|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted October 05, 2007 03:52 AM |
|
|
Those are poles. And I'm saddened to see Obama's support floundering. I hope he doesn't have a McCain moment. Who in their right minds would support Hillary (no offense, Consis)? The only person in HC who supports her (and in the Internet known to me, for that matter), is Consis. I know no Hillary supporters in RL. They either support Giuliani, Paul, or Obama.
BTW, here are Ron Paul's debate summaries:
1
2
3
4
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted October 05, 2007 03:55 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Those are poles
picky picky picky, it's the same when spoken
____________
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted October 05, 2007 05:18 AM |
|
|
Actually they are polls, but nice try with the correction. 
Vlaad, why are you trying to exclude me from posting? Democrats only? As I believe I'm the only Republican on this forum still...
Clinton and Obama will both lose the nomination...bring on DEAN!!!!
____________
|
|
Vlaad
Admirable
Legendary Hero
ghost of the past
|
|
posted October 05, 2007 05:40 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Vlaad, why are you trying to exclude me from posting? Democrats only?
Only Democrats were polled.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted October 05, 2007 05:41 AM |
|
Edited by Binabik at 05:42, 05 Oct 2007.
|
You missed my last post on the previous page. (edit: referring to Wolfman's comment, not Vlaad's)
And no, you aren't the only Republican around here. I've been a registered Republican for something like 25 years. But as I said recently in another thread, I can't stand Bush. He's not even a true Republican as far as I'm concerned. The party was hijacked by a bunch of idiots who in no way represent the "typical" Republican on the streets.
I've been saying for at least 10-12 years that if the leadership didn't get it's act together, the party was going to get hurt real bad. Well, that's exactly what's been happening lately, and the worst is yet to come. I haven't abbandoned the party or the ideals, but the party leaders sure as hell have abbandoned me and they in no way represent me.
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted October 06, 2007 09:50 PM |
|
|
Beware the polls
The polls are largely conducted via land-line listings. Recent cell-phone polls suggest that these figures are extremely misleading. I don't recall what kind of jump in Obama's numbers they represented but it was significant, because of the demographic bases where he is most popular tend to be cell-phone only users.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted October 06, 2007 09:55 PM |
|
|
The following truly remarkable article is reproduced from Obama Blogger Keith Fergusun's blog, posted earlier this week.
Inevitability
By Keith Ferguson - Oct 1st, 2007 at 4:04 am EDT
THE FIRST RULE IN PHYSICS may very well be the first rule in politics as well: an object in motion tends to stay in motion.
Today, we are a country on a clear course. We are a country at war, with thousands dead, and no exit strategy. We are a country addicted to foreign oil, trapped in habits of pollution, reluctant to imagine our own solutions. We are a country divided over the direction of our own culture, quick to condemn our fellow citizens, unaccustomed to seeking out common ground. We are a country of significant gaps in income, achievement, and opportunity. We are a country of damaged reputation, which has squandered international goodwill, and antagonized new enemies. We are a country that disrespects our fellow man, whether they are stranded on their own rooftops surrounded by floodwaters, or shipped in secret to illegal prisons abroad and held without charge or trial. We are a country adrift from its foundational values, detached from its own political process, concerned instead with comfort and leisure above all else. We are a country that has forsaken the health of its own national character.
Things being what they are, our judgment as a nation is in question. In the absence of a change of direction, we are likely to continue further in this direction. It is time to assess where we find ourselves, how we have gotten here, and where we want to go. What’s more, it is time to assess what political force is strong enough to effectively alter our currently disastrous course. It is time for America to make a decision.
