FYI

[Freak Out]

Last week she told reporters that she “had no idea” that the Texas primary system was “so bizarre” (it’s a primary-caucus hybrid), adding that she had “people trying to understand it as we speak.” Perhaps her people can borrow the road map from Obama’s people. In Vermont, another March 4 contest, The Burlington Free Press reported that there were four Obama offices and no Clinton offices as of five days ago. For what will no doubt be the next firewall after March 4, Pennsylvania on April 22, the Clinton campaign is sufficiently disorganized that it couldn’t file a complete slate of delegates by even an extended ballot deadline.

Incompetence will kill you every time. If he wins the nomination will the McCain campaign cut him such slack?

Rove/Bush proved that certain selective campaign strategies can play a pivotal role in any election.

[Freak Out]

her candidacy’s central premise — the priceless value of “experience” — was fatally poisoned from the start by her still ill-explained vote to authorize the fiasco.

It is pure emotionalism to use that vote as a litmus test of experience or judgement. (no point in trying to use rational arguments to dispell a feeling.)

Frank Rich analyzes the stupidity of the Clinton campaign and ignores the most giant factor: Obama is far more popular than Clinton. I don't think this election or most elections are decided by strategy, it is a cheap thrill to pick apart the supposedly fatal tactics of any losing campaign. The Obama side has a personally appealling person to sell, money is not pouring into their campaign due to their comparatively brilliant strategizing.

If Frank Rich thinks he could have packaged Hillary and whipped Barack Obama, well, I'm only sorry he wasn't on the Clinton team. Just a cheap and hollow column.

This is a dangerous point of view Blue Dawg.

Basically, you are saying that the factors that caused us to vote for the cool guy in the sixth grade presidential race are still at work on the national level.

Scarily enough, you are probably right.

Probably? Come on Swede....

[Harlan Huckleby]

Rove/Bush proved that certain selective campaign strategies can play a pivotal role in any election.

Bush was viewed as more personable than Kerry, and certainly more likeable than the 2000 version of Gore.
(Gore is warm and fuzzy now, though. )

[hoosier]

It is pure emotionalism to use that vote as a litmus test of experience or judgement. (no point in trying to use rational arguments to dispell a feeling.)

Not if her vote showed flawed judgment. I know you think that's not the case (that her vote didn't reflect political stupidity), but then the real disagreement is over whether or not it was possible to see, back in 2002 or whever it was, that the war was ill conceived and the authorization vote was a terrible idea. Or maybe the disagreement is over whether the war was flawed in principle or just in its realization.

But in any event the position that Hillary's vote reflects bad judgment isn't necessarily based on emotion (hatred of Hillary's personality), it's based on the conviction that her authorization vote was motivated by poor judgment or political cowardice.

In trying to disqualify the anti-Hillary position (as being based purely on emotion) you're actually doing the same thing you accuse them of doing: you portray yourself (or Hillary) as the reasonalbe one and the other side as having gone beyond all reason.

[swede]

By following Blue Dawg's theory--that the middle belt of American voters who actually select presidents make their decisions using the shallowest of emotional impressions--I hereby proclaim Barack Hussein Obama to be the next President of the United States.

But I also predict that this story, linked below, will be Obama's Whitewater Affair. It was a careless grab for real estate made possible by consorting with unsavories looking for influence.

At this point, the ethical and legal problems are complex enough that the American unintelligentsia will miss the point of the story so they'll go on backing Barack. Didn't see that coming.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3433485.ece

[The Leaper]

Bush was viewed as more personable than Kerry, and certainly more likeable than the 2000 version of Gore.
(Gore is warm and fuzzy now, though. )

Gore is only warm and fuzzy when we can allow him to do his little environmental tricks on the side stage. He becomes a freakish robot whenever he trots near the main stage though.

[The Leaper]

But I also predict that this story, linked below, will be Obama's Whitewater Affair. It was a careless grab for real estate made possible by consorting with unsavories looking for influence.

Obama has a few skeletons in his closet. Hillary doesn't have the balls to drag them out...I'm not sure why. She's kept the gloves on during the Dem primaries. I guess the Clintons were scared off when Bill got yelled at early in the process for yapping too loudly.

The Swift Boat type groups on the right...they won't have any trouble taking the gloves off with Obama.

[Freak Out]

But I also predict that this story, linked below, will be Obama's Whitewater Affair. It was a careless grab for real estate made possible by consorting with unsavories looking for influence.

Obama has a few skeletons in his closet. Hillary doesn't have the balls to drag them out...I'm not sure why. She's kept the gloves on during the Dem primaries. I guess the Clintons were scared off when Bill got yelled at early in the process for yapping too loudly.

The Swift Boat type groups on the right...they won't have any trouble taking the gloves off with Obama.

The majority that make it to Congress and beyond have a skeleton or three in the closet and have received a few $$ along the way from someone they might come to regret later. The story points out that Clinton has said all along that Obama could never withstand the Republican hell hounds that will be released from Roves basement soon and she could be right. But she and McCain have a few "issues" of their own to defend.

[Harlan Huckleby]

[Harlan Huckleby]

It is pure emotionalism to use that vote as a litmus test of experience or judgement. (no point in trying to use rational arguments to dispell a feeling.)

Not if her vote showed flawed judgment. I know you think that's not the case (that her vote didn't reflect political stupidity), but then the real disagreement is over whether or not it was possible to see, back in 2002 or whever it was, that the war was ill conceived and the authorization vote was a terrible idea. Or maybe the disagreement is over whether the war was flawed in principle or just in its realization.

