you're starting to see it with mccain, but even he won't reach full republican donation status unless the likes of the religious right and the rush type jumps on board... meaning, it's not likely. what's needed is a candidate who looks like mitt, speaks like huckabee, and has the values of ron paul. that candidate hasn't evolved and it's why mccain is now seeing his surge. this nov, like '04, will be the dem's nomination to lose. i was thinking that there is no way hilary gets elected, but the apathy among the republicans is staggering.
By the way, who is Limbaugh supporting? I never listen, but I'd like to know. I assume he's just ripping the Dems without mentioning much of the GOP primaries.
It wont matter if Romney has said some nice things about Robertson or Falwell Jr. Neither one will ever endorse Romney. If you're going by the notion that the Fundamentalists will follow whoever their leaders tell them to vote for then consider that Robertson endorsed Rudy who endorsed McCain and Huck will definetely endorse McCain when he bows out as well.
I'm positive Rush is supporting Romney. The elitist Republicans and their talkies are all behind Mitt because they cant stand that Huck is an evangelical and McCain has had the balls to call them out for the hypocritical, pompous asses that they are.
Got it, that works, and I can hear it. "Liberal media is promoting McCain, blah blah." It all fits in that AM fantasy land.
he hasn't given an endorsement, but it's pretty clear he backs romney over mccain. i don't listen to him on a regular basis but, he averages 13.5 million listeners which could be a pretty big sway, assuming a large percentage votes for who he promotes. votes cast: 91,594,686 in 1988 104,423,923 in 1992 96,275,401 in 1996 105,417,258 in 2000 122,267,553 in 2004 i wouldn't be surprised to see numbers similar to that of '96 in this election. 3000 posts btw!
I agree. I agree. Both looked much more presidential than the cat fight display between McCain and Romney (and the give me some attention, look at me, I am the Huckabee) the day before. In the Cal debates only Hillary, Obama and Paul came off well IMO. I agree. My one critique of Obama is he could have been more forcefull and less wordy. To me words, like "if I may finish my point" "the point behind my last comment was" detract. You don't tell someone you are making a point nor come off like it is an intellectual debate (see Gore)--you just make your point strong and convincing. This isn't a debate class you are trying to win on the merit of your arguments for--this is running for president and you have be compelling to your gut. Though I did think his emphasis that the fundamental issue isn't that the war was executed badly, but that it was a poor decision entirely, was excellent. He rightly returned to this point and pretty much nailed her when he explained she voted for given Bush authorization for military force--even the Clinton's can't dance around that as brilliant of dancers that they are. It could be Hillary-Obama. Though my hunch the ticket will be Hillary-Richardson. I am being cynical here, but I think they (Clinton team) would want to build up the Latino vote and have a VP who would look solid and experienced but in no way potentially upstage her in presence. Richardson has also been a Clinton team player before and I see the balance of potential positive to negative pretty high with him. It couldn't be Obama-Hillary. Hillary would have way too much baggage as a VP. One of the main thing Obama has going for him is people want new leadership and he is seen as potentially someone to make the country less partisan. Hillary on the ticket would screw that up. Hillary has to be the front runner or nothing. Obama-Edwards is quite possible. I really don't get the hate for Hillary, is it just spill off hate for the Clintons in general? Is it the whole Clintons play dirty/hardball politics and are politically expediant. Which I think they do and it is unappealling, but so has most every recent president directly or indirectly--just look at the Bush I Willie Horton ads or the Swift boating of Kerr, nor does it look different than the nasty games between McCain & Romney and ther latter to Huckabee. I mean she isn't my favorite, I would prefer quite a few others including Obama--but in general she is fairly moderate within the spectrum of American politics and has a nice enough voice to listen to. I don't get the "hate" part except if your just one of those folks that think her husband stole a couple of elections because conservatives are entitled to office or that women should shut up and stay home. Like I said it can't just be her and Bill's political expendiency, that doesn't differentiate many national politicians (just look at McCain NOW saying he WOULD support the Bush tax cuts, how he was avoiding positions on his OWN immigration bill, and how forcefully he supported Bush II at the last convention).
They can't stand Huckabee and McCain because of their records. I haven't heard a single right wing talk show host criticize Huckabee for his religion. They may have criticized his supporters for backing him primarily because of his religion, but I completely agree with that. That's a terrible reason to support any Presidential candidate. As for McCain, his record speaks for itself. There's a lot there for conservatives to take issue with. No one is bashing McCain because he said something mean about talk show hosts or evangelicals. It's because of his positions on taxes, illegal immigration, Gitmo, campaign finance reform, the environment, and appointing judges.
