Why Hillary's Candidacy is Weaker than People Think...

Superfreak said:
"I consider Kerry to be very intelligent, at least he got into Yale on his own accord."

Yet his grades were slightly worse than Bush.
Click to expand...

Ive never been one to belive that grades are a true measure of inteligence. Bush was a legacy to Yale. Kerry was not! Bush was denied admission to the University of Texas, but admitted to Yale???
 
Superfreak said:
"I consider Kerry to be very intelligent, at least he got into Yale on his own accord."

Yet his grades were slightly worse than Bush.
Click to expand...


C students can be very bright people. We all know some of them.

C students can also be ignoramuses. It just depends on the individual.



Kerry is in the first category. Bush in the second.
 
Darla said:
Has anyone else ever noticed, that once you get a bunch of men together, no matter what the topic is, it always somehow ends up as "hey, would you do her?"

:)
Click to expand...

Well if I were single and she were willing...
 
Darla said:
Really? Wow, I love Edwards. He is where my heart is at regarding health care and poverty issues.

Elizabeth could live 20 years, from what I understand. I mean, yes it will kill her (well, something else could first), but it could be managable. The medicine may work, she may go into remission or something like it, for years. Or she might be dead four years from now. But I just look at it this way; the same could be said of anybody.
Click to expand...

Eighty percent mortality within 5 years.
 
LadyT said:
I'd elect Dr. Howard even though he has put his foot in his mouth on several occassions.
Click to expand...

Dr. Howard, Dr. Fein, Dr. Howard.
Hello, helloooo, helloooooooooo! HELLO!

Oh, a wise guy!

I'd vote for Dr. Howard before any democrat.
 
Troglodyte27 said:
Eighty percent mortality within 5 years.
Click to expand...

I heard that, but she says, and the American Cancer Association backs her up, that this figure only applies to women who present with this cancer. They walk into the doctor's office, for the first time, never having been diagnosed with cancer before, and have this stage of it. It doesn't apply to her. However, I haven't seen the statistics for her particular kind of case and I do not know how much of a difference it makes. They seem to think it's significant. I'm almost afraid to write this, but I have not had my life touched by cancer through myself or a loved one, so I am pretty ignorant on it. I hope to remain so.
 
I'm pretty sure the best way to lose the election (or make it closer than it ought to be) for the democrats is for Obama or Hillary to get the nomination. Edwards has a much better chance and I think Richardson would have an even better chance. In fact, a Richardson/Clark ticket would be a blowout for the democrats, and one that I would rush to pull the lever for.
 
leaningright said:
I'm pretty sure the best way to lose the election (or make it closer than it ought to be) for the democrats is for Obama or Hillary to get the nomination. Edwards has a much better chance and I think Richardson would have an even better chance. In fact, a Richardson/Clark ticket would be a blowout for the democrats, and one that I would rush to pull the lever for.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. It's too far out to tell yet. If things stay pretty much the way they are now, then you have to look to who the R nominee is. If it's Romney, I think that the religious base stays home. But I'd want to see how the Independents would break. McCain has lost the independents. Rudy hasn't. That would be key for me, who the R nominee is, and how the independents look to be going. If the R nominee can't hold the independents, then the Dems are going to win no matter who their nominee is, and in that case, I want to see us move to the left. To me, that candidate, as of now, is Edwards. Unless Gore enters. In which case, he's our next President.
 
Another reason that Hillary's Campaign is a bit weaker than people think is the fact that much of the money she "raised" in the first quarter came from the coffers of previous campaigns and was transferred to this one. Thus, about 10 M was transferred, unused, from her last Senate Bid, and other money transferred from other accounts.

Almost 100% of Obama's was actually collected from donors in that first quarter. If you go by new donations Obama is kicking some Hillary Butt in the fundraising.
 
I cannot think of anyone that the Reps could put up that could stand up to a Clark/Richardson combo. (assuming things are similar to how they are now)

I don't think Gore would do as well as you think.
 
You guys are always forgetting an important election rule. The best person doesn't get nominated.

In 96 how many wanted Dole to get the nomination?

In 2000 how many wanted Gore or Bush to get the nomination?

In 2004 how many wanted Kerry to get the nomination?

In 2008 we're gonna get two dogs. I'd put money on it.
 
IHateGovernment said:
You guys are always forgetting an important election rule. The best person doesn't get nominated.

In 96 how many wanted Dole to get the nomination?

In 2000 how many wanted Gore or Bush to get the nomination?

In 2004 how many wanted Kerry to get the nomination?

In 2008 we're gonna get two dogs. I'd put money on it.
Click to expand...
*sigh*

He's right, ya know?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top