How Voters Think

[The Leaper]

The Obama folks are painfully aware that they are walking on the edge of a trap. The minute he becomes "the black people's candidate" ala Jessie Jackson, he is done.

I agree. It is still very unlikely that a black man can win the presidency in today's environment...especially one as young and untested as Obama. He never should have entered the race this year.

However, Clinton having to beat back Obama isn't good for her either. When she criticizes him, she looks "anti-black" in a way...which is going to cause friction in a party that previously had the 90% of the black vote without lifting a finger. While they may be a smaller segment of the US as a whole, they are a much larger segment of the Democratic Party because nearly all of them vote democratic. The Dems can't afford to piss them off.

[Joemailman]

I suspect that in the end, this will not be a big deal in the national election. If Clinton gets the nomination, Obama will strongly support her. He knows that if he does not, and the Republican wins, he will be a pariah in the Democratic party. If he wants to be President somewhere down the road, he will need white Democratic voters as badly as Clinton will need black voters this year. Obama is young enough that if he does not get the nomination, he will be doing things with 2016 in mind.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

You are little off base if you think Clinton has as bad a temper as McCain. You would be hard pressed to find any examples of his temper prior to his election or even when he was prez.

I'm hardly off base. Bill Clinton's anger is well-known in Washington...and beyond.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/19/wuspols619.xml

His blowups are legendary if you read any of the books done by people who were in his administration...even more legendary than his blowjobs.

Both Clinton and McCain have volcanic tempers. My point was that if it didn't really hurt Bill, it isn't really going to hurt John. People don't mind a president who blows his top once in awhile...as long as he gets things done.

I guess I should have been more clear. Clinton has very rarely shown his temper to the public, unlike McCain. And certainly not before he was elected. McCain has shown his temper while being a senator.

Now that he is outta office, he has let loose a bit more.

McCain has more than just a temper, he can launch some really unpleasant zingers.

[Harlan Huckleby]

funny headline: Goodbye, Rudy Tuesday

(joke key: "Goodbye, Ruby Tuesday" is an old Rolling Stones song lyric. Guiliani will likely be out of race after tuesday's florida primary. See? belly laughs for me!)

[Harlan Huckleby]

Obama is young enough that if he does not get the nomination, he will be doing things with 2016 in mind.

Try to stay postitive: if McCain gets in, he'll probably have a stroke in his first term.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I expect the Obama people very much regret pouncing on Clinton for allegedly dissing Martin Luther King.

I doubt it. What she said was stupid. She deserved to be called for it.

Even if you take the comment for what she MEANT, rather than at face value, it was dead wrong.

There was nothing wrong with what she said, it was factual and relevant. And not insulting to MLK, as Obama now eagerly agrees.

She was trying to claim that she was someone who can get things done...while Obama is just a hopeful dreamer.

Sounds reasonable to me.

What has she done though? She has no evidence of any meaningful legislation to her credit.

she's had a full term in the senate and rattles off her list of legislative accomplishments, which I won't fetch.
I think being a first lady is fantastic experience, she knows what the presidency is all about. She was a close advisor to the President.
Her experience is reflected in broad and insightful answers to questions. I am just extremely impressed with that woman, and I did not have relations with that woman.

Just on intellectual gifts, I am impressed by several candidates: Clinton foremost, but also Romney is extremely sharp. Obama seems brilliant, but his knowledge is shallow. He will be a president sooner or later, I expect.

[Joemailman]

With Rudy seemingly on the skids, I'm not stressed out about who the nominees will be. I think it will be Clinton vs. Romney. Although that would not be my favorite choice, in fact it might be my least, I feel either one of those will be a major improvement over the current occupant. They're going to have a tough job though. They will be inheriting a mess.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I'm not sure things would be much different under Romney than with Bush.

[Joemailman]

Just watched a speech given by Bill Clinton given at a rally in Spartanburg today. Sounds like he wants to tone down the rhetoric. It was just a speech about why in his opinion Hillary would make the best President. Did not mention Obama. This is more the traditional role of a spouse of a candidate, as opposed to the attack dog we've seen lately.

[Joemailman]

I'm not sure things would be much different under Romney than with Bush.

Oh come on. In a previous post you cited Romney as one of the candidates with impressive intellectual gifts. That would make him different.

On a completely different note, if Hillary is the nominee, will the rumors about her being a lesbian surface during the campaign. Come to think of it, can I say the word lesbian in the Romper Room?

[Harlan Huckleby]

I'm not sure things would be much different under Romney than with Bush.

Oh come on. In a previous post you cited Romney as one of the candidates with impressive intellectual gifts. That would make him different.

He would be a better leader & spokesman for the country, yes, that's an improvement.
Foreign & domestic policy, he is in lock-step with Bush. (Of course it is hard to know what he really thinks.)

I'm looking for a leader that will be an aggressive and creative (re)builder of relationships around the world. Restore the U.S. leadership position. I don't sense that Romney is that guy, he exudes the same arrogance as Bush. Obama, Clinton, Edwards, McCain, Huckabee would be better at international relations, me thinks.

can I say the word lesbian in the Romper Room?

only if you are speaking in a clinical sense. If you notice yourself getting aroused, you undoubtably crossed the line.

[oregonpackfan]

Romney may be be "blessed with intellectual gifts."

He was recently quoted saying that even Abraham Lincoln was despised by much of the country as he was "Leaving Office."

Romney seems to forget that Lincoln was assassinated.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Lincoln was very unpopular entering the last year of his first term, and he operated under the assumption that he would not be re-elected. The war turned-around in time to save his political bacon.

Giuliani gave a speech comparing Bush to Lincoln, both seeing the nation through an unpopular war.

Sounds like Romney was a bit confused. But he's a very handsome man.

Romney may or may not be a learned intellectual, and I wouldn't dismiss him based on a gaff. He is very smart, has the quick mind and intuition of a master salesman. I've been thinking of calling him Slick Mitt in honor of that other master salesman, Bill Clinton. Ronald Reagan was a master salesman.

[Harlan Huckleby]

[LL2]

I'm jumping in without haveing read the entire thread so I apologize if this has been discussed.

It seems some have made an issue of Romney being a Mormon, and of course everyone knows Huckabee is a Baptist. I'm sure in the 200+ years of our country there have been Baptist presidents, but never a Mormon one. Now, it seems Romney has had to defend being a Mormon to a degree and that his religion will not affect his presidency. What about Obama? There never seems to be any discussion of the fact that he's a Muslim. We never have had a Muslim president. You'd think people would be more uneasy of a Muslim president. Obama went to a radical Muslim school in Jakarta, India when he was a kid. I think Obama doesn't discuss it because it could be a sensitive issue, and he doesn't need to defend it because he's the popular kid on the block right now. I found some of this on Obama at snopes.com. It just seems when it comes to republicans their religion it's discussed in the media, but with democrats it's not. Media bias?