Originally Posted By woody >Honestly, I sense that the "right" feels like Obama is the easier candidate to beat.< This is not the conventional wisdom of the right. Hillary was always perceived to be easier to beat. As a person on the right, I disagree with the assessment. If I want to beat Hillary, I'd rather Obama do it than Republican nominee. Obama is simply more tolerable. Even if I disagree with his policies, a better presentation goes a long way. In addition, I won't have to deal with the constant scandals of a Clinton II Administration. Whether it is Obama or Clinton as the nominee, the McCain will have much difficulty in the election. That's why I think beating the Democrats this year will be tough, so I'd rather it be Obama than Clinton.
Originally Posted By dshyates "I sense that the "right" feels like Obama is the easier candidate to beat." Thats what Hillary thought. Barak will be much tougher for the GOP to beat. the vitriolic hatred the right feels for the Clintons would fire up the GOP base. They will go out and vote just to beat her down. Many Reps are running away from the party, but would never vote for Hillary, but they don't seem to have a problem with at least listening to Obama. And many of the GOP base will stay home because they hate McCain.
Originally Posted By Kimber "I guess kimber didn't want to take my Pop Quiz. I wonder what that means..." It means that I hadn't gotten home from work and had my dinner, blogged with the grown-ups at politico and checked my postings here in the playpen. I haven't read it since it was publihed, what two years ago? - but, IIRC it was some dramatic detritus about his family. Kim
Originally Posted By Kimber "Wow. Cynical, simplistic (in the guise of being non-simplistic), arrogant, AND pretentious. The quad-fecta." Thanks, but I prefer credible, pragmatic, rational and realistic. An adult quad-fecta. Kim
Originally Posted By Kimber >>He will be crushed. He will be exposed. He will be destroyed<< LOL! We've been hearing this prediction for quite some time now, and it just doesn't seem to be happening." wait... wait... wait for it... the Republicans are spinning it as we type. That's the problem with the great unknown, it's so easy to expose. Kim
Originally Posted By Kimber "Honestly, I sense that the "right" feels like Obama is the easier candidate to beat. That's why they have been sending out newsletters instructing conservative GOP members to register and Democrats and vote for him in primary elections. One area where Clinton would have been a formidable opponent to the GOP is in the support of big business and corporate donors. These donors typically support Republicans, but the Clintons also get strong support from them. The Republicans know that Obama has essentially zero support from big business, so they don't have to campaign too hard to get that part of the vote. They also know that Latinos don't like Obama too well, so they can siphon off that part of the vote. All in all, I think Obama sets the Republicans up pretty well to hold on to some of their stronghold constituents moreso than other candidates. In the end, I don't think any Republican can win this year, so it's probably a moot point." Hang on SportGoofy I'm about to agree with everyting but the last point. McCain isn't "any Republican" he's going to be "The Republican" and all the hatred they can channel will be aimed directly at Obama - he'll fall - easily, cheaply and completely - McCain will win - maybe not easily, but, he will win. Kim
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "It means that I hadn't gotten home from work and had my dinner, blogged with the grown-ups at politico and checked my postings here in the playpen." Then why bother posting here?
