I don't think that Hillary HAS a message. She's banking on who she is - a woman, who knows how the White House works.

 

She has a message. Its the same message that GWB had before her. The message is that "I can take you back to a different time".

She has a message. Its the same message that GWB had before her. The message is that "I can take you back to a different time".

That's true, I should have added to the two themes I mentioned - harkening back to the days of Slick Willy.

 

That's probably why his poll numbers and cash raised are lower than Clinton and Obama's. Seems like America isn't buying his message.

just watch. the numbers are starting to climb, and with 4 new labor endorsements his cash flow AND poll numbers will start moving even faster. Obama's starting to fade and once its a Edwards v. Clinton there wont be any comparison

just watch. the numbers are starting to climb, and with 4 new labor endorsements his cash flow AND poll numbers will start moving even faster. Obama's starting to fade and once its a Edwards v. Clinton there wont be any comparison

So the fact that Edwards isn't even in third, but is now in 4th, in New Hampshire, doesn't seem like a negative thing to you?

 

So the fact that Edwards isn't even in third, but is now in 4th, in New Hampshire, doesn't seem like a negative thing to you?

If last time is any indication...the only thing that's going to matter anyway is who wins Iowa. And at the last block of polls I saw from there...Iowa looked like a complete tossup right now. Depending on the Poll and its likely voter screen you can find all 3 of them either tied or leading by 5 points.

If last time is any indication...the only thing that's going to matter anyway is who wins Iowa. And at the last block of polls I saw from there...Iowa looked like a complete tossup right now. Depending on the Poll and its likely voter screen you can find all 3 of them either tied or leading by 5 points.

 

He is employing the John Kerry system and pretty much giving up everywhere but Iowa. I am not sure why, because Edwards doesn't need his rich wife to bail out his campaign, so he should be able to put money elsewhere, but he isn't. I guess he is trying to do the old momentum thing, or trying to minimize his spending at this time. The bad thing is that he is even way behind in South Carolina, which is his state of birth. Thankfully it looks like Edwards is dead in the water, because I really believe I would have 4 years of Hillary! versus four years of Edwards.

^^^^SS^^^^

 

I am still trying to warm up to a candidate. Early on I thought McCain would be the guy, but he's falling flat in my eyes. Edwards was intriguing, but I'm not matching up well with him. Hillary would be about my last candidate. I think I would prefer Edwards to Hillary. I'm thinking you may want Hillary as the Dem nominee, knowing she'd have a harder time getting elected. Although, no one on the Rep side is exciting me. This is the worse group of candidates in my lifetime, but, the most exciting speakers and personalities.

 

We may have finally reached Hollywood, reality show, levels.

^^^^SS^^^^

 

I am still trying to warm up to a candidate. Early on I thought McCain would be the guy, but he's falling flat in my eyes. Edwards was intriguing, but I'm not matching up well with him. Hillary would be about my last candidate. I think I would prefer Edwards to Hillary. I'm thinking you may want Hillary as the Dem nominee, knowing she'd have a harder time getting elected. Although, no one on the Rep side is exciting me. This is the worse group of candidates in my lifetime, but, the most exciting speakers and personalities.

 

We may have finally reached Hollywood, reality show, levels.

Again, I think this is the BEST candidate field I've had in my voting lifetime (first Prez vote: 1992, so admitedly I've only had 5, including this one). The problem isn't a lack of decent candidates - its that the WORST ones from each party (Clinton, Giuliani) are the ones getting all the press. They are high in the polls because of their name recognition - not their abilities. And that, I am afraid, is the fault of the voting public.

 

Again, I think this is the BEST candidate field I've had in my voting lifetime (first Prez vote: 1992, so admitedly I've only had 5, including this one). The problem isn't a lack of decent candidates - its that the WORST ones from each party (Clinton, Giuliani) are the ones getting all the press. They are high in the polls because of their name recognition - not their abilities. And that, I am afraid, is the fault of the voting public.

 

It is the best field of personalities.

^^^^SS^^^^

 

I am still trying to warm up to a candidate. Early on I thought McCain would be the guy, but he's falling flat in my eyes. Edwards was intriguing, but I'm not matching up well with him. Hillary would be about my last candidate. I think I would prefer Edwards to Hillary. I'm thinking you may want Hillary as the Dem nominee, knowing she'd have a harder time getting elected. Although, no one on the Rep side is exciting me. This is the worse group of candidates in my lifetime, but, the most exciting speakers and personalities.

 

We may have finally reached Hollywood, reality show, levels.

 

To be honest, the only top contender for the Dems I don't dispise is Obama. I do at least respect him. Richardson also seems decent, but he has zero chance at winning.

 

I am not much of a Guiliani fan, but of all the repubs, he might be the most electable because he has some middle of the road positions. Romney has flipped flopped more than an IHOP, and the rest of them hardly merit a mention. Thompson is interesting, as he is really selling himself as a Reagan Republician, but I am in wait and see mode on him. I do wish more candidates had waited as long as he did to declare, but what are you going to do.

To be honest, the only top contender for the Dems I don't dispise is Obama. I do at least respect him. Richardson also seems decent, but he has zero chance at winning.

