Tweedling Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 That's a great answer, Edie. That's what I was thinking too. Link to post Share on other sites
JerseyMike Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 yeah all the conservative radio/tv people seem to be voicing the same thing What I've been hearing for the last year or so is that Republicans and conservatives have been huge contributers to the Hillary campaign, including Rupert Murdoch, because they want her to win the nomination. Its the one candidate they can drum up enough hate for to defeat. Don't know how true it is, but its a pretty interesting perspective. There is also internet-rumoring going around that Murdoch has been putting together a dossier on all of the women Bill Clinton has been involved with over the past few years that he will release if Clinton gets the nomination. Again, doubt its true, but it wouldn't shock me. Link to post Share on other sites
Gobias Industries Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 It's pretty obvious they just want to set Clinton up to get shot down. It's goddamn dirty, but at least it's a smart (or dumb, depending on the way you look at it) way to win another term in the White House. That's why you have someone like Obama win the nomination. The only thing they could possibly do is call him Muslim. Oh, wait... Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 Right now republicans know that their best chance of retaining the white house does not depend on their candidate, but on the dem candidate. Hillary Clinton is the most hated person in the world to republicans. They know that f she gets the nod the republican voters will turn out in record numbers to vote for her. Regardless of what the skeletal one might say she will never ever vote dem. One of Rove's people said almost a year ago that they would like nothing better than to face hillary so they create the impression that she is the one they don't want to run against. They did it in 2004 with Kerry and look what happened there. Hillary winning the dem vote could even swing the congress back to the bad guys simply due to her ability to turn out the vote with republicans. Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 Not really endorsing what is below. I must get six e-mails a day from the Hillary people. To: Interested Parties From: Mark Penn, Chief Strategist Date: Saturday, February 2, 2008 Re: Hillary is the Democrat to Beat McCain If John McCain becomes the Republican nominee, Hillary is the Democrat who can beat him -- because she has the strength and experience a president needs to get America on the right course and to defend it against future threats. She is the hands-on leader that America needs as we slip into a worsening economic crisis. Her ability to be both a strong commander-in-chief and steward of the economy are what make her the favorite against Sen. McCain. Sen. Obama has been telling voters that he is the one to beat Sen. McCain because he gave a speech against the war in 2002 and because he is currently attracting independent voters. But those arguments don Link to post Share on other sites
Tweedling Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 Right now republicans know that their best chance of retaining the white house does not depend on their candidate, but on the dem candidate. Hillary Clinton is the most hated person in the world to republicans. They know that f she gets the nod the republican voters will turn out in record numbers to vote for her. Regardless of what the skeletal one might say she will never ever vote dem. One of Rove's people said almost a year ago that they would like nothing better than to face hillary so they create the impression that she is the one they don't want to run against. They did it in 2004 with Kerry and look what happened there. Hillary winning the dem vote could even swing the congress back to the bad guys simply due to her ability to turn out the vote with republicans.I attend all the secret underground right-wing machine bad guy republican meetings and this has never been brought up. Sorry Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 RIP Hillary's national lead:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/20...nation-191.htmlIt's all up for grabs at this point. Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Kinsley Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 From NatalieDee.com: Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 I attend all the secret underground right-wing machine bad guy republican meetings and this has never been brought up. Sorry It was in an interview with unattributed quotes from unnamed Rove aides (Go figure nothign these people do is ever on the record). Speculation was that it was Rove himself. But remember back when he resigned he began talking up Hillary as the ideal dem candidate and the interview I read was right around that time period. But if you attend secret republican ploot meetings, then you don't get interviews that appear in the real press. Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Kinsley Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 I would hope that if the conservatives hate her that much and don't want her in because they truly believe in their heart of hearts that she'd be bad for the country, that they wouldn't want her to get the nomination. I think Barack would clean the floor with Huckabee, but I don't want him in because he's rather scary. I'm not thrilled about the possibility of McCain, but he's at least competent. If nothing else, the last 7 years have taught us the importance of competence. Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 It was in an interview with unattributed quotes from unnamed Rove aides (Go figure nothign these people do is ever on the record). Speculation was that it was Rove himself. But remember back when he resigned he began talking up Hillary as the ideal dem candidate and the interview I read was right around that time period. But if you attend secret republican ploot meetings, then you don't get interviews that appear in the real press. No link to said article? Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 I might go check out this Obama dude in person tonight. Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 No link to said article? Mathew Dowd is who talked about the 2004 strategy of promoting Kerry as the candidate the republicans feared, when in fact that is who they wanted to face all along. The article I am referring to was in either the NY Times, Washington Post, USA Today or the Tribune. I'll see if I can find it, it was last year though. Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 More early voting for Democrats than Republicans for the first time ever in my heavily-Republican county. Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Kinsley Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 I might go check out this Obama dude in person tonight.Here's the link to the RSVP. (You are in the Boston area? Right?) Seems to me that the reason he's surging in the polls is that when people take the time to actually listen and get to know him, they don't look back. EDIT: I'm hoping that my name and email info only come up in that sign-in screen because I'm looking at it on my computer. Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 Seems to me that the reason he's surging in the polls is that when people take the time to actually listen and get to know him, they don't look back.He is surging all over, but as MrRain pointed out, it might not matter in California since there has been so much early voting. Oy. Double-edged sword, that. Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Kinsley Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 He is surging all over, but as MrRain pointed out, it might not matter in California since there has been so much early voting. Oy. Double-edged sword, that.I don't know if he has to actually win CA to have a 'victory.' If he can keep it really close, say, within 5%, that would be huge. Not to mention with the rather wacky math that goes into awarding delegates, he could come away from here with nearly as many as Hillary. She won New Hampshire, but they each got 9 delegates. As long as the gap keeps closing and it draws out longer, he's got a great shot. Link to post Share on other sites
gogo Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 EDIT: I'm hoping that my name and email info only come up in that sign-in screen because I'm looking at it on my computer. It shows your social security number, too. Which is weird, since that's not even one of the fields on that form. And speaking of "it's time"... I'm probably going to shut this thread sometime later tonight. It's been a good run, for the most part folks have been civil and respectable in here, so on behalf of the moderators, thank you all for that. Seems like Super Tuesday is an appropriate time to start up a new one though, so let's start fresh in the morning with that one. Happy voting tomorrow, my fellow Californians (and the rest of you too, not that your votes really matter or anything, in the shadow of our monstrous delegate count). Oh, and did you all hear that our governor and first lady have endorsed different candidates, from different parties? Yay Maria! Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 I don't know if he has to actually win CA to have a 'victory.' If he can keep it really close, say, within 5%, that would be huge. Not to mention with the rather wacky math that goes into awarding delegates, he could come away from here with nearly as many as Hillary. She won New Hampshire, but they each got 9 delegates. As long as the gap keeps closing and it draws out longer, he's got a great shot.Well, considering the polls show that they are tied in CA now, for the most part, it would be a bummer if he lost because of early voting. Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Kinsley Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 Well, considering the polls show that he is tied or leading in CA now, for the most part, it would be a bummer if he lost because of early voting.True, but just think of all the "spin" that the talking heads* will be putting on her "victory" if it comes out that way. It would be a totally hollow victory with little gain in delegates. That's all very speculative and premature, but... well, I just can't help it. I guess that's why I'm going to be making some phone calls tonight to get people out there voting. If anyone's interested (and judging from the results on our VC primary, you are) go to this site and find out how to make some call yourself and pitch in, even just a little bit. You don't need to actually go anywhere to make calls - you can do it from home. Unfortunately, this time it doesn't contain any of my personal info - except for maybe my ATM password. *Sadly it won't be THE Talking Heads on the TV. But maybe I will spin one of their CDs now! Link to post Share on other sites
Tweedling Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 If anyone's interested (and judging from the results on our VC primary, you are) go to this site and find out how to make some call yourself and pitch in, even just a little bit. You don't need to actually go anywhere to make calls - you can do it from home. Unfortunately, this time it doesn't contain any of my personal info - except for maybe my ATM password.Ah yes, thats just what I want after I get home from work. Be bothered by a complete stranger about political issues and which way I should vote. When someone calls me can I give them your number? Link to post Share on other sites
Dreamin' Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 Of course it doesn't matter what I think, but I admit to being dazzled by Obama until I read this. Clinton' date=' Obama, Insurance [/b'] By PAUL KRUGMANPublished: February 4, 2008 The principal policy division between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama involves health care. It Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 I like Clinton's healthcare plan better, but Obama's might be more politically feasible. I liked Kucinich's (single payer) plan the best. Nuanced domestic policy differences don't necessarily mean that much for Presidential candidates, though, as any legislation requires a lot of compromise. Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Kinsley Posted February 5, 2008 Share Posted February 5, 2008 Your thoughts? From the Obama site - I think it's supposed to be from factcheck.org, but lacks a direct link. As long as the 80 experts who've signed off on it really did say this, then I'm good with it. The enforcement of mandates seems to be the sticky part of Hillary's plan for me, not to mention that there really needs to be some sort of personal responsibility on the part of the people to go get health care. Honestly, I'm fine with either plan, so I'm not all that adamant about this part of their policies, but I can see why some would prefer Hillary's plan. The experts seem to disagree as well. I'm no expert, but either would seem to be a major step forward. 80 Health Care and Legal Experts: Universal Coverage and the Presidential Candidates Link to post Share on other sites
Reni Posted February 5, 2008 Author Share Posted February 5, 2008 mad props to people who do phone banking and are out canvassing. Been there....done that. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts