<p>Still think the Party of Family Values is going to nominate Rick Perry.</p>
<p>I’m with TheDad: the Republicans of the early 21st century remind me of the Democrats with their “Dixiecrat” wing of the mid-20th. The “economic” right wing is happy to have the votes of the “values” right wing, and both sides have been willing to hold their noses and take the elective offices they can help each other get, but otherwise having little in common in terms of seriously held beliefs.</p>
<p>I would say Kluge, that that’s exactly correct. Totally spot on.</p>
<p>I like Obama
I don’t have to agree or approve of everything he does- after all I don’t feel that way about my H and I * Sleep!* with him!
;)</p>
<p>Im also intrigued by the number of articles lately along the lines of below.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Besides, lack of experience, my problem with Obama, who is my #2 choice, is that he hasn’t shown that he can either take a punch or throw one. I think he’s more than a little naive.</p>
<pre><code>I think Barack is holding his own pretty well
</code></pre>
<p>[Political</a> Radar: Obama Grilled on All Things Clinton](<a href=“http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/12/obama-grilled-o.html]Political”>http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/12/obama-grilled-o.html)</p>
<p>FF:
</p>
<p>Poll after poll shows Democrats completely satisfied with their field, so keep the Republican bile out of it. Usually when you are kept out of the White House for 8 years you’ll happily ride which ever nominee which will take you in. </p>
<p>The reason Republicans aren’t happy with their nominee is because they know Republicans can not win the White House in 2008 and they know they will even lose seats in the House and Senate. People think its possible even old Mitch Mc-corruption , the Senate Minority Leader, will be taken out. Although you may loathe to admit it Bush has the lowest approval ratings since Nixon and the Republican Party is at a historic low point. </p>
<p>FundingFather
I don’t think Markos represents the Democratic Party or I’ll say Falwell represents yours and then explain why Republicans want to end the separation of church and state. </p>
<p>As for the original question that that was posted by the OP, although the topic was misguided…
The Republicans will not be happy with anyone because they cant win in 09. Many liberals are finding it hard to stomach CLinton, but will readily welcome Obama/Edwards. Even IF clinton is the nominee, having Bill in the White House torturing the remaining Republicans left in Congress after some of them are blown out of water in '08 will quiet the distress.</p>
<p>Count me as a Democrat who could happily pull the lever for any one of the candidates. Still very undecided about the primary though I expect Hillary will win in NY and my vote won’t matter much one way or another.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Most Democrats would at this point to get rid of the Imperial President. Don’t be shocked if Obama wins NY if he sweeps the early states.</p>
<p>Unaccustomed as I am to defending FF, I still must say that I didn’t see any bile, Republican or otherwise, in his OP. Hillary’s nomination does seem less sure (though I’d still bet on her) and Kos’ tepid endorsement of Obama is kinda funny and nobody should have to duck because of it.</p>
<p>EK, Obama being able to respond to questions about Clinton doesn’t show much of anything. I’m much more concerned about the gauzy cotton-candy promise of non-partisanship and his demonstrated history of ducking hard votes–even excoriating Clinton about a vote that he himself managed to miss. He’s been mediocre in the so-called debates. And he really hasn’t been tested by adversity yet, whereas Hillary has taken everything the GOP can throw for 15 years and more and keeps on ticking.</p>
<p>She has taken everything the GOP has thrown for 15 years, was likely in on the genocide decision, the Big Lie of 1998, and the extension of the Big Lie in her support for the aggressive, hostile occupation in 2002. She has a clear track record of experience: if you like it, vote for her.</p>
<p>I don’t stipulate to those characterizations but haven’t found them worth debating and, yes, I’ll take her experience and world view over those of Obama and Edwards.</p>
<p>I’ve liked Obama since before he announced his candidacy, and I still like him. I think the fact that he tries to exist above the mud-slinging is a plus. I like the fact that he can see both sides of an issue and that he tries to work across the aisle. (I would love to have a President who could depolarize Congress by respecting both sides and finding common ground). I like his unrelenting optimism and his tendency to think first. I like his diplomacy. All of these characteristics would be good in the Executive Office. I think he’s a more attractive President than he is a presidential candidate. Hillary is the best from the standpoint of “who can survive the general election season,” but if the Republican party is truly imploding, as described above, it may not be necessary to choose the toughest candidate. Maybe for once we can look past the politics to what kind of leader do we want, rather than who can win. I strongly agree with what he told the NYT today:</p>
<p>
</p>