Right now, there are many forces in motion in American politics, each seeking to influence the trajectory of our national direction. And while these forces range from policies to personalities, we find that three forces present Americans with the most considerable implications and consequences. The first of these forces is George W. Bush, whose leadership and influence remains a fact of life. His relevance, for now, is indisputable. The second is Hillary Clinton, whose candidacy has placed her as the clear frontrunner in the race for her party’s nomination and shrouded her campaign in an aura of inevitability. Given her strong standing, it is necessary to imagine and scrutinize what her leadership stands to mean to our national direction. And the third force in motion is the candidacy of Barack Obama, who has yet to pull significantly ahead in the race, even while his message has resonated with hundreds of thousands of Americans who have donated and attended his rallies in ever-increasing and unrivaled numbers over the past eight months.
With each of these forces, there are things we know, and things we can reasonably presume. We know the mistakes and the abuses of George Bush. It is easy to imagine what his political influence still stands to mean for the occupation of Iraq, the ballooning national debt, and any further sidestepping of congressional oversight and the Constitution. In other words, the self-proclaimed Decider remains perfectly positioned to continue in the direction of abysmal leadership to dire ends. Much remains to be done in the next 16 months of his administration. It is in light of this reality that we must more closely assess the other two political forces at play, for what they each stand to inherit and contribute.
We have come to know a great deal about Hillary Clinton. We know that she is smart. We know she is driven. We know she practices a very personal spirituality, which has grounded her in forgiveness. We know her supporters are convinced of her goodness as a person and promise as a politician. We know she has won over a skeptical New York, who has embraced her and reelected her by a significant margin. We know she is running a smart and effective campaign.
We also know she voted to authorize George W. Bush to invade Iraq in 2002. We know she chose not to read the complete National Intelligence Estimate prior to casting her vote. We know Clinton publicly and inaccurately accused Saddam Hussein of giving “aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members.” We know that prior to the war, Clinton also voted against the failed Levin amendment to require that George Bush prioritize diplomacy first by seeking a U.N. resolution to wage war in Iraq, and to return to Congress for approval if his efforts failed. We know she argued to stay the course in Iraq in 2003. We know she argued against the withdrawal of troops in 2005. We know she did not begin to position herself differently on this issue until public sentiment swayed in late 2005 with the criticism of Representative John Murtha. We know that just last week, she voted to recognize the Iranian National Guard as a terror organization, laying the groundwork for military action against Iran and further empowering George Bush to extend the war in the Middle East. We know she has consistently shown poor judgment on the most important issue of our time. We know she has failed to take responsibility for that error. We know that she has not learned the lesson of her mistake in 2002.
All that said, there is one more thing we know about Hillary Clinton: you love her, or you hate her. Nationally, she polls quite negatively. In every Gallup poll since June 1 of this year, at least 46% of those polled indicated they had an unfavorable impression of Hillary Clinton. That number has remained generally the same across Gallup polling from the last decade. We know how she stirs the Republican base to attack and how, whether provoked or not, she antagonizes “vast, right-wing conspiracies” against her and her husband Bill Clinton. We have every reason to imagine that the partisan divide of the 1990s that prompted Whitewater and propelled personalities like Rush Limbaugh would return in full force with a renewed, galvanized sense of purpose. Joe Biden put it well in last week’s MSNBC debate when he said that “a lot of the old stuff” from Bill Clinton’s presidency would come back with a Hillary Clinton presidency. This includes Bill Clinton, himself. Now is the time to ask questions about how Bill Clinton’s international status and influence as a private citizen via his foundation and Global Initiative might blur the line with official American policy should he serve as America’s first gentleman.
All these points leave us to ask several questions, in fact. Does Hillary Clinton have the judgment to be President? Has her record shown that she understands the issues we face as a nation? Can she unite all Americans under a common vision and calling? Can she counter her unfavorable impression on half of the country’s citizens? Does it make sense that Clinton is the inevitable candidate for her party’s nomination? Can she in fact win the presidency in a general election? Will Clinton advance the health of our national character? Will another Clinton be the answer to another Bush? Can she truly offer America a new direction?
To all of these questions, the answer is assuredly: no.
