Hillary in Hattiesburg (1 Viewer)

[TPS]

4saintspirit, billinms, Richard, Saint Mike, Saint77, St. Reginald, {TPS} = at Liberales

Bottom line is an Obama/Clinton ticket opens up entirely new dynamics. You'll have the angry, white, mad at liberales crowd so ridiculously up in arms that a woman and a black man could possibly hold the two (eh...) highest positions of power in America that it will create an avalanche of hate voters and GOP party partisans. However, it is a dynamic that tells conservatism [tm] the truth that it doesn't want to recognize - racism and sexism are alive and well in the cigar chomping backroom gentlemen's member clubs (not the kind of clubs you would love if you enjoy strippers either). And it's a dynamic that could literally destroy the Republicans with an onslaught of black voters, hispanic voters (who will still go probably 35% for McCain), women and young voters that will be a coalition that may just be impossible to beat. If it happens, and assuming Obama is at the top of that ticket, you get + for Democrats up and down. If it's Clinton, less so or even a + for the Republicans.

The truth. Maybe.

TPS

 

[Comus]

If it was I think he'd have got Edwards endorsement by now. That's the only reason I think he has someone else in mind. Whoever it is will almost certainly be a white male. Anything else would be too much identity politics to overcome.

But I think Edwards is playing it safe and not throwing in his support in case Hillary wins it.

 

[LSSpam]

Obama/Edwards would be pretty powerful. I'd have to strongly consider that ticket. Really the main barrier for me and Obama though is I'm just uncomfortable putting that kind of President in with a Democratic congress also in power.

 

[bsmooth25]

Really the main barrier for me and Obama though is I'm just uncomfortable putting that kind of President in with a Democratic congress also in power.

What is "that kind of President?"

 

[DMaestro]

Obama/Edwards would be pretty powerful. I'd have to strongly consider that ticket. Really the main barrier for me and Obama though is I'm just uncomfortable putting that kind of President in with a Democratic congress also in power.

If you're so concerned that Obama + Dem Congress will spend all your money on street corner ice cream and amusement parks for disadvantaged urban youths, how does having John Edwards on the ticket make you breathe any easier? Is it the $100 billion health care plan vs. the $65 billion?

 

[LSSpam]

If you're so concerned that Obama + Dem Congress will spend all your money on street corner ice cream and amusement parks for disadvantaged urban youths, how does having John Edwards on the ticket make you breathe any easier? Is it the $100 billion health care plan vs. the $65 billion?

Edwards doesn't. Which is what I noted
"Obama/Edwards would be pretty powerful. I'd have to strongly consider that ticket. Really the main barrier for me and Obama though is . . ."

I guess it wasn't explicit. In otherwords, I like Obama, and I like Edwards, and I'd really like Obama/Edwards, but it doesn't address my main problem which is a President being paired with a congress when neither are particularly interested in any sort of fiscal conservatism at a time we desperately, desperately need it.

 

[TPS]

>>I guess it wasn't explicit. In otherwords, I like Obama, and I like Edwards, and I'd really like Obama/Edwards, but it doesn't address my main problem which is a President being paired with a congress when neither are particularly interested in any sort of fiscal conservatism at a time we desperately, desperately need it.

Under rosiest WH predictions, the deficit could be substantially down to like $400 billion for 2012. Money is going to be printed, And money is going to be spent. It doesn't really matter who is president. What I would appreciate from my overlords in Washington is that they spend the money so that it can benefit people who actually pay the taxes. It's nice that they want to nationbuild, but we could turn that effort on our own country and fix all the **** up that needs it.

TPS

 

[LSSpam]

Money is going to be printed, And money is going to be spent. It doesn't really matter who is president.

If one spends less, sure it does I don't get your point. In for a penny in for a pound I guess?

I would appreciate that we only be in for a penny.

 

[DMaestro]

Edwards doesn't. Which is what I noted
"Obama/Edwards would be pretty powerful. I'd have to strongly consider that ticket. Really the main barrier for me and Obama though is . . ."

I guess it wasn't explicit. In otherwords, I like Obama, and I like Edwards, and I'd really like Obama/Edwards, but it doesn't address my main problem which is a President being paired with a congress when neither are particularly interested in any sort of fiscal conservatism at a time we desperately, desperately need it.

