TIME: Why Republicans are smiling.

[NDP]

3. The 2008 Democratic field. Hillary Clinton, as Hollywood chieftain David Geffen has famously pointed out, looks beatable in a general election. Barack Obama is impressive but Republicans find it hard to believe he'll be our next President. The second time doesn't seem to be the charm for John Edwards. And Al Gore, who could be the nominee, still isn't a natural pol. There are serious Democrats who have won in red or purple states: former Governors Mark Warner of Virginia and Tom Vilsack of Iowa, Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana and Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico. But the first three have dropped out of the presidential race, and Richardson is polling at 2% and looks unlikely to make it into the top tier. Hillary is the least left-wing of the leading Democratic candidates. To a Republican, that says it all.

4. The 2008 Republican field. Republicans look likely to nominate one from a trio of "metro Republicans," to use the term applied to Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney by Noemie Emery in the Weekly Standard. Emery writes, "None hails from the South, none looks or sounds country, none is conspicuous for traditional piety ... each is a strong conservative on many key issues, while having a dissident streak on a few. Each has a way of presenting conservative views that centrists don't find threatening, and projecting fairly traditional values in a language that secular voters don't fear." Each has shown an ability to get independent and even Democratic votes. Democrats won the national vote in 2006 by about 8 points. Republican front runner Giuliani now beats Democratic front runner Clinton in polls by about that margin.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1595232,00.html

Why wouldn't they be smiling? Hillary or Obama? They pray that the Democrats shoot themselves in the foot and "experiment" 2008 down the drain. Regardless of what the media influenced polls tell you, if you ask any honest Republican who they think would be their toughest opponent in 2008, they will tell you John Edwards.

Now, of course the media seems to have no problem suckering Democrats into believing otherwise. Hillary Clinton? Anyone who thinks that she is the most electable has a future in comedy. 2008 is the Democrats' best chance in a long time of winning back the White House, so what is the corporate media determined to convince the Democrats to do? Take the risk and "try" to see if you can win with a black man or a woman, which has never been nominated before, which the believe will diminish the fact that the country would rather have a Democratic President in 2008.

They are right, and you all know it, even though many of you refuse to admit it.

[iconoclastic cat]

1. Reeeeeeeeally.

Thanks for your concern.

[NDP]

25. definitely n/t

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[paulk]

2. thanks for your concern

[iconoclastic cat]

6. School must be done for the day. nt

[paulk]

14. LOL

[NDP]

26. No, it's just opening session

[ClassWarrior]

3. That's okay... let 'em get smug and overconfident...

And meanwhile we need to be smart and work our asses off.

:kick: :kick: :kick: <-----asses - work 'em off!

NGU.

[iconoclastic cat]

5. Yo, CW! What's shakin'! nt

[ClassWarrior]

7. Wuzzup, cat?

:toast:

NGU.

[iconoclastic cat]

8. As usual around cubeland, I'm waiting for others to do their work

so I can do mine. Ah, collaboration.

[ClassWarrior]

15. Been there!

(And glad I finally escaped that maze...)

That deserves another :toast:

NGU.

[iconoclastic cat]

19. Cheers! Not that I dislike my job, mind you.

It's actually pretty cool. I spend my day brainstorming and storyboarding multimedia educational content. The only really frustrating part is that I am utterly dependent on a lot of other people to get my job done.

[racaulk]

4. .

:popcorn:

[NDP]

27. &

:applause:

[sinkingfeeling]

9. Question. Why would any progressive Democrat even read Time?

As Eric Alterman points out here: http://mediamatters.org/altercation/index

Time Political Columnist Statistics, March 12 edition:

Columnists:

William Kristol of The Weekly Standard
Richard Brookheiser of National Review
Walter Isaacson of The Aspen Institute
Charles Krauthammer of The Weekly Standard
Number of Time political columnists in the March 12 edition who had the good sense to oppose the Iraq war: 0 (unless Walter did and I'm unaware of it, which is possible since Walter's a pretty sensible fellow)

Number of Time political columnists in the March 12 edition who not only did not have the good sense to oppose the Iraq war but have impugned the intelligence and integrity of those who did: 2 (Kristol, Krauthammer)

Number of Time political columnists in the March 12 edition who did not have the good sense to oppose the Iraq war but have not, insofar as I am aware, impugned the intelligence and integrity of those who did: 2 (Brookheiser, Isaacson(?))

Number of liberal columnists in the March 12 edition: 0

[iconoclastic cat]

12. Stuck at the pediatrician's office with nothing to read? nt

[NYCGirl]

17. I always carry my iPod. NT

[NDP]

28. I don't read Time. And I hate labels. Saw the headline on Google News, scanned the story.

Posted it because it's true. The GOP and their "bought and paid for Telecommunications Act created media" want Hillary or Obama, and that will never change regardless of how much some people fool themselves into believing otherwise.

[cali]

88. You. Are. Wrong.

The repukes are already eating each other alive. And the wingnut wing of the party can't stand either Rudy or McPain. I relish the idea of Rudy as candidate (though I doubt he'll get there). It'll be child's play to decimate him. The dems have a much stronger field. The pukes have zilch. 65% of folks have no idea who Rudy really is. This is going to be fun.

[NDP]

104. Your post definitely didn't correct me. Of course the GOP has zilch, which is why they want

Hillary or Obama, because either will give them a better chance, they believe, and are probably right about.

[AZBlue]

103. He's not progressive. His screen name stands for No Damn Progressive.

[NDP]

105. I'm probably a lot more progressive than Hillary or Obama :-)

[Phredicles]

10. If we nominate a white dude strictly because of the logic of the OP, then

we suck.

PS - Good luck finding an "honest Republican".:eyes:

[NDP]

29. If that white dude is clearly the best candidate, then why not? Because he doesn't have the

media created hype of the other two?

[Phredicles]

62. Well, unless Gore runs, I don't see a candidate who is "clearly" the best.

Besides, if we allow ourselves to be swayed by the alleged logic of William fucking Kristol, we suck even worse.

[NDP]

106. You may be able to be "swayed" by Kristol, but I can think for myself. The Republicans have always

wanted Hillary or Obama. I don't need Kristol to tell me that.

[AtomicKitten]

11. Ah, okay.

[NYCGirl]

13. Oh, I love that film

with the monkey washing the cat! It's the best!

[NDP]

30. Ah, okay.

[CRH]

135. AtomicKitten, That photo is beautiful ...

one wonders of the actual actions and demeaner of the two, in the actual moment.

[Skink]

16. Maybe Dean should run.

[iconoclastic cat]

18. Maybe *we* should run. nt

[BL611]

20. What evidence do you have

that they think Edwards is toughest?

IMO out of the three contenders he is the least toughest. He was a one term Senator who would have not stood a chance in hell of getting re elected for his seat ( at least Obama is popular),he already ran and lost, and he is the by far the least wonkish the three candidates. Look I like Edwards, but I see no reason to believe he's the most electable, I actually feel it is quite the opposite.

[NDP]

33. Actually, he would have easily won reelection. At the time, there was a poll showing him about to

pass Bush as the hypothetical candidate. So, some believe that he couldn't have beaten a stiff, corrupt, limousine chaser like Richard Burr, but he could have beaten Bush here in North Carolina? Burr just barely beat Erskine Bowles, and Edwards would have been 3 times as good of a candidate as Bowles was.

What evidence do you have that Obama or Hillary Clinton is the toughest? Some poll where the respondents were influenced by what they heard on the news?

So, just like some believe the right-wing talking points. I see that you have bought, cooked, eaten, and just defecated out the left-wing talking point about John Edwards.

[whathappened]

21. i agree

this country is not ready for a women or a black man , not to say they could'nt do a great job and run this country in the right direction , but there is a bigger power we have to ddeal with , those who are really running this country , we the people are not in control of how this country will be run , the last 30 years should have shown this to be true , our jobs being send oversea's , the buy in to our countrys buineses slowly but surely , by the oil money and manufacturing countrys of the world have just about a done deal , if we only new how much of this country has been sold off we would freak , so we need a strong white man with milatary back ground who see's our troofs as defenders of this country from evel , so get your forks out i'm done for now

[NDP]

36. If Obama would have been smart enough not to believe the press that the Press was creating to

lure him in, he'd have waited until 2016 when the voting demographics in this country would have shifted dramatically in his favor. It ain't going to happen for him in 2008, and he'll never have another real shot at it unless he's chosen as a VP candidate on a winning 2008 ticket. Media created the buzz for Obama, he sold even more books, media created even more buzz then said on Hardball that he had to run. I like Obama. I just like him better for 2016.

Hillary Clinton. I don't even think about her. I hope the country is done with Bushes and Clintons after this current idiot leaves the White House. If they can somehow get another Clinton in there, we'll never hear the end about Jeb Bush. I'm sick of it already.

[natrat]

75. if winning requires the swing vote then a lot of "soft" racists would have to change

beyond that the democratic party is bullshit and set up to lose any election of consequence. So alot of these obama/clinton supporters are bullshit paid whores--nice huh? sorry but i kind of think thats the deal

[Laurab]

76. Twice in one thread you've called some of your fellow DU'ers

"whores" - "corporate" and now "bullshit paid". I for one, am offended. I'm not a Hillary fan, but that has nothing to do with her being a woman. As for Obama, I can picture him winning, and apparently many others can, too.

They must both be paying an awful lot of people - where do I apply?

[KingFlorez]

22. 2008 is the Democrats' to lose

The Republicans don't have any advantages and will likely have a bruising primary. Democrats have more than won candidate that could win, regardless of what polls say.

[ClassWarrior]

23. Don't get complacent...

Just a word to the wise.

NGU.

[Skink]

24. A brokered convention would be so fun.

The uniformed masses might even tune in.

[Larry in KC]

35. You're thinking of another country...

Our masses are uninformed, not uniformed...

Unless sweatshirts and stretch pants count as a uniform?

[w4rma]

52. Just don't rely on one as part of your strategy. You'll be disappointed. (nt)

[fuzzyball]

83. name the last time GOp had a bruising fight?

[madrchsod]

31. it`s little billy

who gives a fuck what this little dipshit writes?

[SOS]

32. "By William Kristol"

A dead-ender living in a fantasy world.

Iraq is a success!
Republicans are doing great!

Here are few examples of Kristol's accuracy in reporting:

§ "Iraq is the only nation in the world, other than the United States and Russia, to have developed the kind of sophisticated anthrax that appeared in the letter sent to Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle." (Kagan and Kristol, "Getting Serious," November 19, 2001)

§ "Today, no one knows how close Saddam is to having a nuclear device. What we do know is that every month that passes brings him closer to the prize." (Kagan and Kristol, "What to Do About Iraq," January 21, 2002)

§ "According to an Iraqi newspaper...Saddam told the bomb-makers to accelerate the pace of their work...Saddam has been moving ahead into a new era, a new age of horrors where terrorists don't commandeer jumbo jets and fly them into our skyscrapers. They plant nuclear bombs in our cities." (Kagan and Kristol, "Back on Track," April 29, 2002)

All 100% FALSE.

And why would Time publish Kristol's idiocy?
Maybe because Time and Fortune were founded by an ardent Fascist named Henry Luce? Luce edited Time from 1922-1964 and after the start of WW2 switched his affiliation from Fascism to the Republican Party. Time has leaned right for 80 years. Who else would print Kristol's drivel other than the Weekly Standard and Time? Here are two pre-war quotes from the founder of Time magazine:

"America needs at this moment a moral leader, a national moral leader. The outstanding national moral leader of the world today is Mussolini." - Henry Luce, March 1928
"The moral force of Fascism, appearing in totally different forms in different nations, may be the inspiration for the next general march of mankind." - Henry Luce, April 19, 1934

[NDP]

46. Why wouldn't he write it, when he's "smiling." Clearly, he's confident based on the way it

appears to be shaping up.

[SOS]

68. Kristol is an ideologue

He is no way connected to reality.
The neocons don't study history "they make history".
Triumph of the Will and all that.
But the Big Lie as advanced by Goebbels is no longer working for them.

When Kristol boldly lied in the pages of the Weekly Standard about very specific Iraq "intelligence" he knew it was BS.
He reported it to influence events. He reported it to push the outcome he wanted.

He's doing the same now.
The Republicans haven't been in such bad shape since 1975, but Kristol says they're smiling.
Notice he dismisses Edwards in one line.
It's eleven months to go and we could well end up with a great ticket.

He's trying to shape events, rather than report them.
Fortunately for us, very few people are still listening to him.

[NDP]

107. As if I don't know who Kristol is. The fact remains, the Republicans would rather have Hillary or

Obama, and anyone who says otherwise, just doesn't want to acknowledge the truth.

[Supersedeas]

92. Pundits ought to be accountable for the filth they disseminate

[otohara]

101. GOP Would Do Well To Run From Kristol

he's been dead wrong on everything.

[lvx35]

34. Its true. Not a single member of the conservative base will swing over for Hillary

But members of the much smaller Corporate elite will. So the risk is, Hillary will have money but not numbers.

As far as personality, members of conservative base seem most tempted by Clark. Its the general thing.

[tridim]

37. So blacks and women with presidential aspirations are "experiments"?

Funny, I always considered them to be human, just like white males.

[NDP]

40. Has there ever been one? Since there hasn't, then yes, nominating either would be an experiment

You may not like the way that it sounds, but it's true. The candidate is not the "experiment." Seeing if the American people will choose one is the experiment. Colin Powell. Yes, they probably would. Barak "Babyface" Obama. I doubt that the 2008 electorate will. Hillary Clinton? Can we have a President who is not a Bush or a Clinton?

[City Lights]

63. "Barack 'Babyface' Obama"

How mature..:eyes:

[NDP]

109. What in the heck are you talking about? Barak Obama looks young, and as a black man

that's going to be enough of a reason for plenty of independent whites to go to the polls and use that as an excuse that they don't think that he has enough experience. Someone like Colin Powell, they wouldn't do that for.

[paulk]

65. "Can we have a President who is not a Bush or a Clinton?"

Is there any reasoning behind that statement or are you just repeating it over and over because.....

well, I don't know your motives, but when you conflate the Bush's and the Clinton's, you kinda make it sound like they're both the same. Do you think they're both the same? Would a Clinton presidency be the same as a Bush presidency? Is that what you're trying to say?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

89. I wonder if the Republicans tried that same shit in 1932.

"Do we want a Roosevelt dynasty?" :eyes:

[NDP]

113. Dynasty? Try "duped"

[NDP]

111. No, what I do is the same thing that Ed Garvey did, and that is acknowledge the behind the scenes

players who are getting a kick out of suckering you all into going back and forth between all out corporate (Republicans) and good enough corporate (DLCers).

Yes, I conflate the two, when the powers that be want either.

[paulk]

125. blah, blah, blah

this is all especially ironic, considering who you're pushing in this thread...

ps - I don't think the members of this board are quite the "suckers" you seem to think they are. If this thread is any indication, most of them seem to be on to you.

[Adelante]

91. How much are they paying you?

Top dollar or just pizza?

[NDP]

112. If I was getting paid by anybody, I wouldn't be here. Definitely not $10,400 a month

[CTLawGuy]

102. hear hear!

