 5%
Ohio: By 10%
Vermont: By 10%
Rhode Island: By 12%
Obama's best shot is Texas, but he crested too early and his support
base there is fickle...kids and blacks especially. Older women are
incensed that they're losing their once-in-a-lifetime chance, and
Molly Invins-like Texas women are coming on strong for Clinton in the
last week, a fact notably ignored by the media until this weekend.
Also, as shown on CNN, many former GOP stalwarts are crossing over for
Clinton.
The above is more than enough to give her the nomination, unless Obama
decides to play dirty with superdels. If so, there will be a floor
fight the likes of which we haven't seen in 40 years.
Governor Swill
I've been listening to you make your arguments against Obama and in
support of Clinton. Obama has the momentum. Nobody can doubt
Clinton's experience claim, IMO. NOBODY. Some thirty years in
government with at least a ringside seat during eight years in the
White House. Is the right willing to admit she had no part in that
administration or must the voters realize those eight years do count
as Presidential experience?
I would have no problem with Clinton as President with a Democratic
Congress, especially a Dem Senate. It's judge time and I think we
need some judges less rightist than the ones we've recently seen. I
trust Roberts as a Chief Justice, but we need more left of center
voices on the SCOTUS.
Swill
--
THIS is how we have to win the Iraq War
http://www.wheelchairsforiraqikids.com/
Governor Swill
Obamomentum. He's too clean to use the slime machine on, so his
change message can be expounded upon freely. As he goes along, his
solutions become more specific. His direction more clear. Time is on
his side. I have no problem with Hillary as President and would vote
for her against any Republican. But there's been an interesting note
made by pollsters recently. Last figures I can recall (and no, I
don't have the link anymore), 93% of Clinton voters said they'd be
fine voting for Obama if Obama won the nomination, but only 84% of
Obama voters would support Clinton. This would indicate that
sentiments are coming from elsewhere than the Clinton camp for Obama.
Governor Swill
>Hillary will probably win both Ohio, and Texas. Obama's support is
>weak among women, white males,
>and moderate democrats.
Obama has picked up voters from every one of Clinton's core
demographics.
>A big sweep for Hillary in Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island, and Vermont will
>give her the nomination.
No it won't. It'll assure the race continues. This race is proving
expensive for Dems because they haven't even decided on their nominee.
They need to resolve the issue asap so focus can begin on November and
beyond. It's time they started sorting out who's going to be in
government and how to steer it. They also should conserve resources
for the main event and select now.
For the good of the party, Clinton should concede immediately if she
Obama makes a clean sweep. She must gain more delegates than he to
continue. Texas will be the most interesting and will take the
longest to figure out, but even Rhode Island makes a difference.
> If Obama
>wins in Texas it would show he can win a big state, and would make him
>appear electable to the
>superdelegates.
If Obama can win in TEXAS, he can win the country. Texas is George
Bush's home state and imo, that gives the Texas vote a special
significance.
>The superdelegates already favor Hillary,
But they've been shifting to Obama. Less than thirty superdelegate
votes separate them so far.
> so Texas is must win for Obama.
Agreed, even if only by a small margin.
> If Obama loses Texas he will have lost all the big states except Illinois.
As if the "big states" have been capable of electing a President
lately.
> Clinton has already won New York, and California.
It has already been shown that New York and California are not enough.
>If Clinton wins both Ohio, and Texas.
She's a lucky girl.
> She just has to win in Pennsylvania, and then be ahead or nearly tied
So much for the inevitable candidate. On one hand, this gives the
Obama campaign some time to work out effective campaign management,
otoh, it gives the McCain campaign time to analyze how an Obama
campaign will operate.
>in the delegate count going into the convention. Then Hillary can take
>the nomination by using her influence with the superdelegates.
Entirely possible, but the Dems are currently sensitive to this issue
and are for more likely to split the supers on a ratio that reflects
the popular vote. This would be a highly effective national message
as well. President by popular vote.
>It should be interesting this Tuesday as to what the voters actually
>decide in Ohio, and Texas.
The streak will break in either Rhode Island which should record early
and stable double digit leads for Clinton or Vermont which also is
likely to co Clinton. The streak will be over, but Ohio and Texas
will tell the tale. It looks like Clinton in Ohio and a tie in Bush's
home state, but he's gobbled up polling leads like nobody's business
in a long time. If Clinton can't take both, cleanly, she's in serious
trouble. She's admitted the mistake of NAFTA by her stated opposition
to it. But does she mean it?
>http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aTI5uR3NTGv4&refer=us
>
>http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-list.html
>
His name is a mantra. Obama! Obama! Obama! Obama!