But in any event the position that Hillary's vote reflects bad judgment isn't necessarily based on emotion (hatred of Hillary's personality), it's based on the conviction that her authorization vote was motivated by poor judgment or political cowardice.

In trying to disqualify the anti-Hillary position (as being based purely on emotion) you're actually doing the same thing you accuse them of doing: you portray yourself (or Hillary) as the reasonalbe one and the other side as having gone beyond all reason.

There was a reasonable argument to be made for either voting for or against that authorization. (Based on his past statements, Obama might very well have voted for it too.) The "emotion" I refer to is anger over the course of the war, not hatred at Hillary.

Notice that you are defining that vote as a pro or anti Hillary postion. How did that happen?

[Bretsky]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!

not those infamous letters!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i cringed when i saw them, and my blood pressure started to rise

Somebody go find Tex as JS; he'd be so excited to be a part of this

[red]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!

not those infamous letters!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i cringed when i saw them, and my blood pressure started to rise

Somebody go find Tex as JS; he'd be so excited to be a part of this

that old ignorant bastard can't still be alive, can he?

[FavreChild]

Somebody go find Tex as JS; he'd be so excited to be a part of this

Bretsky, don't make me kick your ass. You know I could do it.

[Iron Mike]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!

not those infamous letters!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i cringed when i saw them, and my blood pressure started to rise

Somebody go find Tex as JS; he'd be so excited to be a part of this

that old ignorant bastard can't still be alive, can he?

TEXINEXILE
Member

Total Posts: 1,419
Last Post: 2/26/2008
Member Since: 11/2/2006



Saying Green Bay isn't "able to sign free agents" is just wrong. It's a matter of Thompson and others before him making the conscious and intelligent choice NOT to throw money at free agents from other teams who are very unlikely to be worth what it takes to sign them.

As for potential cuts next fall, this probably will be the first year in a long time when it is painful to do the cutting--due to an abundance of good talent. I agree with some, although certainly not all of those mentioned in the first post. Some, though, like Jason Hunter, maybe Ruvell Martin and a couple of others who may end up gone will be tough to lose, as they are pretty good players.

I think also Hodge gets cut, but Tracey White has hung around quite a while as a good STer. I doubt he goes. If Nall goes, I think it will be voluntary, as IMO, he's plenty good enough as a #3 QB. I also think both Morency and Wynn are gone. I wouldn't be surprised Corey White from the taxi squad steps in as a backup along with Brandon Williams. I don't think Koren Robinson gets cut unless his knee is a lot worse than reported.

There's a significant possibility for an upgrade from Ryan, maybe even the guy who competed with him in camp last season. Also, I've been campaigning for a long time to get rid of Rob Davis and replace him with a position player who can long snap.

I don't see any problem with keeping Nick Collins as a backup, maybe even cross train him as a corner. He's athletic enough, and his well publicized lack of instincts or smarts or whatever would do less harm at corner. Bush might go, but Frank Walker is more likely. Peprah also would seem to be replaceable by a decent rookie.

KGB could go either way. I have come around to what some are pushing about going after a quality free agent DE for about the same money. If that doesn't happen, though, KGB is decent enough to hang around another year, even for fairly big money. I also think Montgomery stays. Daniel Muir could be the odd man out in the DLine, unless somebody gets injured.

[Freak Out]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!

not those infamous letters!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i cringed when i saw them, and my blood pressure started to rise

Somebody go find Tex as JS; he'd be so excited to be a part of this

that old ignorant bastard can't still be alive, can he?

TEXINEXILE
Member

Total Posts: 1,419
Last Post: 2/26/2008
Member Since: 11/2/2006



Saying Green Bay isn't "able to sign free agents" is just wrong. It's a matter of Thompson and others before him making the conscious and intelligent choice NOT to throw money at free agents from other teams who are very unlikely to be worth what it takes to sign them.

As for potential cuts next fall, this probably will be the first year in a long time when it is painful to do the cutting--due to an abundance of good talent. I agree with some, although certainly not all of those mentioned in the first post. Some, though, like Jason Hunter, maybe Ruvell Martin and a couple of others who may end up gone will be tough to lose, as they are pretty good players.

I think also Hodge gets cut, but Tracey White has hung around quite a while as a good STer. I doubt he goes. If Nall goes, I think it will be voluntary, as IMO, he's plenty good enough as a #3 QB. I also think both Morency and Wynn are gone. I wouldn't be surprised Corey White from the taxi squad steps in as a backup along with Brandon Williams. I don't think Koren Robinson gets cut unless his knee is a lot worse than reported.

There's a significant possibility for an upgrade from Ryan, maybe even the guy who competed with him in camp last season. Also, I've been campaigning for a long time to get rid of Rob Davis and replace him with a position player who can long snap.

I don't see any problem with keeping Nick Collins as a backup, maybe even cross train him as a corner. He's athletic enough, and his well publicized lack of instincts or smarts or whatever would do less harm at corner. Bush might go, but Frank Walker is more likely. Peprah also would seem to be replaceable by a decent rookie.

KGB could go either way. I have come around to what some are pushing about going after a quality free agent DE for about the same money. If that doesn't happen, though, KGB is decent enough to hang around another year, even for fairly big money. I also think Montgomery stays. Daniel Muir could be the odd man out in the DLine, unless somebody gets injured.

Texinexile? Must be a Bush lover.