NT

[tandot]

38. Why Republicans are smiling? Because Ignorance is Bliss?!

:shrug:

[NDP]

42. Because it looks like they are getting what they want. That's why. They may be ignorant, but they

prefer running against either of those two. So, why not give them what they want? I mean, the Democrats always debate every issue on the Republicans' terms, using the Republican frames, so they may as well nominate the candidates that the Republicans want as well, right?

[peace frog]

39. Well, that tears it!

We don't stand a chance and there is no god!!!!!!
Let's us just give up and stick our heads in the trash compactor, what's the fucking use.
<<<WHIRRRRRRRR>><<CCCRRRUUUNNNCCCHHHH>>

[AndyTiedye]

41. It Isn't Gonna Be Edwards Either. Gore is the Only One Who Could Win

[NDP]

43. Can Gore win independents? I doubt he'd win as many independents as Edwards could.

Let's see, who has the best chance of winning Independents after going through a real campaign, instead of some flash poll based on how the media are covering the race right now?

After a real campaign, which of these candidates has the best chance of winning Independents:

Clinton
Edwards
Gore
Obama

I still say it's Edwards, and he'd get the same amount of Democratic votes as all of the others, and more moderate Republican votes than any of the others. Edwards is the most electable, because he appeals to the largest segment of the electorate, if you actually look at it from the perspective of a real general election, instead of the primary electorate.

Last primary, after each debate, all of the Independents and moderate Republicans that called in to C-Span and CNN said that they hoped the Democrats would nominate John Edwards, because he's the only one they would vote for.

Sure, that won't "convince" some stubborn partisans, but if we are talking about "electability," it matters.

[w4rma]

51. He already did. Of the folks in the race, right now, I support Edwards. My support switches to Gore

if he officially announces.

[NDP]

60. He won the 2000 election. I still don't think he'd have more appeal to Independents than Edwards

I would proudly vote for Gore or Edwards. Even Obama, even though he'd sadly have less of a chance in 2008. He'd have been perfect for 2016. As for Hillary Clinton. This country needs to wake up and move on.

[w4rma]

66. I'd rather Gore win the presidency with a strong VP like Edwards or Clark who can run in 2016.

Also, I think Edwards and Gore have equivalent strengths among indies. But I think Gore does better among the base who will be doing the volunteer work. And I think Gore does better with the fundraising, also. I think after 8 years in the spotlight as VP, Edwards (or Clark) will have gained the same advantages as Gore has now.

[Labors of Hercules]

70. agree and disagree...

I think Edwards would have to be a very different VP contender this time around. Smiling hard and sticking his thumbs in the air just aint gonna cut it.

[w4rma]

71. I agree. I also think that he's running his campaign in the way that you seem to say you want. (nt)

[Labors of Hercules]

73. yeah but... He still feels more like an actor than a statesman.

[TwilightGardener]

44. William Kristol

Is delusional. He has to prop up his neocon candidates so that the bombing of Iran won't be derailed by those pesky Democrats. He's probably got Iran and Iraq combined on a map somewhere in his office, entitled the United Oil States of Iranica.

[NDP]

49. William Kristol is boasting...and delusional, but even a broken clock gets it right twice a day

I hate clichés, but I had to use that one.

[FrenchieCat]

80. Not if the clock is broken and the hands have been ripped of!

[NDP]

114. It's still right on the inside. You just can't see it, just like many here apparently can't

[FrenchieCat]

126. Well go ahead and "believe" that Bill Kristol is "right" on the "inside"....

far as I'm concerned he is broken beyond repair! Not only that, but he ain't never been right; not even for one broken clock millisecond!

But hey....go ahead, you have the right to believe whatever, especially when "you" see it.

[roseBudd]

45. General Wesley Clark is the candidate that would cause them to sweat bullets

[NDP]

47. Wesley Clark is too unstable. I don't trust him to compose himself when his reasoning is questioned

[Adelante]

72. "Wesley Clark is too unstable."

Your ass is unstable.

[FrenchieCat]

77. Sound like the Repug Kool-Aid talking....that Gene Lyons warned about 4 years ago....

BUZZFLASH: You're probably one of the most well-informed journalists on how attack politics play themselves out with a culpable media, based on your extensive research and writing on the Clintons. How do you think the right wing is going to go after Clark? What can he expect? What advice would you give Clark and the people who are working for him?

LYONS: Well, the outlines of it are already evident. They're saying he's too tightly wrapped, which is kind of akin to what they tried to do with John McCain. They're saying he's a zealot and tends to become unhinged. They're suggesting he's crazed with ambition.

I wrote in a column a couple of weeks ago that one of their lines of attack would be to portray him as sort of General Jack D. Ripper, who was the megalomaniacal general in Dr. Strangelove who was so concerned with his precious bodily fluids. And that's what I think they will try to do. They might go all the way to the edge of suggesting some kind of mental illness. I don't think he's very vulnerable to that sort of smear.
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/10/int03221.html

[NDP]

115. So, you think that blow up against David Asman was an isolated incident?

Sure, Asman deserved it, but let someone keep pushing Clark, and you are going to see a temper that's even worse than John McCain's. Yes, Clark is a blow up waiting to happen. You'll see it one day.

[FrenchieCat]

122. It wasn't a "Blow up"....It was Wes Clark setting him straight......

as I noticed the smile on his face after he made sure that his words weren't going to be twisted....which is exactly what he should have done. And he has said that he would beat the shit out of anyone that would inpugne his patriotism.....and I'm glad of that as well.

I've been watching Gen. Wes Clark for going on 4 years.....that's as long as a entire Presidential term. I haven't seen this that you are talking about "will happen" although I have heard about the posibilities as whispered and then shouted out by the mental scary ass wingnuts.

In addition, I want my President to have some humanity to his temper when it is required. But I'll tell you, if the man can sit across the table from a fool like O'Reilly and keep his composure, I will say that I don't believe what you are saying...and the intelligent non gullible members of the Democratic Underground ain't gonna buy it, just because you say that it is so. In fact, most people here know Gen. Clark better than they know you. Try another approach....cause this ain't quite doing it. :eyes:

[roseBudd]

131. At least Wes Clark never blew up frogs with firecrackers or branded anyone...

And he is not a trial attorney who files frivolous lawsuits

Never snorted cocaine

Didn't even smoke pot

And he's not married to someone who said "depends on the meaning of is"

Pretty much the only thing they call him is General

[Leilani]

84. Where do you get your Wes Clark info from?

News Max or Drudge?

Educate yourself, please.

[NDP]

116. From the gut, and from plenty of psychologically based "observations" of Wes Clark's demeanor

[FrenchieCat]

123. Your gut, just like your sources of psychologically based observation

are full of doo-doo.

You have shown us who you are though.....and for that, we thank you very much.

NEXT.....

[Uncle Joe]

48. My guess is, they have that confident Ken Lay kind of smile. n/t

[NDP]

50. I suspect its this kind of sneaky smile, praying that they get Clinton or Obama

If the media delivers, and they get Clinton or Obama, it'll quickly change into this kind of smile.

[Uncle Joe]

53. Ken Lay, Karl Rove, same thing, different momma. n/t

[TwilightGardener]

55. Oooff, get thee some Crest WhiteStrips.

[NDP]

57. He'd just eat them, so they wouldn't do any good. n/t

[NYCGirl]

54. Kristol's been full of crap before, and he's full of crap now.

[Old and In the Way]

56. Smiling past the graveyard.

Personally, I'll vote for Ham Sammich if he's the Democratic choice in the GE. Sorry, I have a hard time seeing Republicans smiling about much of anything in 2008. McCain? Guiliani? Gringrich? Brownback? Pick your poison. Republican Party implodes by 2008. Massive splinters, purges, and finger pointing.

