# President Hillary?



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Will you be voting for Hillary?

https://apnews.myway.com/article/20070120/D8MPAEHO0.html


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Not as long as Joe Biden is in the mix 

-spence


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

She would make a good but annoying president. I could do without listening to that summer camp counselor tone when she speaks in public. However, I predict that a lot of people will vote for her strictly because it will give conservatives an eight-year case of hemorrhoids. Monday I'm buying stock in Wyeth, maker of Preparation H.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I fear she will get it. I also fear that her agenda is far more liberal than what she tries to say in public.

I also just totally dislike her superior, snobby, snotty tone. I question her honesty even more than that of most politicians.

I do admit that she would probably be better than the disaster we have now, but I hope we look past Hillary.

Besides, because of her husband, (who I actually respect) she would be really polarizing.


----------



## rkipperman (Mar 19, 2006)

*Remember this?*

https://imageshack.us


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Oh please...why bother us with this mindless crapola?

-spence


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

This is one of those polls that calls out for the option to select more than one answer. I don't think she is the best candidate for the party, and I don't support her candidacy in the primaries. If she is the candidate I will definitely vote for her and work for her election. Like her husband, for whom I also campaigned, she is too conservative for me, but I assume that almost any candidate who gets the nomination of any major party will be. My biggest problem with her is that I don't think she can be elected, and the alternative put up by the Republican Party is bound to be immeasurably worse.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Hillary is going to be our first lady VP.

Prepare for Obama. Charisma and intelligence off the scale, and he's exactly what this country will need after eight years of relentless fear, terror and war mongering from Mr. Bush and the powers behind him.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I don't want charisma, social agendas, a female or black president because 'it's time' or any other knee jerk dog and pony diversions because there is so little of true stubstance. We have critical issues and need quiet competancy.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Hillary is going to be our first lady VP.
> 
> Prepare for Obama. Charisma and intelligence off the scale, and he's exactly what this country will need after eight years of relentless fear, terror and war mongering from Mr. Bush and the powers behind him.


I honestly do not believe that Hillary can beat Obama in the primary. I'm not sure that Obama is the best candidate yet either, but out of the two, he would be my pick.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> ...she is too conservative for me...


Too precious for words. Move to Canda.

Hillary will be President. I have been saying this for about two years now. Search the threads here, you'll see I have posted it many time. I do not think she will be a good Prez, I do not want her as Prez. She will further wreck many broken things, like the healthcare system, Medicare, and Social Security.

I expected the Dems would at least wait until after the 08 election to start hiking taxes but apparently it is already in the works. It seems they are so cock sure about the 08 elections that taxing "the rich" is a done deal already. I will not rant or make Alec Baldwin type promises, but I think they will find Econ 101 really works, i.e. people respond to incentives (and disincentives).


----------



## Old Brompton (Jan 15, 2006)

A President Hillary, or Obama, is just asking for serious subversion.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Subversion? As opposed to what? 750+ of Bush's "signing statements"? We haven't seen this level of constitutional subversion in, well, we've NEVER seen it before. The man sincerely believes few if any laws apply to him unless he says they do.

And do you know Obama's stand on any issue? If you don't, learn a little before you start implying he's a subversive.


----------



## Old Brompton (Jan 15, 2006)

Hillary is a far-left extremist who needs to be stopped. Enough said. As for Obama...well, the fact that's he's wildly popular with the far-left 'mainstream' media, coupled with his radical Muslim background, is enough to stop him.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Radical Muslim background??????? Who told you that, Michael Savage?

Y'all better learn why you got spanked so badly in the last election (hint: it had zilch to do with the media or religion).


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

OB,

I don't think Obama is a Muslim though his father might have been. I have heard some rumblings that he may have a zipper problem and that it will all come out if he is the nominee but McCain was divorced (and remarried) and Rudy's personal life is a mess - am not saying this should or should not be a deciding factor but it will be talked about.

As for Hillary, I think the country would be better off if a presidential ticket didn't have a Bush or Clinton on it for the first time since 1976! Besides the number of Dems jumping in the race is astonishing (so far Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Vilsack, Kucinich and I bet Kerry and Sharpton will throw the hat into the ring as well.) I think a dark horse may emerge and I think it may be Gore. Besides it would pure theatre to see Gore and Hillary go after one another.

Karl


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> I think a dark horse may emerge and I think it may be Gore.


Tipper or Al?

If anything was proven in 2000 it's that Al Gore is a weak candidate. After eight years of a booming economy, and as VP the guy couldn't even win his home state. Rest assured the Democrats won't make that mistake again.


----------



## Armchair (Nov 12, 2006)

It is hard to see the America electing either a woman or a black man as President. I have feeling that the Democrats might play safe and choose someone more electable (i.e. white, male).


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

Armchair said:


> It is hard to see the America electing either a woman or a black man as President. I have feeling that the Democrats might play safe and choose someone more electable (i.e. white, male).


Exactly my thought.


----------



## clothesboy (Sep 19, 2004)

Never! I will not support a warmonger.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

While many names are presently being floated as potential candidates, were integrity to be considered a required character trait for candidacy, I regret to observe that, at this point, we would have no one to vote for! As I've said in the past, thank God for John McCain.


----------



## Doctor B (Sep 27, 2006)

Kav said:


> I don't want charisma, social agendas, a female or black president because 'it's time' or any other knee jerk dog and pony diversions because there is so little of true stubstance. We have critical issues and need quiet competancy.


And what if that person wasn't white, male or Christian, or a combination of any of the three?

Maybe it is time for leader who brings competency along with a different perspective and leadership style to the table. Whether America is ready for that, I don't know. I sincerely doubt it.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

We have the largest number of women serving in the Senate and House in history. Women have been governors and serve in presidential cabinets. They even enjoy access to military service to bolster their resumes. It is inevitable somedy we will elect a woman president. She may very well be Puerto Rican and a reformed Jew. If she meets my vote criteria I will of course vote for her. But Hilary and Osama do not.


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

I think more than anyone the people are tired of business as usual. They want an outsider to the system.

Good for Obama, bad for Hillary. Good for Edwards and Gulliani too perhaps.


----------



## Daywalker (Aug 21, 2005)

I would love to see either Obama or Clinton win the nomination. Either one would make for an easy landslide victory for my beloved GOP. However, I completely reject John McCain for the presidency. IMO, he would come to the forefront for the same reason as Bob Dole--because it is "his turn"--and with the same disastrous results. 

With all respect for McCain's time as a POW, there is nothing about him that recommends him for the job. Military service by itself does not qualify one to be commander-in-chief any more than having played baseball qualifies one to be a major league manager. That's why I have to laugh out loud when John Kerry starts spouting off about Iraq. He was a junior officer in a sea of junior officers who obtained their commissions by virtue of prior academic status, not because of their mastery of military strategy.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Armchair said:


> It is hard to see the America electing either a woman or a black man as President. I have feeling that the Democrats might play safe and choose someone more electable (i.e. white, male).


You do not understand Americans well then. They are absolutely bursting at the seams to elect a female or black person. Repubs thought that was going to be Colin Powell 10 years ago. Now the Dems figure they have a choice between Obama and Hillary.

The real secret is the first hispanic candidate is a shoe in due to electorial college voting and hispanic voters in certain states such as CA, NY, TX, and FL.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Hillary is going to be our first lady VP.
> 
> Prepare for Obama. Charisma and intelligence off the scale, and he's exactly what this country will need after eight years of relentless fear, terror and war mongering from Mr. Bush and the powers behind him.


Not going to happen. Hillary's ego won't let it. It's her prize or nothing.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> You do not understand Americans well then. They are absolutely bursting at the seams to elect a female or black person. Repubs thought that was going to be Colin Powell 10 years ago. Now the Dems figure they have a choice between Obama and Hillary.
> 
> The real secret is the first hispanic candidate is a shoe in due to electorial college voting and hispanic voters in certain states such as CA, NY, TX, and FL.


Agree, if the Dems were smart, they would nominate Richardson.

This is baring that the rumors re Richardson aren't true or aren't as bad as this link shows:

https://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/08/richardson_08.html

So Richardson could be in the same boat as with Rudy and Barack re the zipper problem...


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

Kav said:


> I don't want charisma, social agendas, a female or black president because 'it's time' or any other knee jerk dog and pony diversions because there is so little of true stubstance. We have critical issues and need quiet competancy.


Stop asking for substance. We need healing, we live in Oprah nation.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

clothesboy said:


> Never! I will not support a warmonger.


Dennis Kucinich needs you...


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Daywalker said:


> With all respect for McCain's time as a POW, there is nothing about him that recommends him for the job. Military service by itself does not qualify one to be commander-in-chief any more than having played baseball qualifies one to be a major league manager. That's why I have to laugh out loud when John Kerry starts spouting off about Iraq. He was a junior officer in a sea of junior officers who obtained their commissions by virtue of prior academic status, not because of their mastery of military strategy.


I don't think military strategy was the point as much as it was empathy with the people serving. I know in my work, publishers are not always drawn from the newsroom but from advertising, circulation and production departments. Naturally I see it as a plus when the person at the top has hands-on experience in my discipline, and I am extremely skeptical of those who don't because my experience is that it's unlikely they'll "get it" if they haven't been there. They sometimes have uninformed assumptions about the day-to-day realities and deliver ridiculous decrees. Having done time as a baseball writer in the early 1980s, too, I can tell you that the players are well aware of what kind of playing career a manager had and will assign him respect accordingly. Managers who were fringe players or minor-leaguers sometimes become extraordinary managers, but they face an uphill battle for respect initially.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Daywalker said:


> With all respect for McCain's time as a POW, there is nothing about him that recommends him for the job. Military service by itself does not qualify one to be commander-in-chief any more than having played baseball qualifies one to be a major league manager. That's why I have to laugh out loud when John Kerry starts spouting off about Iraq. He was a junior officer in a sea of junior officers who obtained their commissions by virtue of prior academic status, not because of their mastery of military strategy.


It is not just McCain's military service and it is certainly not the time he spent as a POW that commends his candidacy...it is his honesty, his abiding sense of integrity when things get challenging! Now there's a novel idea...an honest politician. Could it ever happen?


----------



## clothesboy (Sep 19, 2004)

JRR said:


> Dennis Kucinich needs you...


And we need him.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> This is one of those polls that calls out for the option to select more than one answer. I don't think she is the best candidate for the party, and I don't support her candidacy in the primaries. If she is the candidate I will definitely vote for her and work for her election. Like her husband, for whom I also campaigned, she is too conservative for me, but I assume that almost any candidate who gets the nomination of any major party will be. My biggest problem with her is that I don't think she can be elected, and the alternative put up by the Republican Party is bound to be immeasurably worse.


Sorry Jack, but this poll assumes the obvious will come to pass - Hillary is going to be the Democrat Party's nominee. So, you would vote "Yes; Definitely".

Obama *might* land a VP slot, but I doubt it. I'm thinking Hillary and General Wesley Clark or Governor Richardson is a better general election ticket. While it's tempting to think they need Obama to generate votes among blacks, they already have just about all they can get - the rest are idealistic conservatives.

Strategically, Hillary will win New York and California on her own. Then the Democrats just need to win Florida. To do so, all they need is a huge Richardson/hispanic turnout in south florida to overwelm the conservative central and northern part of the state or to split some of the military vote in the panhandle with Clark. Obama, while popular to many different groups nationwide, in Florida would only get 'the welfare/medicare vote' which the Dems already have locked-up in Florida such as the Al Gore / Lieberman ticket did. He probably helps in NY and Cali, but she doesn't need help there.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

eagle2250 said:


> It is not just McCain's military service and it is certainly not the time he spent as a POW that commends his candidacy...it is his honesty, his abiding sense of integrity when things get challenging! Now there's a novel idea...an honest politician. Could it ever happen?


No, and it never has.

Hopefully McCain will get the Republican nomination, because he doesn't stand a chance in a general election. At least not now. I mean, we're just coming off eight years of a president who insists bad policies are good, has no upper lip and an almost psychotically short temper. Judging from the last election, the American people (and especially independents, the ones who've been deciding elections for the last 20 years) certainly are not in the mood for more of the same.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> an almost psychotically short temper.


Do tell?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Are you asking about Bush or McCain? McCain's temper is legendary, and as for Bush, he's been diving off the delusional paranoid board for going on five years now, e.g.:


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Are you asking about Bush or McCain? McCain's temper is legendary, and as for Bush, he's been diving off the delusional paranoid board for going on five years now, e.g.:


THIS JUST IN: Bush cannot run again. You can stop bashing him in a "Will Hillary Be Prez?" thread now.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

I don't particularly care if the Democrats win or lose in '08, but if Hilary Clinton is anywhere near the ticket in Novermber of that year they are assured of losing. From a strategic point of view she's a disaster. The donkeys need to modify the "ABB" slogan from '04 to "ABC" in '08. As a Presidential candidate Hilary has few assets and numerous liabilities. She might very well make a capable and competent chief executive, but it's just not in the cards for her.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Are you asking about Bush or McCain? McCain's temper is legendary, and as for Bush, he's been diving off the delusional paranoid board for going on five years now, e.g.:


In the quoted context you were clearly talking about Bush. Since you can't be consistent from one post to the next should we call you sociopathic? 

And; you have pointed to a web article with an un-named source from Jun 2004 as evidence of 'psychosis' - Yours or his? LOL


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

JRR said:


> (Kav) Stop asking for substance. We need healing, we live in Oprah nation.


Healing is substance!

Oprah is to mushy for me!


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Joe Lieberman was so good masquerading as a Democrat why stop? I think he could pull off a Dustin Hoffman Tootsie cameo on Oprah and capture the League of woman Voters. Sad truth is few in this horserace will pass vetting regardless if they're a BlackBeauty, proven stud, dominant mare, have Bloodhorse geneology with a Hermes halter or actually pulled a caisson. Most will break down, fade in the stretch or watch some unknown from the pack beat them by a nose. Track condition; wet and muddy, a prolonged sandstorm or a sunny day with a fair wind will also have an influence. And with so many bet makers never even attending the actual race anymore but watching on paramutual video a Georgia mule off a peanut farm could win.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

Assuming Clinton is the nominee, and is at all like her husband, I can't imagine she'd take Obama as a VP. I see her choosing a white male who is relatively safe and possibly no desire to run for president. The Clintons seem to be more into appearing to be Presidential/Senatorial than actually being Presidential/Senatorial. Hillary Clinton as president could not stand for someone that draws as much attention as Obama drawing that attention away from her.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

I lost respect for McCain when he let Shrub use him as a total tool during the 2004 election. I can only believe Rove had someone close to McCain chained to a water pipe in Dick Cheney's undisclosed location. 

These days, Chuck Hegel's looking like the real democrat, at least on Iraq.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Tipper or Al?
> 
> If anything was proven in 2000 it's that Al Gore is a weak candidate. After eight years of a booming economy, and as VP the guy couldn't even win his home state. Rest assured the Democrats won't make that mistake again.


Don't count out Al Gore just yet. If _An Inconvenient Truth_ does well at the award shows, it may bring him some much needed publicity.


----------



## beatngu (Jan 31, 2006)

I would not vote for her due to the fact many women that have power, kill something with it!(such as a SUV) I would not vote just any black male or female due to the thought process that all blacks seem to have is that they are all being opressed.(i mean no racism to those who dont think this) Martin luther king would have been a good president, he would make everything equal and not more for one side than the other and call it 50/50. Of course, there are white males i wouldnt want as pres. either, such as michael jackson or chuck norris.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

beatngu said:


> I would not vote for her due to the fact many women that have power, kill something with it!(such as a SUV) I would not vote just any black male or female due to the thought process that all blacks seem to have is that they are all being opressed.(i mean no racism to those who dont think this) Martin luther king would have been a good president, he would make everything equal and not more for one side than the other and call it 50/50. Of course, there are white males i wouldnt want as pres. either, such as michael jackson or *chuck norris*.


You may change your mind after a roundhouse kick.


----------



## beatngu (Jan 31, 2006)

LOL! yeah, that would make my head explode! But you know who else does roundhouse kicks? King from art of fighting.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Clothesboy,

You have to be the only person in America who takes Kucinich seriously. Last time around his website touted an "endorsement" from Grandfather Forest, a fictional character. Surely you can't be so out of touch to seriously consider Kucinich.

Karl


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Clothesboy,
> 
> You have to be the only person in America who takes Kucinich seriously. Last time around his website touted an "endorsement" from Grandfather Forest, a fictional character. Surely you can't be so out of touch to seriously consider Kucinich.
> 
> Karl


at least one other person really likes him ...


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> You do not understand Americans well then. They are absolutely bursting at the seams to elect a female or black person.


A lot of Americans are, yes. But a lot of Americans aren't. And a lot of people change their minds.

A large section of the French population are bursting at the seams to elect a woman, but it will be very remarkable indeed if she wins.


----------



## Armchair (Nov 12, 2006)

Laxplayer said:


> Don't count out Al Gore just yet. If _An Inconvenient Truth_ does well at the award shows, it may bring him some much needed publicity.


As much as I would like to see him in the White House, I can't imagine him getting nominated. He has the stigma of losing a presidential race (a 'loser' if you like) plus I think some people see him as a one issue crackpot.


----------



## Daywalker (Aug 21, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> You do not understand Americans well then. They are absolutely bursting at the seams to elect a female or black person.


And that is the problem with the electorate in this country. They base their vote on just about anything BUT qualifications. We are a society driven by emotions and feelings that usually get in the way of doing the right thing.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

I said I would not vote for Clinton, which is not surprising as I am a registered Republican. What is surprising, is that most of the life-long Democrats in my family (including my mother and step-father) will also not vote for Clinton. They literally cannot stand her. Many of these Democrats have said that they would vote for McCain over Hillary. I know a few others have said that McCain is unelectable, but his crossover appeal may make him electable. If you subscribe to Rove's beliefs that there are no crossover voters, or that crossover voters do not matter, then maybe you have a justification for believing that McCain cannot be elected. However, you then have the problem of explaining what happened to Rove's "permanent Republican majority".

