# Are Dems on Crack?



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

https://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/13/majority-of-dems-want-clinton-to-be-vp/

Do people not understand power politics???


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

If they are, it is from South Central L.A. funded by the CIA for a republican presidency fighting in Central America. But that was a while ago, and 7 years under a president who did coke as a 'youthfull indescretion' has brought us into the light of the Lord.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

As Whitney said, "Crack is whack."

Hillary as VP? Whack if you are trying to win the election. I back it :icon_smile_big:


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

A lot of people don't think too deeply about this stuff. I don't think Clinton would help the ticket; quite the reverse.

There are plenty of strong Dems who would bring regional balance and the type of experience that Obama lacks, and would potentially help the ticket. I haven't thought too much about it yet, but the people on my list include Jim Webb, Katherine Sebelius, Janet Napolitano, maybe Richardson, maybe Clark. I'm sure there are more. None of them bring the negatives that Clinton has, they help with demographics, and they wouldn't make it as difficult to govern as a Clinton vice-presidency would.


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

My dream ticket would be an Obama/McKinney ticket. Cynthia McKinney, even more than Obama, represents the essence of the Democratic Party of the 21st Century.

Last week, she was caught on video practicing her acceptance speech on a Marta train in the ATL:


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> A lot of people don't think too deeply about this stuff. I don't think Clinton would help the ticket; quite the reverse.
> 
> There are plenty of strong Dems who would bring regional balance and the type of experience that Obama lacks, and would potentially help the ticket. I haven't thought too much about it yet, but the people on my list include Jim Webb, Katherine Sebelius, Janet Napolitano, maybe Richardson, maybe Clark. I'm sure there are more. None of them bring the negatives that Clinton has, they help with demographics, and they wouldn't make it as difficult to govern as a Clinton vice-presidency would.


Exactly my point Jack, do they want to win or not?!

Personally, I think Webb is a great pick. Richardson or Clark as well.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

Liberty Ship said:


> My dream ticket would be an Obama/McKinney ticket. Cynthia McKinney, even more than Obama, represents the essence of the Democratic Party of the 21st Century.
> 
> Last week, she was caught on video practicing her acceptance speech on a Marta train in the ATL:


LOL...


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Janet? My Guv? First, ugliest man I have ever seen. Second, uh, no. The best I can say about her is she's not a convicted felon, which for AZ politics, is like a litmus test.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Kav said:


> "... 7 years under a president who did coke as a 'youthfull indescretion' has brought us into the light of the Lord.


I wonder how much Obama's admitted cocaine usage will be an issue.

My guess is that those who like to talk about Bush using will give Obama a pass. Think so?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Relayer said:


> I wonder how much Obama's admitted cocaine usage will be an issue.
> 
> My guess is that those who like to talk about Bush using will give Obama a pass. Think so?


I thought he was a dealer, not a user?


----------



## Senator LooGAR (Apr 19, 2008)

ksinc said:


> I thought he was a dealer, not a user?


I heard he liked to get "wet" -- you know cigarettes dipped in PCP.

Your VP candidate is B. Richardson or K. Sebelius -- both Governors who don't have much else to do after their terms end.

Sebelius MAY get a shot at Senate if Pat Roberts wants to be Gov.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

ksinc said:


> I thought he was a dealer, not a user?


I've not heard anything about dealing.

His admission to being a user was in his book "Dreams From My Father".


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

ksinc said:


> I thought he was a dealer, not a user?


Nah. That was a rumour started by the founder of BET.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I'm voting for Nader again, so what the republicrats shove up their noses while shoving something up the american people is a matter of personal indifference.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Clearly you are indifferent. That's why you didn't bring it up. Oh, wait...

Anyway, I am very happy when I hear of folks say they will vote for Nader (who I am quite certain never used illicit drugs, not that it matters to you or I, of course). 

Personally, I can't bring myself to vote for him as I'm permanently p*ssed about his torpedoing the Corvair.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Relayer said:


> I wonder how much Obama's admitted cocaine usage will be an issue.


Only if a picture of him (Obama), Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers pops up showing them snorting coke off a young lady's buttocks at a strip club! Otherwise I don't think it will be an issue.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> Janet? My Guv? First, ugliest man I have ever seen. Second, uh, no. The best I can say about her is she's not a convicted felon, which for AZ politics, is like a litmus test.


I've seen her! You have my sympathies. Napolitano makes Ernest Borgnine look like a hottie.

It makes sense a lot of Dems want Billary for veep. I imagine they're worn out and don't want to have to spend the next several months learning about a new face. Hillary is deeply, deeply flawed (like Bill) but at least she's familiar. The worst thing Obama could do is to pick someone as liberal or more liberal than himself...that's why (comparitive) moderates like Richardson or Sebelius make sense as a back-up.


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

"Personally, I can't bring myself to vote for him as I'm permanently p*ssed about his torpedoing the Corvair."

Same here. He is actually a great guy with high ideals except for this one horrid miscarriage of justice.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

I think that a general who is a political moderate like Gen. Clark or Gen. Powell would be a good choice. They would both have benefits, Gen. Powell for cross-party appeal, Gen. Clark for Southern state familiarity.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

I agree on Clark being a good pick for Obama. 

As I recall, Clark was pretty good at raising money, the left likes him pretty well, and he's ex-military.

I don't think Powell wants to jump back into politics.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

JibranK said:


> I think that a general who is a political moderate like Gen. Clark or Gen. Powell would be a good choice. They would both have benefits, Gen. Powell for cross-party appeal, Gen. Clark for Southern state familiarity.


I disagree on Powell's "cross-party appeal."

To Republicans he's the one that got played by the French and couldn't deliver Turkey; to Democrats he's the one that went to the UN and made the "16 words" case for WMD. Even the Democratic talking points beat the 'Military strategy good, Political/Diplomatic strategy bad' drums. For a long time one of the Condi talking points was "Colin is my mentor." Not anymore. People in the Pentagon and at MacDill still talk about Powell not delivering Turkey and how it left the Military as our only prong of attack. Powell was just in Turkey in April still trying to fix his own mess. It was important and he blew it. He also made mistakes with Syria AFAIK. Newt Gingrich has been bashing Powell since 2003 too.

Powell would only be useful strictly as a racial play if Hillary steals it IMHO.

Clark has none of the Bush-Powell baggage and can claim past success relevant to the current challenges.

So, I would say Obama-Clark or Hillary-Powell. Powell is also useful as cover for Dems and McCain that voted for war that say, "but I wanted the Powell doctine not Rumsfeld's failed strategy."


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I thought he was a dealer, not a user?


Evidence, please? Otherwise, please refrain from making such inflammatory claims.


----------



## Literide (Nov 11, 2004)

jackmccullough said:


> Evidence, please? Otherwise, please refrain from making such inflammatory claims.


Why doesnt Bush get the same courtesy over his alleged (post military, pre politics) receational drug use.

And IIRC Obama copped to minor youthful dealing in one his biographies.

And lets not forget Bill Clintons cocaine use WHILE governor of AK, not to mention financial ties to major dealers.


----------



## burnedandfrozen (Mar 11, 2004)

I don't think the Dems are on crack, but I'm sure they would love to have a percentage of the population on the drug so they can create more tax paid social programs. Not unlike how they favor bi-lingual education so they can keep the anchor babies at the same level of poverty as their parents when they grow up.


----------



## Senator LooGAR (Apr 19, 2008)

Clark's "good fundraising" was 100% WJC and HRC backed.

Clark is a nonce who will get swiftboated worse than Kerry.

I believe that the whole "military experience" thing has become a ploy to get Dems to nominate those like Kerry (and possibly Clark) instead of someone with some actual value.