[NDP]

58. The GOP logic is that nominating Clinton or Obama lessens the chance of a Democrat winning in 2008

Most likely, their logic is correct. As long as the Republicans don't nominate Chuck Hagel, the Democrats have an advantage. Still, it doesn't change anything. They rather run against Clinton or Obama.

[Colobo]

61. Their logic works even more if some Democrats buy it...

[TwilightGardener]

64. They're too stupid to nominate Hagel.

Or, too smart--he won't follow the neocon plan the way Rudy McRomney will.

[Crunchy Frog]

59. The one whose name the corporate media is afraid even to mention.

Wes Clark. They have the most to fear from someone with impeccable national security credentials, in an election year where we we still be bogged down in unwinnable wars. The fear will be compounded by the fact that he's telegenic and able to articulate a progressive platform in such a way that it doesn't feel threatening to more conservative voters. Trust the corporate media to everything in its power to avoid ever even mentioning him.

And if he does start to become a force, the line by the corporate chattering classes will most likely be the vague suggestion that he's "unstable", whatever the hell that means. They won't offer any evidence in support of that line, but it will insinuate itself into public conciousness nevertheless.

[roseBudd]

132. Wes Clark is Jim Webb version 2.0, Clark will even get white male Southern votes

of which Hillary will get none.

[Cha]

67. republicons are idiots..

that why they're smiling.

[gulliver]

69. You mean George W. Bush's Republicans?

Those Republicans? The Bush Republicans? Your talking about the three candidates from the POB (Party of Bush). Those (Bush) Republicans are happy about their Bush backing presidential and congressional Bush-backing, Bush-rubber-stamping, Bush-enabling, Bushie candidates? The party that gave the world Bush is happy?

Vote Republican. This country needs more Bush leadership.

[Laurab]

78. Last poll I saw had Obama winning over Rudy boy

or was it McCain? I can't remember but it's posted on here somewhere. The three repuke frontrunners, if that's what they are, are jokes. I take them about as seriously as I take William Kristol's opinion - the man is delusional.

[NDP]

117. Polls at this point are laughable to even cite as if most of those people even have a clue

who Obama is or what he thinks about anything.

[Laurab]

130. Well I think your OP talks about "front runners"

which is just as laughable IMO, at this point, but polls normally show you who the "front runners" are - polls and repub talking points, at this point in time. When an OP cites "front runners", I think polls are just as meaningful.

You sure don't give Obama supporters much credit - I think you might be surprised by many of them.

[FrenchieCat]

79. PNAC founder can kiss my ass, and anyone who reads him and

believes the diarrhea coming out of his mouth can too.


Psyche-Ops are gonna have to try harder than this....cause this ain't working.

Here, try this!



and then believe your own bullshit! :eyes:

[NDP]

118. So, who "reads" Bill Kristol? I don't need him to tell me what I already know. They want Hillary

or Obama.

If you need for someone to "tell you" that, then all you need to do is knock on doors. Stay away from the boiler rooms.

[FrenchieCat]

127. You did the OP, not me.

You determined that Bill Kristol spoke for you, not I.

I don't need anyone speaking for me. I do just fine on my own, thank you.

Stay away from Democratic political forums if you're gonna tell us about what Bill Krystol is saying as he speaks for you. Garbage in is garbage out.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

81. Oh, please; it's freakin' WILLIAM KRISTOL!

When was that grinning idiot ever right about anything?

[Eurobabe]

82. Sorry PNAC Kristol has no credibility on DU

or any other place. See ya! :hi:

[Apollo11]

85. I believe that Al Gore would beat Rudy Giuliani

So if we are worried about Republicans winning the Whitehouse in 2008, we should be doing everything we can to make it clear to Al Gore that we would welcome him entering the race, and if he would decide to jump in then he would have a very strong chance of winning the nomination and the election.

