: > Did anyone catch Obama on Meet The Press Sunday? : > http://tinyurl.com/goggd : > : > He's also going to be on the Franken Show this Wednesday. : : If it's not gonna be on Oprah or The View, then fuck it. <jk> -- - -- You close-minded compassionate conservative!###
theothr1 wrote: > "Carlisle" wrote ... > : > : theothr1 wrote: > : > Did anyone catch Obama on Meet The Press Sunday? > : > http://tinyurl.com/goggd > : > > : > He's also going to be on the Franken Show this Wednesday. > : > : If it's not gonna be on Oprah or The View, then fuck it. <jk> > -- - -- > You close-minded compassionate conservative!###
> Did anyone catch Obama on Meet The Press Sunday?
Yes. He was impressive, but clearly less sure of himself now that he's deciding whether or not to run.
He just hasn't been publicly flayed and skewered enough at this point in his political career to run for president. Its been all adulation. If he does go for it this time the Clinton machine will destroy him.
He should wait for another cycle or, if asked, run as Hillary's veep. They'll lose to any Republican, but he can score points within his party and spend the next 4 years raising money for Dem candidates, earning more points. Then he can run against a Republican incumbent and have someone to take shots at.
>>Did anyone catch Obama on Meet The Press Sunday?
> Yes. He was impressive, but clearly less sure of himself now that he's > deciding whether or not to run.
> He just hasn't been publicly flayed and skewered enough at this point in his > political career to run for president. Its been all adulation. If he does > go for it this time the Clinton machine will destroy him.
> He should wait for another cycle or, if asked, run as Hillary's veep. > They'll lose to any Republican, but he can score points within his party and > spend the next 4 years raising money for Dem candidates, earning more > points. Then he can run against a Republican incumbent and have someone to > take shots at.
Indeed. Obama is a first rate politician. But he's hasn't played with the big boys just yet. I sense he has a lot of establishment money behind him though. He could raise some serious funds, though like you said, he can't keep up with the Clinton machine.
One thing I disagree with you about though is that I think McCain can win the Republican nomination.
>> Did anyone catch Obama on Meet The Press Sunday?
>Yes. He was impressive, but clearly less sure of himself now that he's >deciding whether or not to run.
>He just hasn't been publicly flayed and skewered enough at this point in his >political career to run for president. Its been all adulation. If he does >go for it this time the Clinton machine will destroy him.
>He should wait for another cycle or, if asked, run as Hillary's veep. >They'll lose to any Republican, but he can score points within his party and >spend the next 4 years raising money for Dem candidates, earning more >points. Then he can run against a Republican incumbent and have someone to >take shots at.
>OR
Not too long ago I'd have agreed, but if things get any worse during the balance of Bush's term, I'd have a hard time seeing any Republican getting elected to the presidency. Hillary v. Any Republican could result in the lowest voter turnout in history unless the anti-Hillary's turn out in droves.
>>> Did anyone catch Obama on Meet The Press Sunday?
>>Yes. He was impressive, but clearly less sure of himself now that he's >>deciding whether or not to run.
>>He just hasn't been publicly flayed and skewered enough at this point in >>his >>political career to run for president. Its been all adulation. If he >>does >>go for it this time the Clinton machine will destroy him.
>>He should wait for another cycle or, if asked, run as Hillary's veep. >>They'll lose to any Republican, but he can score points within his party >>and >>spend the next 4 years raising money for Dem candidates, earning more >>points. Then he can run against a Republican incumbent and have someone >>to >>take shots at.
>>OR
> Not too long ago I'd have agreed, but if things get any worse during > the balance of Bush's term, I'd have a hard time seeing any Republican > getting elected to the presidency. Hillary v. Any Republican could > result in the lowest voter turnout in history unless the > anti-Hillary's turn out in droves.
Hillary is too personally cold and unpleasant to appeal to anyone who isn't already one of her fans. Bubba she ain't.
>>>Did anyone catch Obama on Meet The Press Sunday?
>> Yes. He was impressive, but clearly less sure of himself now that he's >> deciding whether or not to run.
>> He just hasn't been publicly flayed and skewered enough at this point in >> his political career to run for president. Its been all adulation. If >> he does go for it this time the Clinton machine will destroy him.
>> He should wait for another cycle or, if asked, run as Hillary's veep. >> They'll lose to any Republican, but he can score points within his party >> and spend the next 4 years raising money for Dem candidates, earning more >> points. Then he can run against a Republican incumbent and have someone >> to take shots at.
> Indeed. Obama is a first rate politician. But he's hasn't played with > the big boys just yet. I sense he has a lot of establishment money behind > him though. He could raise some serious funds, though like you said, he > can't keep up with the Clinton machine.
> One thing I disagree with you about though is that I think McCain can win > the Republican nomination.
> > One thing I disagree with you about though is that I think McCain can win > > the Republican nomination. > Toad concurred:
> Yeah, you're probably right.
No, you're both wrong. McCain will NEVER be nominated for president by the GOP. If he ever appears on a presidential ballot in November, it will be as an independent.
> He'll beat Hillary if he gets it.
While it would be foolish to underestimate the power of the Clintons, I don't think Hillary will ever get the Democratic nomination either. I way less cdrtain about this than I am about McCain, though. Rove hates McCain and can easily destroy him any time he wants.
>>>One thing I disagree with you about though is that I think McCain can win >>>the Republican nomination.
>>Toad concurred:
>>Yeah, you're probably right.
> No, you're both wrong. McCain will NEVER be nominated for president by > the GOP. If he ever appears on a presidential ballot in November, it > will be as an independent.
