Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[sgtclub]

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.

Yea, that's a logical jump.

Originally posted by Gattigap 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.

Again, I'm just the messenger. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/e...20040304.shtml

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by bilmore
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.

How many Americans will study her record in the Senate (which is, to some sizable degree, likely influenced by her desire for reelection and to make her more politically palatable on the national stage) and be convinced she's different from the Hollywood-favor-currying liberal side of her husband that she was portrayed to be for 8 years? Methinks you credit the electorate too much.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

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 willing to bet on what the 9th Circuit will do here?

It's Little League! They have a pledge? The argument will fail.

S_A_M

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
So . . feel free to shove your non sequiturs up your rear.

Ouch!

I likely do treat the two "sides" here as fungible hives at times, and so my post was most likely not well-aimed at you. Chalk it up to frustration after reading a pile of posts driven by Ty's "say it, and say it, and say it again, and then it'll be true" approach.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm just the messenger. Read it in Emmett Tyrrell's column.

Emmett Tyrell? You're seriously quoting Emmett Tyrell as your source? And you mock those who cite to Josh Marshall.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

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

If I'm the Dems I try to make as many people call it exploitation as possible.

[Not Me]

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

Teresa will not allow it.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by bilmore
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.

Actually, she's done quite well as Senator - she has a bit of a tin ear, but her policies and positions are usually quite practical and well thought out. But she hasn't been out campaigning so, except to people who have actually paid attention to her record as senator (all, what, 37 of them?), she'd primarily be associated with the whole Bill/Monica/rightwing conspiracy thing (and the failure of universal health coverage, for the brighter bulbs with longer memories). Not auspicious.

Also, Bill nwst, she screams "Yankee!" in the south, and, petty though it may be, that is a bigger deal than the core Dems seem to acknowledge. I've heard speculation that Kerry's strategy is to concede the South outright and focus on the West, but Edwards might be as much of an asset out there as Hill would be. The fact that she would, compared to Edwards, have a much needed moderating and centralizing effect on Kerry's campaign, unfortunately, would require the sort of "actually stop for a second and think about it" approach on the part of voters that seems sadly lacking on both sides of the aisle in this election. Kerry won, and candidates like Lieberman were complete non-entities, in part because the Dems decided to swing left in reaction to Bush and abandon the moderate "steal the other side's good ideas" approach that made Bill so sucessful. I think it may be late in the game (and unconvincingly "insincere") to try to revive that moderate, crossover message, given how thoroughly it has been trashed.

Though the Clinton machinery would even up the money thing somewhat.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Me
Teresa will not allow it.

Great point. Hadn't thought about that.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Again, I'm just the messenger. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/e...20040304.shtml

The article isn't even a "sources tell me Kerry is leaning toward HC" analysis. It's a bunch of innuendo: a speech on trade, Clark's staffers being told to "sit tight", Clinton loyalists trying to get Kerry to pick HC, a Dick Morris quote from several weeks ago, etc.

All in all, I would be shocked if they picked her. I've got no good reason for this, except that my otherwise liberal mom has a visceral hatred for HC because she overstepped her bounds as first lady by spearheading the health care thing back in Bill's first term and she didn't leave him after the Monica thing. In other words I think people will pick up their old judgments and prejudices against HC (and Bill) as soon as she started campaigning.

I'd like to see Edwards on the ticket, if only because I enjoy his speaking style and would find a debate between him and Cheney very entertaining. I think it's going to be Bob Graham though.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
But she hasn't been out campaigning so, except to people who have actually paid attention to her record as senator (all, what, 37 of them?), she'd primarily be associated with the whole Bill/Monica/rightwing conspiracy thing (and the failure of universal health coverage, for the brighter bulbs with longer memories). Not auspicious.

I understand, but we're left with a very long two-entity campaign, and I'm wondering if the voter education that could be accomplished in this next long year wouldn't overcome that. They're all gonna run out of things to talk about soon, and we've got to fill from now to November.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
The article isn't even a "sources tell me Kerry is leaning toward HC" analysis. It's a bunch of innuendo: a speech on trade, Clark's staffers being told to "sit tight", Clinton loyalists trying to get Kerry to pick HC, a Dick Morris quote from several weeks ago, etc.

Hence, my rumor characterization.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by bilmore
I understand, but we're left with a very long two-entity campaign, and I'm wondering if the voter education that could be accomplished in this next long year wouldn't overcome that.

Maybe. I've underestimated the American Couch Potato before.

They're all gonna run out of things to talk about soon...

Soon?

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Hence, my rumor characterization.

Yeah, I know. The article just read like it was written after he realized he only had 20 minutes to go before deadline and had to come up with a new idea now that the "does Edwards have a chance" stories have reached their expiration date. And I don't even know who this dude is, so maybe that's his style.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Yeah, I know. The article just read like it was written after he realized he only had 20 minutes to go before deadline and had to come up with a new idea now that the "does Edwards have a chance" stories have reached their expiration date. And I don't even know who this dude is, so maybe that's his style.

Founder/editor of American Spectator. You should forget his name quickly. Otherwise your friends and associates may disown you.