I keep waiting for conservatives to understand that many liberals, maybe even a majority, do not like Hillary Clinton.

Because I wonder if that will impact her popularity (positively) the way past liberal support for McCain and present liberal support (at least in relative terms) for Huckabee hurt their standing with conservatives.

Don't conservatives reflexively like anything liberals dislike? Therefore, Hillary's popularity should be on the rise.

The more I think about it, the more I'm certain that a McCain presidency with a Democratic Congress would be preferable to a Hillary presidency regardless of how Congress aligns.

McCain simply isn't the spite-partisan that Bush is. He knows Democrats, he's worked with Democrats, to an extent he actually likes Democrats. The worst thing about McCain to me is that he's reflexively pro-war. A Democratic Congress presumably wouldn't let him start any new wars. His commitment to fiscal responsibility trumps whatever sweet nothings he's whispered into Grover Norquist's pants, so that's okay. He's pretty good on immigration and environmental issues. Essentially you'd have the late-'90s divided government setup, just without the deranged obsession on the part of Congress to destroy the president, and with a president who can keep his fly zipped at this point in his life.

With the Clinton Restoration, by contrast, unless the Dems get to 60 seats in the Senate--which isn't going to happen--you'll have the current pattern of Republican obstruction but on steroids. They'll never have any political motivation to compromise with a plurality or bare-majority president detested by their base.

Don't get me wrong: I'd still prefer an Obama (or Bloomberg) presidency with a Democratic Congress--ideally one in which Chris Dodd replaces Harry Reid as Senate majority leader. But if it's Hillary, and her opponent is McCain (or, perhaps, Huckabee), I almost definitely won't vote for the Democrat.

McCain is increasing in his likability to me, but that might just be because it's kind of a three man race and I'm not digging Huck or Mitt.

Okay, so Pat Buchannan is evil, blah blah blah get that out of the way (I don't like him, either).

His predictions for the rest of the GOP race:

So, two weeks out from Iowa, here are the odds.

Rudy and Thompson each 20-1. John McCain 6-1. He has to win New Hampshire, and even if he wins there, he would be an underdog. Grass-roots conservatives do not like him and would prefer Huckabee.

Mitt Romney 3-2. If he wins Iowa, he is almost unstoppable. If he loses Iowa, he has to come back and beat McCain in New Hampshire. Then it would a Mitt-Mike race through Feb. 5.

And Huckabee? He has to win Iowa. If he does, he will be the favorite in South Carolina and for the nomination, as well.

Looks like a Mitt-Mike race, with Iowa and New Hampshire giving us by Jan. 9 the two candidates from whom the nominee will be chosen. And isn't that how it usually is? Iowa and New Hampshire choose for America.

McCain and probably Obama are the only two candidates who I'm confident would put the country ahead of either party or themselves.

dajafi wrote:The more I think about it, the more I'm certain that a McCain presidency with a Democratic Congress would be preferable to a Hillary presidency regardless of how Congress aligns.

McCain simply isn't the spite-partisan that Bush is. He knows Democrats, he's worked with Democrats, to an extent he actually likes Democrats. The worst thing about McCain to me is that he's reflexively pro-war. A Democratic Congress presumably wouldn't let him start any new wars. His commitment to fiscal responsibility trumps whatever sweet nothings he's whispered into Grover Norquist's pants, so that's okay. He's pretty good on immigration and environmental issues. Essentially you'd have the late-'90s divided government setup, just without the deranged obsession on the part of Congress to destroy the president, and with a president who can keep his fly zipped at this point in his life.

With the Clinton Restoration, by contrast, unless the Dems get to 60 seats in the Senate--which isn't going to happen--you'll have the current pattern of Republican obstruction but on steroids. They'll never have any political motivation to compromise with a plurality or bare-majority president detested by their base.

Don't get me wrong: I'd still prefer an Obama (or Bloomberg) presidency with a Democratic Congress--ideally one in which Chris Dodd replaces Harry Reid as Senate majority leader. But if it's Hillary, and her opponent is McCain (or, perhaps, Huckabee), I almost definitely won't vote for the Democrat.

Seriously? I'm no fan of Clinton at all, but McCain has only changed his stripes (for the 2nd time) once it was clear he was becoming an afterthought in the presidential race. The guy's been propping up Bush policies for the past 6 years, putting a on a good face once in a while, but always caving to Herr Bush's demands. Do you really think he'll stand up to Rep pressuring behind the scenes? I don't. I think he's a neocon lackey of the worst sort -- "worst" being a guy who pretends to be one thing, but is quite another everytime it counts.

Plus, the guy just doesn't haven't the temperment for it anymore than Ghouliani does... much too hotheaded.

TenuredVulture wrote:McCain and probably Obama are the only two candidates who I'm confident would put the country ahead of either party or themselves.

Why McCain when he's caved to GOP pressure again and again and again, even on some of the issues he says he cares most about?

I think McCain's rise has to do with the other GOP candidates all being really bad. It's like people are forgetting the McCain of the past 6 years and allowing nostalgia for the old McCain to control their opinions of him. He's acting like his old self now, but for how long? How long before he's kissing Dobson's boots and buckling under neocon pressure to go after Iran? Not long, IMO.

