Hillary + Obama = 08

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Dec 15 2006, 03:57 PM) [snapback]362888[/snapback]</div>

Yep, that Obama's done lots of lousy things we hate in illinois (from wiki):

- work with a non-profit organization helping local churches organize job training programs for residents of poor neighborhoods
- work for a civil rights law firm
- teach constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School
- help to author an Illinois Earned Income Tax Credit that provided benefits to the working poor
- work for legislation that would cover residents who could not afford health insurance
- help pass bills to increase funding for AIDS prevention and care programs
- author a law requiring police to videotape interrogations for crimes punishable by the death penalty
- push through legislation that would force insurance companies to cover routine mammograms
- win the endorsement of the Illinois Fraternal Order of Police

I'd much rather have someone in the white house who got all of his jobs because of his Dad.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Dec 15 2006, 01:57 PM) [snapback]362888[/snapback]</div>

And Bush's 6 years as Governor only consisted of his executing people and helping his oil cronies...

 

Texas is a 'weak governor' state mainly run by the legislature. If I remember correctly, the governor is a part-time position and whose main job is rubber stamping the work of the legislature. Except, of course, the power to execute which he showed a remarkable penchant for. Turn about is fair play and he must be sent back there on death row to get the feel of the place.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Dec 15 2006, 03:14 PM) [snapback]362895[/snapback]</div>

It is my most sincerest hope that he is the Democratics presidential candidate

I keep saying it - the timber of the Democratic presidental candidatehopefuls is awful short in the roots and stature.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Dec 15 2006, 04:47 PM) [snapback]362916[/snapback]</div>

Say what you like. Those accomplishments are all pre-election to the US senate. Our current president's (pre-Governor) accomplishments run something like this:
Run an oil company into the ground
get bailed out with family connnections
Repeat
Repeat
Do PR for a baseball team

THAT's what I call light.

I mean, can you imagine Bush teaching law school?

"The point now is how do we work together to achieve important goals. And one such goal is a democracy in Germany."
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
"I think, tide turning-- see, as I remember, I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of -- it's easy to see a tide turn. Did I say those words?"
"Rarely is the question asked, 'Is our children learning'?"
- George W. Bush

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Dec 15 2006, 12:14 PM) [snapback]362895[/snapback]</div>

This is precisely why Republicans insist that Obama has "no experience."

-- He's done nothing to aid fundamentalist zealots to impose their religion on the rest of us.

-- He's done nothing to increase corporate profits at the cost of the working poor.

-- He's done nothing to undermine the right of workers to collective bargaining.

-- He's done nothing to protect drug companies from old people who think they should have a right to buy their medicines at a fair price.

-- He has given no clear indication that he would allow big business to write all laws and regulations.

In other words, he completely lacks the sort of experience that neo-conservatives demand of a presidential candidate. Plus he's black. Plus his middle name is the name of a man who had nothing to do with 9/11 and who we made war against for it. How could anyone vote for a guy whose middle name is so reviled?

And Berman, it's bad enough that you constantly repeat disinformation, that you never admit to your lies when you are proved wrong, that you demand facts when you appear yourself to be allergic to them; but can you really be vile enough, hateful enough, odious enough, to insist that a man's middle name is a good reason to vote against him? You make me ashamed of my ethnicity. You make me ashamed of the human race!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(stealth @ Dec 14 2006, 11:39 PM) [snapback]362663[/snapback]</div>

No, Dick Morris never mentioned Ann Coulter (the only political arena "Coulter" I know of, but correct me if there's another one I'm not aware of). Coulter is not a politician, and would only appeal to a small segment of the right if she were. She's really just a pundit or commentator, and her abrasive style would not translate well in a national candidacy. That's the reason many think Senator Clinton will not do well, but as she has shown over the past 6 years, she's smart enough to learn how to get her ideas across in a non-threatening manner.

Politics is fluid, and the attitudes in the country can change fairly quickly, but Hillary Clinton is nearly unstoppable as a candidate. The right's attacks on her will seem unfair, and only add to her popularity.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Dec 15 2006, 05:47 AM) [snapback]362697[/snapback]</div>

Well, no. I can't show those exact polling numbers, as they are in the book by Dick Morris published about a year ago (you can read the review on Amazon.com HERE . I didn't buy it, so can't refer to it for the specifics, and my dialog here is from my recollection of an interview with Morris on the radio.

He said that she polls well with the likely voters among several groups, including blacks, hispanics, single women, and moderates and liberals. She does not poll well among Christian conservatives or other conservative religious groups, or conservatives in general. But since those of us of the conservative persuasion really haven't had a small-government conservative candidate running since President Reagan, I'm not sure any of the political strategists really care about us!

But you can see the numbers for Senator Clinton in the Democrat primary by Googling it; among likely voters has her running at numbers like 37% (see CNN's poll at http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/07/poll/ ) and her closest challengers back in the high teens or at about 20 points. That's a huge lead. Its way early, of course, and politics is known for its ability to change rapidly.