In this case, I would choose Richardson (well, *I *would choose Sam Nunn, but that ain't happenin) strong foreign policy bonafides, strong executive experience, and strong appearance for "change."


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Are Dems on crack?

Let's put it this way-- for every Republican who's on crack, there's a hundred Democrats using...


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Are Dems on crack?
> 
> Let's put it this way-- for every Republican who's on crack, there's a hundred Democrats using...


Fortunately the other 99 Repubs are too drunk to notice - LOL.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Let me tell you, with the way things are going I can understand why Republicans would prefer it to sober reality.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I disagree on Powell's "cross-party appeal."
> 
> To Republicans he's the one that got played by the French and couldn't deliver Turkey; to Democrats he's the one that went to the UN and made the "16 words" case for WMD. Even the Democratic talking points beat the 'Military strategy good, Political/Diplomatic strategy bad' drums. For a long time one of the Condi talking points was "Colin is my mentor." Not anymore. People in the Pentagon and at MacDill still talk about Powell not delivering Turkey and how it left the Military as our only prong of attack. Powell was just in Turkey in April still trying to fix his own mess. It was important and he blew it.


Not that I give a damn about Colin Powell, but he actually assessed the Turkish situation quite accurately - as he should have, given his extensive experience with the Turks in The First Gulf War [sic.]. In the run-up to the Second Gulf War [sic] he told the President and the National Security Council that the Turks could likely be persuaded to allow the U.S. pass-through use of Turkish airspace for airborne operations, but that the use of Turkish territory for launching a "Northern Front" would be "one brick too many" for the Turks. This proved to be exactly the case. In this Powell was backed by the U.S. Ambassador to Turkey, Robert Pearson, who argued that nothing less than a personal visit to Ankara by President Bush could persuade the Turks allow any kind U.S. ground operations on Turkish soil; Bush declined. The "failure to deliver Turkey" was the result the typical refusal of the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz mob to listen to anyone who knew what he was talking about. In fact, the "Turkish Failure" has Wolfowitz's fingerprints all over it, as he made several trips to Ankara to try and strong-arm the Turks, all of which went nowhere. As usual, Wolfowitz was utterly played by a bazaar hustler, Cuneyd Zapsu in this instance, who acted as a backdoor liaison with Erdogan. Powell was eventually persuaded to take the fall for this fiasco - which seems to have been his job in the Administration - but had Bush & Co. listened to him in the first place they wouldn't have shiit all over themselves and looked like idiots. The whole Northern Front idea was ludicrous, and arose from Franks' delusion that in mopping up the remains of Saddam's forces he was Zhukov trying to trap the Wehrmacht in the Kursk salient. The U.S. could have gotten all it needed from Turkey without igniting a diplomatic crisis had those calling the shots listened to anyone with any knowledge of Turkish politics or history.

Of course, the whole of idea of "delivering" Turkey for a U.S. ground assault on Iraq reveals the sham of "democracy" and its place in U.S. foreign policy. The Turkish population was vastly opposed to the idea of allowing the U.S. use of Turkish territory for ground operations, over 90% in some polls. Even those in the Turkish military who were inclined to cooperate with the U.S. were daunted by this popular opposition to the idea. The Administration didn't care; indeed, it was fine with a coup if that's what was necessary to obtain Turkish cooperation. However, as evidence of the growth of democracy in Turkey, the Turkish military was _not_ fine with coup, as it had been several times in the past, or even with indirect intervention in the crisis. In the end, it was Turkish popular opinion and its effect on Parliament and the military that was the cause of the "failure to deliver Turkey." This is viewed as a failure by the United States, The Champion of Democracy.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Lushington,

I dont disagree with what you write for the most part however I think George Bush has done some work to repair the damage done to US-Turkish relations by championing the Turkish candidacy for membership in the EU. But I can't be charitable in my assessment of this policy bc I personally don't believe that Turkey belongs in the EU, not at least until they leave Orhan Pamuk alone and remember Armenia and Smyrna a bit more clearly.

