Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

paul w · Jan 24, 2007, 04:58 PM

John Kerry has dropped out of the 08 race.

It's telling how much the Democratic party has changed in 3 years when the previous nominee wouldn't even stand a chance this time around. Edwards, however, is still the one I'm betting on. Give Keryy some credit for that, at least.

Kevin · Jan 24, 2007, 05:44 PM

I don't think anyone was worried about Kerry. Edwards could have probably beaten bush the last election.

Millennium · Jan 24, 2007, 06:31 PM

A fair number of them probably could have. Edwards stood a decent chance, Lieberman and Clark could have done it, and I'll be honest: were it not for The Incident, I think Dean would have stood the best chance out of any of them.

The Democrats supposedly picked Kerry for his 'electability.' Given that, though, I'm forced to wonder what the DNC's definition of electability is.

Monique · Jan 24, 2007, 06:47 PM

On the contrary, be very very worried. I am very good at seeing certains things in the future. And the first woman president will be elected. I am so incredibly excited about this. It is going to be grand for us women. Republicans are going to hate this so much.

paul w · Jan 24, 2007, 06:52 PM

Nobody seems to get the tongue in cheek nature of the title.

Listen, Kerry did have an excellent chance to win the last election. But few people think he has the same chance in a revitalized lanscape that includes Clinton, Obama, Edwards and perhaps someone we haven't yet considered.

Plus, since he rode the Anybody But Bush wave, he won't have that same momentum in the next election (unless it were against Jeb, but still).

Railroader · Jan 24, 2007, 07:24 PM

Originally Posted by Monique

On the contrary, be very very worried. I am very good at seeing certains things in the future. And the first woman president will be elected. I am so incredibly excited about this. It is going to be grand for us women. Republicans are going to hate this so much.

You mean Miss Rice. She is a republican?!?! Why would republicans hate this?!?!

mduell · Jan 24, 2007, 07:36 PM

Hillary and Obama are both good candidates... both have very short national-level political careers.

paul w · Jan 24, 2007, 07:40 PM

With the Senate sometimes less is more, considering how much the voting record can be twisted to hurt you. Plus, Bush himself was a bit of a newbie in 2000.

That said I still see Edwards as the man to beat. He held up well in 04 and Clinton and Obama have yet to face that particular kind of national scrutiny.

Kevin · Jan 25, 2007, 12:56 PM

Originally Posted by Monique

On the contrary, be very very worried. I am very good at seeing certains things in the future. And the first woman president will be elected. I am so incredibly excited about this. It is going to be grand for us women. Republicans are going to hate this so much.

I think you are gonna be greatly dissapointed in 2008.

olePigeon · Jan 25, 2007, 01:35 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

I think you are gonna be greatly dissapointed in 2008.

Unless Bush amends the Constitution and extends his stay, I couldn't possibly be more dissapointed than I've been for the past 7 years.

davesimondotcom · Jan 25, 2007, 01:41 PM

Originally Posted by Monique

On the contrary, be very very worried. I am very good at seeing certains things in the future. And the first woman president will be elected. I am so incredibly excited about this. It is going to be grand for us women. Republicans are going to hate this so much.

Yep, Republicans are so hateful of women! They all HATED when Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister and the best ally of President Reagan.

If the first woman President is Hillary Clinton, Republicans will dislike her politics. Not her gender. It's just a convenient hiding spot for her in case of mistakes. "You just don't like me because I'm a woman."

Plain and simple, I don't like her. I see her as a power-hungry woman who will do anything to get more power. She climbed on the back of her husband and now she's going to push the "I am woman" thing as far as she can.

Make people think before they vote, "Hmmm... if I don't vote for her, I'm a sexist. So I'd better vote for her."

On topic: Great move for Kerry. He had no chance of winning even the nomination, much less the Presidency.

Millennium · 11:10 PM

Originally Posted by Monique

On the contrary, be very very worried. I am very good at seeing certains things in the future. And the first woman president will be elected.

I assume you're talking about Hillary. But I wouldn't be so sure; current polls place her last among the Democrat candidates.

I am so incredibly excited about this. It is going to be grand for us women.

Oh, really? What exactly do you think she will do that makes things "grand"? The way you're talking, you sound like she's going to establish some kind of martiarchy or something.

Republicans are going to hate this so much.

Republicans might hate a radical left-winger being elected, but that has nothing to do with Hillary's gender.

Not that it matters. The Democrats won't allow her to be nominated; putting a woman into the Oval Office does not serve their purposes. I'll be shocked if they allow Obama to be nominated either, much as I hope he wins. It's sad, really, that they would continue to follow a party with a vested interest in keeping them down, but I suppose they have their reasons.

Wiskedjak · Jan 27, 2007, 02:55 PM

Originally Posted by Monique

On the contrary, be very very worried. I am very good at seeing certains things in the future. And the first woman president will be elected. I am so incredibly excited about this. It is going to be grand for us women. Republicans are going to hate this so much.

Could you tell me who's going to win next Sunday?

Wiskedjak · Jan 27, 2007, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by Railroader

You mean Miss Rice. She is a republican?!?! Why would republicans hate this?!?!

There are many female Republicans that would make good Presidents. I don't feel Ms. Rice is one of them. She appears to be more follower than leader.

Railroader · Jan 27, 2007, 03:18 PM

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

There are many female Republicans that would make good Presidents. I don't feel Ms. Rice is one of them. She appears to be more follower than leader.

Sorry, I forgot the [/SACRASM] tag as did the original poster.

tie · Jan 27, 2007, 06:28 PM

Rice will never be elected to anything. See Iraq. She's a dunce.

Wiskedjak · Jan 27, 2007, 07:51 PM

Originally Posted by Railroader

Sorry, I forgot the [/SACRASM] tag as did the original poster.

Well, I think Clinton has a better chance of becoming President than Rice ... even though I don't think Clinton would make a very good President.

Chuckit · Jan 27, 2007, 08:59 PM

Given what a good record senators have in winning the presidency, I think we must all agree that Kerry, Obama and Clinton all have about as good odds.

Kevin · Jan 27, 2007, 10:23 PM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Unless Bush amends the Constitution and extends his stay, I couldn't possibly be more dissapointed than I've been for the past 7 years.

Is your name Monique?

Kevin · Jan 27, 2007, 10:24 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Given what a good record senators have in winning the presidency, I think we must all agree that Kerry, Obama and Clinton all have about as good odds.

Really? You don't think Obama has a chance?

I'd like to see a Obama or Edwards race against Rudy.

Kerrigan · Jan 27, 2007, 10:29 PM

Osama Hussein, I mean, Osama Ehud Barak-- wait, ****, what's his name?

macintologist · Jan 27, 2007, 10:38 PM

Why is it that "experience" is so damn important? I don't want another ****ing freedom-hating bureacrat running this country. I'd rather we had someone with little experience who would reduce the size of government and get out of our lives.

paul w · Jan 27, 2007, 10:58 PM

Yeah, right. Great small minded generalizations there. Rather than bother to actually look at the nuances of a Senate record let's get someone off the street to hold the most powerful job in the world because he's not corrupted by "experience". While we're at it let's get rid of the federal government. Articles of Confederacy anyone?

Anyone who thinks Rudy, America's mayor, has a chance makes me chuckle and remember what the guy was really like in the year or two up until that Fateful Day. The guy has more dirty laundry than anyone. He makes Clinton look like a bloody choirboy.

If I had to call it right now, I'd say...Edwards and McCain.

Zarqawi's Eye · Jan 27, 2007, 11:51 PM

The Democratic party salivates at the dirty boot heals of George Soros, hoping for direction and purpose, yet finding only that they have sold their soul to a man who, though he despises the Great Satan, has himself become a Capitalist Satan.

The party, devoid of a soul, now greedily clings to the politics of hate and smear, offering no hope for a future, only a tsunami of devolution, disrespect, and disrepair.

Ron Goodman · 12:24 AM

I'm beginning to think that Shrub's war has not only doomed McCain, but might take Clinton down too. She looks like she's trying to get out in front of her original support for the war, but it doesn't seem to be working very well.

Railroader · Jan 28, 2007, 02:22 AM

Originally Posted by tie

Rice will never be elected to anything. See Iraq. She's a dunce.

Sorry, I forgot the [/SACRASM] tag as did the original poster.

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Well, I think Clinton has a better chance of becoming President than Rice ... even though I don't think Clinton would make a very good President.

Sheesh...

Sorry, I forgot the [/SACRASM] tag as did the original poster.

Railroader · Jan 28, 2007, 02:23 AM

Originally Posted by Ron Goodman

I'm beginning to think that Shrub's war has not only doomed McCain, but might take Clinton down too. She looks like she's trying to get out in front of her original support for the war, but it doesn't seem to be working very well.

HA HA HA!!! "Shrub's"!!! HA HA HA!!! You made a funny by insulting a guy who has no chance of even hearing your insult!!! HA HA!!!

Chuckit · Jan 28, 2007, 05:30 AM

Originally Posted by Kevin

Really? You don't think Obama has a chance?

I'd like to see a Obama or Edwards race against Rudy.