 

dick morris is a clinton hater as evidenced by his constant haranguing of them. his polls and predictions are to be taken with a grain of salt.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Beryl Octet @ Dec 13 2006, 10:49 PM) [snapback]362009[/snapback]</div>

I'm hoping for Edwards/Nader

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Dec 16 2006, 08:16 PM) [snapback]363299[/snapback]</div>

Of course. He's a Republican, and while he likes Bill Clinton, he makes no pretense of hiding his dislike of Hillary Clinton. He worked with her, and didn't like her, so his "hatred" at least has a source other than an impression of her through the media.

Since he isn't a pollster himself, but is using polls conducted by other people, you would have to look at the raw numbers, and unfortunately, I didn't buy the book to see what polls he had.

But let me ask you if you think his view is right: don't you think that Senator Clinton is a more attractive candidate to the majority of the country right now than any of the Republicans? The only possible exception I can see is Mayor Giuliani, a social moderate with a positive record as a law-and-order fiscal conservative. I think the country is tired of the Bush or Romney-style religious conservative, but the Republican primaries are dominated by religious conservatives. I don't see a Republican being able to win in 2008.

Where I think Morris is wrong is that it isn't as simple as getting a candidate that polls well with certain groups of people and then putting that candidate forth. Many people decide between the two candidates that are presented, and the issues that are in the forefront at the time of the election, and the "swing vote" is often made up of "undecided" voters who choose in the last week.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Dec 15 2006, 04:09 PM) [snapback]362929[/snapback]</div>

No, but not for the reason you think. He isn't a lawyer, a plus in my book. I think one of the problems with our society is that we have ceded our governance to the legal priesthood. If its considered a conflict of interest for a regulator to have worked in the regulated industry by some, then why isn't a conflict for lawyers to make laws?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jmccord @ Dec 17 2006, 12:13 AM) [snapback]363309[/snapback]</div>

I'm hoping Edwards/Obama.

Let the other side have McCain/Nader.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Dec 14 2006, 10:35 AM) [snapback]362139[/snapback]</div>

Hillary doesn't strike me as stupid.

Are you saying she is so ambitious that should would commit such stupidity as to run? And would she even get the nomination at the DNC? If what you say is true, she'd be wasting her time because she'd never be put on the ticket, no matter who her running mate is.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Dec 14 2006, 02:29 PM) [snapback]362322[/snapback]</div>

And what political favor did Barack Obama do for the Rezkos in return for all these alleged favors? I'd like to know.

I know what Randy "Duke" Cunningham got caught doing.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alnilam @ Dec 15 2006, 02:59 AM) [snapback]362669[/snapback]</div>

But she is.

More and more elections are popularity contests.

Look at what the media's done. Would we ever elect a president in a wheelchair (FDR)? For that matter, would a short, fat, ugly, bald man with an annoying voice win against a younger, taller, slimmer, handsome one with a beautiful voice? I don't think so.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Dec 15 2006, 06:54 PM) [snapback]362968[/snapback]</div>

This is why I blocked DBerman. I still find it incomprehensible that he is an MD and that he has enough of a practice make a living. If he were my Dr. I'd quickly find another as I also find it hard to believe he could keep his views from his patients. Being a registered Democrat I wouldn't trust him to treat me to the best of his ability. I don't trust the closed minded fanatical with my health. Healthcare needs an open mind and impartiality. DBerman has demonstrated he has neither.

Go ahead and block him. As you can see, debate is futile.

Trust me. You'll feel much better.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Dec 13 2006, 06:06 PM) [snapback]361898[/snapback]</div>

I'm already starting to gag. Neither of them are satisfactory as far as I'm concerned. I doubt that either party will have anyone for us working middle class folks.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(VinceDee @ Dec 13 2006, 06:39 PM) [snapback]361911[/snapback]</div>

I agree. Nobody I know will vote for a woman or a black man for President. In our politically correct system women & blacks are held in high esteem especially in the labor mkt. I am only a white man. Of course it matters not who is put up for Pres. Another white man like Bush will F**k me in the butt anyway.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Dec 30 2006, 11:58 PM) [snapback]368878[/snapback]</div>

I don't block anybody, because the lurkers are reading them, and I respond to the extremists so that the lurkers will know the extremists are not the only view out there.

But I share your incomprehension that anybody with Berman's apparent intellect could have become an MD. Of course, since I know nothing about him but his screen name and his style of posting, I have no way of knowing if he really is an MD. There is no "truth in screen-names" law. Anybody can put "md" in their screen name, and Danny is not going to check up to see that the screen name is an accurate description of the person. Note the presence of a couple of prominent former dictators, now deceased, actively posting here.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Dec 31 2006, 04:58 AM) [snapback]368878[/snapback]</div>

Wow, talk about presumptious arrogance....

For all you know, Dr. Berman could be "the best" Dr. out there for whatever he might specialize in. It's just this sort of thing that gives "Democrats" a bad name. In some ways, that's even WORSE than saying I'm not going to see Dr. so and so because he's gay, Black, Indian, etc., because at least in that case, you can actually say you have a reason, no matter how "wrong" it might be...