comment #1

JohnCope says ...

They're right. However, I still think Hillary could win against McCain because, though they are both equally vicious competitors, she'll come up short in debates with JM and pull the crying trick again in, say, late October and this will turn the tide as suddenly the public rhetoric will descend into grade school tripe along the lines of, "That guy is mean to a girl! He made her cry! That guy is too mean!"

I guarnatee you. Wait and see if I'm right.

comment #2

jeffmcm says ...

I'm sorry, I was too distracted by the Super Bowl to pay attention, and now I have to vote.

comment #3

abuseintake says ...

Hillary would get her post-meupausal, Chico-suit wrearing ass kicked by a disoriented, brain-dead pedophile in a chicken suit. I had a great deal of respect for John McCain until he went and started giving the Bob Jones U. crowd a fucking hand-job. Sad. I now have little choice but to hope that Obama gets the nod and vote for him. I look at all the great and not so great female leaders in history and find it distressing that the good old US of A cant come up with anybody better than Geraldene Ferraro or Hillary Clinton. Makes me wish that Shirley Chisholm was running.

comment #4

D.Z. says ...

I have a feeling that, even if Hillary wins the primary, the Republicans are so disorganized and divided that she can still get a mandate vote. I'm assuming that's what she's betting on, too. If Bob Dole couldn't win, what gives McCain much of chance? People keep calling Obama the pity vote, but if anyone's getting this far out of guilt, it's Johnny Boy. Really, it has nothing to do with leadership skills, but the fact that his base is embarrassed that they caused him to lose to Bush in 2000. Call it "feel good" affirmative action for conservative moderates who don't want to be lumped in with the religious nuts.

comment #5

D.Z. says ...

Man, that "Stop Loss" trailer blows. http://www.themoviebox.net/movies/2008/STUVWXYZ/Stop-Loss/trailer.php

comment #6

BurmaShave says ...

D.Z. of course makes this decision based on looking at absolutely zero evidence, as usual. And yes, thanks for the trailer, it's too bad there wasn't a thread on it about 3 weeks ago.

comment #7

Terry McCarty says ...

abuseintake wrote:
I had a great deal of respect for John McCain until he went and started giving the Bob Jones U. crowd a fucking hand-job.

This is why the spectacle of panderer McCain giving panderer Romney the "timetables" shiv Wednesday night had some grim amusement.

Basically, McCain is Luke Skywalker learning well the lessons of "dirty tricks" from Obi Wans George H.W. Bush and Karl Rove.

comment #8

Abbey Normal says ...

I think this is one of the more ridiculous, premature and downright silly things I've read yet about the dynamics of the upcoming general election.

First of all, it's barely February. The entire exercise of trying to divine what's going to happen 10 months from now is beyond premature. It's totally insane. Seriously, we don't even know what's going to happen in a few days. Can anyone even fathom the twists and turns this thing is going to take over the next 40 weeks? C'mon.

And the specifics of their argument are flimsy...very flimsy. The idea that Ralph Nader has anything like the power he had in 2000 is ludicrous. Not only is his credibility completely in the toilet, the situation now is way, way different. The third party thing was a much bigger deal then, driven by the general belief that Democrats and Republicans were basically the same. After 8 years of Bush, few believe that anymore. If he scores 0.5% of the vote, it will be an absolute, stone-cold miracle.

It's true that McCain represents more of a challenge than the other pathetic choices the GOP spat up this year. But that's not a high bar. The man is compromised in a dozen different ways by his votes and statements over the last 8 years, and it should be easy to paint him as a Bush-loving sellout. Independents might be polling well for him now, but a lot of people haven't been paying attention to the election, especially on the Republican side. Wait until independents everywhere get a load of his insane positions on Iraq, the flip-flopping on the Bush tax cuts, etc.

And I haven't even touched his weakness with the base of his party: evangelicals. True, those people can't stand Hillary. But don't underestimate the emerging depth and hatred those people have for McCain and others like him. Hillary might even be able to tap into this vibe, emphasizing that people like McCain and others in his party have been using them like 10-dollar hookers for decades. Huckabee woke those people up. Without him as the nominee, a lot of them might just stay home, choosing not to vote for McCain OR Hillary.

Sure, the GOP thinks Hillary would be easier to defeat in November. And they may be right. But she has shown an ability over the primary season to be impressively thoughtful and--dare I say it? Presidential. And she's a hell of a campaigner. She can do facts, she can go negative, she can kill you with logic, organization and stone-cold precision. If she successfully overcomes the incredible goodwill and popularity surrounding Obama to become the Democratic nominee, what the hell makes you think she won't wipe the fucking floor with a relative speedbump like McCain?

Chances are, Clinton is going to win the nomination. My advice to you, Wells, and anyone else who keeps trying to drag her down, is to stop being negative about her. Support Obama, sure, but stop trying to undermine Democratic unity. She's a fantastic candidate, and she has the balls and moxie to kick McCain's ass to hell. Be positive and stop giving the GOP more ideas on how to beat her.

comment #9

JohnCope says ...

"Be positive and stop giving the GOP more ideas on how to beat her."

I gave her an idea of how to beat him. Though I'm sure she already thought of it.

Seriously though, if she does pull that crying stunt again during the general it's a pretty disreputable way to go (and even more so if it works) because her whole persona is about being a strong woman for god's sake.

comment #10

D.Z. says ...

Burma: If people are willing to vote for Bush in spite of not liking him, they'll do the same for Hillary, simply because she's not Republican. That's all there is to it.

Abbey: I'll believe Dems and Repugs aren't the same when the Dems impeach Bush. Anyway, if Hillary was such an easy win, she wouldn't have such a small gap between herself and Obama. I also don't feel McCain's such a pushover as you claim, either, but the Republicans are so disorganized that it'd be too late to put up a united front against Hillary.

comment #11

jeffmcm says ...

Impeachment isn't going to happen.
Also, Daniel, you're an idiot.

No new news.

comment #12

D.Z. says ...

jeff: You keep saying that, but more and more Dems are jumping the impeachment bandwagon. I doubt it's coincidence.

comment #13

dawgzilla67 says ...

You need two thirds of congress to vote for impeachment. There are too many Republicans for that to happen, even if every single Democrat suddenly decided to impeach Bush. The only reason Clinton got impeached was the overwhelming Republican majority in congress at the time.

It's much more serious to lie to the country and bring it into war than it is to lie to the country about banging an intern, but Bush is never going to be impeached. The numbers just aren't there.

That doesn't mean he can't be subjected to death by a zillion paper cuts of civil lawsuits once he's out of office, however. Of course, Ken Starr went on and on about how he was going to do that to Clinton, and we all see how that went.

comment #14

BurmaShave says ...

No one voted for Bush in spite of not liking him, they liked him despite not wanting to vote for him. Remember how he was smirky and aw shucks while Gore/Kerry were cold and stiff? We defined and reinforced that narrative. Likability was never his issue, not really until post-Katrina when people began to see him for what he is, a sociopath.

comment #15

le corbeau says ...

Impeachment isn't going to happen.

Hillary isn't even elected yet and you're taking the fun off the table already? Oh, you meant Bush. Is he still around? How 2007.

The great thing about electing her will be that, even more than with Bush and Florida, the impeachment nuts on the other side can really get going from day one. Whitewater, Rose Law Form billing records, Mena airport, Paula Jones, plus we have all the new excitement of Marc Rich's pardon, Norman Hsu, the mysterious donors to the Clinton Library... oh, the fun will never end.

comment #16

Marcello says ...

Just for the record, Clinton did LIE TO A GRAND JURY (about sex). That IS kind of a big deal. I mean, it was ridiculous to impeach him, but I'm sick of the "he lied about sex" line--doesn't exactly tell the whole story.

And Bush did lie to get us into war, but he has (cooked) intelligence reports to back him up, so while we all know he knew better, it would be tough to prove, especially with all the OTHERS in his administration who lied as well (Cheney, Tenent, Powell, Rice, his entire sinister legal team, etc...) There is also always the defense that he was actually stupid enough to believe everything he said. And I don't think stupidity is an impeachable offense (though obviously it should be).

comment #17

le corbeau says ...

There is also always the defense that he was actually stupid enough to believe everything he said.

There's also the problem that his stupidity would be voted upon by the other people who were stupid enough to believe everything he said.

comment #18

le corbeau says ...

Marcello-- The fairest thing to say is that Clinton did commit a serious crime, but he did so because an absurd process was ginned up at enormous public expense to produce precisely that situation.

I like to think the fact that impeachment has remained on the Ramsey Clark-Dennis Kucinich far fringe this time is a sign of increased maturity about what's fair and what isn't toward a political opponent. I expect this rosy view to be proven insanely wrong once the Clintons are back in office and the nuts are given new life.

It won't be for lack of material, God knows-- just see the Giustra story in the NYT...

comment #19

christian says ...

Again, nobody knows nothin'. And if you think Obama is so much more electable, you're out of your gourd.

Plus I love this bullshit Repub spin that Americans were dying to impeach Clinton, who had a 60% approval at the time of his impeachment, but somehow, nobody but wackos want Bush impeached. A majority of Americans DO support impeachment:

By a margin of 50% to 44%, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he lied about the war in Iraq, according to a new poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

The poll was conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs, the highly-regarded non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,001 U.S. adults on October 6-9.