 

I am not much of a Guiliani fan, but of all the repubs, he might be the most electable because he has some middle of the road positions. Romney has flipped flopped more than an IHOP, and the rest of them hardly merit a mention. Thompson is interesting, as he is really selling himself as a Reagan Republician, but I am in wait and see mode on him. I do wish more candidates had waited as long as he did to declare, but what are you going to do.

And that's probably most of America's sentiment - except I will say that Hillary has the Democratic party held hostage. Obama would be a much better candidate, despite the lack of experience... but the Clinton machine has not launched into full attack mode yet.

To be honest, the only top contender for the Dems I don't dispise is Obama. I do at least respect him. Richardson also seems decent, but he has zero chance at winning.

 

I am not much of a Guiliani fan, but of all the repubs, he might be the most electable because he has some middle of the road positions. Romney has flipped flopped more than an IHOP, and the rest of them hardly merit a mention. Thompson is interesting, as he is really selling himself as a Reagan Republician, but I am in wait and see mode on him. I do wish more candidates had waited as long as he did to declare, but what are you going to do.

 

That is pretty close to my asessment.

 

Where's the beef?

And that's probably most of America's sentiment - except I will say that Hillary has the Democratic party held hostage. Obama would be a much better candidate, despite the lack of experience... but the Clinton machine has not launched into full attack mode yet.

 

They have hit him hard on any mistakes he has made. To be honest, he is running his campaign too cleanly to beat Hillary. The only Dem who really could beat Hill is Edwards, because he isn't afraid to do whatever it takes to win. Hell he is an ambulence chaser for god's sake, how much more dirty can you get? He'll has taken the gloves off at every turn. His problem is that he abandoned the middle of the road that he held in the 04 election, and went way too far to the left. Hillary will beat him down because she will take everything in the middle.

 

They have hit him hard on any mistakes he has made. To be honest, he is running his campaign too cleanly to beat Hillary. The only Dem who really could beat Hill is Edwards, because he isn't afraid to do whatever it takes to win. Hell he is an ambulence chaser for god's sake, how much more dirty can you get? He'll has taken the gloves off at every turn. His problem is that he abandoned the middle of the road that he held in the 04 election, and went way too far to the left. Hillary will beat him down because she will take everything in the middle.

 

And the middle is where I want someone to be, but somehow they all seem left of me.

And the middle is where I want someone to be, but somehow they all seem left of me.

Wow, are you kidding?

 

Seriously... OF COURSE they are left of where you are... because they are pandering to the fringe loony bins of the party to get through the primary. Now next spring, after the nominee is all but cemented, both sides will RUN to the center.

 

It's pathetic, actually.

 

Wow, are you kidding?

 

Seriously... OF COURSE they are left of where you are... because they are pandering to the fringe loony bins of the party to get through the primary. Now next spring, after the nominee is all but cemented, both sides will RUN to the center.

 

It's pathetic, actually.

 

Remember Kap, socially I am conservative, and I favor only spending what we collect in taxes (that use to be a GOP bedrock position), I am also in favor of restrictions on abortions and love my guns. So it is easy to see why many Dem candidates will be left of me. I also look at GOP candidates and they require me to love them exclusively and dislike the controls our Constitution places on them (Judges, Free Press). I'd also have to acknowledge the inherited superiority of old, white, guys. I'd have to love the death penalty, embrace killing people whose culture isn't like our own.

 

So I am lost somewhere in between. . .

 

Remember Kap, socially I am conservative, and I favor only spending what we collect in taxes (that use to be a GOP bedrock position), I am also in favor of restrictions on abortions and love my guns. So it is easy to see why many Dem candidates will be left of me. I also look at GOP candidates and they require me to love them exclusively and dislike the controls our Constitution places on them (Judges, Free Press). I'd also have to acknowledge the inherited superiority of old, white, guys. I'd have to love the death penalty, embrace killing people whose culture isn't like our own.

 

So I am lost somewhere in between. . .

 

Oh come on.

 

 

Oh come on.

 

Kap, when was the last time we bombed a Christian country?

 

OK, upon further review, I'll retract that as hyperbole. But it is an interesting fact of who we bomb and who we send money to.

Kap, when was the last time we bombed a Christian country?

Yea, cause RELIGION is exactly why we're bombing countries. Now, since Islamofacists choose to make it "religion" as to why we're bombing them, then you're right with their line of thinking.

 

/waits for the expected result of what's coming next.

Kap, when was the last time we bombed a Christian country?

 

OK, upon further review, I'll retract that as hyperbole. But it is an interesting fact of who we bomb and who we send money to.

How many Christian countries are sitting on top of seas of oil?

Yea, cause RELIGION is exactly why we're bombing countries. Now, since Islamofacists choose to make it "religion" as to why we're bombing them, then you're right with their line of thinking.

 

/waits for the expected result of what's coming next.

We send money to Egypt. Jordan. Saudi Arabia. Oman. Anywhere else? So... anyway...

So Kap, why is it we only seem to be bombing non Christian countries?

How many Christian countries are sitting on top of seas of oil?

Wow. It's ALL about oil and religion, and NOTHING else.

 

And you all say I wear a tin foil hat.

Wow. It's ALL about oil and religion, and NOTHING else.

 

And you all say I wear a tin foil hat.

Just adding that little note.

 

I could probably throw in that the Yugoslavia mess really does throw a bit of a wrench into Tex's religion argument, at least to my eyes.

That was my first thought.