I don't think so. People seriously misunderestimate her
And even if she was an unpopular as the right-wing media would have us believe, she's a far cry better than any other Republican:
John McCain: Likable guy, sure, but he's a shameless back-pedaler and contradicts everything he says
Mitt Romney: Serious lack of trust within the party. Used to be pro-gay rights and pro-choice, but now he's 'redfining' himself as a 'true conservative.' Plus people are unsure about his Mormon faith.
Rudy Giuliani: He might be able to win the general election, but he'd never win the nomination, not in a million years.
Sam Brownback: Neoconservative evangelical. And I'll be damned if we're going to let one of those back in office.
Tommy Tancredo: Single-platform candidate. Never works
Chuck Hagel, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, Tommy Thompson, etc: Who knows at this point. But it's early, yet
I was just reading about Rahm Emanuel (my political idol), and this caught my interest. Back in 2006, he was unabashedly for Clinton, because he has a long friendship and loyalty to the family (he was a senior aide in the Clinton White House), but now he's torn between Clinton and Obama, a fellow Chi-towner.
Sorry for the double post, but its here now anyway...
You may think people underestimate Hillary, (I agree), but you misunderestimate Obama. People don't swap sides easily in politics. Clinton has had a lot of surplus funds and time left over from easy races that she has dontated to other campaigns. People remeber that.
If Emanuel joins the Obama camp. Thats a STRONG sign. Chicagoan or not. Obama could use Emanuel on his campaign.
Idle speculation. We shall see I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at with that first point, really. Could you clarify, please?
And I seriously doubt Emanuel will join a campaign, but you're right that an endorsement from Rahm-bo will mean a lot. However, given his personal ties to both candidates, I'll wager he won't endorse either of them in the primaries.
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: Lost in a Roman Wilderness of Pain
That makes no sense. It's unreasonable for anyone to expect presidential candidates to be infallible, last thing anyone wants is a president to be wrong and be persistent about it.
Is there anything else for you to think of Edwards as a pussy or is it the same irrational "I just don't like him/her" mentality people seem to have towards Hillary?
__________________ "Progress is man's ability to complicate simplicity." — Thor Heyerdahl
So far at this point if the election were tomorrow i'd vote for Edwards...i admire the fact that he's owning up to his mistake..a mistake that many in this nation made in supporting this war. He also is just an intelligent and reasonable man...something the office needs more than ever...but i'm keeping my mind open to obama and hillary but out of those two i'm more for obama.
I have nothing against John Edwards except the "I made a mistake" spiel. And his reasons for doing it aren't even bad. He's right that it should be a bout accountability, and it does indeed throw the Bush Administration in sharp contrast. So maybe pussy was a bit harsh
No. I'm not the type that belives people aren't allowed to change their minds.
I just don't think he has a lot to run on. He just acts wishy washy and I think he tells people what they want to hear. He has essentially the smae message as everyone else and very little to run on.
He seems like he's just all smiles to me. That makes me uneasy.
Feb 21st, 2007 12:14 AM
Official pimp of Steverules 