Bush had some of the lowest popularity ratings of any sitting president, and Kerry lost to him by more popular votes than Bill Clinton ever won with. Anyone who couldn't beat Bush in 04 needs to just hang it up.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

agnash said:


> I said I would not vote for Clinton, which is not surprising as I am a registered Republican. What is surprising, is that most of the life-long Democrats in my family (including my mother and step-father) will also not vote for Clinton. They literally cannot stand her.


This is precisely what I was talking about in my earlier post. Outside of her fairly narrow constituency, Hilary inspires an intense, sometimes irrational, hatred among many, if not most, voters. The math is fairly simple: Virtually everyone who voted for George Bush in 04 - well, those who haven't died or otherwise removed themselves from the electorate - will not vote for Hilary, and a significant number who voted for Kerry also would not vote for her - which might open the door for a strong third-party candidate if one shows up. This will not change no matter how much money is pumped into HC's campaign. She is a known commodity and nothing she is going to say or do in the next 22 months will sway many voters one way or the other. She's a dead bang loser, and if she is nominated one may presume that the Democrats are tanking the election.


----------



## NewYorkBuck (May 6, 2004)

As if it matters. Democrat/Republican/Facist/Communist. Go to any country in any political system. No matter what good intentions one starts with, every one of the them are in it for two reasons - for themselves and their friends. If they weren't, they would not have made it as far as they did. I think Hillary would murder her own daughter to be president, never mind her "husband." She is in it for herself and the people who can help her. So is Bush. So are they all.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

And I was worried that /I/ was getting too cynical in my old age.



NewYorkBuck said:


> As if it matters. Democrat/Republican/Facist/Communist. Go to any country in any political system. No matter what good intentions one starts with, every one of the them are in it for two reasons - for themselves and their friends. If they weren't, they would not have made it as far as they did. I think Hillary would murder her own daughter to be president, never mind her "husband." She is in it for herself and the people who can help her. So is Bush. So are they all.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Lushington said:


> This is precisely what I was talking about in my earlier post. Outside of her fairly narrow constituency, Hilary inspires an intense, sometimes irrational, hatred among many, if not most, voters. The math is fairly simple: Virtually everyone who voted for George Bush in 04 - well, those who haven't died or otherwise removed themselves from the electorate - will not vote for Hilary, and a significant number who voted for Kerry also would not vote for her - which might open the door for a strong third-party candidate if one shows up. This will not change no matter how much money is pumped in HC's campaign. She is a known commodity and nothing she is going to say or do in the next 22 months will sway many voters one way or the other. She's a dead bang loser, and if she is nominated one may presume that the Democrats are tanking the election.


In my state, one of the papers did a statewide poll in late 2002 and she was the runaway winner -- wasn't even close. Certainly she is a polarizing figure and millions of people hate her, but she has very strong support and will be a formidable opponent for anyone.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I am telling you guys, Hillary is a shoe in if she wins the primaries. As of this moment, the only cloud on her horizon is if Oprah backs Obama and he does not have any skeletons in his closet. If Oprah backs Barry, he will be Prez. I do not see the Repubs winning the Whitehouse and I am already trying to figure out where I will cut my spending to afford the big, ripping, painful tax hike I am about to get. I can only speak for myself, but I am calculating a 20-40% decrease in my disposable income. All that means is that I, and people like me, will fuel the economy less.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

crs said:


> In my state, one of the papers did a statewide poll in late 2002 and she was the runaway winner -- wasn't even close. Certainly she is a polarizing figure and millions of people hate her, but she has very strong support and will be a formidable opponent for anyone.


I don't doubt this, but I would note that this was before the war and her support for it. Running as a peace candidate now will be seen as transparent opportunism; and if she takes no antiwar position, or a lukewarm position - who needs her? Personally, I don't think she has a chance if she is nominated, particularly once the "right-wing noise machine" kicks into high gear, funded by a $400 - $500 million war chest. I could be wrong, but I think not. In the long run, of course, New York Buck is correct.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

The always worth reading Andrew Sullivan on Hillary:

https://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,29449-2557635,00.html

The Sunday Times January 21, 2007

It's hard to hate entirely reasonable Hillary
Andrew Sullivan

Among my many guilty pleasures - bad reality television, solitary nose excavation, the Fox News Channel - hating Hillary Clinton was once near the top of the list. The senator from New York somehow managed to arouse every one of my love-to-hate zones. 
She was a self-righteous feminist (boo) who married her way to power (double-plus-boo). She wanted to turn American medicine into the National Health Service (grrr) and all her friends were wealthy lawyers (triple eye-roll). She was Lady Macbeth when she wasn't some goo-goo liberal ideologue.

There were as many ways to despise her as she had hairstyles. Then we even got to hate her hairstyles as well. One of my most treasured moments editing The New Republic in the 1990s was publishing a cover story by Camille Paglia on Hillary called "Ice Queen, Drag Queen". Ah, those were the days.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

President Hilary? Only if these two things happen:

Satan is seen in the local Wal-mart buying rock salt and;

Pigs are fitted with radar transponders so they can be tracked by air traffic control.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

*Litmus Test*

Perhaps we need a litmus test to determine the validity of our opinions. Obviously, there are some people who will vote for any Democrat, regardless of who is on the ticket, just because the person is a Democrat. There are also Republicans who are also so bound to ideology that they cannot think for themselves, and will vote for any Republican.

So, this is a question for people who have actually voted for both Republicans and Democrats, with maybe a Green or a Libertarian thrown in: do any of you think that Hillary can win? It doesn't count if you can only bring yourself to vote one extreme (Democrat/Green), or the other (Republican/Libertarian).

For myself, I admit that I have voted Republican, Democrat, and Libertarian at multiple governmental levels, including the presidency, and I do not think Hillary can win.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I vote Democrat sometimes and Republican sometimes. I don't know if Hillary can win. I fear she may be able to.

I think she's way too confident in herself almost the way Bush is. Granted, she's at least smarter than he is. (My boss's two year old grandson may be smarter than Bush is and he frequently behaves better.)

I don't want Hillary. When she gets in, her liberal gloves will be really damaging the country if the Congress remains Democratic.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

I would not wager money on her chances to win. However, I would not wager money on her chances to lose, either. She would put up a good fight, but given the close results in the past two presidential elections, close isn't good enough.

I don't think there is reason to worry about radical changes. No matter who wins, the president's No. 1 agenda will be winning a second term.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

crs said:


> I would not wager money on her chances to win. However, I would not wager money on her chances to lose, either. She would put up a good fight, but given the close results in the past two presidential elections, close isn't good enough.
> 
> *I don't think there is reason to worry about radical changes. No matter who wins, the president's No. 1 agenda will be winning a second term.*


Sadly, this is true.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

The Green party is sadly spent with a core base of perhaps 3-6% of the vote it started with. I doubt Ralph, who used the Greens much like Buchannan the Perotists will make another bid. Howard 'scream' Dean did his work all well and was rewarded with the DNC chair. The Libertarians likewise have a core base but have not expanded. So it's a wash, Democrats and Republicans both can ignore the issues third parties traditionaly bring to the national consciousness and go back to dirty business as usual. And in spite of a Clinton or Bush seeming to be the antichrist we are still here 8 years after their best efforts to make Ameria one big FUBAR. If we can discuss a future woman president, or Black or non Christian ( like any of these characters are caste from the same garden St Francis of Assissi mold) lets go all the way.Das Arnold has a huge campaign chest. Lets really make things a true plurality and let naturalised citizens in the mix. Think of it, a catholic, republican Kennedy who speaks with a better accent than Kissinger, has all his wild movie sexual harrassment days preaired, talks of both Global warming and business. he does favour solid ties, but it's a start.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

Now...normally I'd say no...but...I've basically resigned myself to the fact that we'll have to put up with a Dem in the white house in 08...and the prospect of _president obama_ is a little too frightening...if by chance it came down to the two of them for the Dem nomination...I'd rather see Hillary get it than that fugazi...


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

The Gabba Goul said:


> Now...normally I'd say no...but...I've basically resigned myself to the fact that we'll have to put up with a Dem in the white house in 08...and the prospect of _president obama_ is a little too frightening...if by chance it came down to the two of them for the Dem nomination...I'd rather see Hillary get it than that fugazi...


Damned of you do, Damned if you don't...:devil:


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

yachtie said:


> Damned of you do, Damned if you don't...:devil:


Seriously...

I just hope the GOP is abloe to present a candidate who can put up enough of a fight to possibly win this thing...


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

The Gabba Goul said:


> Now...normally I'd say no...but...I've basically resigned myself to the fact that we'll have to put up with a Dem in the white house in 08...and the prospect of _president obama_ is a little too frightening...if by chance it came down to the two of them for the Dem nomination...I'd rather see Hillary get it than that *fugazi*...


Great band though.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> Great band though.


Are they still around???


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

The Gabba Goul said:


> Now...normally I'd say no...but...I've basically resigned myself to the fact that we'll have to put up with a Dem in the white house in 08...and the prospect of _president obama_ is a little too frightening...if by chance it came down to the two of them for the Dem nomination...I'd rather see Hillary get it than that fugazi...


That's the third or fourth sideswipe at Obama in this thread, and so far no one has offered a rational reason (in fact _any_ reason) for the animosity and fear.

