How in the world is she even close to as polarizing than George Bush? Stop giving your own opinion, and actually try and back it up with raw numbers. Hillary has consistently had negatives in the 40 percent range. That's high, but nothing out of this world. That's around where McCain's at, and both far behind Bush.
They did damage in the primary, sure, but he was willing to take a hit in the final primary results if it helped him in the long run. It's well known that Clinton captured a lot of independents in these primaries, too. There's data for all of this. If Clinton's so much more unlikeable than McCain, it should be out there. It's also true that McCain is pretty hated by around the same percentage of the country.
OK, I left Bush out because he has been dead to me for a long time. Besides, Bush isn't really polarizing because almost nobody likes the guy any more. Give me a break on "raw numbers". We've all seen the polls and Hillary's negatives are extremely high and have been for some time.
We've seen the polls. She has high negatives, as do most politicians in this era who have been in the spotlight for an extended period of time. McCain's negatives are already there, and Obama's are trending in that direction. It sucks, but that's the partisan world we live in, and it's only amplified now with the new media making it easier to find biased information. Clinton has high negatives, sure, but it's not some unique phenomenon exclusive to her like you make it seem.
Sure it means helping people in the poorest of communities work on projects to make their neighborhoods safer, healthier, and the people that live there more prosperous, leading better lives.
Can anyone tell me what community organizing is? Is that like what Al Sharpton does? Or maybe Quannel X?
I can't join the military because of a medical condition. So no need for a draft -- I'm ready, just not qualified. The point of my thread was to finish what was started. In every war, U.S. is always portrayed as a strong guy who has the most resources. I've spoken with many Americans who call this country the most powerful country in the world. I did say Bush made a mess. But if we withdraw again, how much hope can a weak nation have if say one day we want to liberate Burma (like you mentioned)? Bush screwed up big time. I'm hoping McCain will not. Remember, Bush is finishing his second term trial free, while Clinton was put on trial for getting blowjobs from an intern. I wasn't in the War. But I've spoken with former officers from both the Vietnamese side and the American side. One was my former advisor too. In fact a communist told our family that they were losing the war and was about to give up, but they were surprised Americans started backing out. This was from a communist who lived during the war, not an American or a South Vietnamese. I spoke with another one who said pretty much the same thing. It was really tough for them. But they still won with their leader dead 6 years earlier. They also had the support of the Chinese. Their allies didn't back out on them. Even you said it. We fought the Vietnam War because of the Cold War situation right? We had the support of everyone right? We wanted to prove we were a superpower that could stop the spread of communism. But what happened later? All the protests in the states. So 1-0 for the communists. That war went from popular to disgusted. About the Iraq War, even though you think it's inappropriate, Bush still got what he wanted and got allies too. He claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. If this country protested like they did back in the 70's, then the consequences could have been alot less than now. Obviously more people agreed to the invasion of Iraq. And yet Bush was elected again. Amazing. It's my opinion that withdrawing is not the solution.
wow just wow, you wonder why people call you a racist? man i hope this guy becomes president just so you and who taught you your racism can have an eight year nightmare.
I just look at their histories. I didn't accuse any of being unpatriotic. But looking at their histories: McCain: Dad and granddad were admirals and he was POW. Obama: Dad was an exchange student. You know, thinking about it, Kenya is actually his "father" land. Nothing against him though. So you really think withdrawing the troops will stabilize Iraq? That there will be no more fighting between those people? The reason they could get along was because Saddam Hussein ruled them with an iron fist. They need to be iron fisted up their butts in order for them to live peacefully. As for going after Osama Bin Laden, I think both Obama and McCain should really focus on getting this man. I don't know who will be successful at it, but it just seems like McCain has a better chance. I could be wrong.
Question for you (a "what if" game): What if you knew for a fact that staying in Iraq another 15 years wouldn't "stabilize" it? What if you also knew that it would also severely degrade our military over time because of the enormous resource drain? Would you still favor staying there out of "pride" even though the situation is hopeless? My point is that Iraq is quite likely an unsalvageable country. The longer our troops stay, the more will die even though the long-term sustainability of the country won't improve. The ever-changing definition of "success" and "victory" in Iraq is a sham. It's becomes a game of the longer we stay, the harder it becomes to leave.
Today, reliable conservative pundit George Will predicted an Obama landslide and said the polls were close now because "McCain, although a very familiar figure, has a downside risk from becoming better-known concerning one issue; Obama has an upside potential from becoming better-known regarding an elemental fact." The issue he's referring to re: McCain is his staunch pro-life position. The fact he cites re: Obama is the fact that he's not a Muslim. He predicts that when these two things are broadly known by the American people it will translate into an Obama landslide. I guess he's just naive and gets upset whenever anyone says anything against Obama. LOL.
George Will is a good columnist but he isn't Nostradamus. We will see. I agree that both of these issues will will help Obama. Eventually he will hammer the abortion & Supreme Court issue home with Hillary's supporters. Regarding the Muslim nonsense, there are two ladies in my office who firmly believe Obama is a Muslim. When I found this out last week, the utter ignorance of it all just stunned me. Still, many ignorant people will realize this is false and it will make them more comfortable with Obama, even if they don't vote for him. I will eat crow if the margin is greater than 10% on election day. Inertia and some of the other reasons mentioned earlier will make this a close race (unless the wheels fall off of McCain late in the game).
I didn't bring him up for reliability, only because he raised two points I hadn't seen raised in this thread yet.
I realize that and thanks for the posting, but IMO, saying these two issues will be key for an Obama landslide is a stretch. Do you have a link or did he say this on TV?
I'm going to amend my prediction to simply say the election will not be close. Anything can happen -- there could be an unpredicted world event or attack at home (either of which might benefit one candidate or the other depending on details and responses), there could be a heretofore unknown scandal involving either candidate, etc. My prediction of an Obama blowout is based on everything we know right now. That he's ahead in the polls, on the popular side of every issue, that McCain's got a lot of false positives working for him now (maverick, moderate - both untrue), that Obama's got false negatives working against him (Muslim, pledge, swearing in on Koran - all untrue), that Obama's built nearly a 50 state infrastructure during the primaries, the enthusiasm gap (this one is huge as it points to voters that aren't currently being counted in poll models which are still largely based around 2004 turnout), the charisma gap, Obama's superior speaking skills, that McCain voted 95% with Bush last year and 90% overall through his presidency, the money gap, the historic nature of the campaign gap. Obama also adds about 4-6 states (pick from NM, NV, CO, VA, IN, MO, LA) to the usual battleground category and loses none (even WV, which Obama lost in the primary by over 40% is within 8% against McCain) and forces McCain to campaign in traditionally reliable red states too (SC, NC, TX, GA, MS, AL) while I would argue that McCain adds zero (California? NJ? Get real.). Obviously things could change but, as of now, McCain's got one advantage (experience) which Obama combats with arguments of superior judgment evidenced largely by Iraq, and Obama's got all the advantages listed above which I'm not sure what McCain combats with (co-opting Obama's message isn't much of an argument). Whatever might happen, McCain's not going to catch up on points. There is a stark contrast (nay, many stark contrasts) between these candidates. Personally I think they're both pretty decent guys, but their platforms are so vastly different I don't think people are going to vote on personality this time. Ergo, I don't see any legitimate argument for predicting a close race unless you're just going on faith that history will repeat itself and the history that will repeat is very recent history. We might also like to define blowout. After the last two presidentials, 5% in either direction would seem huge, but I'm predicting Obama by 8-10.
it is patently obvious that grandpa uncle cooter will lose. hell, batman jones could beat that really old senile guy and he's all crazy and stuff.