"I, Barack Hussein Obama. . ."
What an inauguration! What a message of America to the world!
His very name is a talisman.
Swill
America is more important than any one ethnic group.
OneTwoThree
how about Alabama, Nebraska, Kansas... shall we go on? btw, Obama won more
delegates than Hilliary in Nevada, so what does that make you?
btw, speaking of "doing your research" what makes you think I'm an Obama
supporter? because I think leftists with no experience should be president?
see ya Weds, when Hilliary has been humiliated once again.
.
.
cmdr buzz corey
No he doesn't.
Governor Swill
Having won eleven straight, he seems to be effective at politics.
Swill
DeserTBoB
<governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Having won eleven straight, he seems to be effective at politics. <snip>
He got lucky, and he got the young white chicks to get that "Mandingo"
thing going on. He'll be looked upon as a fad later on.
Joe
> On Sun, 2 Mar 2008 13:38:54 -0800 (PST), Joe <josephbl...@gmail.com>
OK then your every bit as dumb as a neo con if you ignore the results
of a number of independent polls as reported on Real Clear politics
clearly showing Obama ahead of McCain. I'll support whichever
democrat wins but really don't like Hillary. She claims she has all
this experience because she slept with Bill Clinton when he was
president, but big deal, alot of women slept with Bill Clinton.
Hillary claims she is the "solutions" person yet she failed at health
care reform when Bill gave her a shot at fixing Health care in her
first term. She voted for the war in Iraq. To me she is a polarizing
figure, yes a bitch who will keep America polarized. Her ad about
taking the call at 3AM is a desparate attempt to scare people to vote
for her will backfire.
Obama is highly intelligent and reaches out to those who aren't
necessarily his core supporters. I have more confidence in Obama's
intelligence, judgement and communications skills than Hillary or
McCain.
DeserTBoB
wrote:
>OK then your every bit as dumb as a neo con if you ignore the results
>of a number of independent polls as reported on Real Clear politics <snip>
NO one of any stature uses "Real Clear Politics." It's been spun.
>clearly showing Obama ahead of McCain. I'll support whichever
>democrat wins but really don't like Hillary. She claims she has all
>this experience because she slept with Bill Clinton when he was
>president, but big deal, alot of women slept with Bill Clinton.
>Hillary claims she is the "solutions" person yet she failed at health
>care reform when Bill gave her a shot at fixing Health care in her
>first term. <snip>
She overreached. It's better to try to right a wrong than do
nothing...or do worse, which is what we've had for seven years now.
>She voted for the war in Iraq. <snip>
So did a lot of other people, believing that Bush needed a show of
resolve to get Saddam to come around. NO ONE in Washington at the
time ever believed that Bush would do as stupid a thing as he did and
actually invade Iraq with a rag-tag force and inferior planning...NO
one.
> To me she is a polarizing
>figure, yes a bitch who will keep America polarized. Her ad about
>taking the call at 3AM is a desparate attempt to scare people to vote
>for her will backfire. <snip>
Your arguments are about as specious as any I've seen...no meat, just
bile.
OneTwoThree
at last, the real DessertBoob comes out. lifelong dem, union organizer,
racist.
dont like it when them darkies step out of their place and off the
plantation, do you, Boob.....
afraid (and rightfully so) that he wont be bought and beholden to your union
graft money, extorted out of your members, many of whom disagree with your
union positions, arent you, Boob.....
the entrenched establishment said the same things about Kennedy, Boob, and
yet who won in 1960?
what are you going to do, Boob, if Obama wind the nomination? vote your
party or your racist heart? suck it up, Boob, because we may very well be on
the verge of having our first black president. whether racists like you like
it or not.
.
Governor Swill
You don't tie the "inevitability candidate" on super Tuesday and then
win eleven straight thereafter by being "lucky".
Clinton represents a powerful machine that can do much good for
America. She has the rolodex, the global cache, the toughness, the
persistence and the deviousness to be one of America's finest
Presidents.
But Obama represents something even more important to many voters, a
clean break from the divisive and filthy politics of the past,
politics that for fifteen years the name "Clinton" has been at or near
the center of.
It's not luck, America is hungry for change and Obama is the most
different candidate running.
Governor Swill
>> >These are of course independent polls, something a brainwashed
>> >braindead neocon wouldn't look at. Go back to listening to Rush,
>> >he'll do the thinking for you. <snip>
>> Here is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. I'm a life long Democratic
>> Party warrior, a Clinton supporter, a union activist and official, and
>> this dumb kid thinks I'm a neocon.
>> These are Obama supporters. They do not have a clue. They need to
>> step away and let the grown-ups run the show. Watch, and
>> learn...maybe someday, you TOO can be effective at politics!
>OK then your every bit as dumb as a neo con if you ignore the results
>of a number of independent polls as reported on Real Clear politics
>clearly showing Obama ahead of McCain. I'll support whichever
>democrat wins but really don't like Hillary.
Ditto, I'll vote for the Dem whoever that may be and while I don't
"like" Hillary as much as I "like" Obama (or perhaps the idea of
Obama) but I think Hillary would be more effective at the job and
would get more done faster.
I still prefer Obama though, because he is more likely to make the
sort of substantive changes in the way government is conducted that
her.
As big as the issues are, Iraq, a frightening economic outlook,
immigration, debt and so on, what worries me even more is the way
Congress and the Executive have been doing their jobs. I'm tired of
rollover Congresses and Executive signing statements that exempt that
branch from obeying the law.
> She claims she has all
>this experience because she slept with Bill Clinton when he was
>president, but big deal, alot of women slept with Bill Clinton.
Are you arguing that she played no part in policy making? That she
was completely out of the loop? If nothing else, she had a ring side
seat to an eight year administration that was very popular.
>Hillary claims she is the "solutions" person yet she failed at health
>care reform when Bill gave her a shot at fixing Health care in her
>first term.
Which allowed enough distratction for Bill to get some of his agenda
through with his first two Congresses. The biggest flaw in her plan
was that it was concocted in secret.
> She voted for the war in Iraq.
His votes on Iraq since he arrived in the Senate have been exactly the
same as Clinton's.
> To me she is a polarizing figure, yes a bitch who will keep America polarized.
There's a higher risk that the GOP will again divert resources from
providing responsible government to trying to prevent a Democrat from
providing responsible government if Clinton is elected. That said,
who is better than a Clinton at fending off these attacks while still
governing.
> Her ad abouttaking the call at 3AM is a desparate attempt
> to scare people to vote for her will backfire.
Yes, the fear politics of the past. The People are sick to death of
it. That said, such concerns are very real.
>Obama is highly intelligent and reaches out to those who aren't
>necessarily his core supporters. I have more confidence in Obama's
>intelligence, judgement and communications skills than Hillary or
>McCain.
So do I.
I also worry that McCain will select a Huckabee or Romney for veep and
then take sick six months into his administration. Or that America's
first non white President had been assassinated. Or that America's
first woman President has been impeached over legalities involving
some business deal half a decade or more ago after a $100M
investigation by the opposition.
Of course, if the Dems still control Congress after November, there
will be no such Congressional investigations.
Governor Swill
>On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 00:26:17 -0800 (PST), Joe <josep...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>OK then your every bit as dumb as a neo con if you ignore the results
>>of a number of independent polls as reported on Real Clear politics <snip>
>
>NO one of any stature uses "Real Clear Politics." It's been spun.
You're saying that the data they report coming from other sources is
wrong?
Governor Swill
>
>So did a lot of other people, believing that Bush needed a show of
>resolve to get Saddam to come around. NO ONE in Washington at the
>time ever believed that Bush would do as stupid a thing as he did and
>actually invade Iraq with a rag-tag force and inferior planning...NO
>one.
That's just blaming the GOP Congress instead of the President. Oh,
wait, we fixed that problem. How many times have we heard "no one
could have foreseen" or words to that effect from this administration.
Apparently they can't see much at all.
>> To me she is a polarizing
>>figure, yes a bitch who will keep America polarized. Her ad about
>>taking the call at 3AM is a desparate attempt to scare people to vote
>>for her will backfire. <snip>
>
>Your arguments are about as specious as any I've seen...no meat, just
>bile.
Of course they're specious to most people. The problem is they're not
to a lot of other people and you must take that into account.
If she loses Texas, she can still stay in because she'll take the
other three. If she loses any of those other three, especially Ohio,
or shows very slim margins, she's in deep shit.
Hillary will not become the front runner again tomorrow without a
clean sweep in double digits. She can get by with single digits in
Texas but a Clinton winning in Bush's home state. . .
Joe
> Joe <josephbl...@gmail.com> used a stick in the sand to babble
>
> >On Mar 3, 8:07 am, DeserTBoB <dese...@rglobal.net> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 2 Mar Joe <josephbl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >These are of course independent polls, something a brainwashed
> >> >braindead neocon wouldn't look at. Go back to listening to Rush,
> >> >he'll do the thinking for you. <snip>
> >> Here is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. I'm a life long Democratic
> >> Party warrior, a Clinton supporter, a union activist and official, and
> >> this dumb kid thinks I'm a neocon.
