dsp wrote:they just offer both sides, not only the left like the mainstream media does.

You are pretty useless in most threads, here, more usless than any. Stick to the TV thread where you are only slightly useless.

what, cant stand to hear both sides of the issue? gotta read your new york times and listen to npr?

dsp wrote:what, cant stand to hear both sides of the issue? gotta read your new york times and listen to npr?

I don't read the NYT and I probably watch more Fox News than you do. It has nothing to do with Fox and everything to do with your uselessness.

Pay attention, Democrats...

In a general election match up, Clinton edges Giuliani, 46% to 43%, a lead that is within the poll's margin of error. However, the more striking finding is that Giuliani leads Clinton among independent voters, 48% to 37%. This statistic feeds the "electability" factor raised by John Edwards int he Democratic primary race.

First Read notes how crucial the independent vote is for Democrats. "In 2004, per the exit polls, John Kerry -- who lost the presidential election -- won the independent vote by just one point (49%-48%). But when they took control of Congress last year, Democrats won the indie vote by 18 points, 57%-39%."

The left's arrogance and snobbery around Sen. Clinton is even more pronounced than usual. It seems like many of them assume that the only people who carry that irrational and unanswerable hate for her are the rabid folks on the far right who wouldn't vote for any Democrat under any circumstances. This couldn't be more wrong; among those who detest her, for whatever reason, are millions of independents, moderate suburban Republicans and non-"brand" Democrats. These are all people reachable by other Democrats (I think Obama in particular), but emphatically not by Lady Triangula.

At the same time, there are new polls out that Dems in Iowa and NH don't think she's honest and don't generally agree with (what they can discern of) her views, but somehow see her as the most electable Democrat! Call it Example 9,203,881 of why our primary process is so fouled up; these whitebreads essentially pick the nominees, and as they showed in 2004, they aren't very good at it.

dajafi wrote:Pay attention, Democrats...

In a general election match up, Clinton edges Giuliani, 46% to 43%, a lead that is within the poll's margin of error. However, the more striking finding is that Giuliani leads Clinton among independent voters, 48% to 37%. This statistic feeds the "electability" factor raised by John Edwards int he Democratic primary race.

First Read notes how crucial the independent vote is for Democrats. "In 2004, per the exit polls, John Kerry -- who lost the presidential election -- won the independent vote by just one point (49%-48%). But when they took control of Congress last year, Democrats won the indie vote by 18 points, 57%-39%."

The left's arrogance and snobbery around Sen. Clinton is even more pronounced than usual. It seems like many of them assume that the only people who carry that irrational and unanswerable hate for her are the rabid folks on the far right who wouldn't vote for any Democrat under any circumstances. This couldn't be more wrong; among those who detest her, for whatever reason, are millions of independents, moderate suburban Republicans and non-"brand" Democrats. These are all people reachable by other Democrats (I think Obama in particular), but emphatically not by Lady Triangula.

At the same time, there are new polls out that Dems in Iowa and NH don't think she's honest and don't generally agree with (what they can discern of) her views, but somehow see her as the most electable Democrat! Call it Example 9,203,881 of why our primary process is so fouled up; these whitebreads essentially pick the nominees, and as they showed in 2004, they aren't very good at it.

Democrats are sucky at nominating Presidential candidates.

Maybe the Republicans will help us out by nominating their answer to Mike Dukakis, Mitt Romney.

It still amazes me that Hillary is running for president. Well, it doesn't amaze me, but it amazes me that people would vote for her.

She seems pretty reasonable to me.

dajafi wrote:Pay attention, Democrats...

In a general election match up, Clinton edges Giuliani, 46% to 43%, a lead that is within the poll's margin of error. However, the more striking finding is that Giuliani leads Clinton among independent voters, 48% to 37%. This statistic feeds the "electability" factor raised by John Edwards int he Democratic primary race.

First Read notes how crucial the independent vote is for Democrats. "In 2004, per the exit polls, John Kerry -- who lost the presidential election -- won the independent vote by just one point (49%-48%). But when they took control of Congress last year, Democrats won the indie vote by 18 points, 57%-39%."

The left's arrogance and snobbery around Sen. Clinton is even more pronounced than usual. It seems like many of them assume that the only people who carry that irrational and unanswerable hate for her are the rabid folks on the far right who wouldn't vote for any Democrat under any circumstances. This couldn't be more wrong; among those who detest her, for whatever reason, are millions of independents, moderate suburban Republicans and non-"brand" Democrats. These are all people reachable by other Democrats (I think Obama in particular), but emphatically not by Lady Triangula.

At the same time, there are new polls out that Dems in Iowa and NH don't think she's honest and don't generally agree with (what they can discern of) her views, but somehow see her as the most electable Democrat! Call it Example 9,203,881 of why our primary process is so fouled up; these whitebreads essentially pick the nominees, and as they showed in 2004, they aren't very good at it.

Personally, I don't think a Democrat will win the White House, even considering this administration's low popularity, scandals, possible illegalities and an unpopular war. I suspect Giuliani will probably be our next prez unless some surprise Dem emerges, but I really don't see any of the current crop of Democratic nominees fitting this bill.