Desert Scar, I actually don't mind her husband all that much. All these guys up there are crooks to some degree, save maybe Paul - maybe. And my hatred for her has nothing to do with her being a woman. On the contrary, there was black female candidate maybe last election if I remember correctly....something Mosely-Brown maybe......anyways, she came off as quite intelligent and not a pushover in the least during the debates. She was most certainly a strong woman and I would have at least considered voting for her if she had made it to the ballot. Hellary is a different story. Every fiber of this creature's being exudes a fake as can be aura. From her contrived and drawn out speech to her bleached-blonde bangs to her refusal to even once admit that she is indeed a genuine war-backer. Moreover, this dog had absolutely no ties to the state of New York before running for the Senate. I was living in Manhattan at the time, so this was a personal issue for me as well. Did she want to become Senator there in service to New Yorkers? No. Is is infinitely more likely that her Senatorship there was long previously pre-conceived as a stepping stone back to the WH? Overwhelmingly most likely. If that w**** is elected Prez I will literally vomit.
There's no way it could be Obama-Hillary or Obama-Hillary. Hillary can't be VP for two reasons: you drag up all the dirt from the 1990's, which takes away from the whole message of bipartisan cooperation, and Hillary's not going to sit as VP for 8 years hoping to run for President in 2016. It can't be Hillary-Obama because it would involve Obama selling out everything that he is. His whole appeal is based on finding common ground and such - if he's the VP for a Hillary Whitehouse, he has to adopt their policies and politics. He loses his biggest strength. I just can't see any way, unless they are forced to by a delegate situation or whatnot, that these two can co-exist on a ticket.
Thanks for providing your view as a New Yorker. I can agree with some of your points. Still I still don't get the prevalence of hating on her because I don't see her different that 90% of politicans (though she was much different than 1st ladies, see below)--but thanks for putting your reasons out there. The only other thing I can think that really peeved folks was her early on Tammy Whinett type comments and coming off as more arrogant and elitest than your typical 1st lady--but honestly I havn't seen that from her in a long time and as a politician she seems relatively par for the course--and actually a fairly smart, informed and pragmatic one.
I agree with the 1st part for the reasons you suggest (no way for Hillary to be a VP--too much poltical baggage). I don't full agree with the second part (Obama as VP). Obama and Clinton are actually barely shades different in perspectives and policies. They are much closer to each other in views than either is to Edwards or to any Repub. Further, Clinton actually has a fairly pragmatic and cooperative reputation within the Senate, she is much more common grounder in reality than perception--which Obama no doubt knows about. Obama surely doesn't like some of the Clintons campaigning style and some of the polarization she brings right now--but I could see him seeing the bigger picture that once in office they would be 90% on the same page, the public's polarization of her likely would subdue if they ran a better government (she actually is relatively centrist and pragmatic), and as young guy he would be positioning himself for future presidency run. So I would think Obama would take the VP slot if offered. But my bets would be on Richardson or someone else (Wes Clark?) being offered because of more cynical reasons. E.g. concerned that having a women and a AA man on the ticket would be more change than a lot of folks are conciously or unconciously ready for, Obama could upstage Hillary or not always be a "good soldier" (Richardson and Clark have worked under them). Still I wouldn't entirely count out Obama being offered VP--potential electorate gain in AA and independents and mobilization/consolidation of the party and their organizations. But like I said Hillary is quite pragmatic-- I am sure her team would do some polling and/or focus groups before doing so of course.
NOPE <embed width="425" height="110" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.truveo.com/truveo_videoWidget.swf?query=id:1674302450"/><div style="background-color:#315270; width:425px; height:14px;text-align:center;"><a href="http://www.truveo.com/" target="_blank" style="font-family:Arial; font-size:9px; font-weight:100; color:#C7D8E7;line-height:14px; text-decoration:none; letter-spacing:0.1em;">Find more videos like this on www.truveo.com.</a></div>
So true, the Clintons are moderate Democrats, much given to political compromise, but have been demonized for years by the Right Wing Media, which rose to power atacking them and has dishonestly convinced millions that they are some sort of extremists in ideology, tactics or bad personal behavior. Much of this has stuck and few can go back and rationally examine how they came to hate the Clintons so much. They are just viewed as "polarizing" because the Right Wing Media Swiftboated them so effectively.
Sorry but I've been lstening to guys like Rush, Sean and Bob for a while. They're egotistical maniacs above all else and HATE it when someone stands up to them or says anything about them. It's amusing when they search for things to say about McAin's positions because they don't people to know that they don't like mcCain because McCain doesn't kowtow to them. BTW, Huck staying in the contest actually takes votes away from McCain in the Christian Fundamentalist community. They care about socially conservatises and McCain is much closer to that than Romney is.