The poll found that 50% agreed with the statement:

"If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable by impeaching him."

44% disagreed, and 6% said they didn't know or declined to answer. The poll has a +/- 3.1% margin of error.

Among those who felt strongly either way, 39% strongly agreed, while 30% strongly disagreed.

"The results of this poll are truly astonishing," said AfterDowningStreet.org co-founder Bob Fertik. "Bush's record-low approval ratings tell just half of the story, which is how much Americans oppose Bush's policies on Iraq and other issues. But this poll tells the other half of the story - that a solid plurality of Americans want Congress to consider removing Bush from the White House."

Impeachment Supported by Majorities of Many Groups

Responses varied by political party affiliation: 72% of Democrats favored impeachment, compared to 56% of Independents and 20% of Republicans.

comment #20

christian says ...

And Zogby and other polls show the same numbers.

All you have to do is open the floor to investigation - like the Repubs did to Clinton. Then let America see the evidence of the non-stop lies that Bush pimped. And continues to pimp. None of this "he thought so" bullshit. The facts are there.

comment #21

gruver1 says ...

Wells to Abbey Normal and Christian: If I have heard one consistent thing from Republicans over the last several months, it is their agreement that there's very little in Obama to run against, whereas a Hillary candidacy will be a massive revivalist pigfuck for their side...it'll bring them together and get them fired up like nothing else. And you're telling me that's a fantasy? You're on drugs.

comment #22

D.Z. says ...

dawg: "You need two thirds of congress to vote for impeachment. There are too many Republicans for that to happen, even if every single Democrat suddenly decided to impeach Bush."

I'm sure enough Republicans would join the Dems, since they'd have it in for him, after he sabotaged their party's chances of winning for the next decade or so. Plus a number of them have open seats this year, so the opposition would be smaller.

Burma: "No one voted for Bush in spite of not liking him, they liked him despite not wanting to vote for him. Remember how he was smirky and aw shucks while Gore/Kerry were cold and stiff? We defined and reinforced that narrative. Likability was never his issue, not really until post-Katrina when people began to see him for what he is, a sociopath."

No, they hated blowjobs and homosexuals, in spite of not wanting to vote for him. Bush only "won" by 1% in both races, which means he wasn't that likable. Even his father had a better majority over Dukakis, and he was a one-term President.

Marcello: "Just for the record, Clinton did LIE TO A GRAND JURY (about sex). That IS kind of a big deal."

Larry Craig lied, too. Anyway, just have him pay a fine, not waste taxpayer dollars on a fucking inquisition.

"And Bush did lie to get us into war, but he has (cooked) intelligence reports to back him up, so while we all know he knew better, it would be tough to prove, especially with all the OTHERS in his administration who lied as well (Cheney, Tenent, Powell, Rice, his entire sinister legal team, etc...)"

How would it be hard to prove, when just about everyone who disagreed with his intelligence reports no longer works for him?

"There is also always the defense that he was actually stupid enough to believe everything he said."

If he was stupid enough to believe everything he said, then Condy wouldn't be saying that Iraq was a safe place.

christian: "And if you think Obama is so much more electable, you're out of your gourd."

You were telling me that Edwards would kick both their asses just a few months ago.

gruver: I agree that Hillary would be in greater trouble than Obama, but the Repug propaganda machine is still worthless at this point. For example, if C+L is correct, FOX News ratings appear to be on the decline. No one's going to believe them anymore, after they bet on the wrong horse.

comment #23

VedaPierce says ...

Whatever her flaws, one can't help be amazed at Hillary's stamina and resiliency; she's made of leather. She's been pilloried (hey, that rhymes) like no other woman has in recent memory. I'm not saying some of it hasn't been warranted, but are there any jabs the Republicans can throw at her that she'll be unable to parry? Please. She feeds off it.

comment #24

a1 says ...

To Wells: How many of these Republicans were in agreement three months ago that McCain was going to be the Republican frontrunner at this point? How many were agreeing that Huckabee would win Iowa, or that "America's Mayor" would flame out so badly? They can *agree* all they want, but when it comes to predicting the outcome of this race, they don't *know* shit.

comment #25

le corbeau says ...

Yeah, I really take D.Z.'s opinion on how Fox News is doing.

comment #26

christian says ...

Very little agaistObama to run against?

Well, color me cynical, but a black man whose middle name is Hussein and whose first name rhymes with...oh well. I'm sure the kind-hearted GOP would never think to use that...

comment #27

D.Z. says ...

christian: The GOP lost any credibility they had with race-baiting, when they started expanding their anti-affirmative action platform to KKK talking points.

comment #28

christian says ...

Tht's why McCain is a real threat to any of the Democratic contenders - he's despised by the elites of the party, like Rush and Coulter.