You do know that he has some pretty powerful Christian right leaders behind him, don't you? Seriously Neil, McCain has been working it. Right now, there's no one in the Republican Party that can compete.
>>He'll beat Hillary if he gets it.
> While it would be foolish to underestimate the power of the Clintons, I > don't think Hillary will ever get the Democratic nomination either. I > way less cdrtain about this than I am about McCain, though. Rove hates > McCain and can easily destroy him any time he wants.
Supposedly, McCain has Bush staffers working on his future campaign.
> While it would be foolish to underestimate the power of the Clintons, I > don't think Hillary will ever get the Democratic nomination either. I > way less cdrtain about this than I am about McCain, though. Rove hates > McCain and can easily destroy him any time he wants.
> Peace, > Neil X.
I doubt seriously if Rove will just sort of retire on the ranch in 2008 ... anyone have any thoughts about who he will sell his services to?
> I can't think of too many people who could turn out the GOP vote better > than Hillary.
This is true.
Substitute the word "Democrat" for "GOP," and substitute the word "Dubya" for "Hillary" in the sentence above, and you also have a true statement. That didn't keep Dubya from being elected. Twice.
Just because a politician is absolutely loathed by the most rabid partisans of the other party, that doesn't mean said individual is unelectable.
But almost any likely Democratic nominee other than Hillary is far more electable than she is. And that even includes John "I Voted For It Before I Voted Against It" Kerry. If the Democrats are going to nominate a divisive and controversial candidate, they at least should nominate someone who well reflects core Democratic values. A pro-Iraq war candidate like Hillary doesn't qualify.
> I can't think of too many people who could turn out the GOP vote better > than Hillary.
This is true.
Substitute the word "Democrat" for "GOP," and substitute the word "Dubya" for "Hillary" in the sentence above, and you also have a true statement. That didn't keep Dubya from being elected. Twice.
Just because a politician is absolutely loathed by the most rabid partisans of the other party, that doesn't mean said individual is unelectable.
But almost any likely Democratic nominee other than Hillary is far more electable than she is. And that even includes John "I Voted For It Before I Voted Against It" Kerry. If the Democrats are going to nominate a divisive and controversial candidate, they at least should nominate someone who well reflects core Democratic values. A pro-Iraq war candidate like Hillary doesn't qualify.
>>I can't think of too many people who could turn out the GOP vote better >>than Hillary.
> This is true.
> Substitute the word "Democrat" for "GOP," and substitute the word > "Dubya" for "Hillary" in the sentence above, and you also have a true > statement. That didn't keep Dubya from being elected. Twice.
> Just because a politician is absolutely loathed by the most rabid > partisans of the other party, that doesn't mean said individual is > unelectable.
> But almost any likely Democratic nominee other than Hillary is far more > electable than she is. And that even includes John "I Voted For It > Before I Voted Against It" Kerry. If the Democrats are going to > nominate a divisive and controversial candidate, they at least should > nominate someone who well reflects core Democratic values. A pro-Iraq > war candidate like Hillary doesn't qualify.
I don't think most Democratic voters consider her a pro-Iraq war candidate though Neil. I know she's been playing two sides of the fence on this issue, but most liberals think they understand where she's coming from. It's really going to be near impossible for her NOT to get the Democratic nomination. Not only is she highly popular amongst Democratic voters, she's got a war chest the size of Kim Jong's head.
The last page (p5) refers to two Bush operatives being hired. Apparently Rove has been consulted and as you probably know, McCain has been actively reaching out to the Christian right. I think he's a pretty serious candidate and the clear favorite for the Republican nomination right now. Now if Rudy runs, who knows...but he better get to work. McCain is all over K-Street right now.
Richard Morris <jrmor...@trouserscomcast.net> wrote: > I doubt seriously if Rove will just sort of retire on the ranch in 2008 ... > anyone have any thoughts about who he will sell his services to?
> I don't think most Democratic voters consider her a pro-Iraq war > candidate though Neil. I know she's been playing two sides of the fence > on this issue, but most liberals think they understand where she's > coming from.
There's not a liberal I've talked to that doesn't thing she's a Panda Bear on this issue. Frontrunners that are considered inevitable nominees two years before the election often fade badly. She's going to be one of those. Her money won't matter. She's simply too vulnerable on the left flank.
>>>I can't think of too many people who could turn out the GOP vote better >>>than Hillary.
>> This is true.
>> Substitute the word "Democrat" for "GOP," and substitute the word >> "Dubya" for "Hillary" in the sentence above, and you also have a true >> statement. That didn't keep Dubya from being elected. Twice.
>> Just because a politician is absolutely loathed by the most rabid >> partisans of the other party, that doesn't mean said individual is >> unelectable.
>> But almost any likely Democratic nominee other than Hillary is far more >> electable than she is. And that even includes John "I Voted For It >> Before I Voted Against It" Kerry. If the Democrats are going to >> nominate a divisive and controversial candidate, they at least should >> nominate someone who well reflects core Democratic values. A pro-Iraq >> war candidate like Hillary doesn't qualify.
>I don't think most Democratic voters consider her a pro-Iraq war >candidate though Neil. I know she's been playing two sides of the fence >on this issue, but most liberals think they understand where she's >coming from. It's really going to be near impossible for her NOT to get >the Democratic nomination. Not only is she highly popular amongst >Democratic voters, she's got a war chest the size of Kim Jong's head.
>-JC
If there had never been a previous Clinton administration and no Bush administrations, Hillary might be an acceptable candidate; not ideal, but acceptable. But with all that's gone on the last 20 years, we just don't need a president with all the baggage she brings and who, whether she wants to or not, will further divide the country. It's time for the healing to begin. Unfortunately, it just doesn't look like there's a doctor in the house.
|