This leads us to consider the political force of Barack Obama. One thing we know about Obama is that we are still getting to know him. Since he announced his bid for the presidency last February, Gallup has consistently shown that 8 – 16 % of those polled have never heard of Obama. We also know that as people learn about him, they come to a favorable opinion of him. Since last February, Obama has usually polled at or above 50%. It is perhaps not difficult to hold Obama in a favorable light after learning more about him.
We know Obama moved to the south side of Chicago as a recent college graduate and worked as a community organizer in a neighborhood rife with crime and poverty. We know he decided then and there that the problems of Chicago’s south side were systemic and could only be addressed by rewriting the policies that allowed them to exist at all. We know Obama earned a law degree from Harvard and became the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review. We know he returned to Chicago to start a civil rights law practice and teach constitutional law at the University of Chicago. We know he was encouraged by others to run for state senate in Illinois, where he served for eight years. We know he was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004 on a record of achievement in Illinois.
We know Democrats work with Barack Obama. We know Republicans work with Barack Obama. We know he brought them together in Illinois to create the state Earned Income Tax Credit, which provided $100 million in tax cuts to families over three years. We know he worked with Illinois law enforcement to require the videotaping of confessions after several death row inmates were found to be innocent. We know he worked to expand early childhood education. We know Obama partnered with Democrat Russ Feingold in the Senate to pass an ethics reform bill, aimed at restoring the conduct of both political parties.
We know Obama has already changed the way politics and campaigning are done in America. We know he refuses to accept donations from lobbyists or political actions committees (PACs.) We know he has shattered fundraising efforts at the grassroots level time and again, having most recently earned 501,000 donations from 351,000 contributors over the past three financial quarters. We know he attracted record-breaking crowds across the country: 20,000 in Austin, Texas; 10,000 in Oakland, California; 20,000 in Atlanta, Georgia; 24,000 in New York City. We know he has attracted this support by campaigning on the politics of hope. We know his message awakens Americans.
And perhaps most importantly in this coming election, we know Obama can make hard decisions and make them well. We know Obama opposed the invasion of Iraq in 2002. We know he was courageous enough to state his position publicly and decent enough to stand by his position when it was considered unpopular at best and un-American at worst. We know Obama believes in telling America what it needs to hear when it doesn’t want to hear it.
Right now, the fact is, America needs to hear something difficult. Right now America needs to hear that our reputation abroad is tarnished. Right now the purpose and the relevance of America are both in question among some. The idea of America is in doubt throughout the world as they wonder if America’s moment has passed. They wonder this in the Middle East where we have abandoned the peace process. They wonder this in Darfur where genocide is annihilating life everyday. They wonder this in Kenya where an entire generation of orphans lies in the wake of HIV/AIDS. They even wonder this at home, where the ninth ward of New Orleans remains in ruins and the city of Jena, Louisiana exposes the subtle prejudices that corrupt our legal system more than a generation after the Civil Rights Movement. Where has America gone? Why is America so absent? Where is America’s leadership?
People ask this because America has simply forgotten how to be America. We have forgotten how to be brothers and sisters. We have forgotten to use reason over rhetoric. We have forgotten that rights of man are what bind us together and what legitimizes our way of life – here and around the world.
This is a matter of nothing less than our national character. Who do we believe we are? Who do we choose to be in this world? We must remember and restore our national character in fundamental and bold ways. Thomas Paine said shortly after the birth of America “let but a nation conceive rightly of its character, and it will be chastely just in protecting it. None ever began with a fairer than America, and none can be under a greater obligation to preserve it.” He also said, “A good opinion of ourselves is exceedingly necessary in private life, but absolutely necessary in public life, and of the utmost importance in supporting national character.” America, Paine wrote, has it in her choice to do, and to live, as happily as she pleases. The world, he said, is in her hands.
