Will we have two women running for President?

Somer-

My apologies. I reread my post and you're right. It didn't come off the way I meant.

I had actually written it as "we can go back in our caves and feel righteous" but then rewrote it as it is, added another few lines and then didn't like those and so deleted them. I finally thought I was spending too much time on it and and posted what you saw.

My bad. Didn't mean it to come off as it did. Hope you understand no offense was intended though I can't deny that it is clearly, in hindsight, offensive.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by chromer

Somer-

My apologies. I reread my post and you're right. It didn't come off the way I meant.

I had actually written it as "we can go back in our caves and feel righteous" but then rewrote it as it is, added another few lines and then didn't like those and so deleted them. I finally thought I was spending too much time on it and and posted what you saw.

My bad. Didn't mean it to come off as it did. Hope you understand no offense was intended though I can't deny that it is clearly, in hindsight, offensive.

Don't worry about it...I just posted a comeback playfully! I thought maybe the cave was a reference to my references to Plato's Cave, wasn't sure about the righteous part but I was laughing when I posted my response...I constantly post stuff that people sometimes take seriously...it's simply how I am.
You might be right, this is a very angry country right now, but I really think that some areas are lost to the Dems anyway...she has done well in upstate NY and that could bode well nationally. Then again, Arnold is leading by 17 points in the polls in his reelection bid in California...who would have thunk it?

[Crown@club]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Don't worry about it...I just posted a comeback playfully! I thought maybe the cave was a reference to my references to Plato's Cave, wasn't sure about the righteous part but I was laughing when I posted my response...I constantly post stuff that people sometimes take seriously...it's simply how I am.
You might be right, this is a very angry country right now, but I really think that some areas are lost to the Dems anyway...she has done well in upstate NY and that could bode well nationally. Then again, Arnold is leading by 17 points in the polls in his reelection bid in California...who would have thunk it?

How about a Conservative-Democrat?

Evan Bayh

(Where's the snickers icon?)

[Revolution]

Originally Posted by Crown@club

How about a Conservative-Democrat?

Evan Bayh

(Where's the snickers icon?)

The liberal idiots in Manhattan will not allow this to happen. They love the elitist liberal candidates from the northeast. This way when they lose they can say the are good liberals who care about people, but they still get the Republican tax cuts so they can have their Hamptons home.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Revolution

The liberal idiots in Manhattan will not allow this to happen. They love the elitist liberal candidates from the northeast. This way when they lose they can say the are good liberals who care about people, but they still get the Republican tax cuts so they can have their Hamptons home.

Revolution, I respectfully ask you to watch your mouth (or fingers, as the case may be). This liberal Manhattanite does not appreciate being called an "idiot." And I certainly can't afford a Hampton house (I can barely manage rent), nor did I benefit from any of the Republican tax cuts, so quite frankly, shut up with the Fox News generalizations about New Yorkers. Thanks; much appreciated.

[Revolution]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Revolution, I respectfully ask you to watch your mouth (or fingers, as the case may be). This liberal Manhattanite does not appreciate being called an "idiot." And I certainly can't afford a Hampton house (I can barely manage rent), nor did I benefit from any of the Republican tax cuts, so quite frankly, shut up with the Fox News generalizations about New Yorkers. Thanks; much appreciated.

One, I hate Fox News.

Two, it says liberal idiots, that does not mean all liberals are idiots, it means the elitist liberals that run the democratic party in New York. Why do you think Mike Bloomberg left the Democratic Party. The liberal elitist idiots have no concern for average people, they are just interested in their dinner parties.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Revolution

One, I hate Fox News.

Two, it says liberal idiots, that does not mean all liberals are idiots, it means the elitist liberals that run the democratic party in New York. Why do you think Mike Bloomberg left the Democratic Party. The liberal elitist idiots have no concern for average people, they are just interested in their dinner parties.

