I wouldn’t want to be the person to deliver this news to her. The Teamsters are endorsing Obama.
At some point, a person who cared about their party and country would withdraw and help the nominee position for the general election. But Hillary! isn’t that person. She’s been dreaming of being president since she was very young, and this is her only realistic shot–it’s now or never. I still expect her to fight it all the way to Denver, barring a complete electoral collapse in two weeks.
And don’t be shocked if, even with a united party (it won’t be), Obama turns out to be another George McGovern, or Walter Mondale, in terms of electoral votes. I don’t think that the donks have any notion of how much they’re screwing themselves in nominating either of them.
And yet President Bush hasn’t done McCain or the Republican Party any favors over the past eight years. It’s quite possible that disenchantment with the GOP, coupled with a general dislike of McCain, will result in a Dem victory simply because Republican voters will stay home.
I’m not decided myself on what I’ll do come election day. I’ll vote against the Democrats, but whether that means holding my nose and voting for McCain (only if Thompson is his running mate) or just writing Thompson in, remains to be seen.
I don’t think that the donks have any notion of how much they’re screwing themselves in nominating either of them.
Who do you think the Democrats should have nominated?
Edwards seems too insincere, Biden has that plagerism history in the background (and he is a loose cannon – Biden vs McCain would have been a fun gaffe-fest!), Gravel and Dennis K are too granola. Do you think one of the above should have been the nominee? Do you think they should have nominated Dodd? Someone (like Gore or Warner) who didn’t want run?
I don’t think that any of this year’s candidates could win, but Obama is particularly weak. His only advantage is his charisma, but I think he’ll be past his “sell by” date in November. Someone like Evan Bayh might have had a chance.
Seems to me that there are really only two choices – one not perfect and one bad – you can vote for McCain or you vote for Hillary and/or Obama.
Staying home, writing in Thompson, or any other creative thing you can come up with is voting for Hillary and/or Obama … not matter how you rationalize it.
I thought the last election was critical and if we got by that one we would be in the clear. I now see that this election is just as critical. In fact as far as I can see into the furture (not that far, I guess) its beginning to look like each election cycle is going to be an all in “you bet the country”.
We only have to loose once.
Just my 2 cents worth.
I thought the last election was critical and if we got by that one we would be in the clear. I now see that this election is just as critical. In fact as far as I can see into the furture (not that far, I guess) its beginning to look like each election cycle is going to be an all in “you bet the country”.
I’m 50 years old and have been voting since 1976. Even before that, it seems that every election is described as being a turning point in history, the most critical election ever, blah, blah, blah.
There’s no way I will vote for Obama or Hillary. However, McCain has not earned my trust so he has not yet earned my vote. November is still many months away and I might change my mind by then but frankly, I owe McCain nothing. Voting for him simply because he claims to be a Republican or because “the other side sucks even worse” just isn’t going to cut it. Not voting for McCain isn’t the same as voting for Obama or Hillary.
(warning — Michigan reference coming)
If Hillary gets invited to lunch at the Red Fox I would advise her to pass…
“Red Fox ”
“Ester, you so ugly!!!!”
[homer]Mmmmm….Redd Foxx[/homer]
OK, Jim, I’m a born’n’bred Michiganian, and I don’t understand the reference…
Jimmy Hoffa was last seen having lunch at the Red Fox restaurant, in the northwest Detroit suburbs.
“Not voting for McCain isn’t the same as voting for Obama or Hillary.”
No, but it does have the same effect.
Not a bad strategy for the Democrats, nominating the leftmost unviable candidate.
Since the ‘phants have occupied the center left this is actually a win win for the Donks. If they lose, there will continue to be an ever growing, more intrusive government. And if they win, there will be an even larger more intrusive government.
“No, but it does have the same effect.”
No, it doesn’t have the same effect. Do the fargin math.
Writing in “Fred Thompson” (which is what I will probably be doing) is NOT the same as voting for Hill/Bama.
This upcoming election makes me want an option on the ballot to state ‘anyone but X’. So I could clearly vote against one candidate without clearly voting for another who hasn’t earned my support.
“Vote for one” just doesn’t allow me to fully enough express my opinion on the candidates.
Of course, the thing that always gets left out of the McGovern discussion is that Nixon cheated, got busted for cheating, and was forced out of the office he “won”.
Duncan, is it your contention that Nixon won because of the break in at the Watergate Hotel? If not, then what is your point?
Think carefully before answering.