Hell Freezes Over.......

[modestyblase]

 

You wouldn't know it by watching the news.

[Knutey]

>I see Knute is still as classy as ever. Cmon Knute, call me a 'rat fink Republican' for old time's sake!  <
You were far worsen that, old pal. But as I always say- Time wounds all heels.

[Rich]

>>But McCain, Romney and Huckabee? That's the best the GOP can do? It's pathetic.<<

Agreed. A generational change may be in order. After all, is a 72 year-old John McCain going to bring in the 18-30 year-old voters with his brand of change? I seriously doubt it. The NYTImes endorsed McCain for the Republican side, that in itself is enough to disqualify in.

Long time Jay.

[sirs]

>>But McCain, Romney and Huckabee? That's the best the GOP can do? It's pathetic.<<

The NYTImes endorsed McCain for the Republican side, that in itself is enough to disqualify in.

Well, he did push the anti 1st amendment law into fruition that gives both himself (incumbants) and the MSM much more ability at remaining in power and dictating the bias in their political coverage, respectfully.  Why wouldn't they endorse him?


oh, and "HI" to Jay as well   

[The_Professor]

This from my old buddy Jayc28 at his blog:

10 years ago, you couldn?t get me to vote for a Democrat and now I am on the verge of supporting Barack Obama. It?s not because I see eye to eye on him politically. For the most part, I don?t. But we?re in a time where we need a shake-up in Washington DC. Nobody on the Republican side will do the trick and neither will Hillary.

Looks like Jayboy picked up some good sense along with those extra pounds he has packed on.

extra pounds?

[The_Professor]

While I don't see myself voting for a democrat, I may not vote for a Republican.

I understand Jay's pain, but voting for Obama? He must be joking.

Rich, I can see his point. Why do you think most the ones who really wnat change are voting for Obma? And the yuppies and...

Hillary is backed by the traditional Democratic estalbishment and its powerful apparatus, a major reason she will win. I doubt she will espouse or push any revolutionary agendas as Obama might do.

[The_Professor]

I think we are on the cusp of a generational thing.

I've been considering this election, recently, in that vein as well. Prior to the internets-as-communication-device-explosion, which was post-1996, the last democrat victory_{(all hemming and hawing over supreme court presidential appointments aside)}, it was evident that the support of the Southern Democrats was necessary to win in an election, and correct me if I'm wrong but all winners since around Wilson's time were southerners and/or had the overwhelming support of the Southern Democrats. The only exception was JFK, and he was savvy enough to have LBJ as his running mate because of that fact.

I've been saying for some time now that there is /no way/ that the Hildebeast or Obama will get the overwhelming support of Southern Dems. Even Sam Nunn, who the Southern Dems listen to as if he were Jesus, has kept quiet in endorsing a democrat. But is any of that a factor anymore, given that voters-particularly the youth vote-will look less to endorsements and more to the media and the internet for their information?

Hillary can win the Party's nomination even without the South.

[sirs]

The difference being (between Obama, Clinton, and Hillary).........largely nothing.  It's the same rhetoric, just being promoted in 3 different variations.....bigger government, more bureacracy, higher taxes for 'the rich", Corporations are all bad, (except for those that donate to Democrats of course)....oh, and the Republicans want women to die of cancer.  Oh wait, lemme get back on the last one

[Rich]

>>Rcih, I can see his point. Why do you think most the ones who really wnat change are voting for Obma? And the yuppies and... Hillary is backed by the traditional Democratic estalbishment and its powerful apparatus, a major reason she will win. I doubt she will espouse or push any revolutionary agendas as Obama might do.<<

Don't kid yourself Professor. Obama is an empty suit. He differs little, if at all, with Mrs. Clinton. If he represented something, anything, I might agree that he could be an agent of change, but unless you can point out one thing he's supporting that means anything, I believe he's just another liberal spouting the tired old liberal, "hate the rich," line. Also, I believe he's more than a little bit racist. Nobody wants to address his church and the racist pastor he admires. God forbid a Republican speak at Bob Jones University and liberals have Republicans all over the country hooking up Black folks to their bumpers. But Barack Hussein Obama BELONGS to a church that calls America "The United States of WHITE America," and claims you can't really understand God unless you're black.

[yellow_crane]

The difference being (between Obama, Clinton, and Hillary).........largely nothing.  It's the same rhetoric, just being promoted in 3 different variations.....bigger government, more bureacracy, higher taxes for 'the rich", Corporations are all bad, (except for those that donate to Democrats of course)....oh, and the Republicans want women to die of cancer.  Oh wait, lemme get back on the last one

LOL

What a joke!

There is more distance between Hillary and Edwards than there is between Hillary and McCain or Romney.

You really haven't been reading the fine print.

[The_Professor]

Crane, in the past you have indicated you are black. What is your take on Rich's previous post, if I may be so bold to ask?

[modestyblase]

Hillary can win the Party's nomination even without the South.

I'm not concerned about her winning the party nomination, with or without the south.
I'm concerned about her winning the presidency *if* she is the nominee, same as I worry about Obama winning the presidential race if he is the nominee.

Don't kid yourself Professor. Obama is an empty suit. He differs little, if at all, with Mrs. Clinton. If he represented something, anything, I might agree that he could be an agent of change, but unless you can point out one thing he's supporting that means anything, I believe he's just another liberal spouting the tired old liberal, "hate the rich," line. Also, I believe he's more than a little bit racist. Nobody wants to address his church and the racist pastor he admires. God forbid a Republican speak at Bob Jones University and liberals have Republicans all over the country hooking up Black folks to their bumpers. But Barack Hussein Obama BELONGS to a church that calls America "The United States of WHITE America," and claims you can't really understand God unless you're black.

I agree that he differs little from the Hildebeast. If either of them become the party nominee, I will be begging for a Nunn-Bloomberg ticket. While I can't say *he* is racist-I don't know his history with the church, maybe he didn't care and his wife started dragging him there, for instance-I can say some of his supporters are whether they realize it or not. Ten months ago I would gladly go on&on about the guilt-tripping his supporters indugle in-Hilde's as well-to appeal for their candidates, but now I just want the campaigning to be over with. I did start countering with "Well, how do you think poor Edwards feels? You assume he's status quo because he's white and successful? Isn't that reverse dicrimination?", though haha  

LOL

What a joke!

There is more distance between Hillary and Edwards than there is between Hillary and McCain or Romney.

You really haven't been reading the fine print.

Agreed! Thats why Hillary or Obama would lead the Southern Dems to vote for McCain. Not so sure about Romney.

[sirs]

The difference being (between Obama, Clinton, and Hillary).........largely nothing.  It's the same rhetoric, just being promoted in 3 different variations.....bigger government, more bureacracy, higher taxes for 'the rich", Corporations are all bad, (except for those that donate to Democrats of course)....oh, and the Republicans want women to die of cancer.  Oh wait, lemme get back on the last one

What a joke!  There is more distance between Hillary and Edwards than there is between Hillary and McCain or Romney.  You really haven't been reading the fine print.

You're right.......I read their voting records, and listened directly to their rhetoric.  What was I thinking?  And suffice to say, the Dem's options are pretty much the same, just in different packages.  UHC, against the war, against Bush, taxes on "the rich", immigration, corporations as evil, Unions as heavenly, etc., etc., etc.  Any substantive differences are largely cosmetic. 

But by all means, Crane, demonstrate these HUGE differences, as you see them, between Obama, Clinton, & Edwards.  Different levels of UHC doesn't quite cut it, I'm afraid