<p>“Call me crazy, but I wouldn’t vote for a person based on what he has written of his views in a book.”</p>
<p>Neither would I. Call ME crazy, but I wouldn’t call a person weak-kneed and spineless if I hadn’t even read ONE of his books, much less learned anything else about him.</p>
<p>I’m a defense lawyer whose OBGYN sister has been wrongly sued, and I support radical reform of the medical malpractice system. However, I don’t see this as a reason to turn against Edwards. #1, it’s one issue out of dozens. #2, it’s very unlikely that Congress is going to pass some sweeping tort reform bill no matter who the president is, and the president can’t do anything on this issue without Congress. #3, for-profit litigators really can’t win; if he’d represented insurance companies, we’d be attacking him for starving crippled kids to save State Farm a few bucks…IMHO, virtually all litigators, and the vast majority of other lawyers, take the “wrong” side sooner or later.</p>
<p>The democrats have no choice BUT to be “weak-kneed” and “spineless” – don’t you see? Didn’t you see the Hillary SNL clip? It doesn’t matter who it is; even some lily-livered (is that the phrase?) Republicans are jumping ship. I think there’s a good chance, come 2008, that people MAY prefer someone who stands firm and it won’t/can’t be a Democrat.</p>
<p>A lot can happen by then. </p>
<p>Sorry to offend your sensibilities with the weak-kneed/spineless image (though I thought it paled in comparison to #40, gee).</p>
<p>Look at the SNL Hillary/Matthews skit I linked to in the “Who is boycotting Bush today” thread. (I can’t get a link now but that one still works.)</p>
<p>In it, she talks about withdrawing xxx troops for every percentage point Obama rises in the polls.</p>
<p>I see. Well, it’s fair enough to lampoon her for using the polls to decide what to eat for breakfast. But you’re going to have to explain for me the connection between withdrawing troops from Iraq and being weak-kneed or spineless.</p>
<p>Spineless, to me, implies an unwillingness to stand up to authority and a terror of admitting you were wrong.</p>
<p>HH, you should really learn how to read a poll before ballyhooing it as evidence of things flowing in your favor. That poll was of those who <em>watched</em> the speech. The partisan split of the respondents was noted as 32 R, 31 D, 36 I.</p>
<p>The national split in terms of party I.D. as currently reported by Rassmussen…a R-leaning firm but they update every month…is 37.4 D, 31.8 R, and 30.8 I, based on a three-month rolling survey, which should be pretty damned accurate. </p>
<p>But considering that you’re not going to see anyone in public life who’s a successful politician who’s not a “corporate whore, double speak politician” any time soon - isn’t there a value in supporting the double-speak corporate whores who actually mouth support for the right side? Remember “Nader for President”?</p>
<p>MKM, the point is that a poll of those who heard the speech–and therefore are predisposed to support the so-called president–is not a valid indicator of support for either the president or his policies [sic].</p>
<p>Fwiw, here’s the job approval rating for Bush in all the polls since the first of the year, along with the last date of the poll. (see also, PollingReport.com)</p>
<p>Company Date Approve Disapprove</p>
<p>CNN/Opinion Research Corp. 1/21/07 34 63<br>
CBS 1/21/07 28 64<br>
NBC/Wall Street Journal 1/17/07 35 60<br>
ABC/Washington Post 1/19/07 33 65<br>
Newsweek 1/18/07 31 62<br>
AP/AOL 1/18/07 36 61<br>
Gallup 1/18/07 36 61<br>
FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV 1/17/07 35 58<br>
L.A. Times/Bloomberg 1/16/07 39 59<br>
Pew 1/15/07 33 59<br>
USA Today/Gallup 1/14/07 34 63<br>
Diageo/Hotline RV 1/14/07 35 62<br>
CNN/Opinion Research Corp. 1/11/07 35 62<br>
AP-Ipsos 1/10/07 32 65<br>
USA Today/Gallup 1/7/07 37 59<br>
CBS 1/3/07 30 63 </p>
<p>Read 'em & weep. I suspect Jim Webb will get a bigger bounce than Bush and that Bush’s bounce, if he even has one, will be measured at about 3/5 of a second.</p>
<p>Yup. I’d vote for him again. Emphatically! Gore mismanaged his own election, and then Kerry gave his away. They just didn’t have the stuff it takes to be President.</p>
<p>Now Hillary lying unabashedly on national TV tonight - SHE has what it takes.</p>
<p>Inasmuch as I decided to completely ignore the 2006 elections and all the pre/post debates, I’ve to admit you correctly called the outcome and the wholesale changes. A bit of deja vu from the first mid-term election of good 'ol Bill, wasn’t it? </p>
<p>It remains to be seen if the most recent votes demonstrate the renewed intelligence of the voters or their fickle herd mentality. </p>
<p>However … however … I was talking about the 2004 polls! :)</p>
<p>So I was correct with a two-year delay. Me and Fred Steeper.</p>
<p>Interestingly enough, the aggregate House vote was in the R’s direction for 2000, 2002, and 2004, the D’s for 2008. The four-cycle aggregate, however, is 50.1 R, 49.9 D… the Dems picked up that much ground in 2006. They ran very close races in unlikely places like the ID-01 and the WY-AL and pulled upsets in places like the NH-01 and the KS-03. And, yes, Dems were more motivated in 2006 <em>and</em> picked up significant ground among independents and Hispanic voters. And the gender gap is back, though the Dems have narrowed their deficit among men. Must be the persuasiveness of people like me.</p>
<p>Hanna, I may have to concede this point to you. I had thought that Edwards had taken the typical cop-out regarding his vote that BedHead espouses - that he was deceived into voting for the war … which has been shown to be just that: a cop-out. Instead, based on very limited research, it appears that Edwards doesn’t stoop to that level and indeed takes full responsibility for his vote. If he is consistent in this, I will have to give him credit, even though I disagree with his position.</p>
<p>“Wasn’t it William Safire who called Hillary a “congenital liar?” One scary lady.”</p>
<p>Someone reminded me yesterday of something that she said in the past that characterizes exactly what I hate about her and why I can’t stand the tought of her as president: “there is no such thing as someone else’s child.” On so many levels. On another note, it’s always astounded me that a smart, educated, accomplished woman rode her husband’s coat-tails to her position. Actually, I won’t say what I really think about THAT issue.</p>
<p>Yes, but I wish you had all actually seen the lie. It was magnificently engineered, and perfectly timed and executed, without missing the beat. She managed it with such grace and aplomb that Olbermann didn’t even flinch until it was over.</p>
<p>It clearly made the lying, deceit, and cheating of Bush, Powell, and Rice look like the work of rank amateurs. Perhaps she is the right person to restore some real competency to government.</p>
<p>“Yes, but I wish you had all actually seen the lie. It was magnificently engineered, and perfectly timed and executed, without missing the beat. She managed it with such grace and aplomb that Olbermann didn’t even flinch until it was over.”</p>
<p>Hey Mini, how dare you call my senator a liar? There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that she “said” what she told Olberman. To whom, I have no idea. Surely not Willie as pillow talk, but I am completely confident that Senator Clinton “said” that she was against the war at the time. I oughta call you out for attacking my duly elected representative to the most august body in these here United States. (Snort. Snicker. Guffaw.)</p>