Revolution, Bloomberg left the Democratic party because he'd have had no shot of winning the primary-- the Democratic party is very competitive here and the Republican party is in such crappy shape here it was very easy for him to spend his way to the nomination-- he spent $70 million on his campaign, for that kind of money I'd expect to get the nomination, too. And look, I'm not dissing his job as mayor-- now that he's dropped the West Side Stadium nonsense and discovered that there are four boroughs besides Manhattan in NYC I think he's done a pretty darn good job. Unlike Bush, Bloomberg actually IS a successful businessman, who, stop the presses, actually made his own money. And it shows in the job he does (just as Bush being a trust fund kid who never had to clean up one of his own messes shows in the job HE does).

What I find so interesting about the tired old "liberal elitist" crap is that no one accuses the Republicans of not giving two sh*ts about the average guy, even though they're pretty blatant about wanting to institute an American aristocracy (see the push to eliminate the estate tax). But that's okay, right? It's just the darn liberals who don't care-- why? Because some of them are rich? God forbid there be a rich Democrat. How dare they!

But to address your comment (and I'm pleased to see you don't think all liberals in Manhattan are idiots) I'm going to put your earlier post here again-- read it again and let me know where in there I could have known that you meant "The Democrats in local elected office in Manhattan wield so much power that they determine the national Presidential candidate." Because that's not at all what I get from this quote:

<<The liberal idiots in Manhattan will not allow this to happen. They love the elitist liberal candidates from the northeast. This way when they lose they can say the are good liberals who care about people, but they still get the Republican tax cuts so they can have their Hamptons home.>>

Come on, Revolution-- how would you have interpreted that post, were you a barely-middle class, non-homeowner New Yorker? Really? I'm not trying to be mean-- I like your posts a lot and if I got mad at every person who made the stupid Volvo-driving liberal elitist jab I'd have a blood pressure through the roof because liberals hear it a lot. (When I hear it now I just roll my eyes and assume the person gets his "news" from Rush-- sorry about the Fox jab, by the way). But I think generalizations are too easy-- I could easily start saying all Republicans are Jesus freaks but that's an insult to both Jesus and the average Christian and it's not true, anyway. (Though I do think a lot of right-wing Christians have gotten Christianity and capitalism confused, but that's a post for a different thread)

Revolution, if you haven't read the Rolling Stone article yet, please read it! It's really interesting (probably won't tell you anything you didn't already know or at least suspect, but it's still well done). And how many magazines let "f*ck" get into the final version of the political articles... and it's the reporter using it? An infuriating, but fun read.

Anyway, off to work. Lovely talking politics with you, as always.

[Seattleallstar]

Originally Posted by Crown@club

How about a Conservative-Democrat?

Evan Bayh

(Where's the snickers icon?)

theres nothinig wrong with him

[pmayjr]

From skimming the posts so far-

I think McCain is the most electable person in this country, because no one walks the fine right-down-the-middle line like him. Yet he's a still a "Republican", which means for those idiots who don't even look at the issues, and vote "Republican" across the board, will vote for him.

I agree with Obama though. I think even more than Condi, he could get out the Black Vote. The point that outside of Illinois he's not well known, is only sorta true. He's really charismatic, he's black, and that whole retarded race where Illinois republicans brought in Alan Keyes to run against him- put that election in the limelight. Since he won in a landslide, it's only gonna help. He's black, but he's also a male, which I think gets him further than Condi believe it or not.

As for Condi- I think she'd have a shot. If she did run, it would be interesting to see how much she'd "toe Dubya's line", or would she deviate from a lot of his policies and **** ups... She might be able to get out the Black vote. But would blacks (and just people in general... any race/gender) hold her party and the man she worked for (Dubya) against her? It would be interesting to see how that would shakeout. But she is a woman, so women would vote for her in droves. She seems intelligent and strong enough. So she definately would have the most unclear result. She's got a lot going for her, but being guilty by association won't help her.

As for Hillary- hmmm... She's a woman. She's strong, she's got political experience in NY. But she's Meh. I just don't see it. I think Condi has a better chance than her. Eventhough she's the complete opposite of eveything "Dubya" stands for, she's meh...

