Many (myself included) see Edwards getting knocked off early in the Primaries.
What are your thoughts on him?
Mufasa[/quote]
In a poll by Rasmussen (I think), they polled dems and reps, white and black, and found that, in the end, most predicted a white male would be each party’s candidate. Its ‘fashionable’ now to support Obama and Hillary, but she’ll blow up and Obama has some really extreme liberal Senate votes. There sits Edwards — name recognition, family man, handsome,…
His only problem is that he comes from a small state; if he was from Florida or California, it’d be a lock.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
I don’t know, HH:
Many (myself included) see Edwards getting knocked off early in the Primaries.
What are your thoughts on him?
Mufasa
In a poll by Rasmussen (I think), they polled dems and reps, white and black, and found that, in the end, most predicted a white male would be each party’s candidate. Its ‘fashionable’ now to support Obama and Hillary, but she’ll blow up and Obama has some really extreme liberal Senate votes. There sits Edwards — name recognition, family man, handsome,…
His only problem is that he comes from a small state; if he was from Florida or California, it’d be a lock.
[/quote]
Florida maybe, but the democrats don’t need to nominate a Californian. Edwards would have a decent shot if the party believes he can deliver NC. The ability to take from the Republican home territory might be his best asset.
Of all the outside candidates on the Democratic side, I really like Richardson’s chances. He has so many factors in his favor, with his only obstacles for the time being- granted, big ones- money, name recognition, and being from a small, albiet slightly Republican, state.
If he can hang on through the early primaries until one or two of the biggies stumble, then two of those three problems will be solved. I think he’s in an excellent position to be the biggest inheritor of money and supporters as those bigger names drop.
[quote]etaco wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
Wasn’t there an attempt to “soften” Hillary either during one of Bill’s campaigns or one of his Presidencies?
(I recall the people of Arkansas HATING her as a “First Lady” when Bill was Governor the first time. She was very harsh and “granola” then, when she would breast feed Chelsea in public!)
Mufasa
Hillary breast feed in public! I just lost my lunch! Thanks for that imagery!
Think of Hillary in a G-string and pasties shaking her ass seductively…
Enter Dennis Hastert in oversized assless chaps, a collar, and nothing else.[/quote]
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Hillary did show a little “thin skin” when she began to get weary of being asked about the “Dealing With Bad Men…” comment of a few days ago.
The Campaign trail is long, hard and Unforgiving…
But she should know that by now…
Mufasa[/quote]
Hey Mufasa:
I have a hard time believing that YOU are supporting hillary.
I would have thought you’d have seen right through her schemes and machinations.
I’d have thought someone like Richardson would be much more appealing.
But any way you look at it; and regardless as to which part of the Political Spectrum you sit…Hillary WILL be the “lightning Rod” AND most interesting story in the next Elections.
Also, IF she wins, that would also be historic in a number of ways ( first Woman President; First, First Gentleman; First, First Gentleman was a two-term President himself, etc.
I haven’t been this excited about an Election season since the “First Perot”…
But any way you look at it; and regardless as to which part of the Political Spectrum you sit…Hillary WILL be the “lightning Rod” AND most interesting story in the next Elections.
Also, IF she wins, that would also be historic in a number of ways ( first Woman President; First, First Gentleman; First, First Gentleman was a two-term President himself, etc.
I haven’t been this excited about an Election season since the “First Perot”…
Mufasa[/quote]
Mufasa:
I just don’t see it. In fact, I’m truly surprised that the dems are suggesting it seriously.
Look at the map. You tell me how she wins.
I don’t think her genitals are going to be enough, friend. She’s just a public relations dream for Republicans. So many different stances on so many issues. So many inflammatory comments.
In case you haven’t noticed, many people get that, fingernails across the blackboard feeling.
I think the IDEA of hillary is far better than the reality.
Without Hillary, how interesting would these elections be?
If you’re HONEST, your answer would be “not very…”
Mufasa[/quote]
Friend,
I HONESTLY think Rudy Giuliani is THAT exciting. Not only does he have the ability to inspire, but, he has executive experience. He has moderate views on many issues which will be attractive to the all important swing voters. He was at the epicenter of the defining moment in recent history.
He is MUCH better in front of the camera. He has the charm of the underdog. Even his name, Rudy conjures up hard-working and guy next door.
Hillary, plain and simple, will be the person who will a) make the other Candidates interesting and b) will be the most formidable opponent that almost ALL of these candidates will have.
With his positions on social issues as well as his personal issues, he could serious stir things up if he got nominated. It isn’t inconceivable considering his position that a democrat slightly to the right on social issues (or at least cleaner personally) could end up with the nomination, thus leading to a significant cross-over vote. Even if that doesn’t happen though his candidacy would likely turn off what’s left of the radical religious right which hasn’t already been turned off, forcing a battle royal for the middle.
Of course, I don’t think we will be so lucky as to see such a show; he won’t win the nomination.
This should be the most exciting election cycle in years though regardless.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Without Hillary, how interesting would these elections be?[/quote]
Hmph. I totally disagree, for the simple reason that there will be no incumbent running for re-election, no “heir apparent” (Cheney’s not going to run), and therefore no favorite. It’s an election totally up for grabs, regardless of Hillary. How can that not be exciting?
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” – Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
So, since Bush tricked Hillary into believing all this, it implies that Bush is smarter than Hillary…so, when the Left calls him ‘stupid’…
