« An Amazing Cinderella Story | Main | McCain and Iowa »

January 03, 2008

Comments

Yeah, that's pretty much where my head is at too.

I'm highly skeptical of the high turnout especially among first time caucus-goers and independents that would be needed for an Obama victory. I see Edwards winning narrowly over Obama on the strength of his high support among previous caucus-goers and lead as a second choice among voters who favor the lesser candidates.

All that I ask is that Edwards not be the Democratic nominee, because I can't face the prospect of a President Edwards. I can live with an Obama presidency - heck, in the wrong R gets the nod, I would even vote for him. I can even survive a Hillary presidency (although I doubt that I could actually force myself to pull the lever for her). But Edwards is my "flee to Mexico" moment.

Which raises an interesting question: why does everyone flee to Canada? Mexico's warmer, has beaches, and your dollars go farther.

Which raises an interesting question: why does everyone flee to Canada? Mexico's warmer, has beaches, and your dollars go farther.

Aren't there a few million Mexicans who fled to the US you could ask?

Since I'm hoping for the same results that Publius predicted (though I think Edwards would be a good president), I'll predict (R):

1. Huckabee
2. Romney
3. Thompson
4. McCain
6. Giuliani

I think Hilary will win. I don't want her to win. I just think she will. This isnn't based on much of anything. I'm instinctively cynical and I grew up in Iowa. That's all i have as a basis for my prediction.

But Edwards is my "flee to Mexico" moment.

Because...? I mean, after all the things the Bush Administration has pulled over the last 7 years and Edwards is your "flee to Mexico" moment?

People flee to Canada because they speak the language and it's a first world country (and conveniently forget about the frenchiness).

I'm instinctively cynical and I grew up in Iowa.

Me too, on both counts!

And Canada has socialized medicine. Which is a good thing.

Ames. How about you?

(and conveniently forget about the frenchiness)

I thought we loved the frenchiness of Montreal and Quebec City -- New Orleans without the flooding problems or crime sort of thing.

All that I ask is that Edwards not be the Democratic nominee, because I can't face the prospect of a President Edwards.

I find it amusing that both von and I are hoping Edwards isn't the nominee, likely for entirely different reasons. For me, I love his politics and would love to have him as President, but I don't think he'd win the general, and with his plan to take Federal matching funds is unilateral disarmament against the Republican fundraising machine in a year where for once we're outraising them hand over fist.

I'm hoping for Obama, but I think Clinton is more likely. She's been anointed by the Serious People caucus. I can live with either, and I think both can win.

And that's really what matters here: preventing a Republican victory in 2008. Not for reasons of party, but because every last one of their likely offerings are repugnant, dangerous, or unacceptable in different ways. I'm not sure what's worse: the ones fighting to see who can pander the most to the theocon wing of the party, or the ones trying to outdo each other's Jack Bauer approach to foreign policy.

Des Moines (*filler so the spam filter does block me*).

I'm hoping that the R's don't nominate McCain because he is the only candidate of theirs who could actually win. Digby thinks that thhe robber barons who run the R party have decided to back McCain.

"Digby thinks that thhe robber barons who run the R party have decided to back McCain."

He's the candidate they should have been backing months ago, before the Republicans all decided to flirt with purism. But now that Huckabee is more than an also-ran, I think the window is closing on a Bush-style moderate in the pocket of big corporate interests.

I don't want to see Hillary win, but the more I read about how the Iowa Caucus is run, the more I suspect that the game is rigged in her favor. Obama just won't get the youth vote into the caucuses that he needs. Edwards just won't get the union muscle that critical day-off of work that he needs. My prediction is Hillary, Obama, Edwards. Not because Iowa actually swings that way, but because people who can feasibly attend an Iowa caucus will swing that way.

Who I want?

Obama, Edwards, Clinton

What will happen? I am afraid Hillary wins this thing. She is the establishment/machine candidate. Obama is like Dean was 4 years ago. He gets lots of enthusiasm, but will he bring people to the polls? Nope. He finishes a dissapointing third.

On the GOP side, it is a bit tricky.

Who I want? Paul, McCain

What will happen? Huckabee wins. Romney a somewhat distant second. Like the Dems, the GOP'ers mess this thing. When will either party pick the best candidate? I think McCain, far and away the best (but not my favorite) overall candidate comes in third. This propells him to do very well in NH.