Gotcha :tup2:

 

[philipkw]

It's unclear to me which of the big 3 remaining would be the best stewards of the economy....or rather, the most fiscally conservative. If we're to take McCain at his word (well, his most *current* word) he wants to continue the Bush tax cuts and continue on in Iraq. Well, that doesn't really add up fiscally to me. I'm sure I remember reading that even Greenspan was discouraged about all of the tax cuts when defense spending was ramping up.

If recent history is a guide, the electorate can't assume that the GOP will spend our money more wisely. One could look to HC's time with Bill and what he was able to do with the budget (not withstanding the accounting shenanigans) and assume she would try to do the same. Obama talks about a "path to a balanced budget" by ending the war and "closing special interest loopholes and earmarks".

My guess is that either of the big 3 remaining will be much better than the current guy. But who the heck knows?!

I'd love to hear a debate that focused exclusively on the economy and what the remaining candidates intend to do because it's unclear, at least to me, who has the better plan.

Just a little devil's advocate.

 

[Richard]

Hillary in Hattiesburg. Did anyone ask her why it would be so bad for Iowa to be lumped in with Mississippi?

http://www.sunherald.com/278/story/414671.html

Apparently Hillary was doing a little Clintonian crawfishing today, claiming she was misquoted in Iowa. Funny, she didn't object about the coverage of the statement until she actually campaigned in Mississippi.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/119896

 

[Richard]

4saintspirit, billinms, Richard, Saint Mike, Saint77, St. Reginald, {TPS} = at Liberales

Bottom line is an Obama/Clinton ticket opens up entirely new dynamics. You'll have the angry, white, mad at liberales crowd so ridiculously up in arms that a woman and a black man could possibly hold the two (eh...) highest positions of power in America that it will create an avalanche of hate voters and GOP party partisans. However, it is a dynamic that tells conservatism [tm] the truth that it doesn't want to recognize - racism and sexism are alive and well in the cigar chomping backroom gentlemen's member clubs (not the kind of clubs you would love if you enjoy strippers either). And it's a dynamic that could literally destroy the Republicans with an onslaught of black voters, hispanic voters (who will still go probably 35% for McCain), women and young voters that will be a coalition that may just be impossible to beat. If it happens, and assuming Obama is at the top of that ticket, you get + for Democrats up and down. If it's Clinton, less so or even a + for the Republicans.

The truth. Maybe.

TPS

Racism and sexism are still alive and well. People will continue to try to separate us using any means they can, including characterizing conservatives as hate-mongers. These people will suggest to the gullible that if conservatives wouldn't vote for the current woman or black man running for office that surely it must be because she is a woman or he is black. Again, racism and sexism exist, but those failings are hardly limited to those on the right. When a person of any color or sex proposes a direction for this country that I can support, I will gladly vote for that person. The fact that Clinton and Obama don't fit that description doesn't make me or other like-minded people racist, sexist or even angry.

 

[Sabine]

Apparently Hillary was doing a little Clintonian crawfishing today, claiming she was misquoted in Iowa. Funny, she didn't object about the coverage of the statement until she actually campaigned in Mississippi.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/119896

Well, she was misquoted. Printing "How can Iowa be ranked with Mississippi?" is not quite the same as the complete statement (and in context in an interview re the Iowa Caucus) which was:



"I was shocked when I learned Iowa and Mississippi have never elected a woman governor, senator or member of Congress. There has got to be something at work here," she said, theorizing it may be the risk-averse nature of a state built around agriculture."
"I think not only do I have to bring people to me, I have to maybe reassure people here maybe more than I do in New Hampshire, which has had a woman governor," she said."
"I think Iowa poses a special burden, or a special obstacle to me because when you look at the numbers, how can Iowa be ranked with Mississippi? That's not what I see. That's not the quality. That's not the communitarianism, that's not the openness I see in Iowa."

Still, that will hurt her in Mississippi - not that she had any chance of taking Mississippi without that remark.

I don't know if she complained or not when this first happened. Here's an article from the Clarendon Ledger back in October after this happened.

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071026/NEWS/710260388

 

[Superfan]

This needs to be done in washington.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/OmSSVt7Mfkk"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/OmSSVt7Mfkk" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

 

[yotd576]

Hmmm....how many tacos are we talkin' about here?