Obama delivered a brilliant speech in SC.
This man has an undoubtful charisma.
None of the Republican candidates reach his or Hillary's little toes.
Nuf said.

quote:

Originally posted by max-one:

quote:

Originally posted by Hudson:
it will not be long for Ron Paul to withdraw as well.

Not likely. Ron Paul has allot of money raised and very strong support from his followers. However these are not the reasons why he will stay to the end. For him and his supporters
it's about getting his message out and to build a future base. He may even run as a third party candidate. Most of his supporters do not think he will win the Republican nomination. Some speculate that Bloomberg will enter the race and that Paul as a third party candidate could get enough votes in a four way race. Or that the economy will worsen to the point over this year where people will sit up and take notice and ask questions. Paul is clearly not establishment with his ideas on how to turn things around. This might have some resonance with these newly awakened people if they get good and angry at those that got us into the mess. RP is a long shot for certain.

Hi Max-one,

Who is Bloomberg?

Anyways, I'm curious if a person not supported by the two traditional parties can be successful in their attempts to win the presidency, US scenario. In my country of origin, even if a person is the best choice among the candidates, he/she would not win sans the support of the party machineries.

Hi Mrs. B.,

Bloomberg is the mayor of New York (and filthy rich - lol!) It will be interesting if he decides to throw his hat in the ring. Not sure how much success he would have running as an Independent, but anything could happen.

Hi ProudU,

Thanks for that. I guess you may be relieved a little that Hillary was just second in the S.C. primaries huh? They are all coming here in Atlanta this Tuesday, I believe. I think I will go and take a look at the primaries here in GA just to see how it all goes.

Hi Mrs. B.,

It would be interesting for you to gain some first hand experience with the primaries. Ours are scheduled on February 12th. I'm not sure how much the candidates care about Maryland and Virginia, so I don't know how many will come here to campaign. The campaign signs are starting to go up around here - ugh! It's too early for them, and we will be living with them until November!

Hillary's loss in South Carolina didn't surprise me. I watched the SC debates last week and I thought Obama was the stronger candidate.

I know! LOL! Those campaigns are a necessary evil I guess. We have to live with them. And then, we somebody wins, we also have to live with the winner.

I have yet to hear of a country where the politicians are dearly beloved by the citizens.

quote:

Originally posted by ProudUSC:
Hi Mrs. B.,

Bloomberg is the mayor of New York (and filthy rich - lol!) It will be interesting if he decides to throw his hat in the ring. Not sure how much success he would have running as an Independent, but anything could happen.

Hi Proud,
Bloomberg won't get into the race unless McCain would appear to be the Republican front runner. If Huckabee or Romney are either the leading candidates, then Bloomberg won't attempt to run. He saw how poorly Thompson campaign was.

By the first Super Tuesday, I predict that the Democrats will be down to two candidates: Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama (no suprise here). As for the Republicans, Huckabee, McCain, and Romney (again, no surprise here). But no one will have the nomination wrapped up until the next super Tuesday in March.

For me on the Republican side, I am leaning toward McCain. He has always been a maverick which suits my political style. For Democrats, I am for Obama. However, there has been no details from any of the candidates about their plans on the major issues that worry most voters: economy, health care, immigration, trade, and foreign affairs. They have laid out nice 30 second infomercials, but they can be very misleading once the details are in place.

quote:

For me on the Republican side, I am leaning toward McCain. He has always been a maverick which suits my political style. For Democrats, I am for Obama. However, there has been no details from any of the candidates about their plans on the major issues that worry most voters: economy, health care, immigration, trade, and foreign affairs. They have laid out nice 30 second infomercials, but they can be very misleading once the details are in place.

I tend to agree that it will be McCain vs. Obama in the end. As far as the issues, I believe all of them have been sketchy in providing details. They discuss high level, but don't get to the meat of the matter. They spend too much talking about certain issues and not enough on others (like economy - lol).
The Republican's (except McCain) tough stance on immigration, I believe, is starting to lose momentum with the voters. It will eventually be a talking point they will want to avoid. Perhaps then we will hear them talk more about the economy!

Because none of them talk on issues in depth right now, doesn't mean anything. None of them do, so what's the argument?
They have delivered speeches, have their websites, etc. You can read about their stance if you only care.
But you are waiting to be hand delivered every piece of a detail on a silver platter.
Make a little effort to get to know the candidates yourself instead of whining people.

On the issue of Rep vs Dem, I don't understand the shortcut republican voters are taking when they say republicans have "ethics".
Whatever that means. So far I see much more ethics in Democrats. Republicans use religion as a bludgeon tool only. In reality their "religiousness" and "ethics" are of little to no value.
Take Mc Cain. His pro immigration stance cost him a lot, so he switched his opinion to fit better with voters.
Talking about ethics. Mc Cain is a sleazy lair.