Friday mornings today, GMA, etc will start with Hillary giving everyone her "we won, we won" cackle. America groans.

The potential rush of moderates to Mexico notwithstanding, I'm hoping for Edwards. I was initially for Obama, but the more I listen to Edwards the more I think (fear) he's right...that unless someone seriously reigns in the corporate powers pulling all the strings right now, we'll miss an important window of opportunity here. In other words, as much as I long for the world Obama dreams of, I think it's much more likely to come after we have another round of FDR-like initiatives to even the playing field. I see nothing in Obama that convinces me he understands what he's up against.

Am I the only reader of OW who hopes it will be Hillary, Edwards, Obama? Worse, I am Katherine's mother.

I love [Edwards'] politics and would love to have him as President, but I don't think he'd win the general

This is either concern trolling or just...what? Edwards is the *strongest* in the General, not the weakest. And that's born out by enough polls over time to qualify as a trend. All the money in the world will not elect or ensure the election of a weaker candidate. I don't see a problem at all with Edwards' taking public funding. His campaign doesn't have to run every ad. The only problem he has ever had, and still has, is the default, reflexive 'no' he gets from Democrats (like this comment) and the press. It's willful.

I can't predict between Obama and Edwards getting first place. I know for a fact that Edwards caucusers are absolutely devoted and rock solid - meaning that they can't be 'switched' in the second round - and I would assume most of Obama's are too. HRC third.

my hope:

D: Obama, Edwards, HRC
R: Huck, Mitt, Paul

i think McCain would be strong in the general, so i hope he doesn't place anywhere near the top.

and, what Ugh said about Edwards and Mexico - if you can stomach Bush, it's crazy to be afraid of Edwards.

Clinton was always my last-place contender. I will support her if she wins the nomination, but she's least distinguishable in any substantial way from the prevailing currents in the Republican Party - she's very much part of the War Party, and far too comfortable with people who are part of the problem in trade, labor, and a lot else.

Up until recently I'd have said it was a toss-up for my sympathies with Barack and Edwards, both of whom had some merits and some drawbacks without me feeling enthusiastic about either. But in recent weeks, Barack has repeatedly surprised and horrified me with tactics that show he's getting advice deeply embedded in the prevailing sick conventional wisdom of the media/consultant/etc. scene, which we desperately need to get away from. Edwards, meanwhile, is talking like someone who recognizes that the movement conservative machine has to be fought and broken, much more clearly than in the past.

So for me it's an easy pick to support now: Edwards. Our country's dangerously ill, and a big part of that is exactly the support that otherwise decent people like von continue to give the people responsible for ruining our country, and the cringing they do when anyone speaks up about how deep the pathology goes. We are not in a time of normal politics - we've lost the normal measure of civic control over politics thanks to what amounts to a slow-motion coup, and it will take a lot of nasty hard work to restore the kind of basically sane discourse that prevailed before movement conservatism's rise. I don't know how much Edwards can or will do about it, but he's the only one of the major candidates who shows an awareness of the problem and a willingness to try.

On the Republican side, I have no preference, since none of them are remotely acceptable to me. None of them shows what I'd consider an awareness of basic American principles, nor basic decency and humanity. Overall I think Giuliani might be the worst of a bad bunch, but any of them would be a disaster for the country and pretty well nail shut the coffin into which Bush/Cheney pushed our country's fortunes and standing. I'll settle for hoping for extended division among their ranks.

I'm still baffled by support for Obama (from a progressive perspective). All this talk of "reaching across the isle" is st0000pid. Has he been asleep during this administration's tenure?

the tenet's of the GOP: Never compromise. Never admit a mistake. Never take responsibility. Always shift the blame. Shift the focus. When all else fails obstruct, obstruct, obstruct.

Obama's best hope is to beat them so badly to keep the obstruction to a minimum.. though the anointed media will certainly attempt to trivialize the DEM gains.

There will be a time when cooperation will return, but I for one will not vote for anyone willing to accept the titantic shift to the right that we've had forced down our throat during this administrations tenure.

I don't know who'll win Iowa, Iowa is unpredictable. However, my cynical prediction is that Edwards will be the nominee. The excuse will be that he is more "electable", the reason will be that too many people, when they are alone in the voting booth, just can't face the possibility of a woman or black president. Unfortunately, I also think that he will probably lose the general election for the reasons people have outlined earlier.

My preference, at the moment, is actually for Richardson. He's the only one close to sane on immigration (too conservative but closer than most). In my opinion, there is one strong argument for Clinton: demonstrated competence. She's been a decent senator from NY and would probably be a decent president. Corrupt, unimaginative, and historically forgettable except for her gender, perhaps, but not the disaster like Reagan or either Bush. Obama's probably the candidate that I would like the best, from what I know of him, as a person. He's an academic at least. But I'm not sure that he knows what he's getting into and his position on bombing Iran is extremely poorly thought out.

Most of the (likely) republicans are, IMHO, probably no worse than Bush. In principle, I should probably hope for a Giuliani win, but he was such a horrible mayor that I can't bring myself to hope for him as the nominee, even if he is nominally pro-choice and not homophobic. But since I already spend substantial parts of the year out of the US, my running options are more open than average, so I can afford not to panic at the thought of, for example, President Huckabee.

Obama's probably the candidate that I would like the best, from what I know of him, as a person. He's an academic at least.

[wipes tears of delighted laughter away] The blogosphere is a wonderful thing.

Here’s my prediction. Whoever wins the general election will:

1. Not work to remove the 15% tax bracket for hedge fund managers that the Democratic congress kept in place.
2. Not work to install the $750,000 annual income limit cap to be eligible for farm subsidies that the Democratic congress rejected.
3. Keep the money flowing to contractors in Iraq that the Democratic congress promised to curtail but didn’t.
4. Not punish employers for hiring illegal workers and driving down working-class wages.
5. Sign a spending bill that exceeds this Democratic congress’ 12,000 earmark threshold.
6. Do nothing about the looming collapse of the social welfare system and choose instead to increase the money supply (by printing it), further weakening the dollar and causing inflation, with food and energy leading the way.
7. Not warn you, the American Citizen, of what is coming in the next decade so that you can prepare your family.

Shadows on the wall of the cave, all of them. With the possible exceptions of Paul, who couldn’t be elected in a pure democracy; and perhaps Obama, who probably still believes his own lies.

Watch where the smart money is buying- it’s not Mexico. That Country is too big and organized. The Caribbean countries are far easier to work with; ask the Clintons, Bushes, Bloombergs, Turners, Gates’, etc., etc., etc.

All the money in the world will not elect or ensure the election of a weaker candidate.

JB - is it cold where you are? Apparently cold enough to freeze your brain. Money and evangelicals was all Bush had, and that was enough.

Liberals flee to Canada because it's more egalitarian than the US. Conservatives flee to Mexico because it's less egalitarian.

I don't care that Dodd apparently hasn't got a chance in hell, at the moment he's the one I'd vote for. Of the Big Three Dems, I'll take any of 'em, though I like Edwards best right now.

What I want to know is: to whose advantage is it to hold the primaries now? The only answer I can come up with is "the TV networks", because they get months of extra ads (and an extra-super barrage of them on Super Bowl Sunday).

I'm hoping for Edwards as well, for many of the above reasons. If there are many independents swelling the Democratic caucuses, they will lean heavily to Obama (the guy who promises to bring us all together).

I think the "Edwards doesn't have the money" argument is a terrible canard. The landscape has changed so drastically in the last four years. Money can only get you so far, and can only buy you so much. In the past, the money was crucial because you had to have wall-to-wall TV ads.

But I feel that TV ads are far less effective now than they were. People largely tune them out or take them with large quantities of salt. You can get enormous coverage and attention on Internet spots now -- what candidates post on YouTube and send out virally will get attention that 2004 didn't bring.

Plus there will be 527s coming out of the woodwork for whomever the Democrat is. After what the Swift Boaters did to Kerry, there will be plenty of organizations ready for revenge, and they won't even have to lie to make their points.

Edwards is a fighter (like Dodd), and as an advocate he's the type who will rip the throat out of his opposition. I want him as the country's advocate. And after 7+ years of big business getting everything they want on a silver platter, I think some serious pullback in the other direction is warranted.

Maybe von is considering Mexico because moving to Canada because President Edwards hopes to socialize medicine doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense?

I'm hoping for (1) Obama, (2) Edwards, (3) Hillary. Though if I could determine both at once, I'd make Iowa (1) Edwards, (2) Obama, (3) Hillary, followed by a New Hampshire (1) Obama, (2) Edwards, (3) Hillary, & off to the races & my vote counting.

My mom and I had it out on the family email list so I won't repeat it here. I think this is actually a generation gap primarily, but I STILL don't understand anyone with her political views wanting Hillary coronated before Edwards can even make a race of it.

Up until recently I'd have said it was a toss-up for my sympathies with Barack and Edwards, both of whom had some merits and some drawbacks without me feeling enthusiastic about either. But in recent weeks, Barack has repeatedly surprised and horrified me with tactics that show he's getting advice deeply embedded in the prevailing sick conventional wisdom of the media/consultant/etc. scene, which we desperately need to get away from. Edwards [....]
Not to pick on you, Bruce, but why are you calling one candidate by his first name and another by his last names [also mentioning Bush, Cheney, and Giuliani only by last name]?

I'm intently curious as to what people are thinking when they do this to Senator Barack Obama; it's the only reason I ask.

My PREDICTION is (1) Hilary (2) Edwards (3) Obama because in my experience my side almost always loses.

On the Republican side, I'm rooting for Ron Paul to beat Giuliani.

JB - is it cold where you are? Apparently cold enough to freeze your brain. Money and evangelicals was all Bush had, and that was enough.

It is cold as a well-digger's patoot where I am, AAMOF! But my brain is not completely frozen. How about yours? You are supporting my point, cw. Bush had all the money in the world, plus support from most all of the GOP establishment and the evangelicals, and he *lost* the popular vote in '00. Also, zmulls fleshes out what I alluded to. This is a different time, and, to re-reiterate, the campaign itself doesn't have to spend all the money. More money = more success/less money = less success is a reductive argument.

Not to pick on you, Bruce, but why are you calling one candidate by his first name and another by his last names [also mentioning Bush, Cheney, and Giuliani only by last name]?

Why chose this example when there are more numerous examples on this thread and elsewhere of people calling one candidate by her first name and all others by their last names? No interest in why people talk about "Hilary, Edwards, and Obama"?

Gary, in this case it's because I'm fighting a cold and having my immune stuff flare up, and I tend to get a bit lexically muddled. I swap first and last names, and right and left, and like that. My intent was to refer to Senator Obama by his last name, just as I do with Senator Edwards. On Senator Clinton I go back and forth, since her own campaign makes prominent use of her first name, so that seems a different matter.

i usually refer to Rudy by his first name because i can't remember how to spell his last, and Hilary by her first because "Clinton" is her husband.

Uh, I hesitate to bring this up, but if Bloomberg runs, doesn't the Republican candidate win automatically?

Uh, I hesitate to bring this up, but if Bloomberg runs, doesn't the Republican candidate win automatically?

I don't think so.

Worst case, from a choice point of view, is that we have Clinton, Giuliani, and Bloomberg running, all with the same politics and all currently living within a few miles of each other. Bloomberg could possibly win that one as the Republican and Democratic activists sit the general election out because the whole race appears to be about personalities, not issues. That strikes me as at best a tossup even though Bloomberg has the lowest negatives.

Best case, from a choice point of view, is Huckabee, Bloomberg, Edwards. Three politicians representing three clearly differing constituencies. In that case, Bloomberg helps the Republicans split over God and Mammon, grabs the DLC from the Democrats and leaves Edwards with a winning 42%.

1. Edwards
2. Obama
3. Hillary

1. Huckabee
2. Romney
3. McCain

And for the record, I want Edwards to get the nomination. Has anyone here watched the Jefferson Jackson Iowa speeches of the three candidates on YouTube.

Edwards is awesome.

I also went back and reviewed the Edwards Cheney VP debates and took away two points.

Cheney is a skilled debater.
Cheney lies constantly.

He was tough and I think Edwards still beat him.

I am likewise puzzled as to why Obama supporters prefer him to Edwards. Between the two, Edwards is the better politician, has the better message and is a better communicator.

I would love to see an Edwards/Obama ticket. A fantasy...

OK Free Lunch.

How about Hillary v. Huckabee v. Bloomberg?

Aren't Huckabee and Bloomberg MUCH more likeable than Hillary?

Our side has lost so so many times due to the likeability factor, that I am hypersensitive to it.

Uh, I hesitate to bring this up, but if Bloomberg runs, doesn't the Republican candidate win automatically?

I think the opposite happens. Bloomberg will likely siphon off much more of the Republican vote than the Democratic one--remember, Democrats are pretty happy across the board with our slate of candidates. Any of them could get 40+% of the general election vote just by showing up. It's the Republicans who hate their people, and if it's a clear contrast--say Huckabee and Bloomberg--then neither of them comes close to the Democrat, whoever it is. Heck, Kucinich might be able to win that race.

Thanks, Bruce.

(No) Free Lunch: "Worst case, from a choice point of view, is that we have Clinton, Giuliani, and Bloomberg running, all with the same politics...."

Clinton and Giuliani having the "same politics" is as true as when Ralph Nader supporters, with complete sincerity and near-religious fervor, asserted that Al Gore and George W. Bush had the "same politics," just as the Democratic and Republican Party were indistinguishable.

"i usually refer to Rudy by his first name because i can't remember how to spell his last, and Hilary by her first because 'Clinton' is her husband."

Countdown to see how long it takes for cleek to notice his funny!

A couple words about Mike Huckabee.

I like Huckabee. True, he has taken some stands on abortion and gay rights that I don't agree with, but, unlike the others, with the exception of Ron Paul, he cares about the inequality of our country and feels that it is the government's job to provide services.

As a twice elected R in D Arkansas, he won by courting the traditionally D vote. Poor and working class families.

I would probably vote for Huckabee over Hillary because I think she will be too hawkish on foreign policy and too timid on domestic.

In this instance, Huckabee's lack of foreign policy experience is a plus since he will come to the table with fewer pre-conceived notions.

Worst case, from a choice point of view, is that we have Clinton, Giuliani, and Bloomberg running,

All those New Yorkers. I can't see the south putting up with it.

How about Hillary v. Huckabee v. Bloomberg?

May be the worst case for Dems, but I still expect Clinton to win. That depends on what the activist Dems decide to do. If they get out the vote, things are fine, Clinton and Democrats win easily with 42-45% of the vote. If they sit, Huckabee or Bloomberg may squeeze through with 38%, but unless Clinton drives a high visibility candidate to the Greens, I don't see that happening.

i don't mean to say Paul feels the gov't's job to provide services. only that he recognizes the inequality, but his solution is to do away with government interference, un-rigging the system, so to speak.

i much prefer his foreign policy stand and agree with it.

Meh.

Huckabee is far too beholden to the religious elements of his party (vis a vis evolution/science matters and the values issues) and he bends far too easily to the Rove elements (see his behavior on the serial rapist/murderer).

That's easily as scum-level behavior as any other candidate if not worse..

That depends on what the activist Dems decide to do.

I think you can count on activists showing up no matter who the Democrat is, considering the last (by that time) eight years. We're activist, but we've learned pragmatism.

I'm hoping for a six-way tie among the Republicans, because that would be the most comical outcome.

Gary -

From the point of view of most folks who aren't particularly political, all three are fairly centrist. They are not identical and there is clearly more than a dime's worth of difference, but, personalities aside, their political records are not as dissimilar as some would like. Both are far more centrist than the activists of their party.

The important part, as Brian noted, is that there are more strong negatives in the Republican Party toward Giuliani because he is a New York Republican, than there are toward Clinton from the more progressive Democrats because she is DLC.

1 - Clinton
2 - Edwards
3 - Obama

1 - Romney
2 - Huckabee
3 - McCain

I would love to see an Edwards/Obama ticket. A fantasy...I would probably vote for Huckabee over Hillary because I think she will be too hawkish on foreign policy and too timid on domestic.


I assume this is the same 'Garth' in both comments, and would assert that this sort of ideological indifference is not outlying among 'independents' and so-called 'Reagan Democrats', but rather a fairly typical phenomenon. This is pretty illustrative of how non-partisans forumate their vote, in fact. We forget about this sometimes in our little poli-sci world.

Obama, Edwards, Clinton. (Still haven't had all hope crushed at this point.)

Huckabee, Romney, McCain.

Watching at FairVote's DC event tonight.

No sooner did I post my comment about the ideological incoherence/indifference of independent voters than I followed TPM's link to an article by Chris Hayes, who surveys his several months of interviews with undecided and 'independent' voters. Wowzers.

This is either concern trolling or just...what?

It's called my opinion. Yours is apparently that "Edwards is the strongest in the General". Good for you. Have a cookie.

But thanks, that's the first time I've ever been called a concern troll. When you've been around here a little longer you'll realize how silly you just looked.

"The important part, as Brian noted, is that there are more strong negatives in the Republican Party toward Giuliani because he is a New York Republican, than there are toward Clinton from the more progressive Democrats because she is DLC."

I lived under Giuliani; I'm immensely familiar with Giuliani, and since I'm not up for more than short notes at the moment, all I'll say is that I wildly and utterly disagree. I tend to think that the important part is that Giuliani is an incompetent authoritarian whackjob who has no clue about the rest of the world, or limits to power, or how to recognize integrity, as opposed to loyalty, and that if you like Bush's authoritarian tendencies, prudent foreign policy, and wise ability to pick subordinates, Rudy will be a hundred times Bushier than Bush. He has the freaking record, history, and life.

But most non-NYers have no actual knowledge of Giuliani.

"Centrism" like that, the "same" as Hillary Clinton's... we're not talking about the same Giuliani, to say the least.

I'll say even less in response to someone who thinks that Huckabee "cares about the inequality of our country."

Of course, views like these are more typical of average voters than they are of people more than a little familiar with the candidates.

Thanks, jonnybutter, for the Chris Hayes article.

Gary Farber - Of course, views like these are more typical of average voters than they are of people more than a little familiar with the candidates.

Those are the people who vote. What matters is how Giuliani or Clinton or Huckabee or Bloomberg are perceived, not how they are. When you do the policy checkmarks, Rudy looks like a moderate. When you ask New Yorkers who they would vote for, you get a bit of a different result.

Again:

We're sorry, your comment has not been published because TypePad's antispam filter has flagged it as potential comment spam. It has been held for review by the blog's author.

Go back to Iowa Predictions Open Thread.

So, breaking it up:

Giuliani the centrist.

I second the "Curious why Von would flee to Mexico over Edwards". Trying to think from Von's political perspective (quite hard, I admit, since I don't have a good grasp on his political views as I'd like) the things I'd imagine he'd find most objectionable about Edward's politics are the areas a President is going to have the least power on and would have to make the most compromises, assuming he could even get it through Congress.

(The Democratic Congress is HIGHLY unlikely to be the sort of lapdogs the GOP Congress was. Democrats like screaming fights with other Democrats more than ANYTHING).

I'm leaning Edwards over Obama and Clinton, but mostly because I have my doubts as to whether Obama's supporters really turn out in numbers (too many "new to caucuses") and because I suspect Edwards -- the words of other candidates notwithstanding -- to be a more sympathetic "second choice" for the Democratic second tier.

Honestly, though, that's based solely on Obama's recent trend of "attacks from the right". I don't think that'll sit well with Kuninich and Dodd supporters, for one reason or another. But perhaps that's not even on the mind of an Iowa caucus goer.

Sure. Trust Rudy;

he's all about the freedom. What's not to like?

"I second the 'Curious why Von would flee to Mexico over Edwards'."

Those more familiar with Von's views are quite familiar with his horror at what he calls "class warfare," and that it "has to go," and that such rhetoric has no place in America, is evil, fattening, and causes global warming.

Little seems more awful than "class warfare," in Von's view, even just as simple rhetoric, is the impression Von has left me with in the past.

Thus Edwards seems to be Von's anti-christ.

As I remember, Von's opposition to Edwards comes from a vehement hatred of trial lawyers.

Von only hates trial lawyers that represent (certain) plaintiffs. Because, lawyers defending large corporations would never use every delaying tactic in the book in the hopes of wearing the plaintiff into submission and accepting a small settlement.

Yes, Ugh, I meant "trial lawyers" with the meaning used by Republicans (and by Von if I remember correctly).

OT: Merle Haggard in an NPR interview just mentioned torture as one of the indications that America is in bad shape now.

that's the first time I've ever been called a concern troll

Sorry about that. I was being sort of rhetorical. You are entitled to your opinion of course, but I just found it so counterfactual that I had to wonder. What if, in 2004, I said that Bush had no chance to win reelection because most evangelicals would refuse to vote for him? I would be entitled to that opinion, but it would be against all evidence (and proven wrong). What's the point of a counterfactual opinion? Lots of people have them, but...so what? Serious question, believe it or not. Weirdly, we hold opinion - any opinion, as long as it's 'sincere' - to be practically sacred in this country ('I don't agree with Mathematics!').

It's not enough to have an opinion. You might be right, but you're not helping me see it. I'd say figuring out the correct answer is, to put it mildly, pretty important right about now...

And just to be clear, I assumed you knew that Edwards does consistently better than any other Dem against any Republican in poll after poll over many months, since you are actually *for* Edwards and not a concern troll; I assumed you were familier with the polling data since you had anyways made a different judgement about his viability in the General.

cleek:

"i usually refer to Rudy by his first name because i can't remember how to spell his last, and Hilary by her first because 'Clinton' is her husband."

Countdown to see how long it takes for cleek to notice his funny!

Still counting!

Hint: you refer to one candidate's part of their name because you can't recall how to spell the other part, and you call "Hilary" that name for another reason.

It's a pretty big hint.

Merle Haggard, the John Birch Society, & me: together at last.

Little seems more awful than "class warfare," in Von's view, even just as simple rhetoric, is the impression Von has left me with in the past.

"Class warfare," of course, being defined as or limited to any criticism whatsoever of the increasing concentration of US wealth among the top 1% of income earners in the country, or any steps to do anything about it at all.

Gary, I gotta say, I consider myself a pretty funny guy, but I'm not seeing cleek's "funny."

"Gary, I gotta say, I consider myself a pretty funny guy, but I'm not seeing cleek's 'funny.'"

S'alright. No biggy. And most people miss misspellings. Even when they're repeated, pointed out, emphasized, and pointed to again. We're all sensitive to differen things.

It was saying that "i usually refer to Rudy by his first name because i can't remember how to spell his last," and simultaneously saying that he calls "Hilary by her first because 'Clinton' is her husband," although her name is ... drumroll... "Hillary."

As stated on eighty billion lawn signs across America, 18800 billion web posts, 43,546,345 news stories over the years, and and so on.

I didn't mean anything personal! It was the whole contradiction that was hilarious, is all.

This is why proofreading is a job not everyone is qualified for, I guess.

Most people don't get copyeditor's jokes, either.

"We're all sensitive to differen things."

Yes, irony. Usual spelling flame curse.

S'alright. No biggy. And most people miss misspellings.

ack.

want to know why it's doubly funny?

and i even went back and forth on that: "one L or two? one or two?"

i'll always get it wrong. i hope she loses.

"and i even went back and forth on that: 'one L or two? one or two?'"

I don't mind in the slightest saying that I have to look it up again via Google about every three tries.

Which is the way I work on a number of words every few comments. I'm constantly dropping any word into Google that I have the least doubt about the spelling I retain in my head. It happens all the time. Every few minutes.

And I still make plenty of typos, of course, since I go fast.

Thus my utter lack of intent to pick on you. It's just why I thought it was funny, is all.

But I specifically have trouble remembering if Sen. Clinton is a one "l" or two "l" "Hillary," myself, absent frequent and ever-recurring rechecking.

What's weird is that I usually recall endlessly more difficult and non-English name-spellings.

Would "Capitol Hillary" serve as a mnemonic?

"Would 'Capitol Hillary' serve as a mnemonic?"

Do you have any idea how many people confuse "Capitol" and "capital"? It's one of the most made errors.

Beyond that, I'm probably being slow, but I'm not even seeing the mnemonic you're suggesting. I'm sure this is my fault, and I take it as a suggestion (of my own) that I should back off commenting until I've had more sleep, or something.

(Also tired of the hunting and killing the typepad cookie, the endless repetitions necessary to post, etc.)

You could think of two fingers upraised, which you could then imagine either candidate Hillary is presenting to the press corps and or Republicans or to the body politic of the US. Or you giving the gesture to them. Or, alternatively, it could portray your feelings towards her. All in all, a gesture that could unite us instead of divide us.

I am a very informed voter and I know for a fact that Huckabee is sincere in his view that our government has an obligation to the poor.

Why should I vote for Hillary who has promised more war?

Huckabee is better than Hillary.

Paul is better than Hillary.

I won't vote for her.

It is time for America to be patriotic about something other than war.

- John Edwards

Do you have any idea how many people confuse "Capitol" and "capital"? It's one of the most made errors.

Yes, I do. But I'm not one of them - at least not on this occasion.

Beyond that, I'm probably being slow, but I'm not even seeing the mnemonic you're suggesting.

"Capitol Hill-ary"

I favor Edwards myself, for reasons similar to Bruce Baugh's. I like the idea of a somewhat combative candidate. There are things worth fighting over.

google ron paul

integrity and reason - the only one who considers cause/effect

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad