At least two out of three of those paragraphs were retarded.

can u b m0re specific and actually pr0vide substance? thks luv u.

No, man. What am I supposed to say? "Like you know what she cries about in her spare time?" "Do you actually know anything about Bosnia?" Stuff that dumb doesn't deserve a breakdown.

The Democrats are going to control both houses of Congress for at least the first half of whoever gets elected's first term.

jerseyhoya wrote:The Democrats are going to control both houses of Congress for at least the first half of whoever gets elected's first term.

You don't think the Republicans would wipe out the freshman Dem representatives in places like Indiana and Kansas if Hillary were the nominee? It might not be enough to swing the House, given all the Republican retirements, but I have to believe that people like Heath Shuler and Nancy Boyda and Brad Ellsworth are more or less fouling themselves in fear at the concept of running with (or rather, away from) Clinton...

Houshphandzadeh wrote:No, man. What am I supposed to say? "Like you know what she cries about in her spare time?" "Do you actually know anything about Bosnia?" Stuff that dumb doesn't deserve a breakdown.

I was actually referring to when he bombed Iraq. You know, that other time we attacked Iraq for no reason.

and we do know she cried about losing the primaries don't we?

Whatever. I shouldn't have said anything. I'd have better luck fighting TomatoPie's condemnation of rap music.

That was designed to weaken Saddam's ability to get a nuclear weapon without using any troops.

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:The Democrats are going to control both houses of Congress for at least the first half of whoever gets elected's first term.

You don't think the Republicans would wipe out the freshman Dem representatives in places like Indiana and Kansas if Hillary were the nominee? It might not be enough to swing the House, given all the Republican retirements, but I have to believe that people like Heath Shuler and Nancy Boyda and Brad Ellsworth are more or less fouling themselves in fear at the concept of running with (or rather, away from) Clinton...

I think you all are overrating Obama's chances of winning vs. Clinton's on these early polls. People always talk about how unelectable Hillary is because of her high negatives. I dunno.

I think she has a low ceiling but a high floor. Obama might have a better chance of breaking 350 on the EV totals, but I think he has a better chance of being kept below 200.

I can't emphasize enough that he has never had to run a real race against someone from attacking him from his right in his entire life. Stuff is coming up now on abortion and guns that are going to make for very nice contrast issues this fall.

In any case, we're in such a bad place with this congressional cycle between retirements, the Senate seats that are up and fundraising that I don't think it's going to make much of a difference who you guys nominate. Actually let me qualify that, it might make a difference, but I don't think we can say with any degree of certainty which way would work out better at this point.

Houshphandzadeh wrote:Whatever. I shouldn't have said anything. I'd have better luck fighting TomatoPie's condemnation of rap music.

You like rap music? HA!

HA!

We need to have Houshphan thread where you fill us in on the details of your life. I for one find you hilarious.

Mp, have you considered that when you accuse a president of mass murder the onus of "substance" is on you?

Houshphandzadeh wrote:Mp, have you considered that when you accuse a president of mass murder the honus of "substance" is on you?

what?

philliesphhan wrote:

pacino wrote:

philliesphhan wrote:

Disco Stu wrote:

philliesphhan wrote:You're the one who makes random accusations like saying someone is "sexist" if they don't think Hillary would make a good leader.
And you said 99% of the Obama camp will vote for Hillary. That sounds more like people vote along party lines rather than policy.

I do think that it is general sexism when someone says that they don't think Clinton would perform well under pressure.

Thinking someone would make a $#@! president isn't sexism.

Stu was talking about the, mostly male, people that won't vote for a woman simply because they feel she wouldn't be a 'strong leader' due to her having a vagina and no balls.

True, but a lot of those people also fall under the "they're not white enough to be president" philosophy in regards to Obama

Not true. I was discussing this with a coworker who is black (well, he is originally from Africa, so, maybe just part black).

Imagine 2 lines being said by a TV pundit:

Obama might not be a good president because he may be too lazy.

Hillary might not be a good president because she may be too emotional.

Line #1 would receive mass hysteria attention while line #2 is considered a plausible situation. Are they really any different in context? That is the idology where the concept "not a strong leader" comes from. It is a common theme that for women to excel they have to be cunt bitches. Woody called his soon to be ex-boss a twat. Just because you don't think it exists doesn't mean it doesn't. /donmoney

jerseyhoya wrote:
I can't emphasize enough that he has never had to run a real race against someone from attacking him from his right in his entire life. Stuff is coming up now on abortion and guns that are going to make for very nice contrast issues this fall.

Has McCain or Clinton really either?

Disco Stu wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I can't emphasize enough that he has never had to run a real race against someone from attacking him from his right in his entire life. Stuff is coming up now on abortion and guns that are going to make for very nice contrast issues this fall.

Has McCain or Clinton really either?

Clinton beat Rick Lazio in a heavily contested Senate race in 2000. McCain got elected to the House twice and the Senate four times. I don't think they've been competitive recently, but at some point I imagine he's had to beat a Democrat who at least tried.

Obama was elected in a State Senate district in Chicago, and then beat Alan Keyes, who was extremely uncompetitive, in his general election campaign to the senate.