We need to hear these things. It is vital to our nation’s future. The only candidate speaking to us is Barack Obama. The only candidate being honest with us is Barack Obama. The only candidate offering us a next step is Barack Obama. The only candidate telling us it is time once again to have a leader of the free world is Barack Obama. He has said, “This election offers us the chance to turn the page and open a new chapter in American leadership. The disappointment that so many around the world feel toward America right now is only a testament to the high expectations they hold for us. We must meet those expectations again, not because being respected is an end in itself, but because the security of America and the wider world demands it. This will require a new spirit - not of bluster and bombast, but of quiet confidence and sober intelligence, a spirit of care and renewed competence. It will also require a new leader. And as a candidate for President of the United States, I am asking you to entrust me with that responsibility.”
Inevitably, America will march forward. Inevitably, America will elect a new leader in 2008. Inevitably, the threats of today will become the conflicts of tomorrow. Inevitably, the errors of the Bush years will become the responsibility of our next President. And inevitably, the direction of our nation will be defined by that same leader. Inevitably, in this election we are making a decision about our national character.
What remains to be determined is what we as Americans will decide to value in that process. Will we support or reject the cycle of Bush and Clinton leadership? Will we seek out new understandings of our own citizenship? Will we engage in the renewal of our country’s purpose and processes? Will we choose to change the course of our nation in ways that are fundamental and bold? Will we acknowledge where we have failed so that we might design a new course that will lead to greater success? Will we admit that the political age we have just lived through is not working and decide to turn the page on that chapter in our history? Will we change the course we are on in America and seek out a new direction? Will we decide that there is a better way? Will we recognize soon enough and clearly enough that such a better way is already galvanizing, already forming, and already becoming its own force in American politics? Will we let that force of hope, reason, and unity transform us and redirect us as a nation? Where will our current course inevitably lead us? And what must we inevitably do to alter it?
An object in motion, after all, tends to stay in motion. It takes a great force to stop it.
* * *
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/keithferg/CShX
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted October 06, 2007 10:12 PM |
|
|
How dare he hype
His stance on the War in Iraq???
THIS is how....
Five years ago on October 2, 2002, at a time when his impassioned stance was considered at best extremely unpopular and at worst treasonous, Barack Obama gave a powerful speech opposing the Iraq war months before it began.
While others followed the conventional thinking in Washington, Barack stood up against a popular war he knew was a mistake...
"What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income -- to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics."
-Barack Obama, October 2, 2002
http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/judgment
The full text of the speech can be found here:
http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php
American cannot afford another president without this kind of judgment.
Hillary Clinton will do what's popular. She always does.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 06, 2007 11:15 PM |
|
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
posted October 07, 2007 06:10 AM |
|
|
All I have to say is Peacemaker. Personally I do think Obama is the correct choice. It may turn out I am mistaken in the future, but for now I agree with everything you said. Except one small thing. I do not think Obama, if elected, will make much of a difference. Though he is the best choice (IMO) I firmly believe that the president we elect does not matter. Special interests, money, and corporations own the government. They have the money, they make the rules. Pure and simple. Until that changes, the best president in the universe will not change things.
Will a good president help? Absolutely. Can things change for the better? Yes. The thing is, people..common people..have to actively strive for a change. Get out and vote, not with who has the flashiest campain, but who you feel is the best choice. Do not let them buy your vote. If in the end America's people do not strive to improve our nation, then we deserve what we get.
I think peacemakers post deserves a +QP
____________
Message received.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted October 07, 2007 10:06 PM |
|
Edited by Consis at 06:19, 10 Oct 2007.
|
Mytical,
Which post are you referring to? Which one do you think deserves the Qp, the copy/paste job or what she actually wrote in the following post?
