06-01-2008, 06:09 AM
Apteji,
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I believe Obama will be able to hold on to almost all those states, but I can not say the same about Hillary.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Don't let your anti-Hillary bias cloud your judgement. While I'll concede that Barak can pick up every Kerry '04 state. But so can Hillary and more. I don't for a minute buy that Barak can pick <i>xyz</i> state but Hillary can't.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Lincoln was not very experienced when he ran for president, he was a single-term congressman from IL.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Issue is whether we want yet another term of inexperienced person? We saw how Bush fared.
Comparing Barak to Linclon is a bit stretch. Only thing common is that they are/were both from IL. And the tall stature and big ears maybe. That's where it ends.
Linclon reached to his opponents. Can you say same about Barak? How's his reading on Goodwin's book coming along?
And given Presidency of either Lincoln or Kennedy, I'd tell the Barak supporters to drop that comparison.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't think Clinton and Gore were on speaking terms while Gore was running for office<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Without Clinton years of economic prosperity, Gore couldn't get nomination against Bradley, let alone the popular vote in general elections. Would have been a re-run of his failed '88 attempt.
And the faux pas on Donna Brazil's part to not use Clinton for campaigning is still a topic of discussion in democratic circles.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->On Obama advisor meeting with the canadians - wasn't he removed from the campaign ?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, they disappear after being exposed. Like Wright, Pfleger. Obama's now quit the racist church. Hallelujah!!
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->If you go by what Hillary is proclaiming these days, she was the VP.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why not? When it comes to attacking her, not forgetting the tax-payer funded witch-hunt called Ken Starr, she bore brunt of the backlash on major issues. Even the bra-burning feminists couldn't seem to digest the way she handled the Monica issue when clearly she was the victim there.
If she's to be blamed for Clinton years of 90s, let's also give her credit. Or you want to nitpick here?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Otherwise why do you think Clinton was fuming against "people with college degrees" ? Ironically it is those people with college degrees that did well during clinton era compared to the blue-collar workers supporting Hillary <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Entire nation did well in 90s. The reforms Clinton got for working class, welfare issues, minimum wage etc, he actually did something - despite no support from Gingrich congress. What you see in terms of voting in blue collar belt like PA, KY etc is the result of that.
Clinton's fuming at the media heads who with their suit and degrees claim to speak for nation - I'm refering to Matthew, Olberman, Russert etc. These guys are supposed to be neutral or they competing to be like a lame version of O'Rielly?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Universal Healthcare has been a democratic party principle for a long time. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
True, but heard the term Hillarycare. It was Hillary who did something about it even when it was clearly an unpopular issue. Rest are Johnny come lately on this who have been nodding their heads all these years.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Ted Kennedy probably deserves far more credit on these domestic policy issues than Hillary or Bill<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And Ted Chappaquiddick Kennedy deserves far more credit for stealing Carter's presidency than Hillary ever will. This guy took the battle all they way to convention till the minute he was about to speak - this was 80s. Iran hostage and Kennedy's rebelious behaviour supposed to have gone down in democratic history as a reason why Reagan won is 80. Now his followers are singing a different tune.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I believe Obama will be able to hold on to almost all those states, but I can not say the same about Hillary.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Don't let your anti-Hillary bias cloud your judgement. While I'll concede that Barak can pick up every Kerry '04 state. But so can Hillary and more. I don't for a minute buy that Barak can pick <i>xyz</i> state but Hillary can't.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Lincoln was not very experienced when he ran for president, he was a single-term congressman from IL.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Issue is whether we want yet another term of inexperienced person? We saw how Bush fared.
Comparing Barak to Linclon is a bit stretch. Only thing common is that they are/were both from IL. And the tall stature and big ears maybe. That's where it ends.
Linclon reached to his opponents. Can you say same about Barak? How's his reading on Goodwin's book coming along?
And given Presidency of either Lincoln or Kennedy, I'd tell the Barak supporters to drop that comparison.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't think Clinton and Gore were on speaking terms while Gore was running for office<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Without Clinton years of economic prosperity, Gore couldn't get nomination against Bradley, let alone the popular vote in general elections. Would have been a re-run of his failed '88 attempt.
And the faux pas on Donna Brazil's part to not use Clinton for campaigning is still a topic of discussion in democratic circles.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->On Obama advisor meeting with the canadians - wasn't he removed from the campaign ?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, they disappear after being exposed. Like Wright, Pfleger. Obama's now quit the racist church. Hallelujah!!
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->If you go by what Hillary is proclaiming these days, she was the VP.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why not? When it comes to attacking her, not forgetting the tax-payer funded witch-hunt called Ken Starr, she bore brunt of the backlash on major issues. Even the bra-burning feminists couldn't seem to digest the way she handled the Monica issue when clearly she was the victim there.
If she's to be blamed for Clinton years of 90s, let's also give her credit. Or you want to nitpick here?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Otherwise why do you think Clinton was fuming against "people with college degrees" ? Ironically it is those people with college degrees that did well during clinton era compared to the blue-collar workers supporting Hillary <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Entire nation did well in 90s. The reforms Clinton got for working class, welfare issues, minimum wage etc, he actually did something - despite no support from Gingrich congress. What you see in terms of voting in blue collar belt like PA, KY etc is the result of that.
Clinton's fuming at the media heads who with their suit and degrees claim to speak for nation - I'm refering to Matthew, Olberman, Russert etc. These guys are supposed to be neutral or they competing to be like a lame version of O'Rielly?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Universal Healthcare has been a democratic party principle for a long time. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
True, but heard the term Hillarycare. It was Hillary who did something about it even when it was clearly an unpopular issue. Rest are Johnny come lately on this who have been nodding their heads all these years.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Ted Kennedy probably deserves far more credit on these domestic policy issues than Hillary or Bill<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And Ted Chappaquiddick Kennedy deserves far more credit for stealing Carter's presidency than Hillary ever will. This guy took the battle all they way to convention till the minute he was about to speak - this was 80s. Iran hostage and Kennedy's rebelious behaviour supposed to have gone down in democratic history as a reason why Reagan won is 80. Now his followers are singing a different tune.