Senators make up a huge portion of presidential candidates, but only two have ever been elected. I don't know any gambler who would take a bet with those odds.

Wiskedjak · Jan 28, 2007, 10:03 AM

Originally Posted by Railroader

Sorry, I forgot the [/SACRASM] tag as did the original poster.

Yes, you mentioned that. And I'm sorry for not realizing your sarcasm. However, I think it's valid to talk about Rice's chances since there are many who appear to believe she would make a good President.

Monique · Jan 29, 2007, 06:47 PM

Rice cannot handle a war how can she handle the presidency?

Kevin · 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by Monique

Rice cannot handle a war how can she handle the presidency?

Monique, please follow along. BTW Rice "handled the war" better than Hillary Handled the health care system she was supposed to take care of in the 90s.

Had over 8 years to do it too.

How can she handle the presidency?

In all honesty Monique, you don't care if Hillary is able to do such a thing. You just care that she is a woman, and you want a woman in the whitehouse cause you are sexist.

Millennium · Jan 30, 2007, 12:27 PM

Originally Posted by Monique

Rice cannot handle a war how can she handle the presidency?

Rice is the Secretary of State, not Defense. She's not in any position to have any significant say in how the war is conducted, therefore how do you know she can't handle a war?

besson3c · Jan 30, 2007, 12:42 PM

She has weird looking hair.

Sky Captain · Jan 30, 2007, 01:46 PM

I wonder if Obama's drug use in college will get him wailed on like some Democrats wailed on Bush for drinking?
You'd think these hippocrites would look in their own cabinet(haha) at that murdering bastard, Sen. Kennedy.

besson3c · Jan 30, 2007, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

I wonder if Obama's drug use in college will get him wailed on like some Democrats wailed on Bush for drinking?
You'd think these hippocrites would look in their own cabinet(haha) at that murdering bastard, Sen. Kennedy.

Two wrongs make a right?

Sky Captain · Jan 30, 2007, 02:06 PM

One wrong makes it Ok if it's a Republican being blasted. Always.

besson3c · Jan 30, 2007, 02:08 PM

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

One wrong makes it Ok if it's a Republican being blasted. Always.

Not to everybody, so therefore your generalization (like 99.9% of all generalizations) is flawed.

Millennium · Jan 30, 2007, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

I wonder if Obama's drug use in college will get him wailed on like some Democrats wailed on Bush for drinking?

To be fair, Bush also allegedly used cocaine. Then again, there's the whole bit with Bill "not inhaling."

I'm aware that Obama admitted to using drugs in college, but I've not seen the quotes. Has he admitted that it was a mistake?

besson3c · Jan 30, 2007, 02:11 PM

I absolutely DESPISE these endless character assassinations... Why are we as a society so stuck on this crap? Who really cares, as long as what was done wasn't illegal in a way that harmed others (e.g. Mark Foley)

Millennium · Jan 30, 2007, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

I absolutely DESPISE these endless character assassinations... Why are we as a society so stuck on this crap? Who really cares, as long as what was done wasn't illegal in a way that harmed others (e.g. Mark Foley)

Although it's been overblown to a hideous degree in the last several elections, character does matter in a candidate. A leader needs to be trustworthy, more than almost any other attribute, and character points to trustworthiness.

Again, it's been overblown in recent election cycles. That does not, however, mean it's totally worthless.

Sky Captain · Jan 30, 2007, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by Millennium

To be fair, Bush also allegedly used cocaine. Then again, there's the whole bit with Bill "not inhaling."

I'm aware that Obama admitted to using drugs in college, but I've not seen the quotes. Has he admitted that it was a mistake?

I would have more respect for these politicians if they just owned up to these actions.
Jeeze. Who cares if Obama smoked the herb? Or if GW norted a line?
Or if Billyboy nailed an intern. Hell, I was cool with that. Yeah! way to go Mr. President!

These people are politicians, not Jesus Christ.

besson3c · Jan 30, 2007, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by Millennium

Although it's been overblown to a hideous degree in the last several elections, character does matter in a candidate. A leader needs to be trustworthy, more than almost any other attribute, and character points to trustworthiness.

Again, it's been overblown in recent election cycles. That does not, however, mean it's totally worthless.

I guess, but there is absolutely no way that a candidates level of trustworthiness can be accurately measured, this is all subjective emotional crap that sensational news outlets just love to eat up. Maybe if the population stopped caring about this stuff we'd no longer be spoon-fed this crap?

Nah... not going to happen.

Kevin · Jan 30, 2007, 03:55 PM

Originally Posted by Millennium

Although it's been overblown to a hideous degree in the last several elections, character does matter in a candidate. A leader needs to be trustworthy, more than almost any other attribute, and character points to trustworthiness.

