Originally Posted By jonvn I've read things you have said for a while, Woody. You have said some harsh things in the past about women in general.
Originally Posted By HyperTyper >>> It's also revisionist history to claim that Dole was the first woman to run. Didn't claim that. Just said she did it before Hillary.
Originally Posted By woody Hillary is polling even with Obama in New Hampshire. Wow. She was ahead in double digits before.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Woody - being a card-carrying republican, who would you rather see as the democratic nominee? Hillary or Obama?
Originally Posted By woody I'd rather see Obama despite the fact that I think Obama is more electable in the general election. I don't want Hillary to be the nominee period.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <I don't want Hillary to be the nominee period.> Because she's a woman?
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <Because she might win?> And if she were to win... How would that impact you specifically?
Originally Posted By woody >>How would that impact you specifically?<< As much as I respect President Bush, his speech making ability is really bad. I would hate to have a President Shrillary who can't give a speech. I can't listen to her. Besides, she is right now in dirty tricks mode. Look at what she is doing with Obama. Fortunately, it isn't working on the Obama drug use, and Obama kindergarten essay.
Originally Posted By woody Goodbye Shrillary? <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22217110" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22 217110</a> Sen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign is teetering on the brink, no matter what the meaningless national horserace numbers say. The notion that she has a post-Iowa “firewall†in New Hampshire is a fantasy, and she is in danger of losing all four early contests, including Nevada and South Carolina – probably to Sen. Barack Obama, who is now, in momentum terms, the Democratic frontrunner.
Originally Posted By jonvn She never had a chance to win in the first place. Neither does Obama. If he is nominated, whoever the Republicans nominate will win. Romney is already out of the running. He didn't have a chance either. It was very odd there for a while with a Mormon and a woman being front runners, but I'm certainly gratified that Americans have proven once again just who they are, and the woman and the heretic are starting to fall by the wayside.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder What kills me is the glee Republicans are taking as a result of Clinton losing ground. But oh no, they're not obsessed.
Originally Posted By woody >>But oh no, they're not obsessed.<< I don't get it. Care to explain? I haven't made any decisions on the Republican nominations; however, I do have my concerns about Hillary. If the election is held between Obama and Huckabee, Obama will win. Only Romney and Guiliani have a chance to win, but I'm not sure who ultimately will win the nomination.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << If the election is held between Obama and Huckabee, Obama will win. >> Obama has no chance of winning against anyone. If George Bush were able to run again, he would beat Obama. Hillary Clinton is going to get the Democratic nomination. The Obama "surge" is nothing more than pundits trying to make a "horse race" out of an election that is pretty much already determined. If the talking heads on TV don't have a close race to talk about, they lose viewers. That's all that matters in political commentary these days. I just hope Hillary Clinton doesn't get influenced by the Obama fervor enough to choose him for a running mate. I think she will have a hard enough time winning the general election, but with Obama as a running mate it will be down right impossible.
Originally Posted By jonvn Wait a second....from the article: "Sen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign is teetering on the brink, no matter what the meaningless national horserace numbers say." And where are they getting this from then? If they aren't getting it from the "national horserace numbers?" Pulling it out their rear end, that's where. These "horserace numbers" are the polls. If these are meaningless, then I'd be kind of interested in why the media, in this case MSNBC keeps posting them. Are they in the business of babbling about things they themselves declare to be meaningless? Crock. That's what it is.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Are they in the business of babbling about things they themselves declare to be meaningless? >> They are in the business of creating horseraces. Close races get more attention, so the headlines and commentary will do everything possible to create that sort of story.
Originally Posted By gadzuux I still think clinton will get the nomination - when you look at those same polls on a nationwide basis, she's still over twenty points up. The republican nomination is another story. As I posited some months ago, they could go all the way to the convention without a clearcut nominee. Everybody's got baggage. Guiliani is favored in large states like NY, FL, and CA - but he's got the drip-drip-drip of a dozen scandals, and can't swing the support of the christian block, who also think romney's the anti-christ. What giuliani has in his favor is the tendency among GOP voters to not care that their politicians are corrupt. Huckabee may have the christian vote, but practically nobody else - which is as it should be seeing as he has no qualifications for office. McCain is probably the wisest choice, but he's already been abandoned by his own party. He's also on the wrong side of iraq and immigration. I actually hope for a brokered convention. It could be exciting - even for democrats - it'll make for good TV.