Somer, I was in Borders last night and came across a book called "Condi vs. Hillary: The Next Great Presidential Race". Apparently, the book has been out awhile. But thought you may be interested in reading it, if you didn't already know about it. I know they are strong, respectable women, but if they were involved in a heated debate, I think I'd still be distracted and want them to make out and mudwrestle

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by BellamyRd.

Somer, I was in Borders last night and came across a book called "Condi vs. Hillary: The Next Great Presidential Race". Apparently, the book has been out awhile. But thought you may be interested in reading it, if you didn't already know about it. I know they are strong, respectable women, but if they were involved in a heated debate, I think I'd still be distracted and want them to make out and mudwrestle

Bellamy, you crack me up. That was funny.

I don't like McCain. I used to really, really like him and if he'd been the candidate in 2000 I was going to have a tough choice. But the past few years I've watched him bend over and take it up the patootie from Bush on every major issue-- tax cuts for the wealthy (opposed in 2001, voted for this year), religious extremism (called Falwell an "agent of intolerance" some years back, then this year he spoke at Falwell's "university"), and most importantly to me, torture (pushed through the legislation then stood by silently while Bush gutted it). And if I'd been McCain I'd never, ever have forgiven Bush for the dirty tricks pulled in the South Carolina primary. But McCain clearly wants to be President so bad that he'll do anything to get the nomination, even tacitly endorse racism and torture. And that's not okay with me. Hell, the Times printed an article about how he and Hillary have a pretty good working relationship and even played a drinking game together (he was quoted as saying she can really hold her liquor) and now he's frantically denying the evening ever happened, despite the witnesses and fellow participants ("I did not do shots with that woman."). He's scared to say, yeah, Hillary and I hung out? WTF?

I'm not opposed to politicians changing their position if it comes out of a genuinely honest place (Truman was once a racist but later became the first President to address the NAACP), but McCain isn't showing me anything other than a man who will say and do anything to be President. And that's what made Kerry such a crummy candidate. Thanks, but no thanks. To borrow from John Stewart, McCain's hopped off the Straight Talk Express and boarded the bus to Crazytown.

And Giuliani's no better-- gone from supporting the assault weapons ban to embracing it's repeal. Dear lord, will we ever get out from under the Bush cabal? What next? Kissinger in '08?

I like Hillary. She's hawkish on defense, sure, but she's generally pretty moderate on most issues, willing to engage the other side on the abortion debate (which both sides desperately need), religious but doesn't let that influence her voting, and frankly, probably smarter than just about anybody else around (I watched some of the candidate's debate last night- woman's not exactly charismatic, but she knows her stuff-- especially farming issues for upstate New Yorkers) and she works really, really hard. And I think the major issues coming up for America, really, are going to be health care and energy and I can see her being willing to tackle those issues, which I can't really picture any of the Republican candidates doing.

But you never know. It'll be an interesting '08, anyway.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Bellamy, you crack me up. That was funny.

I don't like McCain. I used to really, really like him and if he'd been the candidate in 2000 I was going to have a tough choice. But the past few years I've watched him bend over and take it up the patootie from Bush on every major issue-- tax cuts for the wealthy (opposed in 2001, voted for this year), religious extremism (called Falwell an "agent of intolerance" some years back, then this year he spoke at Falwell's "university"), and most importantly to me, torture (pushed through the legislation then stood by silently while Bush gutted it). And if I'd been McCain I'd never, ever have forgiven Bush for the dirty tricks pulled in the South Carolina primary. But McCain clearly wants to be President so bad that he'll do anything to get the nomination, even tacitly endorse racism and torture. And that's not okay with me. Hell, the Times printed an article about how he and Hillary have a pretty good working relationship and even played a drinking game together (he was quoted as saying she can really hold her liquor) and now he's frantically denying the evening ever happened, despite the witnesses and fellow participants ("I did not do shots with that woman."). He's scared to say, yeah, Hillary and I hung out? WTF?

I'm not opposed to politicians changing their position if it comes out of a genuinely honest place (Truman was once a racist but later became the first President to address the NAACP), but McCain isn't showing me anything other than a man who will say and do anything to be President. And that's what made Kerry such a crummy candidate. Thanks, but no thanks. To borrow from John Stewart, McCain's hopped off the Straight Talk Express and boarded the bus to Crazytown.

