wrote in message
...
On Jan 31, 12:03 am, Chuck Gould wrote:
On Jan 30, 1:16?pm, John H. wrote:





On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 09:47:02 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould

wrote:
On Jan 30, 9:14?am, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 09:49:20 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

Your guess is as good as mine on this, but I think a
Hillary-Barack ticket
would be unstoppable.
Barack-Hillary would be better.

Barack/Bill Richardson would be the tough one to beat. He could say
he
was sending Richardson on the road to fill in the gaps in his
foreign
policy experience.

Hillary vs McCain will leave all of the anti-war people with no
attractive candidate. That may depress turnout and really make this
a
crap shoot. I think the solid voters at that point will be the
people
who are against Hillary no matter who else is running (the NRA
vote,
Pro-lifers and other dependable turnout)

Are you kidding? After nearly eight years of being BUSHwhacked, every
DEM in the country will vote for Hillary *or* Barack, along with a
majority of independents.

There's very little difference between Hillary or Barack on ending
Bush's war. Hillary has said she will have a formal plan for doing so
within 60 days of assuming office.

The GOP candidate will carry the GOP and a small number of
Independents.

The best thing about a Hillary or Barack vs. McCain race might be a
higher tone than we have seen coming from the Republicans in the last
two national elections. McCain isn't going to tolerate that
"swiftboat"
crap, and neither will Hillary or Obama on their side.

This is not to say it will be a sweet campaign; it'll just be cleaner
than the last two.

Oh. "Pro-lifers." Misnomer. They're not pro-life, they are
anti-abortion.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If you're looking for a clean campaign, from the D's- Obama is more
likely to run cleanly than are the Clintons. Bill's eager for some
"payback"- much too eager IMO. He's just warming up on Obama, wait and
see what he'll do to any R finalist. Won't be pretty.

On the R side, McCain or whomever wins the nomination can keep his
personal hands relatively clean. The talk show circuit will do its
best to *destroy!* the D candidate, whomever that turns out to be.
Fortunately, most of those wack jobs are just preaching to the wack
job choir- but get enough bitchy old white guys together and that can
generate a fairly substantial poliltical clout. All the R candidate
will have to say is
"I sure wish those folks wouldn't smear my opponent that way, but this
is America and we have to respect freedom of speech."

There's already an anti-Hillary propaganda movie in the can. I
understand it's a real scorcher. Maybe Michael Moore can take a few
lessons. :-)

Apparently you've never listened to ten minutes or more of Air America.
Where've you been, boy?
--
John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Most liberals don't listen to Air America. That should be evident by
its ratings. One reason that liberalism doesn't "do better" than it
seems to do is that those who adhere to a progressive philosophy are
reluctant to sacrifice their personal ideals on the alter of "group
think". I will had it to your side, John....you guys aren't afraid to
compromise among yourselves (sometimes one heck of a lot) in order to
promote the group agenda. I don't mean that in a bad way, it's one of
the things I most admire about conservatives.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You have got to be kidding.. Repubs with groupthink? Compared to the
dems in congress? You are just not paying attention...

====================


I don't think you were spending much time in this newsgroup when the slogan
plague was at its worst. "Cut & run", stuff like that. Bush's handlers seem
to have stopped him from using that high school level **** lately, though. I
think maybe even they got sick of hearing it. He almost broke the rules a
few months ago by saying "This young democracy" a little too often
(referring to Iraq), but someone made him dump the phrase.

That's definitely group-think when you're trying to get your followers to
memorize slogans.