Edit: I have finally finished reading the book. After having fully read Obama's book, "Dreams From My Father--a story of race and inheritance"
I am left feeling fairly good. I think this guy is a good person and I think he will be the greatest center of American humanity in Africa. While I was reading the last part of the book I found that I kept asking myself: "Why shouldn't we start with Kenya? I see nothing wrong with that." I think Kenya is the best place to start and I believe that Obama will guide this country to do the most we can do for them, more than any other person. The reason I believe this is because of something that was said toward the end of my reading. And I agree with it completely. A very wise old woman who was a historian of sorts remarked that young black Americans tend to romanticize Africa so. She goes on by saying, Quote:
"When your father and I were young, it was just the opposite--we expected to find all the answers in America. Harlem. Chicago. Langston Hughes and James Baldwin. That's where we drew our inspiration. And the Kennedys they were very popular. The chance to study in America was very important. A hopeful time. Of course, when we returned we realized that our education did not always serve us well. Or the people who had sent us. There was all this messy history to deal with." (Obama goes on to inquire why she thought black Americans were prone to disappointment when they visited Africa. She responded by saying), "Because they come here looking for the authentic. That is bound to disappoint a person. Look at this meal we are eating. Many people will tell you that our tribe are a fish-eating people. But that was not true for all of them. Only those who lived by the lake. And even for those it was not always true. Before they settled around the lake, they were pastoralists, like the Masai. Now, if you and your sister behave yourself and eat a proper share of this food, I will offer you tea. Kenyans are very boastful about the quality of their tea, you notice. But of course we got this habit from the English. Our ancestors did not drink such a thing. Then there's the spices we used to cook this fish. They originally came from India, or Indonesia. So even in this simple meal, you will find it very difficult to be authentic--although the meal is certainly African." (She goes on): "You can hardly blame black Americans, of course, for wanting an unblemished past. After the cruelties they've suffered--still suffer, from what I read in the newspapers. They're not unique in this desire. The European wants the same thing. The Germans, the English . . . they all claim Athens and Rome as their own, when in fact, their ancestors helped destroy classical culture. But that happened so long ago, so their task is easier. In their schools, you rarely hear about the misery of European peasants throughout most of the recorded history. The corruption and exploitation of the Industrial Revolution, the senseless tribal wars--it's shameful how the Europeans treated their own, much less colored peoples. So this idea about a golden age in Africa, before the white man came, seems only natural." (She ends by saying), "I'm less interested in a daughter who's authentically African than one who is authentically herself."
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted October 10, 2007 07:18 AM |
|
|
Guess I need to pay a little more attention *grins sheepishly*. I missed the part about it being a copy/paste. I do agree with a lot of it though. I'll still give it a
____________
Message received.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted October 17, 2007 02:14 AM |
|
Edited by Consis at 02:16, 17 Oct 2007.
|
Anyone Watching The News?
How speculative are my Obama predictions now? Every peace lover, hippy, and conservationist is flapping their wings and showing their bright colors in support of Obama. Hahahahaha.....worst thing that could've happened to such a nice guy. I kinda feel sorry for him. I do still believe that no matter what happens in this election he will still do great things for relations between U.S. and impoverished African countries. Of that I have no doubt. I can't wait to see him shine through with blinding moral colors.
I still say Romney is my candidate's greatest adversary. And people like Wolfman already know this. If we are to win the primary we must never put her on stage standing next to Romney. We'll be toast that very instant.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted October 22, 2007 03:41 AM |
|
|
I watch all this stuff, you should know that.
Obama seems to be losing support, sorry Peacemaker, but it's true.
As I am writing this I am watching the Republican Debate and I am thinking I would love to see a Romney/McCain or McCain/Romney ticket. I can't decide which would be better.
I remember a few years ago when Peacemaker asked me if I would consider voting for McCain, I said no. Now I can't decide whether he will be better as President or Vice President.
The losers of this debate are:
Fred Thomson - Says "um" way too many times. If you make fun of how Bush speaks, oh man, just wait to hear this guy. In the first debate, he froze and stared at the camera. Plus he doesn't really bring a lot to the table.
Ron Paul - Spouted his ideas on removing government programs and becoming an isolationist nation. My favorite part of this debate was actually when Paul was speaking...he got booed big time by the audience.
