Letters posted here are associated with the following Salon Premium Member:

soopergrover

Published Letters: 146
Editor's Choice: 1

Thursday, January 24, 2008 09:05 AM

@ Thrasher - sorry but you're wrong

Once again for the millionth time I am asking anyone, anyone on this board to point to a state or collection of states that you reasonably think Hillary can take away from the GOP in 2008. Look at the electoral college map folks!

Remember how confident you were in 2004? Hey, there's no way GW could win right? With the war and the economy and his stupid tax cuts and the fact that John Kerry was a freakin war hero that served his country while GW served himself another line?

Um, except that GW did win didn't he?

Look, we live in a center-right country where in 1976 even after the republican president and vice-president resigned in disgrace, the dems STILL barely beat them and even then it was only for one term.

Bill Clinton was an anomaly who basically got lucky the first time because of Ross Perot and the second time because of well, Bob Dole. Sure, he was a great president but his popularity just never rubbed off on the democratic party.

So check your map. Assuming that the dems cede the South (AGAIN) they will end up in a fight over Ohio (AGAIN) and at the end of the day Obama has a slightly better chance than Hillary to pick up the republicans and independents that you are going to need to win that state AND to keep the GOP base turnout low.

Hillary would do the exact opposite (turn off independents and republicans and ensure that the base GOP base turns out in droves to loudly reject someone they clearly loathe)

And even with all that if the GOP is smart enough to nominate McCain (just to win basically) I am not sure either Obama or Clinton (but definitely not Clinton) will be able to beat him.

Oh and if you are thinking about 2006 and the fact that the dems took the congress, well yes they basically used up their one 'we are fed up with the republican's and we want someone else' chit and they have done absolutely NOTHING with it except for maybe setting themselves up to share the blame (fairly or unfairly) for our current economic situation.

The cold hard truth is that we are 3 for 10 since 1968 and that includes a GOP president who almost got impeached, a GOP president who wasn't even elected and a GOP president who basically lied to get us into a war and then gave all of our money to his rich friends.

I am not saying it's impossible but it is damn near unlikely. Our best hope is that we nominate Obama and an uber-conservative like Gary Bauer runs independently.

Thursday, January 24, 2008 12:04 PM
Original article: Mission unaccomplished

@ timhowe - Ditto

It is a disgrace that this administration has not been able to catch or kill the worst mass murderer in his country's history. I will never understand why this has never been emphasized.

Thursday, January 24, 2008 02:34 PM

Kind of a slap in the face isn't it?

"As far as I can tell, neither Sen. Obama nor Hillary have lost votes because of their race or gender. They are getting votes, to be sure, because of their race or gender -- that's why people tell me Hillary doesn't have a chance of winning here." - Bill Clinton

So basically Bill is saying that black folks are only voting for Obama because he's black. And then I infer that what is implying is that it doesn't really matter who black folks vote for anyway since they are going to vote for whichever democrat runs.

The first implication, that black people are only voting for Obama because he is black, is insulting. Turning that on its head, I doubt Hillary would be so pleased if Obama came out and said the only thing Hillary had going for her in N.H. was her ovaries.

The second implication, admittedly inferred by myself - a Bill Clinton fan - reflects a disregard for a substantial voting block of the democratic party. I think that the Clinton's make these comments at their own risk. The alternative to not voting democrat isn't just voting republican, it's also staying home and not voting at all.

Thursday, January 24, 2008 02:38 PM

sorry everyone

for the passive voice and atrocious grammar. it's been a long day.

"... *were* her ovaries."

*Clintons* not Clinton's.

"implication inferred by me?" ugh, terrible

Friday, January 25, 2008 12:56 PM

@ Rosenkavalier

Ha ha ha. Hee hee. Stop it. Really you're killing me. What are you, twelve?

Hillary is jut gaming the system like any other politician / lawyer would do. Trying to get the best advantage for herself within the absolute letter of the law (kind of defining what "is" is you might say :))

Um, you might have also noticed that ol' Bill stopped squawking about the horrible horrible unfairness of the Nevada caucuses about 2 secs after Hillary won them due to the same unbalanced weighting that he was complaining about in the first place.

Hillary's problem with this little maneuver is that it makes her look even more reptilian than she already does.

I mean I know you are a HRC true believer but come on!

Most Active Letters Threads

505

The crazy, irrational beliefs of Muslims

Tom Friedman explains the real problem: stupid Muslims think the U.S. is about war and aggression.
426

A key British official reminds us of the forgotten anthrax attack

A vast array of establishment and expert sources do not believe this episode was really resolved.
291

The face of rotted Washington

Evan Bayh demands more debt-financed war - fought by others - while boasting that he's a stern "deficit hawk."
210

Is Obama's civil liberties record understandable?

Was it unreasonable to expect him to adhere to his commitments regarding the Constitution?
145

Bigotry wins in Switzerland

By voting to ban the construction of minarets, Switzerland apes the most extreme intolerance in the Muslim world

View all »

Letters Help

Currently in Salon