Some republican voters are so dumb, they will vote for an 80 year senile grandpa.
Republicans shouldn't have children. I guarantee the average American IQ would soar within one generation.

Are you makeing comments about Reagan?

Before you say any more and remove all doubt read up on the guy. here

Hillary in the past

Possible Hillary future

quote:

Originally posted by iperson:
On the issue of Rep vs Dem, I don't understand the shortcut republican voters are taking when they say republicans have "ethics".
Whatever that means. So far I see much more ethics in Democrats. Republicans use religion as a bludgeon tool only. In reality their "religiousness" and "ethics" are of little to no value.
Take Mc Cain. His pro immigration stance cost him a lot, so he switched his opinion to fit better with voters.
Talking about ethics. Mc Cain is a sleazy lair.

Every politician uses religion to their own advantage one way or another. Obama, Clinton, Edwards, McCain, Huckabee, etc have been endorsed by various religion leaders.

But this rose colored classes mentality has got to stop. McCain took a good step about immigration. He demonstrated that he was willing to compromise on a serious issue. Clinton did the same thing. Obama has only talked the talk, but not have walked the walk.

This is for Clinton supporters who are reading this: Clinton should use Obamas lack of campaigning in states like Michigan and Florida and state that Obama can talk about unity, but really did not care when it would not benefit his own campaign or him personally. Clinton is a very shrewd politician.

She is very shrewd and clever politician. That's why I would vote for her, if I could of course. The only primary characteristic a president should have is sky high intelligence, and that's what she has.

Hudson, you misunderstood me. I meant that republican voters seem to side with the rep party mostly because they see democrats as unethical, and not religious. It's not only an American phenomenon. Almost all civilized countries have the devide between left and right.
The reason why republican voters almost never move over to the democrat side is because of their adherence to their religion, whatever it is, mostly evengelical. That's why they never would vote for a democrat.
It's called narrow- mindedness.
I despise that more than anything else in people.

How can anyone comment on a politicians intelligence? Everything they do is scripted by their handlers. Religion has nothing to do with being a Republican. Nor a Democrat for that matter.

For that matter how many times did the Clintons make it a point to be seen on camera inside various churches, many. No smart politician makes religion a central theme in their candidacy. That would guarantee a loss.

Isn't it being narrow minded to make the generalized statements you made? Do you even know a Republican? Probably not, being so full of animosity.

The reason a republican sides with their party is because they follow the principles of the party, not the religion or ethics.

quote:

Originally posted by iperson:
She is very shrewd and clever politician. That's why I would vote for her, if I could of course. The only primary characteristic a president should have is sky high intelligence, and that's what she has.

Hudson, you misunderstood me. I meant that republican voters seem to side with the rep party mostly because they see democrats as unethical, and not religious. It's not only an American phenomenon. Almost all civilized countries have the devide between left and right.
The reason why republican voters almost never move over to the democrat side is because of their adherence to their religion, whatever it is, mostly evengelical. That's why they never would vote for a democrat.
It's called narrow- mindedness.
I despise that more than anything else in people.

I would disagree. Narrow mindedness occurs on both sides of the fence. You said you will never vote for a Republican. You also said you will never become a USC as long as a Republican is president. That is too narrow minded, even for me. And yet you despise "narrow mindedness."

Evangelicals have supported both Democrats and Republicans in the past. Even in Venezuela, evangelicals are some of the strongest supporters of Hugo Chavez, a politician who is not on the right side of the law. And there are ‘Red Letter’ Liberal Christians who are evangelicals, but vote Democrat.

In the Republican party, you have pro-choice Republicans like Sen Hutchinson of Texas, but how many "pro-life" Democrats in the Democratic Party. Sen Robert Byrd, a former KKK leader in his home town, helped filibuster the 1965 Civil Rights Act of 1964, and was part of the "Dixie Democrats. And he even used a racially charged word in 2001 while in an interview the Tony Snow in 2001. Yes, he has renounced his views, and Democrats have given him much lead way, but they won't do the same when someone from another political party that has made the same mistakes as Byrd, and even publicly regretted them. Talk about narrow mindedness.

Again, both sides have done the same thing. Both sides have condemned the other sied for **** something they would never do, yet will turn around and do the same thing in the next election year. In politics, there is no black and white, only subtle shades of gray.

In my openion, forget about Any movement on immigration legalization bills for next atleast 6 to 8 years.
Whoever will come in power they will not put forward any legalization bill because they will be worry for their presedency first. so first four years no one will introduce bill in senate, in case anyone do it, it will be killed as no action ( debate0 for 60 days.
If someone is really serious about legal status they should not count on congress, they should look for other options.

quote:

Originally posted by davdah:
Hillary in the past

What....no comments from 2 number one fans... Iperson and Hudson.

thats interesting.