Originally Posted By Kimber "Barak will be much tougher for the GOP to beat. the vitriolic hatred the right feels for the Clintons would fire up the GOP base. They will go out and vote just to beat her down. Many Reps are running away from the party, but would never vote for Hillary, but they don't seem to have a problem with at least listening to Obama. And many of the GOP base will stay home because they hate McCain." The GOP wants nothing more than to keep the White House, they don't much care which one of them is sleeping there. Obama will be a clay pigeon and all it will take is one well aimed shot at his record - what there is of it. He's more liberal than Ted Kennedy and they hate the Kennedy clan almost as much as they hate the Clintons. They'll play recordings of Obama's pastor praising Farrahkan and denouncing the "white establishment". Rove will have a ball and McCain can apoligize. Hillary has pulled her punches and McCain won't. Kim
Originally Posted By Kimber "It means that I hadn't gotten home from work and had my dinner, blogged with the grown-ups at politico and checked my postings here in the playpen." "Then why bother posting here?" Because it's fun. The same reason you post here. Kim
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< re post 168. My apologies Superdry. I was not trying to put down Pres. Clinton, but just noting that some elections have not had a winner by majority. You are right about Pres Bush. Guess I was thinking of his last win. >>> I don't think you owe me an apology, but I appreciate your response. If someone had read your message standing alone, they might have concluded that President Clinton was somewhat unique in winning the Presidency without getting a majority of the vote, and I just wanted to point out that it's not unheard of in the US system for electing Presidents, including the current President. That doesn't necessarily make the system "broken." <<< But my point is not about the individuals elected, just that a rather small percentage of the electorate decides who will win. >>> That is very much a valid point. I think anyone interested in Presidential politics should keep this in mind. In my opinion, we as a nation are often disadvantaged from the strong two-party system that we have. But given that this is the way it is, it really does come down to a relatively small number of swing voters that decide national elections.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<Thanks, but I prefer credible, pragmatic, rational and realistic.>> Ummmmm, Kim... would you settle for poseur and plaigarist? Yeah, we know. You're the single "adult" on this board. You only meddle in LP.com when you're not busy sharing deep original analysis on more sophisticated political websites. Sure. You're busted. I googled your Post #64 of this thread. It's lifted word-for-word from various readers' posts that were left on "PerezHilton.com." That site's tagline is: Celebrity Juice, Not From Concentrate. The site is listed under "celebrity gossip." Its front page currently features a predominant link to photos of Jessica Simpson's breasts. Sorry, Kim. Turns out you're actually a reactionary, prejudiced, dishonest, anti-intellectual fake. But as I said before on this thread... Thanks for playing. It was kind of fun. I wouldn't expect you'll be seeing many parting gifts, though.
Originally Posted By Kimber "Wed 2/27/2008 9:52p <<Thanks, but I prefer credible, pragmatic, rational and realistic.>> Ummmmm, Kim... would you settle for poseur and plaigarist? Yeah, we know. You're the single "adult" on this board. You only meddle in LP.com when you're not busy sharing deep original analysis on more sophisticated political websites. Sure. You're busted. I googled your Post #64 of this thread. It's lifted word-for-word from various readers' posts that were left on "PerezHilton.com." That site's tagline is: Celebrity Juice, Not From Concentrate. The site is listed under "celebrity gossip." Its front page currently features a predominant link to photos of Jessica Simpson's breasts. Sorry, Kim. Turns out you're actually a reactionary, prejudiced, dishonest, anti-intellectual fake. But as I said before on this thread... Thanks for playing. It was kind of fun. I wouldn't expect you'll be seeing many parting gifts, though." That's crap - post the links Kim
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<That's crap - post the links>> <a href="http://perezhilton.com/?p=14243&cp=14" target="_blank">http://perezhilton.com/?p=1424 3&cp=14</a>
Originally Posted By Kimber <<That's crap - post the links>> <a href="http://perezhilton.com/?p=1424" target="_blank">http://perezhilton.com/?p=1424</a> 3&cp=14" I want post numbers - "word for word" Kim
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 I was especially awed by the discussion on that thread as to whether Obama is a "top" or "bottom." I found the references to his wife as a "fag hag" to be particularly intellectually stimulating. You serious political analysts take it to a level that we on LP don't seem to get to.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Because it's fun. The same reason you post here." He or she posts here because it's fun, then in the same breath denigrates it here by saying he or she is the only "adult". But hey, we've had plagiarists here before. They didn't last long, either.
Originally Posted By Kimber "Because it's fun. The same reason you post here." "He or she posts here because it's fun, then in the same breath denigrates it here by saying he or she is the only "adult". But hey, we've had plagiarists here before. They didn't last long, either." Show me where I said that I was the "only" adult posting here - And we're still waiting on the "word for word" analysis of my post #64. And, as a point of fact it's "she" just how disingenuous can you be? Kim
