Clintons tears: tender moment or calculated

[worth]

Hypothetical:

How does a terrorist attack in the summer of 08 which kills American civilians effect the outcome of this presidential election?

Edit: Also, not sure when the representatives for each party are picked, but how does terrorism affect who is elected to lead each party?

I guess i'm specifically looking towards the democrats. What do the democrats do, or their supporters do if something like that were to happen before a leader of their party was picked?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by worth

Hypothetical:

How does a terrorist attack in the summer of 08 which kills American civilians effect the outcome of this presidential election?

Elects the candidate toughest on terrorism.

McCain?

[driveway]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I also think that both Hillary and Obama are going to get crushed in the mid south and south, and they are probably going to chase more conservative voters who might have been undecided right back to the republicans.

Whether they get 'crushed' in the conservative south will depend on a few factors, the biggest being who the Republicans nominate. If Giuliani wins the republican nomination, then whoever the Democrat is wins walking away - Giuliani is detested by conservatives for his stance on abortion and gun control. They refer to him as RINO Rudy (republican in name only) and many will simply stay home and not vote, or even vote for a third party candidate, splitting the right-wing vote.

Huckabee has caught a lot of flack for his taxation policies - particularly his 'Fair Tax' proposal and a great many southern conservatives see him as not a 'pro-life' candidate, despite what he claims in his speeches. Also, his history of commuting sentences and issuing pardons will work against him in the south.

Mitt Romney has too much flip-flopping and liberal policy making as Governor in his background to really resonate with very many conservatives - he is also seen as not a 'pro-life' candidate. Also, the Mormon thing will work against him.

Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter are seen as the two great 'conservative hopes'. Both sit slightly to the right of the Bush Administration, but neither has very high national polling numbers.

I really think that the Democrats are going to win this election with relative ease - though if anyone can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory it's the Democrats (they're like the early 90's Flames that way) - there is too much dislike for the current Administration. I can't see any Democrats 'crossing the aisle' to vote for a Republican, many did that for Bush in 2000 and some in 04 because of the WOT fearmongering. I can, however, see a sizeable number of Republicans turning and voting Democrat - either to send a message to their party (get back to conservative economics) or out of a genuine desire to see change.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by driveway

Not to mention the immediate cred that would arise from having a leader who was raised Muslim. If you're engaged in conflict with someone would you rather have a leader who understands where they are coming from and what they believe, or a guy who looks into people's eyes so he can see their soul?

What kind of cheese is that? Are we talking politics here?

[mykalberta]

Guiliani's hope is that Hillary is the Democratic nominee. If she is, I think you will see conservative voters more likely to vote against Hillary (for Guliani).

The Democrats have the severe upper hand in this election, the only person that can win on the Republican side is Rudy. Many things have to fall into place (the 2 most important being Hillary winning the Democratic nominee and himself winning the primary), but no one else has any hope on the Republican side.

I think you underestimate the complete hate there is out there for Hillary and the Clinton machine (Bill is likeable, Hill aint). Right wing bible thumpers will vote for Rudy if Hillary is the nominee.

I dont think any Republican has a chance if Obama is the nominee.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by 4X4

What kind of cheese is that? Are we talking politics here?

From a transcript of a press conference with Presidents Bush and Putin
the complete transcript can be found at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20010618.html

Q: ... is this a man that Americans can trust?

PRESIDENT BUSH: I will answer the question. I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul; a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country.

[emphasis added]

[4X4]

I figured it had something to do with Bush. That is just sooo lame.

[worth]

When are the nominees chosen for each party?

[driveway]

Originally Posted by worth

When are the nominees chosen for each party?

It depends - the nomination process is complicated in the states - Each state holds a primary or caucus where card-holding members of the parties choose delegates to send to the National Conference - as a general rule delegates are chosen based on who they have promised to vote for at the convention so, essentially, a candidate needs 50% +1 of the delegates to lock up the nomination.

Functionally this year the nominees will almost certainly be decided on "Super Tuesday" February 5 when over 20 states hold their primaries, though this will not be official until the late August Democratic convention and the early September Republican convention.

[Phaneuf3]

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=25784

the guy was clearly a plant in the crowd by the hillary camp because he didn't get tasered.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Obama won in Iowa, right? Now if he wins in N.H. what happens then? Is he the Democrat candidate? Or are there other states that are involved as well?

driveway's post above explains a little bit about the process, but I'll sum up anyway, since you ask. Each state has a primary, in which they elect delegates to the convention, at which a candidate is officially nominated. Effectively, the candidate is decided much earlier, but it'll be a while before we know what's happening. Iowa and New Hampshire actually have relatively few delegates, but because they're early primaries and are considered bellwethers to a certain extent, there's a lot of momentum that can be gained or lost by winning or losing.

As a result, part of it's about expectations: if you're expected to lose N.H. by 30 points, and instead you lose by only 4, that can give you a huge boost. Historically, winning Iowa or New Hampshire has been considered close to essential, but I think that's changing a little bit. Bill Clinton didn't win either of them--though he did do better than expected in N.H., IIRC--and Iowa almost didn't count, because Iowa senator Tom Harkin was a candidate, so that was almost a foregone conclusion even though Harkin had no chance nationally.