> >> These are Obama supporters. They do not have a clue. They need to
> >> step away and let the grown-ups run the show. Watch, and
> >> learn...maybe someday, you TOO can be effective at politics!
> >OK then your every bit as dumb as a neo con if you ignore the results
> >of a number of independent polls as reported on Real Clear politics
> >clearly showing Obama ahead of McCain. I'll support whichever
> >democrat wins but really don't like Hillary.
>
> Ditto, I'll vote for the Dem whoever that may be and while I don't
> "like" Hillary as much as I "like" Obama (or perhaps the idea of
> Obama) but I think Hillary would be more effective at the job and
> would get more done faster.
I disagree. I view Hillary as a polarizing figure just like W Bush
was as a polarizing figure on the right. And about her claim of
having more experience, wasn't it her husband, not her that was
president, or does that mean Barbara Bush should run for president.
Look at health care reform, she had the opportunity to make change
when her husband was president and she failed, so why give her another
shot.
>
> I still prefer Obama though, because he is more likely to make the
> sort of substantive changes in the way government is conducted that
> her.
>
> As big as the issues are, Iraq, a frightening economic outlook,
> immigration, debt and so on, what worries me even more is the way
> Congress and the Executive have been doing their jobs. I'm tired of
> rollover Congresses and Executive signing statements that exempt that
> branch from obeying the law.
I think Obama can inspire the people, something that we haven't seen
since JFK.
>
> > She claims she has all
> >this experience because she slept with Bill Clinton when he was
> >president, but big deal, alot of women slept with Bill Clinton.
>
> Are you arguing that she played no part in policy making? That she
> was completely out of the loop? If nothing else, she had a ring side
> seat to an eight year administration that was very popular.
Are you arguing that Barbara Bush or W Bush's wife should be the
republican nominee? I think Bill Clinton had the charisma to inspire
people and bring people together. I view Hilary as a polarizing
figure who failed at health care reform, the one policy reform issue
she was in charge of during her husbands presidency.
>
> >Hillary claims she is the "solutions" person yet she failed at health
> >care reform when Bill gave her a shot at fixing Health care in her
> >first term.
>
> Which allowed enough distratction for Bill to get some of his agenda
> through with his first two Congresses. The biggest flaw in her plan
> was that it was concocted in secret.
Which shows she does not have what it takes to get the job done. So
much for her "experience". Time to give someone else a go.
>
> > She voted for the war in Iraq.
>
> His votes on Iraq since he arrived in the Senate have been exactly the
> same as Clinton's.
But he did not vote to go into Iraq in the first place which was the
real mistake.
>
> > To me she is a polarizing figure, yes a bitch who will keep America polarized.
>
> There's a higher risk that the GOP will again divert resources from
> providing responsible government to trying to prevent a Democrat from
> providing responsible government if Clinton is elected. That said,
> who is better than a Clinton at fending off these attacks while still
> governing.
Don't think we need bush,clinton,bush, clinton, the country
desparately needs a real change.
>
> > Her ad abouttaking the call at 3AM is a desparate attempt
> > to scare people to vote for her will backfire.
>
> Yes, the fear politics of the past. The People are sick to death of
> it. That said, such concerns are very real.
I've seen nothing in her character to suggest Hillary can handle the
call any better than Obama, its pure scaremongerring.
DeserTBoB
<you...@notverysmart.ru> wrote:
>what are you going to do, Boob, if Obama wind the nomination? <snip>
Vote for him.
>vote your
>party or your racist heart? <snip>
Party.
> suck it up, Boob, because we may very well be on
>the verge of having our first black president. whether racists like you like
>it or not. <snip>
First of all, he's not "black." He's a "50/50 bar." And yes, he'll
get my vote in November. Both him and Clinton are close enough on
enough issues to where I'd be happy with either, although I'm not
happy with his health care platform and his ambivalence to labor law
reform.
BUT... my biggest fear is that the wing nuts in the GOP have been
plotting and scheming (and "gaming" caucuses) to position Obama to
win, because THAT is who they want to run against. They do NOT want
to face the Clinton War Machine again.
Nice try trying to look like Charlie Nudo. You're a fake.
DeserTBoB
<governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Clinton represents a powerful machine that can do much good for
>America. She has the rolodex, the global cache, the toughness, the
>persistence and the deviousness to be one of America's finest
>Presidents.
>
>But Obama represents something even more important to many voters, a
>clean break from the divisive and filthy politics of the past,
>politics that for fifteen years the name "Clinton" has been at or near
>the center of.
