Originally Posted By DAR I think Obama is simply more likeable than Hillary. Obama comes across as more geniune(well as geniune as a Politician can be) than Hillary. Now Hillary does have a big card in her pocket, that would be Bill. And I must admit the thought of old Billy boy tooling around the White House but in a nonpower capacity does hold a sort of perverse fascination.
Originally Posted By jonvn "They are in the business of creating horseraces" Yeah, but they just said it was meaningless, then went on to blather about whatever, based on what? The horserace is meaningless, so how can they say what they had to say and suggest it had any sort of validity? It doesn't work out.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy You know that there isn't a high intelligence threshold required to get into the news reporting business, right?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan The coverage of this is so wall-to-wall and has been going on for well over a year already (with almost a year to go until the election), they have to invent drama with the tiniest crumb of controversy, the faintest whiff of potential scandal. The latest thing is having all these people on to disect the candidates body language during the debates to look for some hidden traces of tension, animosity, discomfort. While I like the general idea of "You Tube" debates where real people ask real questions, too much of that went to the more outlandish, wacky stuff. Another opportunity squandered.
Originally Posted By woody >>The latest thing is having all these people on to disect the candidates body language during the debates to look for some hidden traces of tension, animosity, discomfort.<< The debates are the worst. They don't ask real questions that people want to have answered. The Republican debates showed the liberal bias. There wasn't any real Republican or conservative questions. They were stacked with liberal or Democratic plants. The Democratic debates were full of easy questions. I wish they would have a true debate with follow-up questions. Of the good questioners, I reserve my respect for Tim Russert of NBC and Chris Wallace of Fox. They should tag-team for a real debate.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 What people are forgetting here is the notion of a self-fulfilling prophecy. True, the media may be presenting news which makes it look more like a horse race, but in doing so, they may well induce many viewers to jump on the Obama "bandwagon" thereby actually helping to create a horserace. There are still those people who like to root for underdogs - whoever they are - and those who like to get in on a gold rush sort of movement.
Originally Posted By gadzuux That same 'horserace' effect tends to marginalize the second tier candidates, thus dooming their chances. In most cases it's deserved, but I really feel that biden got shunted to the side unfairly this year, in favor of perennial runner-up john edwards.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 I'd take Biden over Edwards any day. How anyone listens to and believes a multimillionaire trial attorney talk about there being too much greed in our society is beyond me.
Originally Posted By woody Hillary is turning into "Howard Dean" of the 2004 nominations. The Hillary laugh is the new Howard Dean scream. In this opinion, it has no new information, but the analysis is about right. <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0" target="_blank">http://www.foxnews.com/story/0</a>,2933,316905,00.html Why are the Wheels Coming Off the Clinton Bandwagon? By Dick Morris and Eileen McGann Obviously, New Hampshire and Iowa are markedly different states with little in common demographically. But, what they do have in common is prolonged exposure to the candidates and to their paid media advertising. These two states have been through what we will all go through before Election Day. They have seen Hillary and Obama campaign day after day. They have watched the candidates — with the advertisements on television, heard them on radio and have focused on the more intensive news coverage they are receiving in the local media. The conclusion is inescapable: the more voters come to know Hillary Clinton the less they like her and the more they get to know Barack Obama the more they like him. In the abstract, Hillary is a captivating idea. The first woman to run for president, she is the living reminder of the better economic times and international peace of the Clinton administration. But, up close and personal, she is far less attractive. As the rest of the country is exposed to the former first lady, if they emulate the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire and revise their opinion of her, the results will not please the Clinton camp.
Originally Posted By Maxxdadd Again, Hillary is not the first woman to run for President. Why does this continue to pop up? Nothing is ever set in concrete, until the elections. It's anyone's contest so far. Just wait and see what the Oprah factor does to the election.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Hillary is turning into "Howard Dean" of the 2004 nominations." We'll file this under "Wishful Thinking" or better yet, "woody's Obsession" if and when you want to come back to it.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder You know what would be novel? Rather than talk crud about candidates you fear, talk up someone you favor.
Originally Posted By HyperTyper >>> She never had a chance to win in the first place. >>> Neither does Obama. If he is nominated, whoever the Republicans nominate will win. Of course, both of them still have a chance. They're both still the front runners! Democrats tend to vote based on image. They don't care so much about baggage, experience, or actual convictions. (Of course, they often get buyer's remorse later.) Popularity is big on the left, and no other candidates have the popularity or charisma of Clinton or Obama. Whether the Dems will take the White House depends on whom the GOP nominates. Neither is a sure bet. >>> 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. Again, so wrong. Romney still leads in New Hampshire. Here's why Romney will continue to do well, with some ups and downs: The more people learn about most of the GOP candidates, the more misgivings they have: McCain's age and difficulty with optimism, Huckabee's record on crime and immigration, Giuliani's record of playing nice with other people and positions on social issues, Thompson's lack of executive experience, and on and on. The one exception is Romney. The deeper people dig and the more they learn, the more they like. Romney's "problems" are superficial: He's changed positions! Big deal! Show me a politician who hasn't. He's a Mormon! The more people discuss that issue, the more a non-issue it becomes, and the more people realize they don't want to be a bigot. Republicans would be fools to ignore Romney's fiscal and executive experience and success, AND his personally spotless record with regard to ethics and behavior, AND a family that represents conservative and family values, just so they can say a Mormon isn't in the White House. Some Americans are indeed that petty and superficial ... but by far, most are not. Anyone who counts out Romney this early will have egg on their face. For you to call anyone out so early is a huge error. We haven't even had a primary yet. Most Americans are not paying attention. When they begin to listen, watch, and do their homework, things always get interesting.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 I think the only thing that could save the Hillary campaign right now is an endorsement from Chuck Norris....It did wonder's for Huckabee's campaign.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Of course, both of them still have a chance." Nope. Not a prayer. Either of them. People, when not anonymous, will SAY they shall vote for a black man in a poll, but when it comes time to actually vote anonymously in the voting booth, not all of them do it. This is what happened to Tom Bradley when he ran for governor here. The democrats nominate Obama, they lose. That simple.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Romney's "problems" are superficial: He's changed positions! Big deal! Show me a politician who hasn't.<< Yes, but let us not forget the images from the 2004 RNC with people jeering "FLIP FLOP!" about Kerry (though it's doubtful Republicans would do that to their own, but I bring it up merely to pop the bubble that somehow the GOP is so much more "principled" than the left). Romney's performance on Meet the Press this past Sunday was rather abysmal. It's unfortunate for him that he has chosen to pander too far right, because much like Arnold Schwartzenegger, playing more to the sensible center is what got Romney where he is. His changing positions can easily be painted by opponents as pure pandering, from his "lifelong hunter" stuff to a host of others. That said, a lot of people have a short attention span in both parties, and stuff like that might not matter so much in the general election. I wouldn't count Romney out except that, unfortunately, I think religion has come to be SUCH a central theme in this election, I don't know how many non-LDS GOP voters can overlook their base fears, prejudices, misgivings about that religion to actually give Romney the nod. >>People, when not anonymous, will SAY they shall vote for a black man in a poll, but when it comes time to actually vote anonymously in the voting booth, not all of them do it.<< I have often misjudged where we are at in this country in terms of racism. I tend to think things are better than they are until something like Katrina comes along as a stark reminder. But I do think the country is in the mood for a change and some fresh ideas. To me Obama best represents that.