Clinton is having a rough spell, but a strong Super Tuesday could really turn it around. She does have a comfortable lead in nationwide polls last time I checked.

[Slava]

Its funny. When I saw the clip on the news it struck me very different than when I heard it on the radio. For me though, she wasn't crying. She seemed somewhat overwhelmed by the pressure and circus surrounding the primaries. She also seemed very real and down to earth though...which is not the same Hillary who was yelling at the others during the weekend debate.

I think that this will help her more than hurt her. Obama looks great...too bad the election is not for another 11 months.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Slava

Its funny. When I saw the clip on the news it struck me very different than when I heard it on the radio. For me though, she wasn't crying. She seemed somewhat overwhelmed by the pressure and circus surrounding the primaries. She also seemed very real and down to earth though...which is not the same Hillary who was yelling at the others during the weekend debate.

I think that this will help her more than hurt her. Obama looks great...too bad the election is not for another 11 months.

Honestly I wouldn't want a president who gets overwhelmed by the pressures and circus surrounding the primaries. I wouldn't want a real and down to earth person as the man or woman responsible for the largest industrial and military engine on the planet.

I want a remorseless killing machine, who would light his brother on fire for a couple of extra votes. I would want someone thats not emotional or angry but is pragmatic and emotionless.

The kindler and gentler 70's were replaced with the materialistic 80's, followed by the softer more in touch with the feminine side 90's. Now its the MDK 00's, theres a bus leaving town in an hour be on it or under it, I don't care 00's.

Marv for President 2008, he's swinging a battle axe into somebodies face for you.

[Flame On]

No one even has mentioned McCain, surprising because I think he's the most electable nationwide in the use. At one time he was seen as more moderate yet he has the military background so isn't a push over yet doesn't come across as a hawk.
I'd think he'd be the best bet for the Repbulicans. Still think no matter who the Dems will win.
As for the south vote, won't places like Atlanta that are in the south and are hugely African American give him a lot of clout down there?

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Honestly I wouldn't want a president who gets overwhelmed by the pressures and circus surrounding the primaries. I wouldn't want a real and down to earth person as the man or woman responsible for the largest industrial and military engine on the planet.

I want a remorseless killing machine, who would light his brother on fire for a couple of extra votes. I would want someone thats not emotional or angry but is pragmatic and emotionless.

The kindler and gentler 70's were replaced with the materialistic 80's, followed by the softer more in touch with the feminine side 90's. Now its the MDK 00's, theres a bus leaving town in an hour be on it or under it, I don't care 00's.

Marv for President 2008, he's swinging a battle axe into somebodies face for you.

Depends what you mean handling. Just showing some emotion doesn't mean she's not handling it. Men and women are different. Doesn't mean she'd burst into tears in the presence of Castro or Putin or Carsi (sp?)
Besides who's to say that keeping it in and then attacking a foreign country incompetently and tragically is any better sign of "handling" it. Just being Devils advocate here.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Flame On

As for the south vote, won't places like Atlanta that are in the south and are hugely African American give him a lot of clout down there?

Obama is from the North. The folks in Atlanta don't trust Yankee's.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Flame On

Depends what you mean handling. Just showing some emotion doesn't mean she's not handling it. Men and women are different. Doesn't mean she'd burst into tears in the presence of Castro or Putin or Carsi (sp?)
Besides who's to say that keeping it in and then attacking a foreign country incompetently and tragically is any better sign of "handling" it. Just being Devils advocate here.

Doesn't matter if she bursts into tears. You don't want a leader that shows any sign of weakness and can handle any situation in a tough mature manner. Crying is something that people should stop doing when they hit puberty.

More fightin and less Cryin my pappy used to say.

And I'd be far more worried about someone who gets overwhelmed and cries at pressure situation declaring war because her feelings got hurt, or setting up a maritine exclusion zone against North Korea because her dog died.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Obama is from the North. The folks in Atlanta don't trust Yankee's.

I was thinking the other day that Obama has "Jimmy Carter" written all over him . . . . . and where do I find that Carter comparison being made, in a negative way, but in The Daily Kos of all places, the home of the farily far left, yesterday.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/20...717/602/432650

That was a surprise.

Carter, in spite of the resurrection of his reputation lately, was a nice guy in the right place at the wrong time and left office with a 27% approval rating, lower than GW Bush. The guy who voters gravitated to, the one offering "hope for change," at least at that moment, was Reagan.

It's interesting that Obama, a young newcomer who declares he'll leave Iraq on day one, and McCain, an older established guy who vows to stay in Iraq until the job is done, are the guys who are attracting independents who want change from the old political guard.

Edwards would be a disaster as a President, given his economic policies.

Cowperson

[llama64]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Marv for President 2008, he's swinging a battle axe into somebodies face for you.

Sounds good to me.

[looooob]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Oh absolutely. The US needs a black, muslim female president raised in Uganda who is also a lesbian, doesn’t eat trans fats, reads weepy, moving speeches, throws away traditional bulbs and only drives a hybrid. Only then will the left be happy....maybe.

Canada would claim such a person for Governor General first