06-02-2008, 09:02 AM
Virenji,
Whatever I posted regarding electoral college prospects of Clinton and Obama are based on the recent polls. Clinton is trailing in WI, OR and WA (at best they can be considered toss-ups, but the fact is she is trailing McCain which is not a good sign)
Also Obama does better in CO, NM and VA. A recent poll had put Obama in clear lead in VA. Only major swing state where Obama is not doing as well as Clinton if FL. But the six states that I mentioned where Obama does better than clinton should make up for that.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Issue is whether we want yet another term of inexperienced person? We saw how Bush fared.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
C'mon, you can do better. It will be intellectually dishonest to compare an intellectually incurious Bush (who didn't know who the president/PM of pakistan/India was when he was running for election) with Obama. Even conservatives like David Brooks admit that Obama has a firm grasp on policy matters (whether domestic or international)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Without Clinton years of economic prosperity, Gore couldn't get nomination against Bradley, let alone the popular vote in general elections.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
IMO Clinton didn't have a lot to do with economic prosperity (from a policy perspective), for the most part Congress and President were at logger heads during most of his presidency and prosperity happened inspitre of all those. I should say Gore got the nomination inspite of Clinton's scandals and pecadillos. He had distanced himself from Clinton while he was running against Bradley (even otherwise, I don't think Bradley had a chance against Gore)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->If she's to be blamed for Clinton years of 90s, let's also give her credit. Or you want to nitpick here?
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We should give credit where credit is due. Clintons only significant involvement was around the healthcare reform and she failed on that miserably, primarily because she displayed an inability to work with others - even with those from her party. After the debacle, she was confined to the traditional role of a first lady, visiting foreign capitals and having tea with dignitaries (and occasionally coming under "sniper fire" where Bill or Al wouldn't go <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> )
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually he as well as the campaign has made similar comments against more affluent voters. This is not the first time he has made such comments.
Also Clinton presidency was REALLY bad for the working class in america as it is the free-trade agreements by Clinton and his "China first" policy is what caused so much of job losses for blue collar workers. During his presidency he rode that with the help of an asset bubble - the stock market bubble fueled by internet stocks. Bush wasn't that lucky, his asset bubble based on real-estate collapsed (incidently both bubbles fueled by the master fraud greenspan)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->True, but heard the term Hillarycare. It was Hillary who did something about it even when it was clearly an unpopular issue.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not really true, Kennedy worked on that a lot longer than Clinton while Clinton was sitting on wal-mart board (wal-mart believes in dumping their workers to tax-payer funded healthcare). In an act of nepotism (something similar to Indira putting Rajiv in charge of asian games in '82), Bill put Hillary in charge of healthcare reform while there were clearly more capable leaders in democratic party to lead that reform.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->nd Ted Chappaquiddick Kennedy deserves far more credit for stealing Carter's presidency than Hillary ever will.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Rather lame excuse. Carter was doomed because of the stagflation, but Iran hostage crisis helped him to come out strongly against Kennedy in the interim, but ultimately caused his failure
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->BO Unfav 53% (highest in this primary)
BO Fav 45%
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I checked recent polling averages at rcp. Obama has the highest spread between favbv/unfav (~12) compared to Hillary (~4) or McCain (~10)
Whatever I posted regarding electoral college prospects of Clinton and Obama are based on the recent polls. Clinton is trailing in WI, OR and WA (at best they can be considered toss-ups, but the fact is she is trailing McCain which is not a good sign)
Also Obama does better in CO, NM and VA. A recent poll had put Obama in clear lead in VA. Only major swing state where Obama is not doing as well as Clinton if FL. But the six states that I mentioned where Obama does better than clinton should make up for that.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Issue is whether we want yet another term of inexperienced person? We saw how Bush fared.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
C'mon, you can do better. It will be intellectually dishonest to compare an intellectually incurious Bush (who didn't know who the president/PM of pakistan/India was when he was running for election) with Obama. Even conservatives like David Brooks admit that Obama has a firm grasp on policy matters (whether domestic or international)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Without Clinton years of economic prosperity, Gore couldn't get nomination against Bradley, let alone the popular vote in general elections.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
IMO Clinton didn't have a lot to do with economic prosperity (from a policy perspective), for the most part Congress and President were at logger heads during most of his presidency and prosperity happened inspitre of all those. I should say Gore got the nomination inspite of Clinton's scandals and pecadillos. He had distanced himself from Clinton while he was running against Bradley (even otherwise, I don't think Bradley had a chance against Gore)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->If she's to be blamed for Clinton years of 90s, let's also give her credit. Or you want to nitpick here?
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We should give credit where credit is due. Clintons only significant involvement was around the healthcare reform and she failed on that miserably, primarily because she displayed an inability to work with others - even with those from her party. After the debacle, she was confined to the traditional role of a first lady, visiting foreign capitals and having tea with dignitaries (and occasionally coming under "sniper fire" where Bill or Al wouldn't go <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> )<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually he as well as the campaign has made similar comments against more affluent voters. This is not the first time he has made such comments.
Also Clinton presidency was REALLY bad for the working class in america as it is the free-trade agreements by Clinton and his "China first" policy is what caused so much of job losses for blue collar workers. During his presidency he rode that with the help of an asset bubble - the stock market bubble fueled by internet stocks. Bush wasn't that lucky, his asset bubble based on real-estate collapsed (incidently both bubbles fueled by the master fraud greenspan)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->True, but heard the term Hillarycare. It was Hillary who did something about it even when it was clearly an unpopular issue.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not really true, Kennedy worked on that a lot longer than Clinton while Clinton was sitting on wal-mart board (wal-mart believes in dumping their workers to tax-payer funded healthcare). In an act of nepotism (something similar to Indira putting Rajiv in charge of asian games in '82), Bill put Hillary in charge of healthcare reform while there were clearly more capable leaders in democratic party to lead that reform.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->nd Ted Chappaquiddick Kennedy deserves far more credit for stealing Carter's presidency than Hillary ever will.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Rather lame excuse. Carter was doomed because of the stagflation, but Iran hostage crisis helped him to come out strongly against Kennedy in the interim, but ultimately caused his failure
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->BO Unfav 53% (highest in this primary)
BO Fav 45%
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I checked recent polling averages at rcp. Obama has the highest spread between favbv/unfav (~12) compared to Hillary (~4) or McCain (~10)