I don't know who you are, but have been here but a minute, now unless you want us to start calling Hillary supporter "out of their name", refrain from your continuous WRONG use of Obama supporters. There are many and when the chips fall, and if Clinton gets the nod, when you are back on your REPUBLICAN BOARD, there will still be many here, REAL DEMOCRATS, who will need to come together for the candidate to win. Again, thanks for your continous support of Clinton, while writing Republican checks.
because these folks over here, again, "can't read" a speech, went overboard. The reaction is that a DEMOCRAT said we would go and get Osama. Now, I don't know about you, but that mo-fo need to be got. Now, my point of view. I don't know. But it is time for the Democrats to turn the heat up on the war on terror and national security. Out party is always looks at as "patsys' when it comes to this. I think it was a brave, bold speech. I read it three times, and I can deal with it. Now, we will see what happens this weekend at YKos, cause you KNOW, he will be asked a million questions about this, and I will have my micro cassette to record it ALL.
are going to blow the SHIT out of the Middle East...OMG...
How was that? Hey, I am washing my clothes, packing, packing my dogs (going to the petsitter), packing my pinot, and will be on the Metra tomorrow for YKos. I will get y'all's fav's photos, and of course, photos "that should not be published", anyway, holla....
i want to hear the whole speech or read the text first. we can't even win in iraq, forget pakistan. the only thing we can get from pakistan is an agreement to snatch bin laden and be done with it. but war, highly questionable indeed.
aren't we already "alienated" from most of these countries? these countries told BUSH don't invade Iraq. they were behind us for Afghanistan but strongly told us, do not go into Iraq. Did we listen? now we are looking for allies? now talking to syria, iran? this is so after the fact, does it matter? we have botched this up so far, we can't even pick up a phone and "call an ally". none of these countries want nothing to do with this, because be alientated everyone, what is the use? yes, to regain any traction, we must have hard talks, with folk that have more "open minds" to negotiate, but this will come with the next administration, AFTER BUSH. i am looking forward to this speech, indeed.
Who knows if he had not already? Why trust Mushariff? He has been a dubious player, from day one. Says one thing, and does another. And all this largely to bad diplomatic policies with Pakistan and not putting our foot down from the get go. We could have had bin Laden in 2005, knew where he at, and let him get away and slip into Pakistan. That is where he is at, we know it. Are we going to get him? Probably, not. We have been overplayed in the Middle East from day one.
Look, the War is with the ones who killed us on 9/11. I want to hear and read the whole speech. Pakistan, shit, we have let them hide bin Laden, we have. We have turned a blind eye. Now look at Afghinstan, that shit is cropping up so high now with terrorists it is not even funny. I am not for war with Pakistan, but WTF? This is a twist, indeed.
and this is a general election "type" poll, and many are not "paying" strong attention to these candidates yet. The polls to watch and are interesting is the early state polls, IA, NH, NV, SC. If you start campaigning, running ads, TV & Radio, direct mail, in all the Feb 5th states, you will have a much different picture. These general election type numbers are largely name recognition, and Clinton wins. Why is Edwards entrenced in IA? He has campaigned there the longest, that is why. These numbers will drastically change if all these candidates were campaigning HARD in all the "other" early states, but that is not happening, "yet".
ARG, I need to see "more" polling to believe it. Though it is given "credit" for getting NH right over the years. I believe Iowa is Edwards to loose. I do think Obama is making traction in NH, it was evident in the last polling of Concord Monitor. And South Carolina has been all over the place, and in the end, Obama will get it.
that is for now, with the general over a year away. by the time the general is in full swing, ALL THESE CANDIDATES, will change positions to win over voters on the other side and independents. Clinton does not do well with men or independents. And remember there are women in the other groups, not just democrats, who are engaged and do not care for her. this is going to be a question at these caucuses, electablity, it will. Can she be elected? To me, no at this time and it depends on the Republican running against her. And lastly, these polls, especially general election type polls, do not mean anything. Ask any pollster. Most are name recognition because these politicians are not even running ads, campaigning, etc., in the majority of these states. Once you put the just mentioned in the mix, get ppl to pay attention, then it is a new ballgame. The only polls which really need to be looked at are Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada. Those are the first four rolling out.
I don't see her winning the general, I just don't at this time. She is popular with democrats, but you open that door and look outside to the rest of the world, it is totally different. And these numbers really mean nothing now, but to put the "inevitability" tag on Clinton, hopefully for democrats. The Republicans do not want to face Edwards or Obama. They would be tougher overall, especially Obama, who would draw indies 2-1 and siphon moderates/republicans, he is already doing this. Though Obama has a broader brush, overall on the canvass, Clinton's brush does not reach that far and her negatives are still the highest of all candidates on both sides of the fence. Again, I am not a poll follower, don't analyze matrixs etc., I do think that this race will tighten by November/December and you will then have a clearer picture of what the break will be with all these candidates.