My point is basically he's never had to run in a race where being in favor of partial birth abortion was a bad thing, or being in favor of gun control was a net negative with voters. Before we go anointing him the savior of Red State Democrats or the definite better bet for Democrats, maybe worth seeing how he does responding to attacks from the right.

Clinton and Obama are unlikely to have the same policies. The National Journal had Obama as the most liberal senator in 2007 and 10th in 2006. Clinton was 16th and 32nd. In 1986 they broke down the scores economically, socially, and foreign policy. Clinton and Obama had similar social scores. On economics and foreign policy, however, Clinton was roughly halfway between Obama and McCain.

If someone were voting issues and their politics were similar to Obama, then Clinton would be a far better alternative than McCain. Many Obama voters aren't voting issues. They are voting for him because he inspires them. He comes across as genuine and authentic. To many McCain may have more of these qualities than Clinton. Obama is drawing a lot of independents as a result of this. McCain draws independents due to his perceived maverick stance and his integrity. I've heard a number of times in exit polls or other segments where independents are deciding between Obama and McCain.

Clinton also carries negatives with some people. They might see the Clintons as unethical, have Clinton fatigue, or not want to see another Clinton after Bush-Clinton-Bush. Some Obama voters probably usually don't vote and might stay home if he doesn't get the nomination.

John McCain was never in a competitive race for the House or Senate. The closest race he won 60% to 40%. Every time he's run for senate the margin has gotten wider. Clinton won in 2000 55 to 43.

McCain supporters didn't flock to Bush in 2000. After the way the Bush campaign treated the senator I'd guess that many, like myself, would never vote for Bush.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Disco Stu wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I can't emphasize enough that he has never had to run a real race against someone from attacking him from his right in his entire life. Stuff is coming up now on abortion and guns that are going to make for very nice contrast issues this fall.

Has McCain or Clinton really either?

Clinton beat Rick Lazio in a heavily contested Senate race in 2000. McCain got elected to the House twice and the Senate four times. I don't think they've been competitive recently, but at some point I imagine he's had to beat a Democrat who at least tried.

Obama was elected in a State Senate district in Chicago, and then beat Alan Keyes, who was extremely uncompetitive, in his general election campaign to the senate.

My point is basically he's never had to run in a race where being in favor of partial birth abortion was a bad thing, or being in favor of gun control was a net negative with voters. Before we go anointing him the savior of Red State Democrats or the definite better bet for Democrats, maybe worth seeing how he does responding to attacks from the right.

Well, the right has started attacking Obama a bit lately, although much of it seems to be about the cult of personality aspect... the "movement", the "phenomena". They haven't really brought out the big guns yet... picking on his left leaning positions, painting him as too liberal, etc. I would assume they're saving the big guns because he isn't the nominee yet. Could get interesting though.

jeff2sf wrote:I don't think we would be at war with Iraq. Even if we were, there was no way to tell that based on the campaign Bush ran in 2000.

Reportedly, his ghostwriter for a biography who was on GWB's first campaign trail says GWB talked about his Iraq "ambitions" even before he was elected.

* EDIT * Found this by Googling the internets...

Two years before 9/11, candidate Bush was already talking privately about attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer

Two years before the September 11 attacks, presidential candidate George W. Bush was already talking privately about the political benefits of attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer, who held many conversations with then-Texas Governor Bush in preparation for a planned autobiography.

"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said to me: 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.'

According to Herskowitz, George W. Bush's beliefs on Iraq were based in part on a notion dating back to the Reagan White House – ascribed in part to now-vice president Dick Cheney, Chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee under Reagan. "Start a small war. Pick a country where there is justification you can jump on, go ahead and invade."

Bush's circle of pre-election advisers had a fixation on the political capital that British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher collected from the Falklands War. Said Herskowitz: "They were just absolutely blown away, just enthralled by the scenes of the troops coming back, of the boats, people throwing flowers at (Thatcher) and her getting these standing ovations in Parliament and making these magnificent speeches."

Republicans, Herskowitz said, felt that Jimmy Carter's political downfall could be attributed largely to his failure to wage a war. He noted that President Reagan and President Bush's father himself had (besides the narrowly-focused Gulf War I) successfully waged limited wars against tiny opponents – Grenada and Panama – and gained politically.

The Red Tornado wrote:

Disco Stu wrote:

The Red Tornado wrote:

Disco Stu wrote: 99% of the Obama camp will vote for her.

I disagree, I think a substantial chunk doesnt even vote

Are you implying that black people either vote for a black dude or not at all?

not at all

I think Obama has inspired a certain segment (including alot of young people) and I'm willing to bet that some of them won't vote if he isnt on the ballot.

Yeah. 99% seems a bit high. I suspect a lot of those inspired by the "movement" won't vote in the general election if Obama isn't the Dem nominee.

Although, HRC may likely pick up a chunk of voters who wouldn't have voted for Obama in the general... those that think he's "too liberal", those that think the "movement" is more flash than substance, etc. Would that be enough to compensate? Who knows.

So, does the GOP or Dem race end up being closer in Wisconsin tonight?

I'll vote Obama wins by 5%, and McCain wins by 7%. I would, however, prefer Hillary winning tonight to McCain winning.