@Pervavita:
@Jermofoot:
@Pervavita:
i can argue that it was relavent and there are facts to back it, but i see no reason to argue it. it was simply a statment directing at when some one passed the buck to the wrong (IMO) man.
I showed how easy it was to pass the buck on someone when no facts are presented. I knew exactly who Balung was talking about, but imitated him in jest. But I could still make an argument for the person I mentioned.
i’m not going to reply other then to say, we were told to stop that discusion.
I don’t see where I continued it.
@Cmdr:
It’ll be interesting to see how South Carolina votes. They killed McCain after he rose in New Hampshire in the 2000 primary. Let’s remember, McCain is already a loser, he has to over come that AND push on to win. The other candidates have never, to my knowledge, lost a presidential race (even a primary.) So they already have a leg up on McCain.
McCain is definitely more familiar than the others, barring possibly Giuliani. However, some residents may recall the insidious push polls conducted against McCain in SC that did make a difference. Either way, I don’t think the fact that he did not get the nomination previously automatically paints him in a bad light. I hope that what he stands for matters more, but you could be right…
As for Mrs. Bill Clinton, I think she just had name recognition in New Hampshire coupled with her history of being ultra-left. But she’s also a part of the old guard and, I think, the people of this nation are looking for a new generation to take over. We’re tired of the Clintons, the Bushes, the Kennedys, the Kerrys, and the rest of them. I find it hard to imagine anyone over the age of 50 getting elected this year.
You just declared Obama a winner by default.
I don’t want it to be true, but if Mitt isn’t nominated as either Pres or Vice Pres, then my money is on Obama because he’s young, he’s energetic, he’s charismatic and he is not a Vietnam Veteran nor is he an Anti-War Protester/Hippie from the 60’s still clinging onto life because of medical miracles like some of the rest of them.
Romney has definitely placed quite strong in Iowa, Wyoming, and New Hampshire, but his faith and back-and-forth stances could hurt him. He’s kind of a mixed bag, really, sometimes staunchly supporting conservative related topics, and others, a more urban “liberal” stance probably brought upon him due to location.
I find your choice of President very surprising, comparing the two, but at least your second choice relates to the last paragraph.
Actually, if I had my druthers, I’d want Geri Ryan to run for the Republican Nomination. She’d get all those old perverts to vote for her and she’s smart enough to get the women to vote for her too.
Eh, it seems to be a popularity contest anyway, so why not? Although, as we all know, those old perverts are sheep in wolves clothing, waiting for the chance to change their stance in a stall of a public bathroom. 8-)
@Pervavita:
i thought Rice would have been a good runner on the R billot, she would have both Clinton and Obama’s “advantages” as a woman and black. on top of that she has real experiance in internatonal afairs.
Actually, I think both of those things go against her. People would vote for a white woman or black man before a black woman.
And I think it’s really telling that you don’t see anyone from the previous administration running. I don’t think it’s in anyone’s interest to do so, and they were wise enough to see that beforehand. I’m pretty sure I read somewhere that this is the first time (?) that an incumbent VP has not run for POTUS (or it’s been a very long time).
@DarthMaximus:
By big win for Hillary, I ment more in the fact that if she lost it was probably over for her since she is typically very strong in the North East as you said. Plus they can now play up the “comeback kid” card.
I agree. Maybe not completely out, but definitely in danger of dropping out.