Regards,

Karl


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> Lushington,
> 
> I dont disagree with what you write for the most part however I think George Bush has done some work to repair the damage done to US-Turkish relations by championing the Turkish candidacy for membership in the EU. But I can't be charitable in my assessment of this policy bc I personally don't believe that Turkey belongs in the EU, not at least until they leave Orhan Pamuk alone and remember Armenia and Smyrna a bit more clearly.
> 
> ...


Well, none of that is going to happen, at least not any time soon. Turkey in the EU is an interesting idea, and simply illustrates the ambiguous position of Anatolia in world history. All things considered, Asia Minor was a good name.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Turkey has the minor problem of Cyprus, the deliberate persecution of christians up to and including the Patriarch of Constantiople and the closing of an ancient Island monastery that trained priests for that patriarchy. Throw in Kurds and Armenians and even Turkey's collective amnesia won't win EU membership. Not with Serbs feeling like Chechoslovakians in 1939. Eastern Europe has a long memory of being caught between Ottomans and Crusaders.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Lushington, 

That's not exactly the story I hear, but I do hear it from the Pentagon side (NATO issue). There is a reason others were going to Turkey - Powell wasn't delivering. Disagreeing with the military strategy is not a good excuse for not executing the diplomacy to support it IMHO. Powell always played a screwed up role and the vision that he could heal the rifts betweeen State and the DoD was a pipe dream IMHO. 

I do agree with you regarding Turkey and the EU. 

I would point out Powell was in Turkey just last month. He's willing to exert himself when it pleases him, but that's not the J.O.B. he had IMHO.

Regards.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Kav said:


> Turkey has the minor problem of Cyprus, the deliberate persecution of christians up to and including the Patriarch of Constantiople and the closing of an ancient Island monastery that trained priests for that patriarchy. Throw in Kurds and Armenians and even Turkey's collective amnesia won't win EU membership. Not with Serbs feeling like Chechoslovakians in 1939. Eastern Europe has a long memory of being caught between Ottomans and Crusaders.


All true, but many members of the EU have imperial histories every bit as savage and oppressive as Turkey's. Those that have owned up to them have been more or less compelled to do so. The past is a complicated place.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Lushington,
> 
> That's not exactly the story I hear, but I do hear it from the Pentagon side (NATO issue). There is a reason others were going to Turkey - Powell wasn't delivering. Disagreeing with the military strategy is not a good excuse for not executing the diplomacy to support it IMHO.
> 
> Regards.


Yes, but so far as I am aware, it was Cheney himself, in March 2002, and Wolfowitz in July 2002, who first visited Turkey and tried to drum up support for Turkish permission to allow the US to launch a ground attack from Turkish soil. Powell thought this nonsense, as did Pearson, and they both said so. Wolfowitz continued to press the issue, and was buttonholed and bamboozled by Zapsu, who convinced Wolfowitz, hence Rumsfeld and Cheney, that incoming Prime Minister Erdogan had enough juice to bring the Turkish Parliament around, which Erdogan, once he learned that he had been committed to do so, also promised. Powell and Pearson knew Erdogan couldn't pull this off. Wolfowitz would only listen to what he wanted to hear from Zapsu and Erdogan, and announced in a December 2002 press conference that the Turks were in the bag. They weren't, and when the Turkish Parliament voted down the proposal Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz looked like total fools and amateurs. They sure as hell weren't going to admit that they got buffaloed, so they pointed the finger at Powell, and Feith published the mob's apologia a couple of years later alleging that Powell could have brought the Turks around if only he had tried harder. The fact is, because of his reservations the Cheney mob didn't want Powell involved until the whole thing fell apart. I have no use for Powell - he should have resigned, rather than act like the Administration's flunky and fall guy - but I have even less use for the Cheney mob, and I like to see every disaster for which they are responsible properly attributed to them.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Lushington said:


