Letters to the Editor
-
@snarlingcoyote
Not to burst the bubble on your Anglican/Episcopal tea party, but John Edwards grew up a Southern Baptist and is now a United Methodist.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week745/news.html
Sorry.
-
Edwards-Richardson most electable
People keep confusing "electability" with what they hope would happen. I think the only way to judge electability is to be completely cynical about it. People vote (these days) FOR the person with whom they feel more personally comfortable and AGAINST whoever feels more threatening. In 1992 and 1996, more people felt they could relate to Bill Clinton better than to George HW Bush, Bob Dole, or Ross Perot (and felt threatened, perhaps, by Bob Dole). In 2000, it was mostly an even split (with Al Gore's experience probably helping him there). In 2004, they definitely didn't feel they had anything in common with John Kerry, and probably felt a little threatened by him, but they recognized Bush as the kind of guy who, even if you wouldn't trust him to coach your kid's baseball team, he might be in the stands as one of the fathers, or you knew people like him at the Kiwanis Club. In 2008, I doubt people can relate to Romney (the GOP's John Kerry) or Giuliani (let alone spell the latter's name), but they know they can't relate to Hillary Clinton and probably not to Barack Obama. So, if it isn't Edwards (or Richardson, who also has a common-man appeal), then it will pretty much come down to who feels the least threatening to the middle-of-the-road, populist-but-proud, patriotic-but-pragmatic American voter -- who will no doubt once again pull the lever (or break the chad, or try to hit the touchscreen button) for the candidate he or she feels like they could most stomach spending the next four years with in their news coverage. I doubt they've learned any lessons in the last 7 years, but perhaps enough have in order to make a difference this time around. If it's Huckabee vs. Clinton, however, that one's already been written out and ends in Huckabee's favor.
-
Thank you!
Texas PI Lawyer.
I didn't even bother to fact check that one and I should have. I knew Edwards was something mainline and boring and thought he was Episcopal. (There's a bad joke there, waiting to happen. . .)
The mental slip makes sense though. I was raised Southern Baptist and am currently UMC. Between those two, however, I spent about 5 years as an Episcopal.
D'oh.
Thanks for setting me straight. . .
-
Edwards/Obama
Please please please let it be Edwards/Obama
-
Another poll, eh?
Based on all the current polls we've been seeing, with the immense range of results, but almost invariably showing that Hillary leads on all fronts, and in view of the wide array of efforts being made at all levels of media, to stop Hillary, in all kinds of polls, apparently showing that Hillary would be a bad candidate, at the same time that other polls show that she'd be a wonderful candidate, I have ceased to believe any "single" poll about her, most especially those taken before the nominating ritual. The antagonism against Hillary in establishment media, has reached such a feverish pitch, that even those people that have been claiming that she's an "establishment" candidate, must be increasingly embarrassed at the bullshit they're preaching. This recent poll, especially considering its source, I strongly suspect, is probably another effort to stop Hillary, before she's nominated. I'd certainly have to see a few other polls on precisely this subject of her poll results against republicans compared with other democrats competing with her. It's interesting to note, that another poll, released concurrently with this one, concludes that Hillary would be far and away, the most likely to be elected. How can she be the most likely to be elected, yet show poorer poll numbers against republian candidates, when matched agaisnt each of them, than other democrats? Something's wrong with this picture.
-
call me crazy, but ...
i desperately want to see an obama/biden ticket. ooh, just the thought of it gives me chills.
-
Nothing I've heard has changed my mind about Hillary being my candidate.
DAB
tells us that people can't relate to Hillary. Huh! Perhaps DAB can tell me why, then, Hillary has been the front runner in this campaign, from day 1? I've been to a few Hillary fests. I have never seen more enthusiastic crowds, or heard as many people say they "loved" Hillary, or watched as people revealed genuine excitement over her and her candidacy. Like so much that is said by the Hillary-haters, nearly all of it sounds suspiciously like republican small talk. Hillary is "calculating," something Chris Matthews, the loathsome Giuliani supporter, is constantly heard saying against Hillary. He's simply a jealous and vile Clinton hater. She's "cold." No one that has met this lady would utter this bullshit.
She's deceitful or non-committal. More crap from the uninformed. This is the kind of nonsense that you hear from people that equate an unwillingness to discuss all issues in black and white terms, with a unwillingness to make a committment. Sometimes it is. But most of the time, people that give you quick and feel-good answers to enormously compled questions, are, like Bush, showing their stupidity, or it's truly a sign that you're being manipulated. Intelligent people never have an easy or simple answer for complex questions. Hillary's unwillingness to give you simple answers for all complex questions, in the face of the criticism she's had to face, for not doing so, suggests that she's far from guilty of another false claim made about her, that she's willing to do anything to win. How can that be, if she's wililng to accept constant criticism for her unwillngness to give you quick and simplisitc answers to complex questions? If she'd say anything to win, wouldn't she tell you what you want to hear? Why would she allow herself to be constantly attacked for hemming, hawing and hedging, when what she's actually doing, is trying to figure something out, that requires great thought and investigation? I'm also amused by efforts to suggest that she's another Kerry. Because, people who say this, "believe" Kerry lost the election. Why do they believe this? If Kerry had won by a single vote, they wouldn't be making this claim trying to equate Hillary with Kerry, would they? In fact, Hillary is as unlike Kerry as it's possible to be. But, I still am nearly certain, that Kerry did win the election, as I am nearly certain that Gore won in 2000. Most absure of all, there are many people that make the, frankly, stupid argument, that the Right wing would be energized to fight the democrats if Hillary runs. Does this mean that the Right will lay back and ignore the election if a Black man runs on the demcoratic side, or a Latino like Richardson, or a Left winger like Kucinich runs on the dem side? What nonsense. The very best thing that can be said about Hillary's campaign, is that the right wing are apoplectic about her candidacy. She'll beat the pants off the republicans, however much she riles up the Right.
If you're really worried about Hillary arousing the Right wing, stop your bellyaching, and get your ass off the couch, and vote for her. If anything can stop her, it's not the Right wing, it's you, with your whining and half baked nonsense you believe about her. What she needs is your vote. If she gets that, she'll win, you can sure of that.
Bill Clinton said, months ago, that Hillary would have a more difficult time getting nominated, than she would winning the presidency. With half of the dem Left, expressing their hatred for her, and their laughably foolish notions about her campaign, it's easy to see, that he was right on the money.