<p>
</p>
<p>Anything short of bowing to the shrine of Saint Obama is considered to be “slamming” him. We are expect to gasp in awe at his divine aura and godliness.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then I would recommend figuring out what attributes it takes to stake out the crucial high ground in the center of the political spectrum and win national elections.</p>
<p>I won’t have any problem voting for Clinton or McCain. They are both experienced and tough.</p>
<p>That kind of sarcasm is sickening.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think he’s any of those. I do think he’s going to take our country dramatically to the left and increase the % of our economy which is under the auspices of the federal government.</p>
<p>
Well, the Republican party is more anti-immigration than the Democratic party. That is an ‘every man’ cause.</p>
<p>Hindoo, We have had Bill Clinton whom the people saw as one of them, the local boy done good, although he had a scholarship to Georgetown, was a Rhode Scholar, and attended Yale law, but the electorate never sense any elitism around him. You can be intelligent and still be like one of them. </p>
<p>I was recently listening to some of his interviews in the 90’s, and I have forgotten how intelligent this guy really is.</p>
<p>Mr. Payne,
I appreciate your polite response. Your succinct single-sentence argument makes far more sense than some of the mouth-frothing ravings and sarcasms I’ve read on this thread.</p>
<p>tega–Nobody is smarter than Bill Clinton. He’s absolutely brilliant, And you’re right. He could act like one of the boys–because he was one. Brilliant, but down-to-earth in a very tangible way. It’s sad, however, that we’re so limited to one type of candidate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I give Reagan a break due to the Cold War, I don’t give Bush I/II a break. In retrospect, I think Clinton is better than both.</p>
<p>It’s a tossup between Obama & McCain though. McCain is extremely anti-spending other than defense. Obama is pretty much the exact opposite.</p>
<p>Bush II mainly ran as anti-taxes. Didn’t follow Bush I’s campaign.</p>
<p>The one thing that voting McCain allows is deadlock in Washington. Democratic House/Senate & Republican President.</p>
<p>
What he failed to mention was that he (and the Republicans as a whole) are pro-debt.</p>
<p>Starve the beast, baby! No matter how badly we screw future generations - we got ours!</p>
<p>
All of America is pro-debt. Republicans and Democrats alike. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hillary is smarter than Bill is. More disciplined, too.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Short-term, maybe. The Dems will likely lose control of the house or senate in 2010. People are very much underestimating the impact of the Democratic Party’s female base leaving the party.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Disagree. I don’t view it as a female flight from the party, I view it as a total white flight from the Democratic party. Republicans have captured a larger share of the white vote in the last 2-3 presidential elections.</p>
<p>White flight from the Democratic Party is certainly part of the demographics, although I believe that the Dems have been breaking even or occasionally winning among white women (in 2006 for example) – I don’t feel like digging up my demographic splits.</p>
<p>Above and beyond that, the Democratic party’s bedrock apparatus – the canvassers, the phone bankers, etc. – have been overwhelmingly female. Large swaths of this group are disgusted. Not to mention the damage done in Florida and Michigan, which pretty much takes the Dems off the map as a national party.</p>
<p>Scratch that.</p>
<p>In 2004, the Dems won single white women 54.7% to 44.4%.</p>
<p>However, they lost married white women 61.3% to 37.9%. </p>
<p>Marrried white women outnumber single white women voters by quite a bit, so the Dems overall got clobbered among white women. Dems lose badly among white males of every imaginable persuasion.</p>
<p>Epiphany :</p>
<p>Clinton’s talking down to educated you? Are you insinuating that Hillary can only get through to her supporters speaking as if english is their second language?? If so that is quite a dig against the latino voting bloc she is winning in large numbers.Will you be contacting Obama’s campaign to suggest they insult those voters like he did those bitter,bible thumpers? This is the kind of nose in the air nonsense that republicans use to beat us in every presidential election.Paint us all as oh so superior.You know we don’t understand average Americans.</p>
<p>And yes there will be a reckoning in november because Obama does not speak for a large swath of the democratic party. Now there is a battle here and Obama’s coalition may prevail in the nominating phase. Just how your elitist posturing is going to bring the rest of us remedial learners on board in november is a mystery to me.</p>
<p>No, cornfed, the “dig” is not by me. The dig is from, by, <em>Hillary</em>, who chooses to speak that way, no matter what the audience. Either she is shouting loud & clear that ESL voters are her chief (and only importnat)voting bloc, or she considers all of the electorate, no matter what their language, less intelligent than herself, & thus must t a l k… s l o w l y… s o… t h a t … o u r… s u p p o s e d l y … s l o w … b r a i n s… c a n … p r o c e s s … i t… a l l</p>
<p>Hillary speaks slowly so that the misogynists in the Democratic Party (such as Howard Dean, John Kerry, and the Chappaquiddick Kid) and media don’t call her a: </p>
<p>s h r i l l, c a c k l i n g, s k a n k y, b i t c h</p>