Do you know anything about Obama? Do you know his position on any issue?

Just from the outside it looks like fear based on skin color and nothing else.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

For me, it's his lack of any experience. However, those of us who are determined to see racism in any criticism of any person in the minority will see it no matter what.

Have at me. I know I'm not a racist. I will not respond to you.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Ok, but that's a good illustration of what I'm talking about. Lack of any experience? The man is a U.S. senator. From Illinois no less, not one of those wacky coastal blue states.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Ok, but that's a good illustration of what I'm talking about. Lack of any experience? The man is a U.S. senator. From Illinois no less, not one of those wacky coastal blue states.


How does being a Senator qualify him or anyone else to be President? Senator is not an executive position. What do you think a Senator does exactly?

I do not support any of the Senators: Clinton, Obama, Biden, McCain. I will say that at least Biden and McCain have been Chariman of committees before, that is *some* experience. And; McCain was an officer in the Navy.

I think a person should at least have held a cabinet level position (preferably Sec. of State or Defense) or been a Governor or CEO before trying to be President.

Prove yourself faithful in small(er) things, before you are handed the keys to the kingdom.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Do you know anything about Obama? Do you know his position on any issue?


And *that* is what makes Mr. Obama electable.

I think it was mentioned here that the longer a person resides in the Senate, that less of a chance he (or she) has of being elected President.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> That's the third or fourth sideswipe at Obama in this thread, and so far no one has offered a *rational reason *(in fact _any_ reason) for the animosity and fear.
> 
> Do you know anything about Obama? Do you know his position on any issue?
> 
> Just from the outside *it looks like fear based on skin color and nothing else.*


There is an old saying: What Jack has to say about Jill, often says more about Jack than it does Jill. So I am always leery of people inferring racism where none seems to exist.

I have no animosity for Barry. I wish I had gone to Ponahou, Harvard Law School and been President of the Law Review. My only fear, and it is quite rational, is the lad shall raise my taxes.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> That's the third or fourth sideswipe at Obama in this thread, and so far no one has offered a rational reason (in fact _any_ reason) for the animosity and fear.
> 
> Do you know anything about Obama? Do you know his position on any issue?
> 
> Just from the outside it looks like fear based on skin color and nothing else.


We had a 6 page thread before where no one listed one single reason Obama would make a good President. Now you are complaining someone took a swipe at him? Start making your case ...


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

ksinc said:


> We had a 6 page thread before where no one listed one single reason Obama would make a good President. Now you are complaining someone took a swipe at him? Start making your case ...


seriously...the whole _"you just dont like him because he's black"_ angle is already getting more than a little tired...I'm not against the idea of a black president, but he has to be qualified, and mr Obama is not...I mean if this keeps up what's his campaign slogan going to be???

OBAMA 08
_If you dont vote for me, then you're a racist..._​
I doubt that'll get it...


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

at least this guy has a *real* resume'

Before becoming Governor, Bill Richardson served in Congress for 15 years, and served as the Ambassador to the UN and Secretary of the Department of Energy. He has been nominated four times for the Nobel Peace Prize for his leadership and success in promoting diplomacy and securing the release of hostages in numerous hot spots around the world.

https://billrichardson2006.com/about/bill/


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

It's confirmed, I just looked outside my window and the sky is blue in California, though there are some grey areas and in Orange County your better red than dead. The Silverlake district is rainbow and Humbolt Green. Obami won Kenobi is from Hawaii. If I understand my rabid right republican shooting buddie's email correctly, His biggest issue with the rumour mill is schooling in islam overseas with a 2 year veneer of catholic school. Obama is alleged a closet muslim, a situation only Barney Frank will have the manhood to explain is wrong and self defeating. All these folks are just the opening act. The Tickets have others printed as headliners when the light show ends.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

The Gabba Goul said:


> seriously...the whole _"you just dont like him because he's black"_ angle is already getting more than a little tired...I'm not against the idea of a black president, but he has to be qualified, and mr Obama is not.....


This is lame. I care nothing for Senator Obama, but the "qualifications" objection won't wash. The only "qualifications" for the presidency under Article II are that a candidate must be a natural born citizen, 35 years of age, and a resident of the US for the previous 14 years. Aside from these, what are the "qualifications" for the presidency, other than the obvious willingness to use the powers of the office to enrich one benefactors? Given that The President is head of state, as well as head of government, one would think that fluency of speech would be a skill that all holders of the office must possess. However, we know from hard experience that few Oval Ones in recent decades could claim even this minimal "qualification." Some of the most "qualified" Presidents have been among the most disappointing: Hoover and Carter leap immediately to mind, probably Johnson, Nixon, the elder Bush as well. From where I sit, Obama looks as "qualified" as any other candidate. Whether or not he will parlay his qualifications into a successful run for his party's nomination, or for the office itself, remains to be seen.


----------



## giff74 (Jan 15, 2007)

Rudy would be great!

McCain would be good!

Obama is fine.

Richardson is OK.

But Hillary never!!!!!!

She could never carry the country in the general anyway, you would have a replay of the last time around. She is so polarizing it is just silly. If I ran the DNC I would ask her to step aside now for some silly reason, she needs to spend more time with Bill or something equally believing. The woman is despised by conservatives, that is a given, but she is hated by the entire middle of the country. Give her New York, California and the Northeast that is not enough to win. She has no charisma and is simply not likeable in any way!

Just to be clear I am not bashing Dems here, just Hillary. However, in case she wins I have already booked passage to Canada. I just want to get a head start on the skills I will need in navigating Socialism. 

This race is going to suck, I cant believe they are going in full force already. I dont think I can tolerate two years of this stuff all over the TV, radio and internet. Guess we will have plenty to talk about.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

NewYorkBuck said:


> I think Hillary would murder her own daughter to be president, never mind her "husband."


This is presumably based on the fact that she already had Vince Foster killed, and her husband had Ron Brown rubbed out?


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

Lushington said:


> This is lame. I care nothing for Senator Obama, but the "qualifications" objection won't hold water. The only "qualifications" for the presidency under Article II are that a candidate must be a natural born citizen, 35 years of age, and resident in the US for the past 14 years. Aside from these, what are the "qualifications" for the presidency, besides the obvious willingness to use the powers of the office to enrich one benefactors? Given that The President is head of state, as well as head of government, one would think that fluency of speech would be a skill that all holders of the office must possess. However, we know from hard experience that few Oval Ones in recent decades could claim even this minimal "qualification." Some of the most "qualified" Presidents have been among the most disappointing: Hoover and Carter leap immediately to mind, probably Johnson, Nixon, the elder Bush as well. From where I sit, Obama looks as "qualified" as any other candidate. Whether or not he will parlay his qualifications into a successful run for his party's nomination or the office itself remains to be seen.


Okaaaay???

_credentials_???

...perhaps that's a better term to use???


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

agnash said:


> Perhaps we need a litmus test to determine the validity of our opinions. Obviously, there are some people who will vote for any Democrat, regardless of who is on the ticket, just because the person is a Democrat. There are also Republicans who are also so bound to ideology that they cannot think for themselves, and will vote for any Republican.
> 
> So, this is a question for people who have actually voted for both Republicans and Democrats, with maybe a Green or a Libertarian thrown in: do any of you think that Hillary can win? It doesn't count if you can only bring yourself to vote one extreme (Democrat/Green), or the other (Republican/Libertarian).
> 
> For myself, I admit that I have voted Republican, Democrat, and Libertarian at multiple governmental levels, including the presidency, and I do not think Hillary can win.


I think she could win if the Republican nominee is a TOTAL LAME-O. But I mostly believe that she is too polarizing and is disliked by too many Americans of both main parties for various different reasons. You see it in this thread - she's too liberal, she's not liberal enough.


----------



## giff74 (Jan 15, 2007)

VS said:


> she's too liberal, she's not liberal enough.


Hillary is the very definition of Liberal! Saying she is not liberal enough is like saying George Dubya isn't a bumpkin, and I like Dubya.


----------



## Briguy (Aug 29, 2005)

If the vote came down to Hugo Chavez or Hillary, it would be a tough choice, but Hugo would get my vote. At least he is honest about his socialist views and he is quite the snappy dresser. Hillary, on the other hand, well, is neither honest nor as well dressed.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Stop being silly. I'm not sure I'd vote for her, but this hyperbole is nutty.

The National Journal has ranked her a 30 (most liberal being 1, least 100), while the Almanac of American Politics has her at 68 (100 being most liberal, and apparently the "social" dimension, one of three they ranked, was what boosted the score; her economic views were ranked near the middle of the pack, so you'll still be able to afford a Hermes now and again even if she's elected). Recent Gallup poll has 54% calling her liberal, 30% calling her moderate and 9% calling her conservative.

Again, I'm not endorsing her per se, just calling for a little perspective. I mean, Chavez. C'mon people.



Briguy said:


> If the vote came down to Hugo Chavez or Hillary, it would be a tough choice, but Hugo would get my vote. At least he is honest about his socialist views and he is quite the snappy dresser. Hillary, on the other hand, well, is neither honest nor as well dressed.


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

Conclusions published in today's The Independent (UK):



Is America ready to elect a woman president?

Yes...

