A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I think the first woman president should look like a guy to ease us into it, and Hillary is pretty manly looking, and the lesbian thing helps too, but there are Dem senators that are way more manly looking. Why don't you hear about them running?

Goddamnit, we can't help what Joe Biden looks like.

ETA: This is an interesting Wiki. It'll be interesting to see how it changes over the next two years.

This is the Republican version.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Aside from the obvious problems with the source, I think it is a mistake to say she has no financial advantage over her rivals.

I don't know how much she has on hand, but I'm sure she doled out a lot of cash to other candidates and their PACs to "build the party" and build up chits.

I know you dislike her, but you have no reason to think she is stupid, or doesn't understand how to run and win elections.

S_A_M

The NYTimes had an article about this today. It's a little hard to understand why she spent SO much. Yes, she wanted a truly convincing win in NY -- otherwise she wouldn't be credible. And yes, she "made connections" with other donors. But this was ridiculous, and may turn people off.

As a Dem, I can only hope.

The article also mentioned that Kerry and (surprisingly, to me) Bayh have pretty big war-chests. I'm pretty sure Bayh will run. And I hope Kerry saves that money and turns it over to the DNC for the general election.

Again, as a Dem, I can only hope.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
But the fact is, a lot of Dems actually think she's electable, and want to run her. I guess its wishful thinking overwhelming logic.

I was talking this weekend to a Democratic operative-type who worked in the Clinton White House. He said that you start from the view that HRC would win every state that Kerry won, and then you look to see where she could add to that. Unless McCain is the GOP nominee, in which case all bets are off.

I'm not sure whether this is right, but I say this because it goes to whether Dems think she's electable.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I'm sure she doled out a lot of cash to other candidates and their PACs to "build the party" and build up chits.

I read she didn't. She's been attacked for spending huge sums on her Senate race instead of doing more to help (e.g.) NY candidates for the House.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I think the first woman president should look like a guy to ease us into it, and Hillary is pretty manly looking, and the lesbian thing helps too, but there are Dem senators that are way more manly looking. Why don't you hear about them running?

What are you implying about HRC and Condi?

[SlaveNoMore]

Secret_Agent_Man
Aside from the obvious problems with the source, I think it is a mistake to say she has no financial advantage over her rivals.

I don't know how much she has on hand, but I'm sure she doled out a lot of cash to other candidates and their PACs to "build the party" and build up chits.

I know you dislike her, but you have no reason to think she is stupid, or doesn't understand how to run and win elections.

S_A_M

So you don't think the Obama machine is going to deflect millions from her coffers?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
So you don't think the Obama machine is going to deflect millions from her coffers?

What Obama machine?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
You're right. There's good reason to think she WAS stupid - namely, her demand for national health care while her husband was President (which her husband wisely responded to by shoving a sock in her mouth). But there is no reason to assume she's stupid today... Well, save her belief she can sell herself as a moderate and get elected to the White House.

You're not exactly her targeted audience.

And that was Bill Clinton's initiative.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
So you don't think the Obama machine is going to deflect millions from her coffers?

I think he's smart enough not to run in 2008.

Its too early for him -- he needs to build more of a national track record. In my view, John Edwards really screwed himself and his future chances by going out too early -- but what do I know?

Plus, Obama has plenty of time (he's about 45), so why put himself in the midst of a death match with HRC -- the 800 lb. Gorilla -- when they both draw from the same constitutency in the primaries?

As a Dem, I can only hope.

S_A_M

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
How could that possibly bring in enough revenue?

Eliminate welfare, social security, and the massive bureaucracies that go with them, and you need less revenue. Eliminate mortgage interest, tax-exempt interest, and almost all other deductions, erase the break for capital gains and dividends, and you make up for a lot of lost revenue vis. a vis. other proposals.

You may need a slightly higher rate, but less than 20% should do it.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
you seemed to be leveling the playing field to allow $10 per hour jobs here. My point was you don't need to. Are you proposing buying cars for people? Can't the Aurora people just go on Oprah if they need a car?

Not under the current oppressive tax regime.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I was talking this weekend to a Democratic operative-type who worked in the Clinton White House. He said that you start from the view that HRC would win every state that Kerry won, and then you look to see where she could add to that. Unless McCain is the GOP nominee, in which case all bets are off.

I'm not sure whether this is right, but I say this because it goes to whether Dems think she's electable.

All projections fail in regard to HRC. She's a polarizing candidate with the capacity to turn blue states red. A lot of Kerry carries were close. I think she'll lose a good number of those states.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I was talking this weekend to a Democratic operative-type who worked in the Clinton White House. He said that you start from the view that HRC would win every state that Kerry won, and then you look to see where she could add to that. Unless McCain is the GOP nominee, in which case all bets are off.

I'm not sure whether this is right, but I say this because it goes to whether Dems think she's electable.

From what I have heard your friend is right on. Hillary has a good shot if the nominee is not McCain or Giuliani.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
You know, I could see this working.

Spanks, any interest in a roommate who knows a lot of "models". He can also fly anywhere in the world a military jet goes when he feels like chasing them. And can get lodging at Shades of Green for a couple of single guys "doing" Disney.

How come you never answered my question?

"No the question was should California, if it could, put trade restriction on states that don't have as high a minimum wage as California or who don't have a strong worker safety and protection laws?

I am assuming your answer is no.

So then the obvious question is: If you don't think it would benefit California, and the workers in other states with lower minimum wages and less generous labor laws, for California to use trade restrictions to improve the lot of the workers from Southern States and to protect Californians from unfair labor practices, why do you think it is OK for the United States to use trade restrictions to try and improve the lot of foreign workers and to protect American workers from a foreign unlevel playing field?"

I am still waiting for your answer

[Spanky]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
All projections fail in regard to HRC. She's a polarizing candidate with the capacity to turn blue states red. A lot of Kerry carries were close. I think she'll lose a good number of those states.

You are forgetting there are more Dems than Repubs. Hillary polls really well among Dems, Independents and moderate Republican women. That is a potent combination.