“The truly Clintonian figure running for the Democratic nomination is Barack Obama,” Ruth Marcus wrote in a commentary in Friday’s Opinion pages. “The senator from Illinois, it’s struck me lately, seems in many ways more like Bill Clinton than does the senator from New York.”
Marcus noted the superficial similarities, such as their humble backgrounds and absent fathers. But Obama is most like Bill Clinton in his ability and desire to find the middle on issues and in his amazing people skills.
What about Hillary? “If Obama is the Clintonian figure in the race, Hillary Clinton may be Al Gore, more disciplined policy wonk than natural politician,” Marcus wrote. “Like Gore, Hillary Clinton can be more adroit intellectually than politically; both face the challenge, fair or not, of convincing voters of their ‘authenticity.’”
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Let immigrants run
- Heckler on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Let immigrants run
- okobserver on Let immigrants run
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
110 Comments
Barack/Hillary in ‘08?
Worse things have happened…
Obama is like Clinton?
In what world?
I wasn’t a big Bill fan, but he DID have a long political history under his belt.
Obama has nothing.
He’s a junior Senator for chrissake.
He has no accomplishments whatsoever under his belt.
The only thing he has – is Oprah Winfrey and she is a powerful force in the nation today.
But can Oprah run for the Presidency by proxy?
It seems she can.
Obama Winfrey.
I don’t believe a Hillary/Winfrey ticket could win in 2008.
Obama seems like a nice guy – but unfortunately for him, his name IS Obama AND his middle name is Hussein. Will the GOP make a big deal out of that? Of course. And let’s not forget he actually has some (psuedo) Muslim roots. Will the GOP make a big deal out of that? Of course. And he’s black. Will the GOP make a big deal out of that? Not publicly.
Hillary has a better shot at pulling down the Dem nomination -but she is unelectable in the General, too. She has Loretta Lynn “Stand By Your Man” baggage that isn’t going to go away. Will the GOP make a big deal out of that? Of course. And the history of her very poor failed health plan will be screamed from sea to sea. I’m pretty sure her windfall fall investments will come under the microscope, too.
I think she is stronger with the Dem party by choosing Obama Husein as a running mate – but it will weaken her with the GOP.
I would LOVE to see a woman as President – just not Hillary. I would vote for Condaleeza without hesitation. But my party wont. Too many in my party have strong Patriarchal leanings.
Right now -the GOP has no super-star contenders – so they better be scrambling.
If it’s a Hillary/Obama ticket – we (the GOP) will have to work hard -but we can pull it off.
If it is an Obama/Hillary ticket – we wont even have to put much effort into it.
Personally, if we MUST have a Dem President, I would prefer Hillary – she is an admitted Hawk and if we haven’t been pulled from our mission in Iraq by then – she will likely stay the course. Her husband DID have his Kosovo War after all – and he attacked Iraq, also. She backed his actions then – so she will likely take the same stance now. And early last year – she made the comment we needed to keep our military strong in regards to the smoke Iran was blowing.
If the libs want a pacifist – she’s going to surprise them. lol
For that very reason – I doubt she would even choose Obama.
But only time will tell – until then – it’s anyone’s guess.
I watch a speech that Rudy gave in New Hampshire on CSPAN last weekend.
I have to admit. I really liked what he said and how he delivered his message.
He’s an optimist and that a rare quality in political candidates.
I’m taking a hard look at all the candidates from both parties.
Obama is ok. I wouldn’t call him inexperienced. He’s qualified and competent. And any continued bashing from the right on Obama and Hillary will do nothing but gain sympathy votes for them. So trying to make the lame “inexperienced” “has nothing” case is just a political bashing talking point. If you don’t like the Democrat Party, then I would suggest not to resort in their character assisnation tatics. Just don’t be like Democrats. Give Obama and Hillary a fair shake.
I won’t be voting for them. It has nothing to do with them being Democrat. They are just too left-wing for me. They don’t represent my ideals.
But Rudy Giuliani does. His biggest obstical is to get over the far-right nutcase crowd who dominate the primaries.
All the candidates in the running or in exploritary mode as of now, Rudy gets my vote.
I am amused by Sheridan’s seemingly candid admission that the Republicans will use Sen. Obama’s middle name against him – yet he goes right ahead and gratuitously uses that middle name himself. You are a hypocrite, sir. But I’m probably telling everyone else nothing new on this blog.
Anytime a Republican says how easy it will be to defeat Hillary or Obama, it is just an affirmation that those candidates might be the best chance of electing a Democrat who can dig this country out of the huge pool of quicksand the Bushies have sunk us into over the past 6 years – which will soon be 8 years.
I think Sheridan’s analysis is flawed. She gets credit for understanding the core GOP problem, which is that they have no superstar Prez contenders, and as long as Bush is prez they likely won’t. No GOP candidate will be able to break free of Bush’s considerable shadow; Bush’s irrational policy decisions will be a fatal albatross for any GOP candidate emerging from the tender mercies granted by their base, a.k.a., the GOP primary.
A few issues from 2004 will carry over to 2008 (eg, Iraq, healthcare/Medicare/Social Security), and I believe that the detritus of 2004 will – as a function of American political continuity – prove decisive.
In 2004 Kerry was able to convince Americans that Bush is clearly an idiot, but he failed to convince Americans that he was a lesser idiot. In 2008 the shoe will be on the other foot for the GOP: the GOP will be able to drive down the positives of any Democrat, but they’ll lose because their own (sum of) positives will still be less – thanks to Bush, the base, and the kind of negative election they’ll be forced to run (again).
H/O or O/H: either way, the Dems walk away with it. (but not in Kansas, granted)
In 2008, hope triumphs over fear.
BTW, Rice is of a flawed character and unfit to be president. She’s weak because it’s obvious that she prefers to be dominated by a strong man. Guys like Putin et al could have their way with Condie if they treat her bad in just the right way. And that ain’t presidential.
Kelly, I didn’t mean to come across as hypocritical about Obama’s name. I wasn’t basing the GOP when I said they would use the tactic – they will, and being a GOP’er I will, also. I was just stating the way I think it will play out.
Politics is a nasty game – but we all play it. Both sides do. Remember how Dan Rather lost credibility by pushing the military thing with GWB that turned out to be false? Part of me wishes it were not so nasty – but since it is – I’m not going to rise above the fray.
JOE – You say I am using dirty tactics by claiming Obama hasn’t done anything of substance. Can you tell me one thing he has promoted and won? Anything? He simply hasn’t had the time. His inexperience will be a strong point against him.
Pedant – I agree that a GOP’er will have a hard time running in GWB’s shadow. If they want to pull all the party votes, they need to be strong – not say too much for or against the war, and walk a thin line.
But Rice isn’t a flawed character – I’ve seen her stand her ground on numerous issue when the heat was on – she’s terrific. But my party will not nominate her – and if she got the nomination your party would win.
I would still vote for her.
:)
Well, that was less fun than I’d hoped. :)
Appreciate the clarity, Sheridan.
Not really a dirty tatic to express that Obama has limited political experience. That is very true.
But to say he has no accomplishments under his belt is not true. And the only thing he has is Oprah and etc.
Look! The deserve any critisim in the book. I don’t think he will make that great of a President and he is far to left for me.
But you have to consider the Democrat voter mindset. They vote on an emotional basis, they don’t care about the logical standpoint. Hell! Republicans do the same thing by electing Bush Jr.
But percieved attacks on Democrat Candidates only give them more sympathy votes.
After the election in 1994 when the Democrats lost their 40 year rule of the House to Republicans, they thought it was temporary and they will win it back in 96. Strategy? To attack Republicans and character assasination. Well! Didn’t work.
It just seems like the Republicans are doing the same thing. Yeah! It will be difficult for a Republican to win in 2008 because of Bush, but not a sure thing.
If the Iraq War is considered won and done by the election of 2008, Democrats will lose. But not if Republicans keep on attacking them. Republicans need to project their message not blame and scream about Democrats.
“But Obama is most like Bill Clinton in his ability and desire to find the middle on issues…”
EXACTLY
Bill Clinton was the best REPUBLICAN President of the last century. We don’t need anymore of that. If it’s nice boy Obama? I vote green party.
Hillary is better. I like her comment that she would politically deck anyone that came after her. But it’s just too much like a two family dynasty to elect her. Here again, I likely vote green.
The right has been destroying the social and economic progress of this country since Reagan in the 80’s. There can be no working together with them. We need a candidate that will bust them in the chops and send them to their room.