* Hillary has the money, the name recognition, and the ability

* Thanks to the Iraq war and public disillusion with Bush, 2008 looks a great year for Democrats

* Nasty surprises can be ruled out: Hillary has been under the political microscope for 15 years

No...

* Too many Americans say they would not vote for Senator Clinton under any circumstances

* Obama is the new; Hillary simply looks old hat by comparison

* Whatever the claims to the contrary, a woman president is a bridge too far for American voters


----------



## Armchair (Nov 12, 2006)

Rich said:


> Conclusions published in today's The Independent (UK):
> 
> Is America ready to elect a woman president?
> 
> ...


So the conclusion is that they don't know.


----------



## Briguy (Aug 29, 2005)

Hillary crafted a plan to nationalize the healthcare system in the US. Her plan would have made it illegal to provide medical services outside of the state system. I don't see the difference between nationalizing health care and nationalizing oil and telecommunications as Chavez is doing. Hillary is a socialist and on this basis alone I will never vote for her.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

This is an overstatement of the facts. I think she's moved considerably from her original proposition in the 1990s. She's even worked with Newt Gingrich recently on proposals for incremental healthcare reforms that mix private and public players.

From the beginning she never got behind a single-payer plan, as it wouldn't fly politically.



Briguy said:


> Hillary crafted a plan to nationalize the healthcare system in the US. Her plan would have made it illegal to provide medical services outside of the state system. I don't see the difference between nationalizing health care and nationalizing oil and telecommunications as Chavez is doing. Hillary is a socialist and on this basis alone I will never vote for her.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

BertieW said:


> From the beginning she never got behind a single-payer plan, as it wouldn't fly politically.


Your statement says it all. She believes in a single payer system. Her only impediment is its political, not the economic, infeasability.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

I live in New Jersey. How come on this poll I get to vote only once?


----------



## clothesboy (Sep 19, 2004)

Karl89 said:


> Clothesboy,
> 
> You have to be the only person in America who takes Kucinich seriously. Last time around his website touted an "endorsement" from Grandfather Forest, a fictional character. Surely you can't be so out of touch to seriously consider Kucinich.
> 
> Karl


Karl,


A politician with the character to point out it is wrong to start a war and the integrity to say this to a nation in high bloodlust, I've got to agree with you. The pool of voters who will be attracted to someone with character and integrity is too small for him to be taken seriously.

On the other hand, if he trafficked in the fantasies de jour: WMD, WMD as a causi belli, it's not about oil, surge, there would be nothing worth supporting.

Peace.

Almost forgot welcomed as liberators.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

THeres no chance i me voting for Obama, so I wouldn't exactly say this is in defense of him. But everyone keeps talking about experience, has anyone provided any proof that experience correlates with success in regards to being president. Obama's resumes seems no worse than Reagan's in my opinion Harvard Law, Heading the Harvard Law review, compared to a 
B-list actor.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Reagan was also governor of California prior to his election. But I agree with your point.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jpeirpont said:


> Obama's resumes seems no worse than Reagan's in my opinion Harvard Law, Heading the Harvard Law review, compared to a B-list actor.





FrankDC said:


> Reagan was also governor of California prior to his election. But I agree with your point.


Shame, Shame, Shame on you two!

Reagan was smart. Hello, he *acted* like a dummy on purpose. If you would read something and educate yourself on tactics you would know one of the greatest advantages comes from being underestimated or as W would say mis-underestimated. Where do you think W got that bit of strategy? From his old man? Nope. From the Man.

FYI: Reagan had a photographic memory. What other presidents had that gift? Reagan studied economics. I think the only previous president to do so was Kennedy (at the London School no less). This is why they were in agreement on tax and fiscal policies. I know it hurts to realize that. If you look back at the problem(s) created by President Carter they were largely economic - inflation.

Reagan also studied sociology and although Reagan worked in film while in the military he was a Captain. Reagan understood people and leadership. He was an experienced leader that honed his skills in the movie trade unions. He served six terms as president of the Screen Actors Guild and two terms as president of the Motion Picture Industry Council.

Reagan was far more than a b-list actor. Reagan was a leading man in Hollywood and made 53 feature films. He also moved into television in the early 50s working in production and hosted a television show.

As Governor, Reagan had managed the State, and the California economy well which is rather like a country's. After Reagan retired from Governor, he had a sindicated radio show and newspaper column and gave speeches on government, business, and economics. He articulated a clear vision and was a unique and loud voice for change - renewal of conservative values of low taxes, a strong military, and business growth.

You can try to marginalize the man, you can call him names, you can denigrate him, you can try everything, but the TRUTH and the FACTS are Reagan was a great man, a smart man, an educated man, a qualified man, a visionary man, and A GREAT AND CHARISMATIC LEADER!

Even if none of that were true his 'microphone accident' with "the bombing begins in five minutes" made millions of liberals and their comrade communists pee their pants. Which alone makes him the most effective president in our times.

Long live the King! Ronaldus Maximus Forever!

I think Harvard Law and Harvard Law Review is an excellent resume for a Senator. Certainly Obama is qualified to be a Senator. However, I am still waiting for an answer to the question: how does being a Senator prepare one for an executive position like President of the United States? Taking a detour to some Reagan-Revisionism isn't answer to the question and is very obvious.



> Originally Posted by FrankDC
> Ok, but that's a good illustration of what I'm talking about. Lack of any experience? The man is a U.S. senator. From Illinois no less, not one of those wacky coastal blue states.





> Originally Posted by KSINC:
> How does being a Senator qualify him or anyone else to be President? Senator is not an executive position. What do you think a Senator does exactly?
> 
> I do not support any of the Senators: Clinton, Obama, Biden, McCain. I will say that at least Biden and McCain have been Chariman of committees before, that is *some* experience. And; McCain was an officer in the Navy.
> ...


FTR Reagan met this bar, Obama does not. Harvard Law Review while an enviable accomplishment does not equal Governor of the largest economy. Sorry.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I did not like Reagan at the time, but I have to concede he was good for getting the country off the horrid track it was on. I never thought Reagan played "dumb." He spoke in a way that was easy for everyone to understand. He made it acceptable to speak up for a lot of traditional values.

He had some "oopses." I'm still not convinced about the Supply Side economics. The whole Iran Contra thing was a bumbling mess, too. All in all, he was good.

I don't think Bush can be compared with him. Bush butchers the language because he does not know it well. I also get no real sense of deeply felt values from Bush.

With Reagan, you knew where he really stood and why. 

I get the feeling that Bush has no real beliefs and really has not thought out a lot of things.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I never thought Reagan played "dumb." He spoke in a way that was easy for everyone to understand. He made it acceptable to speak up for a lot of traditional values.


Obviously, he didn't play dumb when giving a speech. That would be pointless. Reagan 'accidentally' did a lot of things that perpetuated he was not managing day-to-day and was only the 'front man for the band'; like falling asleep in meetings, the microphone 'accident', forgetting his coat when meeting Gorbachev for the first time, etc., etc. that if not all planned, some certainly were. His media team perpetuated a myth that he was all show and no substance to their advantage. Certainly, time after time he proved quick-witted and articulate, but liberals wanted to believe their first impression of him which he masterfully created and consistently nurished. No one said liberals were wise.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Does anyone else find it interesting that in the last few decades usually a Dem president is portrayed in the media as being very intelligent while Repubs are portrayed in the opposite fashion? Ford? Stupid, clumsy jock (how you can be clumsy and an excellent football player is beyond me). Reagan = senile. Dubya = stupid puppet. Clinton? BRILLIANT! Smartest president ever. Carter? Thoughtful man of peace.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Does anyone else find it interesting that in the last few decades usually a Dem president is portrayed in the media as being very intelligent while Repubs are portrayed in the opposite fashion? Ford? Stupid, clumsy jock (how you can be clumsy and an excellent football player is beyond me). Reagan = senile. Dubya = stupid puppet. Clinton? BRILLIANT! Smartest president ever. Carter? Thoughtful man of peace.


Bush I wasn't portrayed as stupid. Carter was portrayed as a bit of a bumpkin at the time, the peanut farmer with the drunken-slob brother, and, oh, a man running for president wants to be called _Jimmy?_; he gets more respect now than he did then.

I think your recollection of history is a bit off.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> Bush I wasn't portrayed as stupid. Carter was portrayed as a bit of a bumpkin at the time, the peanut farmer with the drunken-slob brother, and, oh, a man running for president wants to be called _Jimmy?_; he gets more respect now than he did then.
> 
> I think your recollection of history is a bit off.


crs, first, I agree, Bush I was not portrayed as stupid (he was portrayed negatively in other ways). That is the exact reason I stipulated "usually". Second, I was very young during the Carter years, as in grade school. I was basing Carter off his last decade or so of press, which is indeed quite respectful. In fact, I was listening to NPR this morning when he was given a soap box to explain why the term "aparteid" should not be offensive to Israel.

So nice try on Bush I, I'll give you the 76-80 years for Carter as coodies were much more meaningful to me in Canada than the US President was. And as for recent press, you have already agreed Jimmy gets respect. I mean Nobel Peace Prize? Argue that.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I usually disparage Bush's intelligence when I criticize him. I think he is an average guy at best in a position that calls for a lot more. I get this impression whenever I see him speak or joke around like a spoiled frat boy.

This may not be fair.

My bigger problem is that I see no core of belief that he feels. I know what he pretends to stand for. I don't know what he stands for. The lack of any major intellect makes my problem a lot more obvious, at least to me.

I really dislike both extremes, though. Rush Limbaugh and Al Sharpton do equal amounts of damage to our society. (Okay, maybe Al is a little bit more with how he aims some of the demagoguery, but they both do a lot of damage.)


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

On the contrary, I find Bush to be someone of very deep conviction, granted not everyone agrees with this. On the major issue of our time he has not vacillated. Even with his presidency on the line in 2004 and amid mounting criticism. 

I know he's not the best speaker but I still find his substantive. He's had to overcome many personal demons and I would say that he is a rare breed that knows himself well and can therefore stand firm.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

One last time, as a Californian who self labels myself Liberal on the majority of issues, centrist on some and rabid right wing on others ( I have my Lifetime NRA membership badge right next to EARTH FIRST! ) I VOTED FOR RONNIE- twice. As I told in an anecdote, I met the man as a child. He was a part of my parent's and grandparent's world, a known quality of character even if some of his policies caused great debate later. Ron was a serving reserve officer BEFORE hostilities and his talents were used where needed, not like the famous 'San Pedro Navy' manned by many Hollywood actors. I'm really getting tired of this red/blue, them/us pidgeonholing. Anyone ever look inside a pidgeonhole? it's full of...........


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> crs, first, I agree, Bush I was not portrayed as stupid (he was portrayed negatively in other ways). That is the exact reason I stipulated "usually". Second, I was very young during the Carter years, as in grade school. I was basing Carter off his last decade or so of press, which is indeed quite respectful. In fact, I was listening to NPR this morning when he was given a soap box to explain why the term "aparteid" should not be offensive to Israel.
> 
> So nice try on Bush I, I'll give you the 76-80 years for Carter as coodies were much more meaningful to me in Canada than the US President was. And as for recent press, you have already agreed Jimmy gets respect. I mean Nobel Peace Prize? Argue that.


So what? It's not like Carter was treated with respect when he needed it. It's not as if he's seeking office now. Ford and Reagan also were treated better some time after leaving office.

The nation became increasingly cynical during the Nixon years and no president was spared. It may seem to you that Republicans were picked on, but there have been only two Democrats in office post-Nixon and neither were treated kindly while they were in office. Your attempt to assign bias just doesn't cut it. Each of them took his lumps in some way. It's not my fault you were too young to remember Carter's tenure; you brought him up. During his presidency there even was a sit-com called "Carter Country" that mocked the simpletons of a town approximating where the president grew up.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> Your attempt to assign bias just doesn't cut it.


crs, about the only person that posts here that would call this an "attempt" is you. We all know you will defend the absolute objectivity of the media until your dying breath. The only one being fooled here is you. I guess you'll just have to chalk up another one of those instances where "this is Wayfarer's opinion, my word is fact" and move on. I have to say, I wish I was as blindly positive about my industry as you are of yours.

Regards


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Does anyone else find it interesting that in the last few decades usually a Dem president is portrayed in the media as being very intelligent while Repubs are portrayed in the opposite fashion? Ford? Stupid, clumsy jock (how you can be clumsy and an excellent football player is beyond me). Reagan = senile. Dubya = stupid puppet. Clinton? BRILLIANT! Smartest president ever. Carter? Thoughtful man of peace.


Well, the simple fact is both Carter and Clinton are highly intelligent men. Carter is easily one of the most intelligent men to ever hold the office. He was a very poor speaker, as have been most recent Presidents, and his television appearances were usually disasters, as he frequently glared into the camera and barked at the nation. Later, Jimmy's handlers tried to get him to tone it down by sitting him in an armchair, dressing him in a cardigan, and presenting him as a Mr. Rogers-like avuncular figure. That failed miserably. However, his unusual intelligence and powers of persuasion in private were much noted at the time. Cater did, after all, broker a lasting peace treaty between Israel and Egypt while dealing with Begin and Sadat; this was no small accomplishment, notwithstanding some of the dubious aspects of this treaty. Clinton _is_ a brilliant fellow and an exceptionally gifted politician. On the other hand, Ford was not intellectually gifted, nor was Reagan, and Reagan probably was in the early stages of Alzheimer's when he took office. Bush I is shrewd enough, but of Bush II . . . silence is perhaps the best comment. Dick Nixon, on the other hand, was a very intelligent man, as sharp as they come; and Ike was nobody's fool, despite his ungentle way with the Mother Tongue. So it's a mixed bag. It seems clear that exceptional intelligence is neither a prequisite for the office nor a predictor of success in the office once it is attained.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Lushington said:


> However, his unusual intelligence and powers of persuasion in private were much noted at the time...but of Bush II . . . silence is perhaps the best comment.


I do not know, there have been multiple reports from people close to Dubya that in private _his_ high intelligence is shown. I believe that ex-speech writer of his that wrote a not too positive book about him even stated this. I do agree though, Dubya's public speaking ability is painful at best and the smartest move his handlers could make would be to gag him. It is hard to tell at this distance who really is and is not intelligent. Even Clinton; while I agree he comes off as very smart, I am not too sure. I have known several people that were very well spoken, highly charismatic, but when cornered, not as intelligent as one would expect. True he was a Rhode's scholar but so was Kris Kristopherson and liberals are usually the first to tell us scholastics really do not measure IQ well, so go figure.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> crs, about the only person that posts here that would call this an "attempt" is you. We all know you will defend the absolute objectivity of the media until your dying breath. The only one being fooled here is you. I guess you'll just have to chalk up another one of those instances where "this is Wayfarer's opinion, my word is fact" and move on. I have to say, I wish I was as blindly positive about my industry as you are of yours.
> 
> Regards


That is a weaseling way of avoiding the facts I just presented. You are simply uninformed on this topic.

The "bias" thing has gotten old. The people who beat this drum are so biased themselves that they couldn't possibly recognize objectivity. On another thread we have a poster trying to assign bias because a white lawman being arrested for the murder of two black people got larger play than two black people being charged for the murder of a white lawman, ignoring the man-bites-dog reason for this play. I'm sorry, but some people have a thoroughly absurd concept of what constitutes news and pitch a fit when coverage does not validate their prejudices. I am not going to adjust my professional judgment just so the inmates of an asylum can feel good about themselves. As I've written here before, we always hear plenty of griping from both sides, which is how we know we're doing the right thing. We tune out the fanatics.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I may be wrong, but to my knowledge, these reports of intelligence related to G.W. Bush come only from his cronies, handlers and others who benefit by him being in power.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> That is a weaseling way of avoiding the facts I just presented. You are simply uninformed on this topic.
> 
> The "bias" thing has gotten old. The people who beat this drum are so biased themselves that they couldn't possibly recognize objectivity. On another thread we have a poster trying to assign bias because a white lawman being arrested for the murder of two black people got larger play than two black people being charged for the murder of a white lawman, ignoring the man-bites-dog reason for this play. I'm sorry, but some people have a thoroughly absurd concept of what constitutes news and pitch a fit when coverage does not validate their prejudices. I am not going to adjust my professional judgment just so the inmates of an asylum can feel good about themselves. As I've written here before, we always hear plenty of griping from both sides, which is how we know we're doing the right thing. We tune out the fanatics.


I was actually going to post on that thread and support you in that case, however balanced against your usual imbalance, I decided not to. Thanks for validating my thoughts.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> I do not know, there have been multiple reports from people close to Dubya that in private _his_ high intelligence is shown. I believe that ex-speech writer of his that wrote a not too positive book about him even stated this. I do agree though, Dubya's public speaking ability is painful at best and the smartest move his handlers could make would be to gag him. It is hard to tell at this distance who really is and is not intelligent. Even Clinton; while I agree he comes off as very smart, I am not too sure. I have known several people that were very well spoken, highly charismatic, but when cornered, not as intelligent as one would expect. True he was a Rhode's scholar but so was Kris Kristopherson and liberals are usually the first to tell us scholastics really do not measure IQ well, so go figure.


Clinton is sharp. A couple of years ago I attended an MCLE seminar at which the speaker played an substantial segment of Willie's deposition in the Paula Jones lawsuit. His performance was masterful. Clinton led Jones' lawyers around the room and then pushed them out the window. In fact, he probably stumbled over the Lewinsky bit because he got overconfident - always a problem with a smart witness who is having his way with opposing counsel. Having taken hundreds of depos myself, I truly appreciated watching a virtuoso in action. One might profitably compare Clinton's performance with Bill Gates' deposition in the Microsoft antitrust case. Gates is undoubtedly one smart cat, but Boies sliced and diced him like there was no tomorrow. True, Jones' lawyers weren't in Boies' class, but nor were they total chumps. The problem with Gates was probably that he is _too _smart and not accustomed to explaining himself. Bill was just right

Bush II has to be brighter than he comes off in public so I'm not surprised to hear that those who know him best think well of his smarts. However, one of the odd things about Bush that I've noticed is how little personal loyalty he seems to inspire in others. Compare that with, say, Nixon, who inspired intense loyalty among many members of his staff and administration, both before and after The Fall. Even in his darkest days Dick didn't appear as isolated as GWB does now.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

As I say, when we get flak from both sides, each claiming they've been wronged by biased coverage on the same story, as is usually the case, that carries the most weight with us. People come up with such kooky things. My favorite was a colleague, an editor who assigns high school sports coverage, answering a call from somebody who said you always favor Catholic school A over Catholic school B, what are you, a Catholic school A alumnus? The editor said, no, actually I went to Catholic school B and donate money to them every year.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Lushington said:


> Clinton is sharp. A couple of years ago I attended an MCLE seminar at which the speaker played an substantial segment of Willie's deposition in the Paula Jones lawsuit. His performance was masterful. He led Jones' lawyers around the room and then pushed them out the window. In fact, he probably stumbled over the Lewinsky bit because he got overconfident - always a problem with a smart witness who is having his way with opposing counsel. Having taken hundreds of depos myself, I truly appreciated watching a virtuoso in action. One might profitably compare Clinton's performance with Bill Gates' deposition in the Microsoft antitrust case. Gates is undoubtedly one smart cat, but Boies sliced and diced him like there was no tomorrow. True, Jones' lawyers weren't in Boies' class, but they weren't total chumps either. The problem with Gates was probably that he is _too _smart and wasn't accustomed to explaining himself. Bill was just right
> 
> Bush II has to be brighter than he comes off in public so I'm not surprised to hear that those who know him best think well of his smarts. However, one of the odd things about Bush that I've noticed is how little personal loyalty he seems to inspire in others. Compare that with, say, Nixon, whose inspired intense loyalty among many of his staff, both before and after The Fall. Even in his darkest days, Dick never seemed as isolated as GWB does now.


I will have to bow to your first hand knowledge, I was just pointing out things are seldom as they seem in Presidents and some experiences I have had personally with several Slick-meisters. The fact Bill had to play such games in his deposition though shows, to me anyways, he did have something to hide. Truth rarely requires a virtuoso performance.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> The fact Bill had to play such games in his deposition though shows, to me anyways, he did have something to hide. Truth rarely requires a virtuoso performance.


That's the most likely explanation. It's also possible that the hunted decides, "Screw you for making my life difficult; I'm not going to make life easy for you, either." Which is indeed what resulted; those stalking Clinton did not come out looking good, either. I think Clinton's attitude was you can nail me, but it'll cost ya plenty.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

crs said:


> Bush I wasn't portrayed as stupid. Carter was portrayed as a bit of a bumpkin at the time, the peanut farmer with the drunken-slob brother, and, oh, a man running for president wants to be called _Jimmy?_; he gets more respect now than he did then.
> 
> I think your recollection of history is a bit off.


Right, they tried to portray Bush I as a wimp.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

ksinc said:


> Right, they tried to portray Bush I as a wimp.


Sure. But no one's gotten a pass since JFK.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

I'm met Clinton as well (last year at a university speaking engagement). If he's secretly stupid, he sure fooled me.



Wayfarer said:


> I will have to bow to your first hand knowledge, I was just pointing out things are seldom as they seem in Presidents and some experiences I have had personally with several Slick-meisters. The fact Bill had to play such games in his deposition though shows, to me anyways, he did have something to hide. Truth rarely requires a virtuoso performance.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I don't think most people felt Clinton was stupid. The only area I know where he could be questioned about that is his reckless approach to casual sex. On a certain level, that just wasn't smart. (And to settle for Monica Lewinsky if he was going to dabble - - - -) 

Other than that, people question his honesty. (I say how much worse is he than most politicians.)


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

That "who you'd rather have in your home for dinner" question is bizarre. I would vote for Clinton no problem but wouldn't especially want to talk to her, much less watch her gnaw on a turkey leg. I suppose McCain would be my preferred dinner guest of all of them, but it's a virtual lock I wouldn't vote for him. Just seems to me like he'd be the most normal one over dinner.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Lushington,

Carter may very well be an intelligent man, after all he is an Annapolis alum, but he may also very well be the most self-satisfied man in America. He is also by and far the worst former president ever.

He has consistently tried to undermine US foreign policy (just read an account of his lobbying against the US position before the FIRST Gulf War!), cozied up with ugly regimes (He once compared Pyongyang favorably with Americus, Georgia and said North Korean shops were as well stocked as Walmart) and generally been a publicity whore for the last 25 years.

He has become increasingly strident in his far left views since leaving the White House and the recent mass resignations from the Carter Center over his new book show how radical his position vis a vis Israel has become.

I will give him credit for Habitat For Humanity and for his shining the spotlight on the human rights record of the Soviets during his presidency but he was otherwise a poor president and has been an even worse ex president.

At least he ended the spectre that Ted Kennedy might one day wind up as POTUS!

Karl


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> Lushington,
> 
> Carter may very well be an intelligent mam, after all he is an Annapolis alum, but he may also very well be the most self-satisfied man in America. He is also by and far the worst former president ever.
> 
> ...


Well, I wouldn't expect Carter to find much favor in your view, Karl, and I'm not particularly wild about him myself - although I believe the treatment he has received for his mild criticism of Israel in his latest book is ludicrous. My only point was that Jimmy _is _a sharp fella, which is why he is presented as such by the media. Hey Pyongyang _might_ compare favorably with Americus for all I know, and I was against Gulf War I as well, so Jim and I were on the same page there; but I get your drift. Still, there's something to be said for a former President who doesn't spend his golden years glad-handing corporate titans and playing golf seven days a week. I think we can tolerate one such former chief executive without too much danger to the republic.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Lushington said:


> Well, I wouldn't expect Carter to find much favor in your view, Karl, and I'm not particularly wild about him myself - although I believe the treatment he has received for his mild criticism of Israel in his latest book is ludicrous. My only point was that Jimmy _is _a sharp fella, which is why he is presented as such by the media. Hey Pyongyang _might_ compare favorably with Americus for all I know, and I was against Gulf War I as well, so Jim and I were on the same page there; but I get your drift. Still, there's something to be said for a former President who doesn't spend his golden years glad-handing corporate titans and playing golf seven days a week. I think we can tolerate one such former chief executive without too much danger to the republic.


Frankly, I'd prefer more glad-handing.

Jimmy Carter: Too many Jews on Holocaust council


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Frankly, I'd prefer more glad-handing.


Of course you would. I'd like to see considerably less. Never the twain shall meet.



> Jimmy Carter: Too many Jews on Holocaust council


This isn't terribly persuasive: now that Carter has stirred up a small stink some guy comes along with a twenty-seven year old story that is intended to smear Carter as an anti-Semite. Now there's a surprise. And the Sun story on the Bartesch bit indicates that Carter probably didn't even know who or what this guy was, and simply accepted the family's story at face value. This attack on Carter is, as I wrote, ludicrous. Jimmy Carter was President of the United States for four years. If he were an anti-Semite and foe of Israel, he had both the means and the opportunity to do serious damage to Israel's interests. Instead, Carter brokered the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt and updated the 1975 MOU between the US and Israel, which made the US the guarantor of Israeli oil supplies and obligated the US to oppose and veto any UN resolution adversely affecting the peace treaty, among other things. Hardly the work of a follower of George Lincoln Rockwell. In either event, Jim climbed down, so what's the ruckus? This merely demonstrates, if futher demonstration were needed, that Israel remains the third rail in American political discourse. Carter must have been emboldened by the recent hullabaloo over Walt and Mearshiemer's article. Too bad for him.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Lushington said:


> Of course you would. I'd like to see considerably less. Never the twain shall meet.
> 
> This isn't terribly persuasive: now that Carter has stirred up a small stink some guy comes along with a twenty-seven year old story that is intended to smear Carter as an anti-Semite. Now there's a surprise. And the Sun story on the Bartesch bit indicates that Carter probably didn't even know who or what this guy was, and simply accepted the family's story at face value. This attack on Carter is, as I wrote, ludicrous. Jimmy Carter was President of the United States for four years. If he were an anti-Semite and foe of Israel, he had both the means and the opportunity to do serious damage to Israel's interests. Instead, Carter brokered the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt and updated the 1975 MOU between the US and Israel, which made the US the guarantor of Israeli oil supplies and obligated the US to oppose and veto any UN resolution adversely affecting the peace treaty, among other things. Hardly the work of a follower of George Lincoln Rockwell. In either event, Jim climbed down, so what's the ruckus? This merely demonstrates, if futher demonstration were needed, that Israel remains the third rail in American political discourse. Carter must have been emboldened by the recent hullabaloo over Walt's and Mearshiemer's article. Too bad for him.


Lushington,

I'm confused. First you say the WND is a 27 yr old story, then you say what Carter did as President matters more when discussing the Sun story.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Lushington,
> 
> I'm confused. First you say the WND is a 27 yr old story, then you say what Carter did as President matters more when discussing the Sun story.


Why the confusion? Carter's position towards Israel as President is a matter of public record, supported by voluminous documentation. This record shows absolutely no anti-Semitic animus towards Jews as a people or Israel as a nation. Professor Freedman's story is supported by no extrinsic evidence whatsoever: he conveniently cannot disclose the name of the gentile historian in question; has no copy of the notated memoradum; he has not disclosed the identity of the White House liaison with whom he claims to have spoken; and he has demonstrated no familiarity or knowledge of Jimmy Carter's handwriting. He also does not explain why he said nothing at the time and remained silent about this "absurdity" for 27 years. Why did he not resign his position as Executive Director of the Holocaust Council - a organization created by the Carter White House - at the time of this alleged incident and denounce Jimmy Carter as an anti-semitic hypocrite to all the world? After all, Professor Freedman claims to have been "outraged" by Carter's alleged requests. To which do you give more weight: The Israeli-Egyptian Peace Treaty and accompanying US - Israel MOUS; or Professor Freedman's weak story? Perhaps I'm wrong, but I give more weight to the former. Look, for all I know, Jimmy may be a secret Nazi who has memorized _Mein Kampf,_ and he and Rosalynn may have been doing the Night Porter routine for five decades; but it's going to take better evidence than has so far been produced to persuade me of this.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Lushington said:


> Why the confusion? Carter's position towards Israel as President is a matter of public record, supported by voluminous documentation. This record shows absolutely no anti-Semitic animus towards Jews as a people or Israel as a nation. Professor Freedman's story is supported by no extrinsic evidence whatsoever: he conveniently cannot disclose the name of the gentile historian in question; has no copy of the notated memoradum; he has not disclosed the identity of the White House liaison with whom he claims to have spoken; and he has demonstrated no familiarity or knowledge of Jimmy Carter's handwriting. He also does not explain why he said nothing at the time and remained silent about this "absurdity" for 27 years. Why did he not resign his position as Executive Director of the Holocaust Council - a organization created by the Carter White House - at the time of this alleged incident and denounce Jimmy Carter as an anti-semitic hypocrite to all the world? After all, Professor Freedman claims to have been "outraged" by Carter's alleged requests. To which do you give more weight: The Israeli-Egyptian Peace Treaty and accompanying US - Israel MOUS; or Professor Freedman's weak story? Perhaps I'm wrong, but I give more weight to the former. Look, for all I know, Jimmy may be a secret Nazi who has memorized _Mein Kampf,_ and he and Rosalynn may have been doing the Night Porter routine for five decades; but it's going to take better evidence than has so far been produced to persuade me of this.


I'm just pointing out that if your criteria is "actions taken while President" then both should be given equal weight. Therefore, I see your conclusion as conflicting with your criteria.

I think Carter's comments today in view of your criteria are clearly irrelevant (as is Carter IMHO).


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I'm just pointing out that if your criteria is "actions taken while President" then both should be given equal weight. Therefore, I see your conclusion as conflicting with your criteria.


Really? You believe a voluminous public record, compiled at the time of the events it records, containing no evidence or suggestion of anti-Semitic or anti-Israeli thought, word, or deed, should be given the same weight as a completely unsupported allegation of anti-Semitism made nearly three decades after the fact under suspect circumstances? In other words, remote and unsupported allegations are to be given the same weight as words and deeds that are fully documented at the time they are said and done? Fascinating. So, if twenty-seven years from now some person were to surface making a wholly unsupported allegation of censorious conduct by you today, one that is completely at variance with your documented speech and conduct today and over the next two and half decades, you believe that those judging you should give that unsupported allegation the same weight as your substantiated words and deeds? As I said, fascinating. What you fail to grasp is that Professor Freedman's story is being offered to show that Jimmy Carter is an anti-Semite, and has been since his days in the Oval Office. Thus, Carter's public words and acts during those years are probative to rebut this contention, and they do precisely that, at least to my satisfaction.

Evidently, Carter's antagonists in this silly episode don't believe he is irrelevant or they wouldn't care what he wrote in his book.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Lushington said:


> Really? You believe a voluminous public record, compiled at the time of the events it records, containing no evidence or suggestion of anti-Semitic or anti-Israeli thought, word, or deed, should be given the same weight as a completely unsupported allegation of anti-Semitism made nearly three decades after the fact under suspect circumstances? In other words, remote and unsupported allegations are to be given the same weight as words and deeds that are fully documented at the time they are said and done? Fascinating. So, if twenty-seven years from now some person were to surface making a wholly unsupported allegation of censorious conduct by you today, one that is completely at variance with your documented speech and conduct today and over the next two and half decades, you believe that those judging you should give that unsupported allegation the same weight as your substantiated words and deeds? As I said, fascinating. What you fail to grasp is that Professor Freedman's story is being offered to show that Jimmy Carter is an anti-Semite, and has been since his days in the Oval Office. Thus, Carter's public words and acts during those years are probative to rebut this contention, and they do precisely that, at least to my satisfaction.
> 
> Evidently, Carter's antagonists in this silly episode don't believe he is irrelevant or they wouldn't care what he wrote in his book.


Well, you didn't claim that before. You said they were 27 years ago. Now you have changed criteria to public vs. private (or thought to be private) comments. I believe we get a more candid view via the private comments and would give them more weight. If Carter's public words were not indicative of his true feelings he would not be the first. Carter's policy not being anti-semite does not mean he wasn't/isn't. That is just ludicrous. What kind of moron politician would be openly/publicly anti-semite? You are making an argument similar to one's we heard over Clinton's private morality vs. his public morality.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

No one with any sense of ethics, responsibility and basic common sense would print a one-source story without producing hard evidence, which this story doesn't do. People say all kinds of nonsense for political or personal reasons. A long time ago I worked on the same New Jersey newspaper as Joe Farah, who runs worldnetdaily.com, long before he lost all contact with reality and became an Internet nutcase who prints ludicrous crud like this.

I notice, too, that worldnet makes no effort to reach Carter for comment. A serious no-no in my world. You have to give people a chance to defend themselves, if not for basic decency then at least for some protection should you be sued for libel. What an amateurish hack job by someone who learned from the same people as I did and certainly knows better.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> No one with any sense of ethics, responsibility and basic common sense would print a one-source story without producing hard evidence, which this story doesn't do. People say all kinds of nonsense for political or personal reasons. A long time ago I worked on the same New Jersey newspaper as Joe Farah, who runs worldnetdaily.com, long before he lost all contact with reality and became an Internet nutcase who prints ludicrous crud like this.
> 
> *I notice, too, that worldnet makes no effort to reach Carter for comment.* A serious no-no in my world. You have to give people a chance to defend themselves, if not for basic decency then at least for some protection should you be sued for libel. What an amateurish hack job by someone who learned from the same people as I did and certainly knows better.


So you are saying I can discount any article as biased if they do not explicitly state efforts to contact the person the article is on? Hmmm.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Don't count Gore out. I suspect he's just biding his time. Once he wins his Oscar for Inconvenient, look for him to jump in. Maybe by middle of next year.

He could be the dark horse that everyone should be afraid of in the democratic primaries. Expect him to be more formidable than in the past, especially now that the political climate on global warming has shifting. And let's not forget: He won a lot of votes last time he ran.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> So you are saying I can discount any article as biased if they do not explicitly state efforts to contact the person the article is on? Hmmm.


First, I assume you are talking only about news stories that accuse someone of something that will bring public scorn, rather than just a blah-blah-blah. There is a huge difference legally. It is not necessary for me to contact Wayfarer every time I mention his place of business, but if I accuse Wayfarer or his business of breaking the law or something else "loathsome," without hard documentation like a police report, then it is essential that I attempt to get comment from him and say so in the story.

An indication of "bias" in all such cases? Not necessarily. It may just be incompetent work by a novice or sloppy work by someone who is working too fast. However, it is Journalism 101, a class Mr. Farah likely took at William Paterson College oh, about 35 years ago. Given Farah's long career in newspaper editing and the gravity of the charge in this story, I can assume that it was not rushed into print without some deliberation, and thus the lack of attempt to contact Carter likely isn't an innocent ommission. After all, it is not every day when one publishes a story accusing a former president of bigotry. Such an exclusive story would never be handled cavalierly by a veteran journalist unless he had gone off the deep end.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Well, you didn't claim that before. You said they were 27 years ago. Now you have changed criteria to public vs. private (or thought to be private) comments. I believe we get a more candid view via the private comments and would give them more weight. If Carter's public words were not indicative of his true feelings he would not be the first. Carter's policy not being anti-semite does not mean he wasn't/isn't. That is just ludicrous. What kind of moron politician would be openly/publicly anti-semite? You are making an argument similar to one's we heard over Clinton's private morality vs. his public morality.


Impossibly lame. Did you even read the story you linked?


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

BertieW said:


> Don't count Gore out. I suspect he's just biding his time. Once he wins his Oscar for Inconvenient, look for him to jump in. Maybe by middle of next year.
> 
> He could be the dark horse that everyone should be afraid of in the democratic primaries. Expect him to be more formidable than in the past, especially now that the political climate on global warming has shifting. And let's not forget: He won a lot of votes last time he ran.


My thoughts exactly Bertie. Maybe he will even appear on SNL or Letterman again. Gore has loosened up alot and doesn't seem so stiff anymore. He reminds me alot of how Bob Dole eased up and became more popular after his loss. I think Gore would be a formidable opponent for Hillary or Obama.


----------

