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. :-)

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

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.

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.


Most liberals don't listen to Air America because most liberals don't
need to have their core values told to them every day, and regurgitated
in nasty fashion by the likes of snakes like Rush Limbaugh. The righties
in Rush's audiences like and being told repeatedly who their "enemies"
are and why, and Rush makes it easy for them.

I've never heard Air America on the radio. It's not carried on the three
public radio stations I listen to while in the car.

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 06:39:23 -0500, HK wrote:

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.


Most liberals don't listen to Air America because most liberals don't
need to have their core values told to them every day, and regurgitated
in nasty fashion by the likes of snakes like Rush Limbaugh. The righties
in Rush's audiences like and being told repeatedly who their "enemies"
are and why, and Rush makes it easy for them.

I've never heard Air America on the radio. It's not carried on the three
public radio stations I listen to while in the car.

A lot of the NPR stuff gets pretty close.
--
John H

On Jan 31, 12:03Â*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...

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.

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 21:03:04 -0800 (PST), 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.

Most Conservatives don't listen to 'the talk show circuit', which
apparently (at least as you define it) does not include Air America. I say
this because you make negative comments about only conservative talk radio.

I've heard the 'group think' mantra from you and Loogy. It's more of your
rhetoric. You try to make it sound as though you are all flying off in
different directions with your philosophy, when you really aren't. It's
snobbery, pure and simple.

I think the attitude is best exemplified by Ward L. Churchill. He didn't
earn my respect.
--
John H

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 21:03:04 -0800 (PST), 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.

Try an experiment. Take your prejudices and stereotypes about 'our side',
(just one at a time, no reason to endure too large a shock at once), and
ask yourself "What if this isn't right? What if they really do think for
themselves just as much as we liberals do?"

Take it a little further, What if every conservative doesn't fit the very
narrow pigeon hole to which I have mentally assigned them?"

I couldn't resist. :)





--
John H