riiiiiiiight. yesterday, the times had a front page story detailing the "darker mood" in the nation compared to the 2000 election. in it, there was a quote from a man decrying a particular policy of the bush admin. i happen to know that the quote in question was not made by the man they quoted. how do i know this? simple- the quotee is my brother. and the times not only never interviewed him, his views are pretty much diametrically opposed to those presented in the article.
mark, lets not kid ourselves, Obama would energize it just as much if not more. btw, i almost feel like we're in the 90's again. the Clintons' triangulation strategy is working out perfectly. at this point I feel realy sorry for her cuz of the attacks from the left
no, you call them far worse than that- take a look at your posts re Bush over the lasts seven years. i think you'll find some as bas as, if not worse, that "w****."
I'm sure that sucks to be misquoted and misrepresented in print. He should notify them, and hopefully they will correct it. That is one of several incidents where they've been wrong. Compare that to the NY Post, Fox News, CBS News, CNN, The Washington Times, etc. and their track record is still pretty good.
I doubt that. Obama has shown and continues to poll better than Clinton when it comes to getting Republican to vote for him. I don't think he is near the lightening rod for hatred, and attack that Hillary is.
I predicted several months ago that Hillary would win the presidency because she is the worst candidate and Americans are voting.
Not to derail this wonderful thread, but the Times also came out and endorsed McCain for the republicans. But the real story is this little nugget on why they didn't endorse Rudy.
seems like the republican candidates are in a quandry. if you throw bush under the bus, you wont win the nomination if you dont throw bush under the bus, you wont win the election...
if you and FB are referring to the Zogby poll from last month, that was before all the rhetoric over the race card and Obamas association with Rezko came up. I don't know what the numbers are in a more updated poll of Obama versus Republican candidates, but I think the numbersmight be different this time.
how about win the GOP nomination first then throw bush under the bus? Plus if Hillary comes out on the Dem side, that outta be enough to energize the party.
The GOP has a 16 year long very deep hatred of Hillary Clinton. She was demonized like no other for the 8 years she was in the White House. Talk to any Republican about Hillary and there will be a seething - Hillary in the White House is their worst nightmare. Nothing of the sort exists with Obama. Many think he's too liberal, but there's not the personal animosity that exists with Hillarty. Talk to any Republican strategist and they are totally excited about facing Hillary. McCain's best-case is to run against her because his base will automatically rally in huge numbers. Without facing Hillary, he has problems with getting the GOP's base excited (possibly leading to him picking Huckabee as his running mate if he runs against Obama). Hillary also has a stronger base of support within the Dem party. So the ultimate situation is that Hillary has a higher floor but a lower ceiling than most other candidates in the race (on both sides). Ignore the Dem vs. GOP individual matchup polls. The vast majority of the country knows very little about most of the candidates at this point - those numbers will change dramatically between now and November. Hillary is probably the only candidate that most of America has a relatively good sense of at this point due to her time as 1st lady.
1) dems would jump all over it as flip flopping 2) would turn off bush loyalists (they may choose to just stay home on election day) this is probably the only realistic way i can see the repubs having a chance. but if theyre running on "vote for a repub bc clinton is terrible..." then thats pretty weak and wont convince enough independents.
Hillary Clinton, first lady and junior US senator, doesn't exactly have much of a legislative record either. In fact, it's pretty similar to Obama's despite having been in the Senate much longer. I'm not sure what makes you think she has more experience getting things passed. Her husband certainly does, though. Obama has always held his own on policy & substance, as well as developing compromise and getting things done. Where he really, really struggles is with the slimy / mud-politics and figuring out how to respond. That kind of stuff doesn't happen when meeting with Vladimir Putin like it does in an election. There's a huge difference between campaigning and leading.
I think the argument that Republican strategists are excited to face Hillary is debatable. I've actually seen more articles in the Post about why they'd rather face Obama than vice versa. I really think that race will play a very big role in a general election. I doubt very much than either Hillary or Obama will win any red states actually so I'm not even sure why we're bothering to have this voncersation about if Repubs will vote for Hillary or Obama I would vote for Hillary or Obama ONLY if Romney wins the primary as I think he is as much of a big business w**** as the current administration.
Count me in as one of those voters who would vote Dem if Obama gets nominated but would likely vote the other way if Hillary does.
It's not that simple. The question is whether she actually mobilizes the OTHER party to go out to vote more readily. Are there people who might stay home otherwise, but if she's nominated will be hell-bent on making sure they make it out to vote simply to vote against her? I think the answer to that question is yes, frankly. Generally the party that mobilizes their own typical voters is the one that wins....here we have the real possibility of one party nominating a person who mobilizes the other party's voters.