>
>It's not luck, America is hungry for change and Obama is the most
>different candidate running. <snip>
Good points all, and I'll vote for either. But I want the chick with
the operator's manual to the Washington power machine memorized, and
that's her. Obama will waste much of his first year trying to figure
out how to answer the phones, much the way Bill did in '93...remember?
Governor Swill
Governor Swill
>> Ditto, I'll vote for the Dem whoever that may be and while I don't
>> "like" Hillary as much as I "like" Obama (or perhaps the idea of
>> Obama) but I think Hillary would be more effective at the job and
>> would get more done faster.
>
>I disagree. I view Hillary as a polarizing figure just like W Bush
>was as a polarizing figure on the right.
I'm not talking about polarization, I'm talking about effectiveness on
the job. Already knowing where the switches and levers are and how to
use them. Of the three, Hillary is the best candidate for the job.
> And about her claim of
>having more experience, wasn't it her husband, not her that was
>president,
You so don't want to go there. The Clinton co Presidency has been a
thorn in the side of the right forever. At the very least she had a
ringside seat in the day to day life of the President and you and I
both know she learned from that. Her contacts both at home and
abroad, the 'rolodex' are already made and there.
Obama has to start from scratch.
> or does that mean Barbara Bush should run for president.
>Look at health care reform, she had the opportunity to make change
>when her husband was president and she failed, so why give her another
>shot.
Health care concerns more people now than it did then. It's time is
coming.
>I think Obama can inspire the people, something that we haven't seen
>since JFK.
And in a leader, that can be the most desired quality.
>> Are you arguing that she played no part in policy making? That she
>> was completely out of the loop? If nothing else, she had a ring side
>> seat to an eight year administration that was very popular.
>
>Are you arguing that Barbara Bush or W Bush's wife should be the
>republican nominee?
Are you arguing that Barbara or Laura have as much input into their
husbands' administrations as Hillary had into hers? You've just
stated that she was given health care to handle and blew it. Of
course she blew it. In 1993 she didn't know what she was doing. She's
had time to learn. But I do still distrust her hard push to health
care. I think she'd try to do it too fast.
> I think Bill Clinton had the charisma to inspire
>people and bring people together. I view Hilary as a polarizing
>figure who failed at health care reform, the one policy reform issue
>she was in charge of during her husbands presidency.
Bill was a charmer, not so much lately though. I think he's hurt her
campaign.
>> >Hillary claims she is the "solutions" person yet she failed at health
>> >care reform when Bill gave her a shot at fixing Health care in her
>> >first term.
>>
>> Which allowed enough distratction for Bill to get some of his agenda
>> through with his first two Congresses. The biggest flaw in her plan
>> was that it was concocted in secret.
>
>Which shows she does not have what it takes to get the job done. So
>much for her "experience". Time to give someone else a go.
That was fifteen years ago.
>> His votes on Iraq since he arrived in the Senate have been exactly the
>> same as Clinton's.
>
>But he did not vote to go into Iraq in the first place which was the
>real mistake.
He wasn't in the Senate at the time so it doesn't count.
>> > To me she is a polarizing figure, yes a bitch who will keep America polarized.
>>
>> There's a higher risk that the GOP will again divert resources from
>> providing responsible government to trying to prevent a Democrat from
>> providing responsible government if Clinton is elected. That said,
>> who is better than a Clinton at fending off these attacks while still
>> governing.
>
>Don't think we need bush,clinton,bush, clinton, the country
>desparately needs a real change.
Which is why despite my reservations about Obama, I'm glad he carried
my state and I hope he wins the nomination. It disturbs me that for
28 years every Presidential ballot has had a Bush or a Clinton on it.
Even given that I might be willing to give Hillary a shot at cleaning
up after the second Bush. The economy will probably become
unmanageable and the 2012 occupant will have to move out after that
Christmas.
>> > Her ad abouttaking the call at 3AM is a desparate attempt
>> > to scare people to vote for her will backfire.
>>
>> Yes, the fear politics of the past. The People are sick to death of
>> it. That said, such concerns are very real.
>
>I've seen nothing in her character to suggest Hillary can handle the
>call any better than Obama, its pure scaremongerring.
Not pure, it is a valid point. Interestingly enough, they both ran
essentially the same ad but each says different things. He's pinned
himself on his judgment vs her experience and within days has had an
example of poor judgment played out before the voters the day before a
primary.
The weather is going to hurt Hillary. She's stronger in the north of
the State and a major winter ice storm is expected to begin in the
morning.