Again, it's been overblown in recent election cycles. That does not, however, mean it's totally worthless.

Agreed

Monique · Jan 30, 2007, 06:09 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

Monique, please follow along. BTW Rice "handled the war" better than Hillary Handled the health care system she was supposed to take care of in the 90s.

Had over 8 years to do it too.

How can she handle the presidency?

In all honesty Monique, you don't care if Hillary is able to do such a thing. You just care that she is a woman, and you want a woman in the whitehouse cause you are sexist.

Isn't it Rice that just went to Congress to beg them to send more troops in Iraq, which would do not good.

The U.S. lost the war already in Iraq, now is the time to get out of it. But, Rice does not see the problems. The only solution put more troops have more young men and women killed in a neverending war. I guess you think this is a good president.

Now let's see if you can follow this, let's just say men never had the right to vote for centuries and they had to fight like cats and dogs to have it granted to them. Wouldn't you want to see the first man ever become president. This is not sexist, this is great that at last women will be recognized (at least by half the population) as intelligent enough to direct the affairs of the country.

Sky Captain · Jan 30, 2007, 07:51 PM

The US has not "lost the war".
The military is having to operate with great restraint.
But I have to admit, the Democrats got it right in 1945.
(which I believe was a big mistake to get involved in on our part)
If it moved, firebomb it. Leave hundreds of thousands of bodies.
Leave nowhere for the enemy to hide.
Have one probelm, level the building. Repeat.
It worked in Europe. Perfectly. A Democrat solution.

Say it with flowers, desert flowers...
*warning a soldier/true American hero, uses strong language*

besson3c · Jan 30, 2007, 08:26 PM

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

The US has not "lost the war".
The military is having to operate with great restraint.
But I have to admit, the Democrats got it right in 1945.
(which I believe was a big mistake to get involved in on our part)
If it moved, firebomb it. Leave hundreds of thousands of bodies.
Leave nowhere for the enemy to hide.
Have one probelm, level the building. Repeat.
It worked in Europe. Perfectly. A Democrat solution.

Say it with flowers, desert flowers...
*warning a soldier/true American hero, uses strong language*

Are you PacHead?

Sky Captain · Jan 30, 2007, 08:31 PM

Umm. No.

Just what part was inaccurate?
That we have lost the war or that Democratic leaders have slaughtered more civillians/lost more troops?

Chuckit · Jan 30, 2007, 08:32 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

I absolutely DESPISE these endless character assassinations... Why are we as a society so stuck on this crap? Who really cares, as long as what was done wasn't illegal in a way that harmed others (e.g. Mark Foley)

Hey, I don't want to get ****ed over in a legal way either.

besson3c · Jan 30, 2007, 08:41 PM

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

Umm. No.

Just what part was inaccurate?
That we have lost the war or that Democratic leaders have slaughtered more civillians/lost more troops?

It's not that anything is inaccurate (aside from the "goodness" of leveling the place, if that is what you were implying), it's that all of your rants and tirades are unfocused and miss the point. It's pretty much irrelevant what the death toll tally is between Democrat leaders and Republican leaders has been historically. Democrats and Republicans are just people that make mistakes, politicians that are prone to be corrupt, and their ideologies have evolved and deevolved over the years. Today's Democrat or Republican is vastly different than those of the past, so there is little point in making these sorts of comparisons and generalizations.

But mostly, your energies are misguided because you are stuck in the partisan politics = team sports mentality.. Where one party is the "best" and the other party is perpetually wrong. What do you get out of being unconditionally partisan and loyal other than disappointment?

Leftist opinions are not inferior to Right-wing opinions, they are just different, and most people have some opinions that are rather left and some that are right. We aren't a country of Republicans and Democrats, we are a country of people somewhere in the middle of the extreme versions of the stereotypes of these parties that mostly just wants to get stuff done and doesn't care about quantifying which party contributes the most.

I'd say it's pretty rare to find somebody who would be the embodiment of the Left or Right. Do you believe in Medicaid and Medicare? Social security? Well, aren't these social programs sort of Leftist in nature? The list goes on.... The point here is that these stupid generalizations can always be unraveled, so my suggestion is this: don't bother.

Sky Captain · Jan 30, 2007, 08:47 PM

So I don't get the right to voice my opinion in your world.
Thanks.
So please, catogorize me. If it makes you feel better.
I won't go away and hide from the "utopia".

I didn't see you swipe at Monique for her comments.(a direct polar opposite of mine)

An asking if I was PacHead was supposed to be an insult?
You're no better than me.(you made this personal, not me)