"HK" wrote in message
...
wrote:


Neither Bill nor Hillary would have believed that they could have deposed
Saddam and be greeted in Iraq with flowers.


Not now of course. I don't know about Bill, but Hillary *did* until she
didn't.

Eisboch

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"HK" wrote in message
...
wrote:


Neither Bill nor Hillary would have believed that they could have deposed
Saddam and be greeted in Iraq with flowers.


Not now of course. I don't know about Bill, but Hillary *did* until she
didn't.

Eisboch



I notice that none of them ever mention the idea of invading the correct
country and placing it under new management.

wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 13:22:53 -0500, HK wrote:

About the only way Hillary can win is if a 3d party sucks away 15-20%
of the vote since over half of the people say they would vote for
anyone but her.
Oh, I dunno about that. I think Hillary can beat the hell out of *any*
of the GOP possibles, with the exception of McCain. The Republican
recruiter for this year's nomination must have looked for losers, first,
second, and third. One is worse than the other.

She is still bumping up against that 51-52% negative. Some of it is
her position on the war, some is just Clinton fatigue and there are
those who don't want the bush/clinton/bush/clinton dynasty to
continue. I do believe the same people control both families.



Oh, that will "equalize" as soon as the GOP nominee is determined,
especially if he is a religious nutcase like Huck, a flipper like
Romney, or a crook like Guiliani.

Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
wrote:

Neither Bill nor Hillary would have believed that they could have deposed
Saddam and be greeted in Iraq with flowers.


Not now of course. I don't know about Bill, but Hillary *did* until she
didn't.

Eisboch


No, she never believed that.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"HK" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Neither Bill nor Hillary would have believed that they could have deposed
Saddam and be greeted in Iraq with flowers.

Not now of course. I don't know about Bill, but Hillary *did* until she
didn't.

Eisboch



I notice that none of them ever mention the idea of invading the correct
country and placing it under new management.




It's too late for that now.

"HK" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 13:22:53 -0500, HK wrote:

About the only way Hillary can win is if a 3d party sucks away 15-20%
of the vote since over half of the people say they would vote for
anyone but her.
Oh, I dunno about that. I think Hillary can beat the hell out of *any*
of the GOP possibles, with the exception of McCain. The Republican
recruiter for this year's nomination must have looked for losers, first,
second, and third. One is worse than the other.

She is still bumping up against that 51-52% negative. Some of it is
her position on the war, some is just Clinton fatigue and there are
those who don't want the bush/clinton/bush/clinton dynasty to
continue. I do believe the same people control both families.



Oh, that will "equalize" as soon as the GOP nominee is determined,
especially if he is a religious nutcase like Huck, a flipper like Romney,
or a crook like Guiliani.


By the way, here's a site where you can listen to the candidates' lie about
their views on guns.

http://www.nravalues.org/

"DownTime" wrote in message
. ..
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
Here's what I'm thinking just based on reading things here and there.

Democrats favor Obama, then Edwards, then Clinton, then everybody
else.

I'm thinking Obama gets out with a lead of three or four points over
Edwards in second and Clinton a very close third to Edwards - say
within a point or two. Everybody else, Dodd, Biden, Krazyinich will
all slide to less than 4% of the vote in total.

Republicans - I'm thnking Romney with an insigificant lead over
Huckabee and Thompson a strong third. Ron Paultard will show a
surprising 13% of the vote from all the Paulbots that show up from
other states.

Now I need to call my bookie. :)

Your bookie is taking action on the primaries? That is sad. I'm assuming
even the bookies are also it hard by the current real estate slump.

Bookies make money no matter what. They set the line so all candidates /
games get the same amount of money bet on each side. They take the vig. the
difference in what is bet and what is paid out.

"HK" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 08:04:02 -0800, Chuck Gould wrote:


That reduces me to voting for personal character. I'm absolutely opposed
to his politics, (fortuntately we're going to elect a POTUS, not a
dictator), but from the perspective of character and personal integrity
John McCain is definitely a front runner. Yeah, we would have to
overlook some past mistakes, but the only guy without a skeleton or two
in the closet is a guy who never accomplished anything.

For me, the two most important attributes in a Presidential candidate are
competence and honor, then, down the list, politics. Frankly, I'm not
sure which, competence or honor, is most important for me, but since it's
rare a candidate has either, I usually just end up going for the
candidate that comes closest to my politics. I keep thinking, 300
million people, and this is the best we can do?

Perhaps, Mike Bloomberg will run. I'd vote for him in a heartbeat.
While I think he might make a good President, I'd vote for him because it
would send a strong message to *both* Republicans and Democrats, that we
don't need them anymore. I felt the same way about that chicken-****,
candidate one day, not the next, Ross Perot.



Voting for Bloomberg is like voting for Ralph Nader. It simply helps elect
a Republican. Bloomberg cannot win.




Or Ross Perot, which gave us Clinton.

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...

"DownTime" wrote in message
. ..
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
Here's what I'm thinking just based on reading things here and there.

Democrats favor Obama, then Edwards, then Clinton, then everybody
else.

I'm thinking Obama gets out with a lead of three or four points over
Edwards in second and Clinton a very close third to Edwards - say
within a point or two. Everybody else, Dodd, Biden, Krazyinich will
all slide to less than 4% of the vote in total.

Republicans - I'm thnking Romney with an insigificant lead over
Huckabee and Thompson a strong third. Ron Paultard will show a
surprising 13% of the vote from all the Paulbots that show up from
other states.

Now I need to call my bookie. :)

Your bookie is taking action on the primaries? That is sad. I'm assuming
even the bookies are also it hard by the current real estate slump.

Bookies make money no matter what. They set the line so all candidates /
games get the same amount of money bet on each side. They take the vig.
the difference in what is bet and what is paid out.


They "hope" the same amount of money is bet on both sides. A bookie can
loose his patooie if all the money goes to one side and that side wins.
Most times when bookies find themselves one-sided on a particular wager they
attempt to lay off the excess from the over weighted side,

"D.Duck" wrote in message
...

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...

"DownTime" wrote in message
. ..
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
Here's what I'm thinking just based on reading things here and there.

Democrats favor Obama, then Edwards, then Clinton, then everybody
else.

I'm thinking Obama gets out with a lead of three or four points over
Edwards in second and Clinton a very close third to Edwards - say
within a point or two. Everybody else, Dodd, Biden, Krazyinich will
all slide to less than 4% of the vote in total.

Republicans - I'm thnking Romney with an insigificant lead over
Huckabee and Thompson a strong third. Ron Paultard will show a
surprising 13% of the vote from all the Paulbots that show up from
other states.

Now I need to call my bookie. :)

Your bookie is taking action on the primaries? That is sad. I'm assuming
even the bookies are also it hard by the current real estate slump.

Bookies make money no matter what. They set the line so all candidates /
games get the same amount of money bet on each side. They take the vig.
the difference in what is bet and what is paid out.


They "hope" the same amount of money is bet on both sides. A bookie can
loose his patooie if all the money goes to one side and that side wins.
Most times when bookies find themselves one-sided on a particular wager
they attempt to lay off the excess from the over weighted side,


That is what the line is for. Start getting too much money one way, they
change the line.