> Yes, but so far as I am aware, it was Cheney himself, in March 2002, and Wolfowitz in July 2002, who first visited Turkey and tried to drum up support for Turkish permission to allow the US to launch a ground attack from Turkish soil. Powell thought this nonsense, as did Pearson, and they both said so. Wolfowitz continued to press the issue, and was buttonholed and bamboozled by Zapsu, who convinced Wolfowitz, hence Rumsfeld and Cheney, that incoming Prime Minister Erdogan had enough juice to bring the Turkish Parliament around, which Erdogan, once he learned that he had been committed to do so, also promised. Powell and Pearson knew Erdogan couldn't pull this off. Wolfowitz would only listen to what he wanted to hear from Zapsu and Erdogan, and announced in a December 2002 press conference that the Turks were in the bag. They weren't, and when the Turkish Parliament voted down the proposal Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz looked like total fools and amateurs. They sure as hell weren't going to admit that they got buffaloed, so they pointed the finger at Powell, and Feith published the mob's apologia a couple of years later alleging that Powell could have brought the Turks around if only he had tried harder. The fact is, because of his reservations the Cheney mob didn't want Powell involved until the whole thing fell apart. I have no use for Powell - he should have resigned, rather than act like the Administration's flunky and fall guy - but I have even less use for the Cheney mob, and I like to see every disaster for which they are responsible properly attributed to them.


Lushington,

I don't disagree with the situtation report as described. I disagree with the role of Powell. IMHO his job was not simply to report on the situation and say, "they don't want to do it and I predict they won't do it." His job is to get them to do it - do something they don't want to do. State are not merely facilitators. You don't need a "James Baker III" when someone is already agreeable to your position.

Just my opinion. The whole muslims vs. socialists thing has really bitten us in the butt. Clearly that was not Powell's fault.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Lushington,
> 
> I don't disagree with the situtation report as described. I disagree with the role of Powell. IMHO his job was not simply to report on the situation and say, "they don't want to do it and I predict they won't do it." His job is to get them to do it - do something they don't want to do. State are not merely facilitators. You don't need a "James Baker III" when someone is already agreeable to your position.
> 
> Just my opinion. The whole muslims vs. socialists thing has really bitten us in the butt. Clearly that was not Powell's fault.


Fair enough.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Literide said:


> Why doesnt Bush get the same courtesy over his alleged (post military, pre politics) receational drug use.
> 
> And IIRC Obama copped to minor youthful dealing in one his biographies.
> 
> And lets not forget Bill Clintons cocaine use WHILE governor of AK, not to mention financial ties to major dealers.


So, in other words you have no evidence. Thanks for clarifying.


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

If I was in Mr Obama's shoes, I'd pick Clark. Military experience. Age. A lot of the older people who preferred Hillary would probably be reassured by Clark.

Plus, he's a crypto-Republican. Hahahaha.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

I suppose there's no possibility of an Obama/Wright ticket. Damn.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Don't know about the Democrats and crack, but the Republicans may want to start lighting something up after the loss of a third Congressional seat:

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/14/us/politics/14cnd-mississippi.html?hp

They are losing seats that were once considered owned by them. That speaks even louder than Rev. Wright.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Obama will have no excuses for not enacting a cool new socialist agenda and having the country hitting on all cylinders before long. 

Nirvana is just around the corner!


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

And now with the John Edwards endorsement, one wonders if he'll be the VP. Could shore up some of those recalcitrant white devils among the electorate.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

BertieW said:


> And now with the John Edwards endorsement, one wonders if he'll be the VP. Could shore up some of those recalcitrant white devils among the electorate.


Edwards appeals to the same people Obama already has. The majority of 'Bitter Gun- and Bible-Clingers' can't stand Edwards. He's too much of a girl. NTTAWWT  That sort of person doesn't appeal to most men or most women. If something happens to Obama, Edwards is going to protect us? Please.

