O v H

[gatorback]

I thought Hillary looked great last night. So what's next for her?

[thelakelander]

Doubt it.  I can't see her accepting to be under Obama.

[77danj7]

Wouldn't that be the "unbeatable" ticket though?

[thelakelander]

Its a possibility.  But would her pride allow this?

[gatorback]

Obama played Austin so well.  1st. he went to UT's football field and played football with the UT football players.  He invited Billary but she went to Dallas and from what I hear, an escort ended up crashing and died.    The coa closed down most of the streets in the core of the city,  and well, we all got drunk. 

[RiversideGator]

Both candidates are anti-American socialists (although Hillary only slightly less so).  Both represent a return to failed policies from the 1960s and 70s.  Both will ruin the economy with more taxes and regulation.  IMO, the choice is mainly between how you want such drivel served to you although Hillary is, again, a little more moderate.

BTW, dont believe Obama's claims that he is a transformational candidate.  He is, based on voter support at least, nothing more than a boutique leftist (like Gary Hart circa 1988, George McGovern circa 1972 or Bill Bradley circa 2000 fused with the black candidate who appeals to the black solidarity voters (like Jesse Jackson).  Apparently, combining these two voting blocks may be enough to win the Dem nomination but the chances for a candidate such as this in the general election are doubtful IMO.  He does have working in his favor the fact that it may be a down year for Reps anyway but I think he has a tough time in the general once the truth comes out about him and the fawning media stops being quite so fawning.

Here is an interesting article on the subject:

Obama's Red-State Prospects Unclear
Democrat's Support May Have Limits
   
By Alec MacGillis
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, February 24, 2008; Page A01

For Democrats desperate to reclaim the White House, the numbers have been tantalizing.

In winning Tuesday's primary in the key swing state of Wisconsin, Sen. Barack Obama drew support from tens of thousands of Republicans and independents. He pulled off the same feat in his landslide victory in the Virginia primary the week before, suggesting he could win the state in November. In South Carolina, he had more votes than the top two Republican contenders put together; in Kansas, his total topped the overall GOP turnout.

All along, Obama has argued that he can redraw the political map for Democrats by turning out unprecedented numbers of young voters and African Americans, and by attracting independents and even Republicans with his message of national reconciliation. But the picture emerging of his appeal in GOP strongholds and in swing states, even as he widens his delegate lead over Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), is more complex than his claim to broad popularity in "red state" America would have one believe.

Obama (Ill.) posted big wins over Clinton in caucuses in Plains and Mountain states such as Kansas, Nebraska and Idaho, but Republicans in those states scoff at the suggestion that victories in the small universe of Democrats there translate into strength in November. In Tennessee and Oklahoma, Obama lost by wide margins to Clinton, who lived in nearby Arkansas. He narrowly won the primary in the swing state of Missouri, but did so thanks to the state's solidly Democratic cities, losing its more rural, and more conservative, areas to Clinton.

Read more here:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/02/23/ST2008022302650.html

[vicupstate]

Both candidates are anti-American socialists (although Hillary only slightly less so).  Both represent a return to failed policies from the 1960s and 70s.  Both will ruin the economy with more taxes and regulation.  IMO, the choice is mainly between how you want such drivel served to you although Hillary is, again, a little more moderate.

BTW, dont believe Obama's claims that he is a transformational candidate.  He is, based on voter support at least, nothing more than a boutique leftist (like Gary Hart circa 1988, George McGovern circa 1972 or Bill Bradley circa 2000 fused with the black candidate who appeals to the black solidarity voters (like Jesse Jackson).  Apparently, combining these two voting blocks may be enough to win the Dem nomination but the chances for a candidate such as this in the general election are doubtful IMO.  He does have working in his favor the fact that it may be a down year for Reps anyway but I think he has a tough time in the general once the truth comes out about him and the fawning media stops being quite so fawning.

Here is an interesting article on the subject:

Obama's Red-State Prospects Unclear
Democrat's Support May Have Limits
   
By Alec MacGillis
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, February 24, 2008; Page A01

For Democrats desperate to reclaim the White House, the numbers have been tantalizing.

In winning Tuesday's primary in the key swing state of Wisconsin, Sen. Barack Obama drew support from tens of thousands of Republicans and independents. He pulled off the same feat in his landslide victory in the Virginia primary the week before, suggesting he could win the state in November. In South Carolina, he had more votes than the top two Republican contenders put together; in Kansas, his total topped the overall GOP turnout.

All along, Obama has argued that he can redraw the political map for Democrats by turning out unprecedented numbers of young voters and African Americans, and by attracting independents and even Republicans with his message of national reconciliation. But the picture emerging of his appeal in GOP strongholds and in swing states, even as he widens his delegate lead over Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), is more complex than his claim to broad popularity in "red state" America would have one believe.

Obama (Ill.) posted big wins over Clinton in caucuses in Plains and Mountain states such as Kansas, Nebraska and Idaho, but Republicans in those states scoff at the suggestion that victories in the small universe of Democrats there translate into strength in November. In Tennessee and Oklahoma, Obama lost by wide margins to Clinton, who lived in nearby Arkansas. He narrowly won the primary in the swing state of Missouri, but did so thanks to the state's solidly Democratic cities, losing its more rural, and more conservative, areas to Clinton.

Read more here:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/02/23/ST2008022302650.html

I don't see the rational for someone who supported Clinton in a primary, would now support McCain against Obama in the general.  However, there is plenty of evidence to believe someone who supported Obama in the primary, would support McCain in the general against Hillary Clinton. 

[urlhttp://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html][/url]

Having been in the public eye since 1992, and having been thoroughly demonized by the Right ever since, I don't see how anyone makes the argument that she is a stronger candidate in the general than a relative 'blank slate' that has already proven dozens of times, that he has the ability to 1) broaden his base, 2) increase voter turnout, 3) increase the number of voters and 4) exceed expectations.   

A Democrat version of 1980 is at least a possibility with Obama, it is not with HRC.  A narrow win is the best HRC could ever hope for, unless the economy tanks all to hell.     

[gatorback]

I want Hillary; however, I would vote mccain before obama. I just care about picking the winner now that the right one Paul isn't there. Nader never.

[RiversideGator]

Its kindof hard for the republicans to argue that they know the first damned thing about the economy, river, its kind of in a mess.

But that is of course, because the republicans stopped being conservative a long time ago.

The choice right now wont be between socialists and conservative economists, but between socialists and big government fascists of the type that broke the backs of the french, british and spanish empires.

I wish there was a choice between a conservative politician and the democrats, but Ron Paul isnt going to run.

Stephen:  For the last time, libertarian does not equal conservative.  They share many viewpoints, but they are not the same school of thought.  I do think that McCain will be more conservative on spending though than was Bush.  I think McCain will fight for balanced budgets.

[gatorback]

What a mess in Texas tonight.  Obama hit San Marcos to a crowd of 12,000.  President Clinton hit the UT campus to a crowd of 8,000 and McCain was a bit further south bashing Obama on his lack of foreign policy.  On a side note, I got my voter's registration card...I still don't know................