Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Rand

The link is not working for some reason. I was able to shorten the URL and dig for the article.

Dennis

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at March 4, 2007 04:16 PM

http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/130369.html

is this it?

He agrees with me on Clinton's impeachment! LOL

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 4, 2007 05:39 PM

Dick Polman says that it's not just Republicans and moderates who may be Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:58 PM

???

Ok, if it's not just Republicans and moderates who may be Posted by Rand Simberg, then who else? And why did the link not work?

Posted by Larry J at March 4, 2007 05:50 PM

Heh Dennis...

I see that back in Alabama they did a little celebrating of all that "peaceful" end to JIm Crow that you were talking about.....

LOL

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 4, 2007 05:52 PM

Oh good lord son you are so ignorant that you hardly know which direction to put your pants on.

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at March 4, 2007 06:06 PM

If you correct the link the article comes up. It's about Clinton fatigue/wariness among the Democrats. I agree. I sincerely hope Hillary does not wind up being the nominee. We need a less divisive figure. Bill Richardson or Barack Obama for example are fine by me.

The first thing we need after Bush is to have someone who can really reach out to all Americans and whose sincerity and past show character. No doubt Hillary is very competent, smart, tough as hell and probably could be an effective if not great President, but we would still have a very divided country. There are just too many people who simply hate the Clintons and they've certainly given sufficient cause. I hope this won't be the case if a different Democrat wins the nomination. I'm not looking forward to voting for Hillary and if the alternative were McCain for example might very likely vote for him.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at March 4, 2007 06:17 PM

We're All Getting Tired Of Them

Only for some strange value of "all" or "getting". According to a February Gallup poll, Bill Clinton's current approval rating is 63%, while Hillary's is 58%. According to another February Gallup poll, George W. Bush's approval rating is 37%, and even that is on the high side for recent polls.

Posted by at March 4, 2007 06:18 PM

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at March 4, 2007 06:06 PM

That is ok Dennis..I might never get the Dennis wingo award, but I have managed how to put my pants on...and teaching you about history is a joy...

Living it is exciting as well, but teachign you about it is fun!

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 4, 2007 06:20 PM

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at March 4, 2007 06:17 PM

I saw "a part" of both HRC and BHO speech at the "how peace changed the south" (sorry couldnt resist)...but I was most impressed is how Bubba seems to be moving into the role of "Kingmaker" in the party.

It is almost as if it is now a two person race (it isnt) and Bubba is trying to negotiate how Obama goes on the HRC ticket as the VP...

I think that there is a lot of Clinton fatigue but she seems to be the only of the top tier who has any "stuff" to her (not that I would vote for her)...

With the exception of RIchardson I cannot see a single Dem who I could even think about voting for this time.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 4, 2007 06:23 PM

There are just too many people who simply hate the Clintons and they've certainly given sufficient cause.

No, they have not given sufficient cause. Rabies does not entitle anyone to a veto over the presidency. The Clintons have their flaws, but they did not lose a voluntary war. The Republicans did, in Iraq, and the voters need to tell them that it's wrong. Electoral defeat last year has already made them more honest, but there is a long way to go. Bush still hasn't admitted failure as Next Gingrich says that he should.

Posted by at March 4, 2007 06:31 PM

Bush has come pretty close...probably close enough.

Who knows, Bush might have a strong fourth quarter...

He is a quick study once he figures out that things are not going right...that takes awhile.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 4, 2007 06:48 PM

The link didn't work because I had a typo in it, and then took a break to eat dinner, because (you know) I have a life. I'm amused to see all the stupid discussion over it, but I guess I shouldn't be.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 4, 2007 06:50 PM

Rand...you are allowed to have one...grin

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 4, 2007 07:10 PM

The link didn't work because I had a typo in it, and then took a break to eat dinner, because (you know) I have a life.

And it would have worked fine if you were using a real browser. I can't help it if you want to use Microsoft's Spyware... ;-)

Posted by Rand SImberg at March 4, 2007 07:40 PM

Note to whoever the hell you are with no name: Your revisionist history is pretty lame. You should go visit Saddam and ask him who won the war. I'll bet his sons have an idea too. The peace is not going well and may not get better for a while, especially with Iran helping those killing Americans and Iraqis. 8 million Iraqis who voted for candidates of their choice for the first time know who won the war. Understand this, WE won the war.If you think you can talk to murderous scum and come out singing Kum Ba Yah, you are sadly mistaken. Clinton ignored a growing terrorism problem and we are suffering the results today.

Posted by Bill Maron at March 4, 2007 08:35 PM

I yearn for an election of Hillary Clinton v. Jeb Bush.

Posted by Allan at March 4, 2007 09:23 PM

None of the annointed-by-the-media front runners of the Eternal Election Campaign impress me. It would give me great comfort if others would emerge from both parties.

(On the Republican side, the one who underwhelms me the least is Romney; and I forget who was the first to point this out, but I think he's the only one of the "frontrunners" who's only had one wife. The rest practice the chicken#### 21st century western "civ" version of polygamy.

Posted by Phil Fraering at March 4, 2007 11:23 PM

There's only one thing I'd get out of seeing Hillary win the nomination: satisfying my curiosity about who she'd tap to be running mate. Edwards as a veep candidate *twice* is unimagineable, Obama would upstage her too much to be an acceptable running mate, Algore isn't gonna play second banana to two Clintons.

Posted by Alan K. Henderson at March 5, 2007 12:51 AM

I think the only flaw in your hope, Rand, is that the Clinton Hangover(TM) only really affects people who were at least of voting age in 1992, and who will therefore be at least in their mid-30s in 2008. These are the only folks who really drank the Clinton Kool-Aid and woke up eight years later with a jackhammer doing polkas inside their head.

Unfortunately, that leaves out about 20% of the voting population, roughly speaking. These young folks didn't experience Clintonalia directly. For them it's all just a simplified prettily-varnished fairy-tale Once Upon A Time, of endless free dot-com money, peace dividends, and crabby blue-nosed Republicans who impeached a nice President just because he got his dick sucked by a girl intern once. (We know Republicans are dead set against fellatio because they never get any.) All the more so since these young folks learned the history of this time through their public-school teachers, Clinton apologists to a woman, nearly.

Add this good-hearted, addle-brained, arrogant but gullible 20% of the electorate to the 35% who form Senator Hill's hard-core brownshirts, who want to vote her in so she can have folks like you (and I) sent to the camps to learn to think correctly, and poof you've got a majority. I'd like to be wrong, but every time I take the chance to listen to people in their 20s, I fear I'm not.

Posted by Carl Pham at March 5, 2007 01:28 AM

All the more so since these young folks learned the history of this time through their public-school teachers, Clinton apologists to a woman, nearly.

Ah, but reeducating them as to the actual history of the nineties is what new media is for. And that's where they live.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 5, 2007 05:09 AM

The link didn't work because I had a typo in it, and then took a break to eat dinner, because (you know) I have a life. I'm amused to see all the stupid discussion over it, but I guess I shouldn't be.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 4, 2007 06:50 PM

Have you ever heard the phrase, "Lighten up, Francis?" Perhaps you need to take it to heart.

Posted by Larry J at March 5, 2007 06:33 AM

Unfortunately, that leaves out about 20% of the voting population, roughly speaking. These young folks didn't experience Clintonalia directly.

They're also one of the least likely-to-vote segments of the electorate. Kerry tried to woo them in '04, and his some of his supporters thought they had the key with the phantom "Bush will revive the draft" mutterings and the "Vote or Die" campaign. In the end the Dems were disappointed at the youth voters' typically low turnout.

Posted by McGehee at March 5, 2007 08:04 AM

Have you ever heard the phrase, "Lighten up, Francis?"

Ah, such a pleasant guest.

Posted by McGehee at March 5, 2007 08:04 AM

Ah, but reeducating them as to the actual history of the nineties is what new media is for. And that's where they live.

Some new media, Rand. But on MySpac3 or OkCupid or digg.com or Slate et cetera wearing a "Bush 'n' Republicans Suck" bumper sticker on your forehead is a standard conversational icebreaker. Almost a pick-up line, that proves you're sensitive and with-it. (Also don't forget, when considering fatigue, that the most recent cold-shower reality of which people are tired is the war in Iraq, roller-coaster gas prices, and standing in security lines in airports. People are aware of that more than they're aware of being tired of the big faker who feels your pain while lifting your wallet to score some dough for party girls and cocaine.)

I think twentysomethings are not generally hanging out at TT, picking up news analysis at Powerline, following Glenn's links, et cetera. You can tell by the mail the latter get (or comments) that their readership is mostly in the mid to late 30s.

Again, I'd like to think differently -- I hope differently -- but I think the power of new media is still a bit overrated. It didn't do much for the johns in 2004, and it probably did the Connecticut Democratic Party more harm than good. Yes, I agree Ra^(th)ergate is a counter-example, but taking down an arrogant old newsie who swallowed an incredibly obvious fraud isn't quite equivalent to deprogramming ten million youngsters from their twelve (or more) years of soft-socialist/edudemocratic indoctrination.

I don't say you're wrong. But I'm not hopeful you're right.

Now, if the Republican candidate ran on a platform of having every lawyer who works for the RIAA publically disemboweled, it'd be another story. Or even if Senator Hill just came out and in her tin-eared way made some bold, strong statement of support for DRM. But she's better advised than that, alas.

Posted by Carl Pham at March 5, 2007 09:18 AM

I think the power of new media is still a bit overrated. It didn't do much for the johns in 2004

I think it hurt them, and cost Kerry the election, probably. The Swift Boat Vets got a lot of traction from it, whereas in the old days, they would have just been buried. And I continue to think that the Slick Grope Vets will do the same thing, if Hillary gets the nomination.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 5, 2007 09:23 AM

They're also one of the least likely-to-vote segments of the electorate.

Already factored in, McGehee. That's why I said 20% instead of the 30-35% of the adult population they represent. They're not going to elect anyone by themselves, but they can certainly provide the winning margin when added to the base support among older folks that Senator Hill already commands.

Maybe I should have said 10% instead of 20%. Hardly matters. With the country so close to 50/50 as it is, a mere 10% margin may work just fine.

Posted by Carl Pham at March 5, 2007 09:23 AM

I think it hurt them...

Yes, but their MoveOn/MeetUp zombie troops helped them. A net wash, perhaps.

...and cost Kerry the election, probably.

Here I disagree. Along with Reynolds, I think Kerry and Edwards were such appallingly oafish and uninspired candidates -- and Donna Brazile such an incompetent wishful thinker -- that the miracle of 2004 is not that the Democrats lost, but that they lost by so little. In retrospect, that should have been a big warning flag about 2006 for the elephants. Pity they didn't take heed.

Posted by Carl Pham at March 5, 2007 09:29 AM

"I'd like to be wrong, but every time I take the chance to listen to people in their 20s, I fear I'm not."

Mr. Pham, I bet you were spot on know it all, right perfect when you were 20, eh? ;-)

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at March 5, 2007 03:25 PM

It's been six years Rand. Yes he was an idiot, but it's time to let it go.

Posted by Adrasteia at March 6, 2007 03:05 AM

Post a comment