IMHO someone as inexperienced as Obama needs a Richardson or a Clark.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Relayer said:


> Obama will have no excuses for not enacting a cool new socialist agenda and having the country hitting on all cylinders before long.
> 
> Nirvana is just around the corner!


If so, he'll have to send Comrade Bush a thank-you vodka.

Wait. Maybe that's not such a hot idea.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Edwards appeals to the same people Obama already has. The majority of 'Bitter Gun- and Bible-Clingers' can't stand Edwards. He's too much of a girl. NTTAWWT  That sort of person doesn't appeal to most men or most women. If something happens to Obama, Edwards is going to protect us? Please.
> 
> IMHO someone as inexperienced as Obama needs a Richardson or a Clark.


They look damn good together on stage. If Richardson lost 20 pounds he'd be perfect.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

BertieW said:


> They look damn good together on stage.


To quote the Man, "So?"


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

If I was Obama, I'd offer VP to Romney. :devil:

Romney would probably have to turn it down of course, but it would solve Obama's problem of claiming to be non-partisan when he has never done anything across party lines. For the rest of the campaign he could say, "I tried to pick a Republican VP." 

Also, it would totally scew McCain over. Whether or not he wants Romney, after that happened McCain would be screwed whether or not he picked him. 

In addition, being picked by Obama would then define Romney forever and completely destroy his hopes for 2012 in the GOP.

However, none of these people strike me as particularly good at strategy and tactics.

Obama's worst case scenario would be if Romney accepted. Then he'd be stuck with him. 

We'd have the first black nominee running on a bi-partisan ticket with a former Governor, economic conservative, and social moderate. He'd win >=60% in November IMHO. 

Heck, I would vote for Obama over McCain if it would get Romney into the economic planning. The Dems don't want McCain's immigration plan either. I think Obama is weaker than Hillary on Iraq, but would cave to the weight and realities of the office. We cannot and will not be leaving Iraq anytime soon. It's just reality i.e. Humpty Dumpty.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

ksinc said:


> To quote the Man, "So?"


LOL. To quote an old TV commercial--Media: You're soaking in it.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

ksinc said:


> If I was Obama, I'd offer VP to Romney. :devil:
> 
> Romney would probably have to turn it down of course, but it would solve Obama's problem of claiming to be non-partisan when he has never done anything across party lines. For the rest of the campaign he could say, "I tried to pick a Republican VP."
> 
> ...


Well, as long as the Republicans keep losing Congressional seats, brilliant strategy may prove unnecessary. It's going to be a long fall for the GOP.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

BertieW said:


> Well, as long as the Republicans keep losing Congressional seats, brilliant strategy may prove unnecessary. It's going to be a long fall for the GOP.


That won't help Obama. In fact, it hurts him IMHO. People love a split government. The folks clamoring for a 3 house sweep are in the extreme minority. If it looks like a 60+ majority in the Senate for sure it will put a damper on Obama.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

ksinc said:


> That won't help Obama. In fact, it hurts him IMHO. People love a split government. The folks clamoring for a 3 house sweep are in the extreme minority. If it looks like a 60+ majority in the Senate for sure it will put a damper on Obama.


We soon may get a chance to test your hypothesis.


----------



## Senator LooGAR (Apr 19, 2008)

ksinc said:


> That won't help Obama. In fact, it hurts him IMHO. People love a split government. The folks clamoring for a 3 house sweep are in the extreme minority. If it looks like a 60+ majority in the Senate for sure it will put a damper on Obama.


It ends up that way a lot, but I am not sure people would be able to verbalize this sentiment.

I had a convo with an informed colleague today, and we both think that Dems are sure to gain in Senate and House, but probably lose the White House -- right about where I think we need to be.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

It will be interesting to see who the DNC blames this time for another defeat.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Kav said:


> It will be interesting to see who the DNC blames this time for another defeat.


I imagine those bitter people who cling to guns and religion.:icon_smile_big:


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

No, they'll really blame those of us who have antipathy toward those not like ourselves. Those dreadful flyover people - - -


----------