According to Guiliani, Hillary said "I have a million ideas, and America can't afford them all." That's definitely the truth.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 22, 2007 04:44 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Fred Thomson - Says "um" way too many times. If you make fun of how Bush speaks, oh man, just wait to hear this guy. In the first debate, he froze and stared at the camera. Plus he doesn't really bring a lot to the table.
He's an actor. I thought he was supposed to be good at this stuff. Apparently not.
Quote:
Ron Paul - Spouted his ideas on removing government programs and becoming an isolationist nation. My favorite part of this debate was actually when Paul was speaking...he got booed big time by the audience.
Ron Paul is no longer my top candidate. I love his foreign policy and his stance on civil rights, but his domestic policy is crazy.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted October 27, 2007 07:58 PM |
|
|
I don't understand why Ron Paul is so appealing. He has no stance that I can see on education (one of my top issues) or the future of energy in this country. He also has a ridiculous, impossible foreign policy plan.
____________
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted October 27, 2007 08:54 PM |
|
|
Wolfman,
It's really very simple why Ron Paul is so appealing. He talks like a founding father might speak today. Some people want to return to our roots. The problem is that the world has changed since that time and many people are unwilling to accept this.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 18, 2007 10:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I don't understand why Ron Paul is so appealing. He has no stance that I can see on education (one of my top issues) or the future of energy in this country. He also has a ridiculous, impossible foreign policy plan.
His stance on education? He wants to abolish the Department of Education and leave everything to the states. Energy? He wants to abolish the Department of Energy and leave everything to the states. He's far from perfect. But his foreign policy is awesome. It's not ridiculous or impossible. He has the best foreign policy out of any candidate.
Mvass's review of the candidates
Joe Biden
+
Pro-Choice
Pro-stem cell research
Cloning
Against No Child Left Behind Act
Opposes drilling for oil in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
Gun control
Guest worker visas
Supports balanced budget
Supports keeping Social Security
-
Amnesty
Wall on Mexican border
Voted for PATRIOT Act
Universal health care
Voted for Iraq war
Overall: 7/10
Hillary Clinton
+
Pro-choice
Pro-Stem-cell research
Environment
-
Supports NCLB
Against free trade
Universal health care
Voted for Iraq war
Amnesty
Mexican fence
Voted for PATRIOT Act
Overall: 4/10
I'll add more later.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted November 18, 2007 11:01 PM |
|
|
Well....
I've been doing a lot of listening lately. Through many stories and accounts of how people are feeling about Hillary I've learned something I find to be alarming. I know how I feel about my candidate but my own personal feelings do not subtract from what other Americans are feeling. On more than one occasion I've heard people come close to almost declaring civil war should she become president. Most, if not all, of the people I've heard things like this from are hardlined military supporters who routinely gather and recount stories of how the last Clinton made such huge cuts in the armed forces. Wolfman's story is by no means an isolated one. And something must be done to address this issue. These kinds of people are of a certain caliber. These are not a bunch procrastinating internet junkies who say stuff more than they actually do. We're talking about some career officers, NCO's, and other business tycoons who are well-known for their ability to take action. If Hillary becomes president I fear this segment of the American population might grow to an unimaginable opposition. I didn't hate Newt when he outsmarted the Clinton presidency in the Senate and House. He really wasn't all that bad of a guy. But if these new politically polar opposites gain support the way the republicans during Clinton's presidency then we're in for a lot more than a few hundred votes in some well furbished architecturally greek based american law center. No indeed, methinks it won't be a handful of suits and ties to lead the opposition against her. We're talking force of arms and righteous fear mongering.
This is why I am strongly considering Biden as a very possible alternative Hillary.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 18, 2007 11:55 PM |
|
|
Hillary is quite divisive, but I don't think that it'll come to a civil war.
On a completely different note, I was watching the Democratic debate a couple of weeks ago, and Edwards kept saying stuff like, "If you don't want any change, Senator Clinton is your candidate." and "If you don't want a solution to illegal immigration, Senator Clinton is your candidate." I kept waiting for him to slip up and say, "Hillary Clinton is your man."
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
