he was very unpresidential- and ewhosd to be a petty man, and very much the washington politician. they also said they did not like his twon of voice, and how he dodged questions that were not in his favor, and spent the majority of his answers name dropping. Most undecideds said that they were looking for a reason to vote for him, because the media has been boasting him as the front runner, but that this debate not only disapointed them- but was able to see that romney is much more presidential, and while the title commander and chief seems to fit mc cain better- they felt that romney had better qualifications to lead this country in all other areas, and he debated those issues better- and he didn’t shy away from giving answers to tough questions like they felt mc cain did. .intersting mc cain, where was all this straight talk i’ve been hearing you spout so proudly?
I think Clinton’s concession seceph quasi concession, at any rate was one of the best she has ever given and I wish she had run her campaign in that mode. But even if she had, I don’t know that it would have changed the outcome. Looking back even farther, her destiny in this race was sealed with her vote for the war. This vivid image is burned into my memory of Clinton sitting with Leiberman in the senate, heads tipped toward each other as they whispered. Leiberman, of all people. & really, bush, clinton, bush, clinton: two dynasties, year after year. If O put C on the ticket, he essentially would be announcing that he isn’t all that different from anyone and everything that has gone before him. It would negate his platform. & after her RFK remark, why would he do it? Would you? So now we have two faces that represent two paradigms: McCain is the old paradigm, Obama is the new paradigm. & these supposedly diehard Clinton supporters who say they’ll vote for McCain is she isn’t on the ticket? You gotta wonder what the hell is wrong with them. Have they been sleepwalking the last 8 years? Are they still sipping from Rove’s Kool-Aid? The Clintons belong to the 90s & are oh so yesterday. The tide really has turned. Let’s hope that Obama delivers. He really is this country’s last best hope.
wahwahwah… “rightful nominee”?? sounds a little like “entitled nominee”! and what Rick & Newt are handling at the moment… w/ your logic EE, they may cancel each other out and we’ll get “stuck” w/ Mitt huh 😦
Romney was the rightful nominee in a head-to-head matchup between he and McCain. Huckabee was a third candidate spoiler In the primaries and took votes away from Romney allowing McCain to get ahead. Huckabee pulled a ‘Perot.’ Perot caused us to get Clinton and Huck caused us to get McCain!
Thank you for the reply.As for me referencing the WSJ. they broke the story and by now I’m sure that you’re aware that this news has been veiefrid by multiple news organizations. So none of that detracts from the fact that that precise scenario was described in your blog first before the WSJ broke the story.Frankly, I’d think that would be a credit to your blog. And I envisioned speaking to a much wider audience than just yourself. If you didn’t need convincing that’s great. But actually my mission was to do more explaining about the reality of the matter from an inside perspective.After all, understanding that reality was characterized as being the product of flawed thinking.Now you’re absolutely correct about that considerable animosity that many hold toward the Clintons. It’s both real and well deserved. I played a significant role in electing Bill Clinton as President in 1992. Unfortunately through the years it became clear that that Clintons and the Bushes represent two wings of the same party. And HRC is basically just a neocon who’s offering a better benefits package.The Bushes and Clintons are like locusts who devour their respective political parties. With Reagan being a passive President and GHW Bush taking advantage of that situation, the Bush-Clinton axis has held power for 28 consecutive years and was looking to extend that lease up to 32 or 36 years.That’s the way things are arranged in Third World countries. And that’s unacceptable to tens of millions of Americans.As for the Clintons, they came within an eyelash of destroying the Democratic Party just like the Bushes with the Republicans. The Clinton track record is long and detailed. And I’m not going to regurgitate it here. But I will close with one small question. Why was Bill Clinton on the Rush Limbaugh Show on the day of the Texas primary?
Publius Prime
he was very unpresidential- and ewhosd to be a petty man, and very much the washington politician. they also said they did not like his twon of voice, and how he dodged questions that were not in his favor, and spent the majority of his answers name dropping. Most undecideds said that they were looking for a reason to vote for him, because the media has been boasting him as the front runner, but that this debate not only disapointed them- but was able to see that romney is much more presidential, and while the title commander and chief seems to fit mc cain better- they felt that romney had better qualifications to lead this country in all other areas, and he debated those issues better- and he didn’t shy away from giving answers to tough questions like they felt mc cain did. .intersting mc cain, where was all this straight talk i’ve been hearing you spout so proudly?
I think Clinton’s concession seceph quasi concession, at any rate was one of the best she has ever given and I wish she had run her campaign in that mode. But even if she had, I don’t know that it would have changed the outcome. Looking back even farther, her destiny in this race was sealed with her vote for the war. This vivid image is burned into my memory of Clinton sitting with Leiberman in the senate, heads tipped toward each other as they whispered. Leiberman, of all people. & really, bush, clinton, bush, clinton: two dynasties, year after year. If O put C on the ticket, he essentially would be announcing that he isn’t all that different from anyone and everything that has gone before him. It would negate his platform. & after her RFK remark, why would he do it? Would you? So now we have two faces that represent two paradigms: McCain is the old paradigm, Obama is the new paradigm. & these supposedly diehard Clinton supporters who say they’ll vote for McCain is she isn’t on the ticket? You gotta wonder what the hell is wrong with them. Have they been sleepwalking the last 8 years? Are they still sipping from Rove’s Kool-Aid? The Clintons belong to the 90s & are oh so yesterday. The tide really has turned. Let’s hope that Obama delivers. He really is this country’s last best hope.
wahwahwah… “rightful nominee”?? sounds a little like “entitled nominee”! and what Rick & Newt are handling at the moment… w/ your logic EE, they may cancel each other out and we’ll get “stuck” w/ Mitt huh 😦
Romney was the rightful nominee in a head-to-head matchup between he and McCain. Huckabee was a third candidate spoiler In the primaries and took votes away from Romney allowing McCain to get ahead. Huckabee pulled a ‘Perot.’ Perot caused us to get Clinton and Huck caused us to get McCain!
Thank you for the reply.As for me referencing the WSJ. they broke the story and by now I’m sure that you’re aware that this news has been veiefrid by multiple news organizations. So none of that detracts from the fact that that precise scenario was described in your blog first before the WSJ broke the story.Frankly, I’d think that would be a credit to your blog. And I envisioned speaking to a much wider audience than just yourself. If you didn’t need convincing that’s great. But actually my mission was to do more explaining about the reality of the matter from an inside perspective.After all, understanding that reality was characterized as being the product of flawed thinking.Now you’re absolutely correct about that considerable animosity that many hold toward the Clintons. It’s both real and well deserved. I played a significant role in electing Bill Clinton as President in 1992. Unfortunately through the years it became clear that that Clintons and the Bushes represent two wings of the same party. And HRC is basically just a neocon who’s offering a better benefits package.The Bushes and Clintons are like locusts who devour their respective political parties. With Reagan being a passive President and GHW Bush taking advantage of that situation, the Bush-Clinton axis has held power for 28 consecutive years and was looking to extend that lease up to 32 or 36 years.That’s the way things are arranged in Third World countries. And that’s unacceptable to tens of millions of Americans.As for the Clintons, they came within an eyelash of destroying the Democratic Party just like the Bushes with the Republicans. The Clinton track record is long and detailed. And I’m not going to regurgitate it here. But I will close with one small question. Why was Bill Clinton on the Rush Limbaugh Show on the day of the Texas primary?