Um, I don't think Bush is evil?

There's no doubt McCain is a conservative, and I disagree with him on many fundamental issues. On the other hand, I am opposed to an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, as I think that would be a disaster.

In my opinion, the invasion was mistake, and I opposed that. But unless you've got a time machine, the only sensible thing to discuss at this point is how to win in Iraq.

TenuredVulture wrote:Um, I don't think Bush is evil?

There's no doubt McCain is a conservative, and I disagree with him on many fundamental issues. On the other hand, I am opposed to an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, as I think that would be a disaster.

In my opinion, the invasion was mistake, and I opposed that. But unless you've got a time machine, the only sensible thing to discuss at this point is how to win in Iraq.

It's not that he supported ideas that I am against, it's that he supported ideas that HE was against. Sorry I didn't make that more clear.

Huckabee bahaha

The candidate on his holiday plans: "We have an unusual tradition that after the Christmas Eve service, we go out and eat Chinese food."

Reporter: "Is that your effort to relate to the Jewish community?"

Candidate: "No, it's Chinese food."

Reporter: "A lot of Jewish people go for Chinese food on Christmas Eve."

Candidate: "Oh. We just like it and go out for it."

VoxOrion wrote:Huckabee bahaha

The candidate on his holiday plans: "We have an unusual tradition that after the Christmas Eve service, we go out and eat Chinese food."

Reporter: "Is that your effort to relate to the Jewish community?"

Candidate: "No, it's Chinese food."

Reporter: "A lot of Jewish people go for Chinese food on Christmas Eve."

Candidate: "Oh. We just like it and go out for it."

One of the surprising things about many evangelicals is their utter and complete ignorance of religion. They know nothing about other Protestant denominations (Presbyterian? What's that?) or Catholicism, not to mention Judaism or Islam.

They know next to nothing of their own tradition or denominational history. They don't even know they're Protestants.

Well, are there Jews where he lives? How else would he know?

Though I'd appreciate a guy running for president being a little more knowledgable about the customs of the people of this nation.

pacino wrote:Well, are there Jews where he lives? How else would he know?

Though I'd appreciate a guy running for president being a little more knowledgable about the customs of the people of this nation.

Well, among other things, he does have a degree in religion. And there are Jews in Arkansas.

Bill Maher's list of biggest 2007 D*ckheads

http://www.rollingstone.com/photos/gall ... to/1/large

pacino wrote:Well, are there Jews where he lives? How else would he know?

Though I'd appreciate a guy running for president being a little more knowledgable about the customs of the people of this nation.

Really, what's the point? Jews are .5 percent of the population. If we didn't control about half the money and have a front row seat to the middle east, there would be absolutely no reason to even acknowledge our existence. Since he is likely to get only 4 Jewish voters anyway, I'd be much happier with him saying, "Jews, who gives an eff about Jews, this is effin CHRISTMAS TIME BABY!"

TenuredVulture wrote:One of the surprising things about many evangelicals is their utter and complete ignorance of religion. They know nothing about other Protestant denominations (Presbyterian? What's that?) or Catholicism, not to mention Judaism or Islam.

They know next to nothing of their own tradition or denominational history. They don't even know they're Protestants.

I don't think this is as true in the northeast as it might be elsewhere. You can't swing a dead cat in Baltimore, Philly, NY, or Boston without hitting a Catholic or a Jew. I read (I think it was in that same article) that there are actually more Catholics in the US than evangelicals (60 mil compared to 70 mil).

It is true that most of them don't know the history or tradition of Christianity. It's like Jesus was crucified then fifteen hundred years later Christians suddenly showed up.

I don't think not knowing that some Jews go for Chinese on Christmas Eve is grounds for ignorance. None of my Jewish friends have ever mentioned it.

VoxOrion wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:One of the surprising things about many evangelicals is their utter and complete ignorance of religion. They know nothing about other Protestant denominations (Presbyterian? What's that?) or Catholicism, not to mention Judaism or Islam.

They know next to nothing of their own tradition or denominational history. They don't even know they're Protestants.

I don't think this is as true in the northeast as it might be elsewhere. You can't swing a dead cat in Baltimore, Philly, NY, or Boston without hitting a Catholic or a Jew. I read (I think it was in that same article) that there are actually more Catholics in the US than evangelicals (60 mil compared to 70 mil).

It is true that most of them don't know the history or tradition of Christianity. It's like Jesus was crucified then fifteen hundred years later Christians suddenly showed up.

Well, there aren't as many evangelicals in the urban northeast as there are in the South and rural areas. Of course, evangelical is a pretty broad term. Southern evangelism is different than what you'd find in Central PA or Iowa.

Houshphandzadeh wrote:I don't think not knowing that some Jews go for Chinese on Christmas Eve is grounds for ignorance. None of my Jewish friends have ever mentioned it.

You probably are so caught up in your Jesusness that you never even noticed or asked.

It would be hard to notice and a strange question to ask.

Houshphandzadeh wrote:It would be hard to notice and a strange question to ask.

Yeah, really hard to mention to your "Jewish" friends, "So, what do you guys do on Christmas as we engorge ourselves to an unholy extent with gifts and food?" I mean, I shutter at the thought...