U2democrat
Blue Crack Addict
I personally see Hillary as a far greater gamble.
I'm beginning to have some doubts about all this myself. Or more correctly, some doubts as to whether some of these more over-the-top fantasies about Obama's presence and sincerity and optimism magically transforming Washington into rainbows,-puppies-'n'-kittens land if elected might not be a subconscious response to these equally over-the-top convictions that Hillary is the Spawn of Satan--to the point where we're seeing unmistakably lefty voters apparently managing to convince themselves that handing the White House to any Republican would be preferable to Hillary, which makes absolutely no sense given their own stances on the issues. I wonder if there's some kind of collective wishful amnesia afoot about what happened in 1992, when Bill Clinton, another candidate who indisputably 'had the magic' with crowds and benefited hugely from it, outraged Republicans by defeating the highly qualified but considerably less charming incumbent Bush Sr. Disenchantment with Bill Clinton certainly increased with time and the inevitable scandals and disappointments, and by the end plenty of Democrats were soured on him too, but from the beginning there was already this now-familiar hysterical screed about the vile, slimy, lyin'-SOB-good-ol'-boy from Arkansas and--not incidentally--his ballbuster-bitch-uppity-Yale-grad wife, emanating from the other side. It is naive, very naive, to assume this could not possibly happen to Obama.deep said:as for " division I see caused by her" I accept your perception
but I don't believe it
and also understand that within your college environment
it seems like an unstoppable ground swell for obama
a tidal wave that will propel all the way through November
well. based on watching many, many presidential elections very closely and analizing them
i fear your very common held belief is far from what will happen
and please bear in mind
I very much do not want huckabee, rudy or mitt appointing useless sacks, like alito to the supreme court.
I expect more vacancies on the court, and the liberals will be the next two to go.
yolland said:what exactly she's done that is so singularly hateful and vile as to warrant that level of frothing-at-the-mouth hysteria.
ntalwar said:
Who will be President - two people?
martha said:
Wtf does that mean?
ntalwar said:There's too much usage of "The Clintons" everywhere - as if they will be a ruling team. The country will reject a perceived co-presidency.
financeguy said:
The Clinton-Rodhams are not related by blood, last time I checked.
ntalwar said:
Who will be President - two people?
ntalwar said:
It'll be the first time a present and past commander-in-chief are in the White House at the same time though.
deep said:
With W who is president? Two people?
I think it is more like 1 and 1/2.
ntalwar said:
With Clinton/Clinton + VP, voters might feel they are electing 2 1/2 or 3 people - that might be too much to stomach - we'll see.
martha said:
If you keep saying it, maybe others will believe it as well.
ntalwar said:
martha said:
Well you keep harping on this subject, repeating it over and over. What other reason would you have?
yolland said:Obama is not a bantamweight naïf and Hillary is not the spawn of Satan.
yolland said:If, as appears may be the case, the GOP is finally settling on a candidate to rally around
maycocksean said:
Leave it to Yolland to get it right. . .
I think the Hillary hatred is unwarranted. I think she would make a very good president and I would probably vote for her if she got the nomination. I still prefer Obama but my preference certainly doesn't make me hate Hillary.
ntalwar said:
I clarified and elaborated a bit after your rude "wtf" post.
martha said:
But you have posted your little tidbit in this thread a number of times. I think we all got the point, whatever point you were trying to make.