Let's all find ways to show our support for Al Gore! :patriot:

Read Al's blog: http://blog.algore.com/2007/02/our_next_step.html

Help Al Gore lobby Congress: www.algore.com/cards.html

Get ready for Live Earth on 7/7/07: www.liveearth.org

Sign the petitions at www.algore.org and www.draftgore.com

:kick:

[lwcon]

86. NDP, there is simply no better way to discredit your own argument...

... than by citing Bill Kristol, aka "Nostradamus."
___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[NDP]

120. Oh please, I didn't "cite" anyone. I didn't even look at the name on the article, because it was

irrelevant, as far as this issue is concerned. I don't need to read that crap to know it's the truth.

[lwcon]

133. Don't consider the source, eh?

Even if the source is one of the most profoundly wrong people in history, and a top Repub operative? Sure.

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[sofa king]

87. Bill Kristol always smiles when he's bullshitting.

I'd like to play some poker with Bill Kristol and win back some of the federal dollars he's been shaking me down for these past six years. Whenever he shows his teeth, he's bluffing.

[myrna minx]

90. Wow, Kristol, that sounds like a lot of "pop sociology"

to me. :puke:

[Arugula Latte]

93. I agree that Hillary is the Repuke's dream candidate. But Obama is a huge threat to them, IMO.

McCain and Rudy and Mitt all have huge drawbacks for the R's.

[Colobo]

108. Obama is to the GOP what Clinton was to Pappy Bush

[Chemical Bill]

94. Because they still own the voting machines. n/t

[Clark2008]

95. No Republican in the purple states thinks John Edwards is

their toughest opponent.

They KNOW he's wishy-washy on their stock-in-trade foreign policy and can easily be maligned on that issue.

Trust me.

His biggest fans are women of a certain age and, in order to win any Heartland states, we need the support of white male voters. Edwards doesn't shine to them.

[NDP]

121. Purple states? Yet another ridiculous label. The heads of the Republican party would rather not

have to face John Edwards. They'd rather get any of the others.

[FrenchieCat]

129. Proof! Please provide some proof of your pronouncements.......

cause so far, considering you put great faith in Bill Kristol....your word doesn't quite reassure anyone that what you speak are fact or even reality based.

[bigtree]

96. twaddle

[Bridget Burke]

97. Xanax? Bad plastic surgery? Too much Botox?

[Javaman]

98. simple way to shut up smug repukes. Paper ballots. nt

[xkenx]

99. And Wes Clark waits in the wings for the right moment.

[Labors of Hercules]

100. To be Al Gore's Vice Presidential candidate...

:bounce:

[JaneQPublic]

110. Article written by William Kristol. Need we say more? (nt)

[NDP]

119. Kristol says that 2+2=4. The truth is the truth. The Republicans want Hillary or Obama

[Madspirit]

128. At Coultergeist's site

On Ann Coulter's forum they are afraid of Hillary. That's just the truth. Go over and join and look. They are not afraid of Obama. That reflects on them, not him. So TIME doesn't know what it's talking about.
Lee

[Madspirit]

124. This reminds me

...of Wyldwolf's and SavingElmer's "Hillary is a Godess sent from Heaven above and if you don't vote for her you are a moral miscreant and a Freeper in sheep's clothing. Blah blah blah blah."

Can you promote your candidate without dissing people or their candidate?

Just curious.
Lee

[ecstatic]

134. Get to the back of the bus, Obama! Maybe in 2050 he'll be ready?

:shrug: :sarcasm: :eyes: :mad:

As much as I hate the sentiments expressed in that article, I have a feeling that John Edwards is the most electable right now. He is laying low, which is a good thing since he co-sponsored the IWR. Mainstream Americans won't know about that blunder, and Dems in the know won't see him around enough to get angry. Unfortunately the sad truth is--this country is still too racist and sexist.

At the same time, if democrats succumb to polls and racism /sexism, we risk alienating our strongest supporters.