Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Rumor is that she's on the short list and will accept.

Rumor where, and how does it make political sense to pair a liberal MA dem with a liberal NY dem? Isn't the dem base galvanized enough that they don't need hillary as a rallying cry?

[Hank Chinaski]

Washington state Little Leaguer set to challenge LL Pledge which begins with " I trust in God."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...league04e.html
Anyone willing to bet on what the 9th Circuit will do here?

[andViolins]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Washington state Little Leaguer set to challenge LL Pledge which begins with " I trust in God.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...league04e.html
Anyone taking bets on what the 9th Circuit will do here?

I played little league as a kid. I don't remember having to say any kind of pledge before a game. I do remember doing a lot of praying though.

'cause i sucked.

aV

[bilmore]

Originally posted by andViolins
I played little league as a kid. I don't remember having to say any kind of pledge before a game. I do remember doing a lot of praying though.

Me, too. I think that's when I first figured out that there was no god.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Rumor where, and how does it make political sense to pair a liberal MA dem with a liberal NY dem? Isn't the dem base galvanized enough that they don't need hillary as a rallying cry?

I'm just the messenger. Read it in Emmett Tyrrell's column.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Most UK bookmakers have:


Bush: 1/2
Kerry: 6/4

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Most UK bookmakers have:


Bush: 1/2
Kerry: 6/4

So, Kerry's more odd?

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Rumor where, and how does it make political sense to pair a liberal MA dem with a liberal NY dem? Isn't the dem base galvanized enough that they don't need hillary as a rallying cry?

Wow, yeah, that strikes me as being a pretty bad idea. A Kerry-Edwards ticket should scare the Bushies pretty badly. A Kerry-Clinton ticket would be a damp squib.

I guess the Dems are just fixated on Hill following whoever is in the big house 2004-2008 and don't want to owe Edwards anything if his being on the ticket should secure Kerry the WH.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Wow, yeah, that strikes me as being a pretty bad idea. A Kerry-Edwards ticket should scare the Bushies pretty badly. A Kerry-Clinton ticket would be a damp squib.

I guess the Dems are just fixated on Hill following whoever is in the big house 2004-2008 and don't want to owe Edwards anything if his being on the ticket should secure Kerry the WH.

Edwards is a monumental lightweight. The only reason why we anybody is even talking about him is that the media pumped his candidacy to drive ratings. The guy won exactly the same number of states as Howard Dean.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._political_ads

(Spree: people pissed about exploiting 9/11 in ads)

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._political_ads

(Spree: people pissed about exploiting 9/11 in ads)

I think we ought to stop the madness and concede that 9-11 survivors and victims relatives are both within a protected class that cannot be spoken of without pissing someone off, so are best not mentioned at all, ever.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Edwards is a monumental lightweight. The only reason why we anybody is even talking about him is that the media pumped his candidacy to drive ratings. The guy won exactly the same number of states as Howard Dean.

Feh. By that measure, Kerry should be an unstoppable machine ready to crush Bush in his tracks, and I don't believe that one either.

As for a Hillary-VP rumor, color me confused. Hillary's main effect would be to energize the base, but it's not like Kerry won't get the DEM base out already (because of Bush more than Kerry, but whatever). The VP needs to have crossover appeal, and unless Kerry's stupid, he'll probably use that as the criteria.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I think we ought to stop the madness and concede that 9-11 survivors and victims relatives are both within a protected class that cannot be spoken of without pissing someone off, so are best not mentioned at all, ever.

It would be handy to be able to exclude the entire national security issue from the election, wouldn't it?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Feh. By that measure, Kerry should be an unstoppable machine ready to crush Bush in his tracks, and I don't believe that one either.

As for a Hillary-VP rumor, color me confused. Hillary's main effect would be to energize the base, but it's not like Kerry won't get the DEM base out already (because of Bush more than Kerry, but whatever). The VP needs to have crossover appeal, and unless Kerry's stupid, he'll probably use that as the criteria.

But isn't it true that HC has actually been a fairly moderate Senator, for quite some time? I don't think she has the uber-liberal cachet referenced here anymore, and she might well be a good grab-the-middle choice. Frankly, I would worry more about Bush's chances with her there than with Edwards.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
This from a member of the "imminent danger", "plundered museum", "quagmire", "hostile Iraqi citizenry", contingent?

(a) Bilmore -- Hank's characterization of the outraged reaction to the Zarqawi assassination expressly referred to "Liberals on this Board". That is the message that I was replying to, and that is the context for the statement of mine you quoted.

So . . feel free to shove your non sequiturs up your rear.

(b) Bilmore -- As to what you said above, IIRC, I've made precisely One of those arguments. Nothing I've posted can fairly be read even to imply the others.

(BTW -- As to the one argument I made, I continue to think that the "imminent danger" argument is a valid one, based on the perception of much of the public, despite the defense's legalistic parsing of some of the Administration's words in a manner more suitable for a courtroom than politics. Anyway, that's not the point.)

Nonetheless, you come flying out with all of these "points", and use them as your context for responding to me. Thanks for expalining that.

You all too often seem to be unwilling to distinguish between various arguments and various posters and to address more nuanced arguments in a more nuanced way. Perhaps its the election season.

It is not fair or useful to respond to posts by reading between the lines to argue with some vision of who you think the poster is.

S_A_M