Glad to see you’re able to know the facts better than the juries who actually sat through days of evidence. (It’s kind of a shame that “Duke rape” thread got nuked - consistency and all…)</p>
<p>I don’t see Clinton lasting through the nomination process. She’s the one Dem who can lose the vote of the middle - independents and fickle party members - who decide elections these days. I see a big, party-machine push ending in a flame out and lots of “What went wrong?” stories. </p>
<p>I think it comes down to Obama and Edwards. Obama’s too new for me to call that one yet. </p>
<p>For the Republicans it’s just a question of which midget sells his soul the best to the money guys, but I don’t think it matters because I think the smart money if going to sit this one out and bide its time for the next go-round, figuring that Bush has screwed the pooch so badly that any Dem except Clinton will win. It’s a good time for the right wing to get it out of their system by nominating a real mouth-breathing ideologue, so they can get serious in 2012.</p>
<p>Mini, I wouldn’t say “peers of the defendants”. Medical malpractice cases are very hard for the average person to “judge”. It is my belief that verdicts often go with the heart rather than with the medical facts.</p>
<p>Heart is good! But the reality is that the hard-hearted conservative justices had plenty of opportunity to find faults with both the verdicts and the awards, and political reasons to do so, and did no such thing. He must have been doing somethin’ right. </p>
<p>“It’s a good time for the right wing to get it out of their system by nominating a real mouth-breathing ideologue…”</p>
<p>Not to mention that there is considerable belief that doctors are performing too many C-section deliveries…largely out of fears of malpractice claims. This is a perfect example of how our health care system is undermined by a lack of common sense about professional judgement. The defensive medicine doctors are forced to practice is hideously expensive. I don’t see how you can have an effective, efficient health care system without allowing professional judgement. The well-trained doctor on scene is in the best position to make those judgements.</p>
<p>But the point is that this guy - a proven winner, and one who won over the hearts and minds of all those nasty conservative Republican judges against what you believe (without evidence, I might add) was their better judgment - could be working FOR YOU! </p>
<p>(Don’t worry - I ain’t votin’ for him any time soon.)</p>
<p>I just hope to read many posts by TheDad’s about how energized the Democratic party is and how wonderful THE ticket Hillary Rodham/xxx looks. Of course, I’ll also look at the older board for pleasant memories of the aberration of handicapping candidates before the primaries, or even during the summer. </p>
<p>On a personal note, I’ll stick to my views that followed the past presidental elections and recast my vote for a Southern Democrat. If he can find his way on the ticket --and past the perennial stupidity of the Dems to nominate an unelectable Northeasterner candidate-- my vote will go to Bill Richardson, and this despite his FOB label. Well, unless Bill Richardson is the unfortunate /xxx in the Hillary Rodham ticket.</p>
<p>FWIW, I really do not think that Richardson will have a chance, as the Dems will prefer to ride the First Man Clinton wagon. Not surprisingly, there’s NOTHING that could be better for Republicans and conservative than seeing Hillary nominated. Nothing better!</p>
<p>The Republicans are good at the “look of steely-eyed resolve” and “simple declarative statements with words of only one or two syllables” thing. </p>
<p>But actually having principles, instead of just looking principled? I’m not so sure.</p>
<p>Wouldn’t having principles mean coming clean with the American people over Abramoff’s visits to the house they own? Putting competence over cronyism when appointing civilians to Iraq rebuilding positions, especially for things as specialized and important as the hospital system and the stock market? And wouldn’t it mean telling the American people the truth about the consequences of the incredible borrow, spend and giveway spree this administration is on–that the Government’s own Accounting Office says without serious corrective measures we’re headed for insolvency.</p>
<p>I’m cynical. I don’t think it will make a whit of difference whom we elect. The overlap between the parties is huge, they are all corporate whores, and they all use double speak.</p>
<p>There is no “voice of change” in any candidate, of either party, and the status quo quote frankly sucks, pardon my French.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, Hillary just got on Olbermann and told a baldfaced lie, attacking the Prez for his pre-emptive war which, “I said at the time I was against.” </p>
<p>Xiggi, I had a damned good take on the 2006 elections. And put all my picks out there in black-and-white in advance.</p>
<p>HH, why be shocked? I used to be the kind who would look to find common ground across the aisle. No more. The anti-Clinton vitriol, the 2002 election campaign, and all the “dissent is treason” rhetoric and its equivalent radicalized me. No quarter asked, for I am surely giving none. Payback’s a *****, isn’t it? I seldom, if ever, heard a murmur of restraint from the voices on the Republican side of things. Too late for repentance now, you can just reap a whirlwind from what has been sown. I just hope that I give some people nightmares along the way.</p>
<p>I still can’t get over the irony of someone complaining about post #40s “vitrol” in the very same post where she characterizes the Democratic front-runners like this: “weak-kneed, spineless dem ticket choices”…then has to admit that in Obama’s case at least, she made this smear on the basis of NO facts whatsoever. I guess to some people, it’s only vitrol if the other side is doing it.</p>