While most everyone here (and probably most in our respective monkey spheres) is open minded and puts importance on real issues and will likely vote for who they truly believe is the best for the job, I honestly believe there is no way this country elects a woman of Hillary's "repuatation" (for lack of a better word... even if that reputation is unfounded and/or mostly manufactured by enemies) or an African-American with a "foreign-ish" name. Heck, I sadly suspect this country wouldn't elect a woman or African-American to the presidency, period... regardless of how we think our fellow citizens are beyond such foolishness. Sad thing is, this prez election may actually give us a portrait of what America is at this point in our history, and it may not be a flattering portrait.

Phan In Phlorida wrote:Sad thing is, this prez election may actually give us a portrait of what America is at this point in our history, and it may not be a flattering portrait.

As opposed to being okay with torture, unprecedented debt, tragically mishandled wars of choice, the near-total politicization of the executive branch and increasing politicization of the judiciary? We aren't really looking so good right now.

dajafi wrote:As opposed to being okay with torture, unprecedented debt, tragically mishandled wars of choice, the near-total politicization of the executive branch and increasing politicization of the judiciary? We aren't really looking so good right now.

Ahhhh, could be worse. You could be on CCTV all the time and locked up without charge for several months. Who needs rendition?

Houshphandzadeh wrote:She seems pretty reasonable to me.

Oh, I know nothing about her politics. Just sort of came out of nowhere. Ran for senator after nothing before that, now all of a sudden, president?

philliesphhan wrote:

Houshphandzadeh wrote:She seems pretty reasonable to me.

Oh, I know nothing about her politics. Just sort of came out of nowhere. Ran for senator after nothing before that, now all of a sudden, president?

Her main competition for the nomination is a guy who has been in the senate for three years, and the three most likely Republican nominees (Rudy, Thompson and Romney) have a grand total of two mayoral terms, one and a half senate terms and one term as governor between them and none currently hold elective office.

jerseyhoya wrote:

philliesphhan wrote:

Houshphandzadeh wrote:She seems pretty reasonable to me.

Oh, I know nothing about her politics. Just sort of came out of nowhere. Ran for senator after nothing before that, now all of a sudden, president?

Her main competition for the nomination is a guy who has been in the senate for three years, and the three most likely Republican nominees (Rudy, Thompson and Romney) have a grand total of two mayoral terms, one and a half senate terms and one term as governor between them and none currently hold elective office.

Meanwhile, the guys who are also-rans in the race--Richarson, Dodd, Biden, to some extent McCain--each have literally decades of service in high office. It's almost like sticking around a long time and actually accumulating experience, acumen and good judgment makes you less appealing to the media moguls who basically set the terms of our mostly theoretical democracy.

dajafi wrote:

Phan In Phlorida wrote:Sad thing is, this prez election may actually give us a portrait of what America is at this point in our history, and it may not be a flattering portrait.

As opposed to being okay with torture, unprecedented debt, tragically mishandled wars of choice, the near-total politicization of the executive branch and increasing politicization of the judiciary? We aren't really looking so good right now.

I know we aren't. I'm just saying that in spite of the current administration's "illustrious" legacy, I have a sour feeling in the pit of my gut that bigotry and ignorance may rear it's ugly head and demonstrate that a sizeable portion of the electorate is not as open minded or "enlightened" as we'd like to believe. I sincerely hope not, but I just have a feeling.

Perhaps I have to stop thinking that our electorate gave us the "guy they can have a beer with", the guy of said "illustrious" legacy... twice.

Phan In Phlorida wrote:Perhaps I have to stop thinking that our electorate gave us the "guy they can have a beer with", the guy of said "illustrious" legacy... twice.

Clinton was a mess, wasn't he

VoxOrion wrote:

Phan In Phlorida wrote:Perhaps I have to stop thinking that our electorate gave us the "guy they can have a beer with", the guy of said "illustrious" legacy... twice.

Clinton was a mess, wasn't he

See, and here I thought you were just dropping in to cheer me on for using the phrase "the left's arrogance and snobbery"...

dajafi wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:

Phan In Phlorida wrote:Perhaps I have to stop thinking that our electorate gave us the "guy they can have a beer with", the guy of said "illustrious" legacy... twice.

Clinton was a mess, wasn't he

See, and here I thought you were just dropping in to cheer me on for using the phrase "the left's arrogance and snobbery"...

Oh come on, the fruit was hanging so low it was practically touching the ground!

I'm in favor of all of your liberal bashing of late. I resent the spin that voting Republican is a vote for racism, bigotry, and torture - but hey, you got to resort to what you got to resort to

Not liberal bashing, big fella: Democrat bashing. As a conservative disgusted with the big-spending, big-government, tradition-deploring, competence-averse Republicans, I know you get the distinction.

That said, it would be nice if more Republicans acknowledged that torture is, y'know, both evil and counterproductive.

Even if it makes little sadists like Giuliani gooey.

dajafi wrote:Not liberal bashing, big fella: Democrat bashing. As a conservative disgusted with the big-spending, big-government, tradition-deploring, competence-averse Republicans, I know you get the distinction.

That said, it would be nice if more Republicans acknowledged that torture is, y'know, both evil and counterproductive.

Even if it makes little sadists like Giuliani gooey.

The torture thing is crazy, even if the criticism is a bit rich coming from the infanticide party.

VoxOrion wrote:

Phan In Phlorida wrote:Perhaps I have to stop thinking that our electorate gave us the "guy they can have a beer with", the guy of said "illustrious" legacy... twice.

Clinton was a mess, wasn't he

I said beer, not orgy (rimshot)