On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 06:30:59 -0500, Jim wrote:


Hope you're right. There's just something wrong when a political party
can deprive any voter of the right to have his vote counted in the
selection process. Might even be unconstitutional.

If it was the election, definitely, but in the primary? I think the
parties hold all the cards. Unfortunately, I think they can set the
rules as we are not electing a President, just a party's candidate.

wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 06:30:59 -0500, Jim wrote:


Hope you're right. There's just something wrong when a political party
can deprive any voter of the right to have his vote counted in the
selection process. Might even be unconstitutional.

If it was the election, definitely, but in the primary? I think the
parties hold all the cards. Unfortunately, I think they can set the
rules as we are not electing a President, just a party's candidate.


The Democrats are going to need their supporters in Florida to carry
that state later this year, and I am sure some sort of accommodate will
be worked out so the Sunshine State delegates are seated at the
convention and have voting privileges. The party wants motivated voters.

As for Hillary's win in Florida, it gives her campaign a boost now and
maybe more later. The fact that she got more votes than anyone else in
either party speaks for itself.

I still would like to see a Hillary-Barack ticket. It would totally
motivate the Democratic base, and pull in the majority of independents.
I think such a ticket would result in a slaughter of the GOP for the
presidency and for real control of Congress. It's going to take that
sort of control to try to undo the horrors perpetrated on this country
by the Bush Administration.

HK wrote:

The Democrats are going to need their supporters in Florida to carry
that state later this year, and I am sure some sort of accommodate will
be worked out so the Sunshine State delegates are seated at the
convention and have voting privileges. The party wants motivated voters.


Well, I suppose they could give themselves a boost by heckling people
at the polls and pulling republican signs out of peoples yards.

hey! it's worked in the past hasn't it?

wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 08:13:25 -0500, HK wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 06:30:59 -0500, Jim wrote:


Hope you're right. There's just something wrong when a political party
can deprive any voter of the right to have his vote counted in the
selection process. Might even be unconstitutional.
If it was the election, definitely, but in the primary? I think the
parties hold all the cards. Unfortunately, I think they can set the
rules as we are not electing a President, just a party's candidate.

The Democrats are going to need their supporters in Florida to carry
that state later this year, and I am sure some sort of accommodate will
be worked out so the Sunshine State delegates are seated at the
convention and have voting privileges. The party wants motivated voters.

As for Hillary's win in Florida, it gives her campaign a boost now and
maybe more later. The fact that she got more votes than anyone else in
either party speaks for itself.

I still would like to see a Hillary-Barack ticket. It would totally
motivate the Democratic base, and pull in the majority of independents.
I think such a ticket would result in a slaughter of the GOP for the
presidency and for real control of Congress. It's going to take that
sort of control to try to undo the horrors perpetrated on this country
by the Bush Administration.

Hillary is probably unelectable in a national election. Those
elections are decided by swing voters, and with Hillary, you either
love her or hate her. She's not going to do well with swing voters. If
the contest is between her and McCain, I think you'll see a lot of
moderate Dems voting for McCain, because there is no way they will
vote for Hillary if they have an escape route that is at all
palatable.






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

"HK" wrote in message
...


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

Barack-Hillary would be better.

Oh, wait. She already *had* that job.

Eisboch

On Jan 30, 10:17*am, wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 09:49:20 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...

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

Barack-Hillary would be better.

Oh, wait. *She already **had* that job.

Eisboch

*I think Obama-Richardson would be a strong ticket. It adds someone
with substantial experience and expertise in foreign policy, and has
the added advantage of not including someone very divisive near the
top of the ticket.

I kind of like Richardson, the only thing I see wrong with him is he
was soooooo deep in Billarys pocket, I don't know if he could climb
out...

wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 09:49:20 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...

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

Oh, wait. She already *had* that job.

Eisboch


I think Obama-Richardson would be a strong ticket. It adds someone
with substantial experience and expertise in foreign policy, and has
the added advantage of not including someone very divisive near the
top of the ticket.



Are we going to hear the "gravitas" chorus from all of the political
pundits just like we did in 2000 when Bush picked Chenney? You do
realize what you are saying is that Obama is an empty suit and can't
handle the job without adult supervision.

On Jan 30, 10:20*am, BAR wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 09:49:20 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...

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

Oh, wait. *She already **had* that job.

Eisboch

*I think Obama-Richardson would be a strong ticket. It adds someone
with substantial experience and expertise in foreign policy, and has
the added advantage of not including someone very divisive near the
top of the ticket.

Are we going to hear the "gravitas" chorus from all of the political
pundits just like we did in 2000 when Bush picked Chenney? You do
realize what you are saying is that Obama is an empty suit and can't
handle the job without adult supervision.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That is one reason I could take Obama over Billary....

On Jan 30, 10:35*am, wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 10:20:02 -0500, BAR wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 09:49:20 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...

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

Oh, wait. *She already **had* that job.

Eisboch

*I think Obama-Richardson would be a strong ticket. It adds someone
with substantial experience and expertise in foreign policy, and has
the added advantage of not including someone very divisive near the
top of the ticket.

Are we going to hear the "gravitas" chorus from all of the political
pundits just like we did in 2000 when Bush picked Chenney? You do
realize what you are saying is that Obama is an empty suit and can't
handle the job without adult supervision.

Not saying that at all. And when they picked a baby sitter for GWB,
it's too bad they settled on Jeffrey Dahmer.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dahmer was an amateur

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RA...CS/BODIES.html

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.