And Giuliani's no better-- gone from supporting the assault weapons ban to embracing it's repeal. Dear lord, will we ever get out from under the Bush cabal? What next? Kissinger in '08?

I like Hillary. She's hawkish on defense, sure, but she's generally pretty moderate on most issues, willing to engage the other side on the abortion debate (which both sides desperately need), religious but doesn't let that influence her voting, and frankly, probably smarter than just about anybody else around (I watched some of the candidate's debate last night- woman's not exactly charismatic, but she knows her stuff-- especially farming issues for upstate New Yorkers) and she works really, really hard. And I think the major issues coming up for America, really, are going to be health care and energy and I can see her being willing to tackle those issues, which I can't really picture any of the Republican candidates doing.

But you never know. It'll be an interesting '08, anyway.

All good points GR, Truman is one of my favorite Presidents, perhaps the last one to really stand out imo. He grew so much in his political career, something that usually works in reverse for most! A plain spoken man with a temper who could be amusing but with a steel will...he made what to date is the hardest decision ever made by a US President...folks can agree or disagree with it but it had to be made and he alone could make it...and he did! Since him, we've had...well, we've had politicians but not statesmen, Ronnie came close, Tricky D-ick could have been great except for a "minor" character flaw or two, Clinton had his moments and the rest, yuck! I think Hillary is the most intelligent and hard working potential candidate, I'm still not sure what exactly she did that was so bad...a strong woman supporting her husband and willing to stand behind him in the shadows...seems like she acted with class and dignity despite some personally devastating events...yet people seem to hate her???

[GenuineRisk]

But hey, Revolution, I like John Edwards, too. I'd be happy with him as a candidate, also. I appreciate that someone out there remembers lots of Americans aren't making ends meet.

[Revolution]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

But hey, Revolution, I like John Edwards, too. I'd be happy with him as a candidate, also. I appreciate that someone out there remembers lots of Americans aren't making ends meet.

The mom of Nostradmus and George Washington, the posters here, is a fundraiser and big contributor to John Edwards. When I had dinner with their family, Nostradamus told her John Edward (the guy who speaks to dead people) would be president before him. It was hilarious.

I must admit I like him because he is the only big name politican I have ever met. He came to Hofstra a couple years ago during the primary and I went with their family and met him. He is too young looking to be a President though. If his last name was Kennedy though, the idiots would come out and support him, and he actually got where he is on his own, his daddy didn't buy him his Senate seat.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Revolution

The mom of Nostradmus and George Washington, the posters here, is a fundraiser and big contributor to John Edwards. When I had dinner with their family, Nostradamus told her John Edward (the guy who speaks to dead people) would be president before him. It was hilarious.

I must admit I like him because he is the only big name politican I have ever met. He came to Hofstra a couple years ago during the primary and I went with their family and met him. He is too young looking to be a President though. If his last name was Kennedy though, the idiots would come out and support him, and he actually got where he is on his own, his daddy didn't buy him his Senate seat.

I like that he worked his way, up, too. And, although I try not to let my personal feelings affect my votes, I think it's awfully cute that he and his wife go to Wendy's for their anniversary every year, since it's where they went for their first one, being too poor then to go anywhere else.

I met Clinton once (he came to my workplace) and I must say, the man's charisma slams into you like an electric charge. I think people are born with that- I don't think you can learn it.

Somer, you've read McCullough's terrific bio of Truman, I assume? I have a very funny picture of myself from a children's theater tour I did years ago, of me in the dressing room before the show, dressed as a giant goose, reading that biography.

[randallscott35]

Studies show that women are actually harder on other women running for office. Without them behind Hillary in a big way, it is doubtful she'd have a chance. As an independent who voted for Nader in the last 2 elections, I want a viable 3rd party candidate. I'd vote for McCain or Guiliani on the Repub side. I'd vote for Edwards and a few others on the Dem side. But I really want an independent. Both parties take the people for granted.