Gore/Kucinich doesn’t sound too bad……
If I am not mistaken most presidential canidates really do not have much experience if any, in the position of president. The position of President is a required position of leadership, management, diversified qualities, financial prowness, orator/public speaking…and I could continue on with the job description. But my point in all that is candidates like obama, clinton have these qualities and plus. But will america be ready for a different type of leader that does not appear like our “founding fathers?” Someone who meets the standards set and brings uniqueness to the political game. Both clinton and obama will be challenged in there ability to lead, make decisions and prior experience. But how much experience do you need? Historically, most individuals who take the seat of President do not have over twenty years of political experience. Just look at the current presidents previous resume, he had no prior political experience on the level that both clinton and obama have combined. So why is there a question about experience. Neither individual can do worst then this one. Make fact, who ever takes the seat will have to do a major clean up job for the mess that is current and will be in 08. So whom ever we decide, needs to have a bonafide plan to change the direction of this country. Because truth be told we are loosing the once “Powerful Industrial” title we once held.
I am a conservative that doesn’t think that the next president needs to be a social engineer. We have a strong economy today because we backed off that position and really started to expect leaders to strengthen the USA economically. I don’t agree with Bush’s war policy or his policy on immigration. But I’m not sticking my head in the sand and saying that the economy hasn’t improved under him. We do have an historically low unemployment rate. We do have businesses expanding for the first time in decades. We do have the highest rate of home ownership and minority homeownership in history.
That said I haven’t seen the candidate on either side I could back in the next election. It’s time we credit the person and not the party for gains made. Our stranglehold as a nation on the old methods of picking candidates has put us where we are today.
I disagree with socialized medicine. I agree that improvements are in order but that isn’t the answer. I am a senior that benefited from the Medicare PartD prescription plan. It has flaws but is a big improvement over the nothing we had before. Windfall profit taxes don’t work. That was tried in the 70’s and was a complete failure They take the dollars that companies use to build and update facilities, research new technologies and improve productivity. Hillary’s statement about what “she was going to do” with the oil companies profits scares me. All over our country we have refineries that were never upgraded and are now being torn down. This leaves us with over 85% of our refining capacity in the gulf where it is very vulnerable to hurricanes.
Just a few thoughts on the election. I’m sure I’ll have many more before the time to cast my vote. I am just challenging others to do the same. Leave off the party and look at the person.
Thank you for your candor, Sheridan. I agree with 2REL4U about “experience”. I used to find myself repeating the criticism of Sen. Obama that he is too young, too inexperienced in foreign policy to lead this country correctly. Bush didn’t make many correct moves (maybe didn’t make ANY correct moves) despite being advised by “experienced” voices. But then I saw the RFK movie, and I was reminded just how excited people from all walks of life, political parties, ages and ethnicities were about Bobby Kennedy’s candidacy. This country needs a Presidential candidate with a new message – a fresh message of unity of purpose and common goals – and I think that is Sen. Obama’s attraction. I will not criticize him again for being young. The longer he serves in Congress the more likely it is that he will start sounding like and voting like all the hoary characters whose voices we don’t want to hear from any more.
That was an excellent post 2REL4U. But I might make one correction. President Bush does have more political experience than Obama.
In no way am I trying to prop up Bush or discredit Obama. Just the facts.
Obama started his political career as a State Senator in 1996. Tried to run for the House but lost. During his re-election campaign, he ran unopposed.
He ran for the open seat in the Senate and his opponet was Alan Keyes, who wasn’t even a resident of the State and was drafted, because the other Republican contender withdrew from race on a sex scandle.
So basically his campaign experience to challenge a strong candidate was met with defeat when he try to run for the House. Other than that, everything else was a walkthrough.
The Democrats like him for two reasons. 1. Because he generated a great deal of excitement from his powerful keynote address he gave in the 2004 Democratic Convention. (The best speech given for at least the last 20 years.) 2. Because he’s black and Democrats think they can one-up on Republicans as the moral superior of minority advancement.
“Gore/Kucinich doesn’t sound too bad……”
jr- I hope, I hope, I hope they get the nomination.
Haha Fleet. You Cons are all alike. You all deny what is obviously going to happen. Just as Rush denied that they (Cons) were going to lose Congress, and then when they lost, he admitted he expected it and elaborated on why.Self-deception is not going to win THIS election just like it didn’t win the last. The fact is the Republicans are going to lose to anyone the Dems put up …and lose badly.
After the primaries are done, most people realize that it comes down to the lesser of 2 evils in the general election. And what that will really come down to in 2008 is: If an election was held between Bill Clinton and his record and GW Bush and his record, who would win?To me, the only Republicans who can stand outside the shadow of GW is Rudy Guiliani and John McCain. And I don’t think they have the skills of persuasion that Clinton/Barak have. Right now, even Kerry/Gore looks a lot better than GW and his cronies!To me, Kerry won because he held his head up and ran a clean campaign. Bush swift boated his way to his second term but it was much like his first term…the game was won on a bad call by the referee. We all know who was the better man. It doesn’t matter who had the highest score. If you play dirty and win dirty, you are always known as being dirty.
Funny, the people who would never vote for a democrat anyway, telling us who we should vote for.
There are reasons republicons are republicons and democrats are democrats…
we don’t think the same at all.
If you don’t like Hillary or Obama, that’s good!
Interesting point, but that isn’t how history remembers Thomas Jefferson …the man who started dirty American politics.
If you are a registered Republican, or you usually vote for Republican candidates, BUT in 2006 you voted for 1) Paul Morrison or 2) Kathleen Sebelius – state the reason(s) you voted the way you did, OR what were the negatives leading you to vote against who you voted against.
Email your data to:
darwinsdisciple@hotmail.com
Thank you…
As far as voting for parties- I will NOT vote for any republican as long as they haven’t learned the lesson. We’ve got Brownback, who apparently didn’t get the memo- that right wing whackos have damaged the country, and to move more moderate.
Hillary has a very high “hate factor” – she won’t even win the democrat nomination.
Obama – same.
I disagree with KSG. I believe Hillary will be nominated and most likely will win.
will win the election?
yeowie. I think the chances of that are less than 20%.
Point in case KS.All the DEMs have to do is tip the balance in Florida and Ohio, and that is WAY to easy right now. But I think they will likely pick up more states than that.
Pmom I’ve said it before and I will say it again. ANYONE who thinks that all republicans are good and all democrats are bad shouldn’t vote. Neither should who think that all democrats are good and all republicans are bad. As for the ’stolen’ election. My grandson’s team just lost a game where a bad call by the ref made the difference. His coach told him and rightly so that no team should put themselves in a position to lose because of one bad call. I hope in this next election we have a candidate running so good that it isn’t even close.
States up for grabs if Hillary runs: Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire…maybe even California.
maybe even California.
Posted by: KSGolfnut | February 03, 2007 at 12:27 PM
Doubtful.Even in the red-est of county’s we are starting to see bumper stickers for Dems.And unfortunately the population centers (Bay Area) and LA County control the outcome of elections. The electoral college is screwed up. Like a great SNL skit from the 80’s – what the hell is this? They don’t even have a basketball team.
Haha… You’re delusional KSG. Stop trolling.
Haha… You’re delusional KSG. Stop trolling.
Well golf, you’ve been wrong all this time, might as well keep your streak going.
My talks with the moderate voters…like my neighbors, who don’t participate in blogs, who work, who pay attention to politics but only barely…all are in support of Hillary.
And those are the people whose voices are going to matter far and away more than ours on this blog.
MrK, my brother lives near Santa Barbara (read: VERY republican), and he’s as hopeful as ever that maybe the state is turning around for the better.
Maybe it’s just wishful thinking.
But, we’ve proven repeatedly that we don’t need CA to win the election.
One thing that I have found in talking to people that do talk favorablely about one candidate or another but are not politically active – participate on blogs, get involved in campaigning for their candidates, etc… – are also the least likely to show up at the polls.
I honestly can’t think of a Republican that I’d support. Giuliani is just a Noo Yawk Kerry in my book. Way yankee (waaaaay), way too pushy, way too effete. Kinda like the Pace picante commercial: “A president from NEW YORK CITY?!?!?”
Ain’t no way.
McCain is the closest, but it’s way too ugly to watch him whore out to the Dobsons and the Falwells. In my book, if you can’t stand up to those two bozos then you’ll never get my vote. Quite the opposite of standing up to his party’s cultural bullies, McCain’s doin’ far too much knee work around ‘em, it ain’t pretty, and he won’t ever recover. Not in my book, not in the nation’s book – not after Bush, Terry Schiavo, and Iraq.
Dems in a cakewalk in 2008.
I will disagree with you ksgrm. I say that every member of this blog votes. Unless they are a felon.
Joe that was my point. Pmom said her neighbors that didn’t participate on blogs and were just barely interested in politics were in favor of Hillary. I think that if you don’t involve yourself in some way you also won’t be interested enough to vote.
Pedant and Andrew have it correct.
UNLESS somw unknown “rock star” suddenly emerges for the Republicans? Dems have a rare opportunity to walk over them.
This is why we must choose our nominee very carefully. We need offer no concessions right of the middle.
I am a social conservative but I don’t use that as my only criteria in choosing a candidate. I wouldn’t vote for Brownback because I have serious issues with his immigration policies for one. But I also have a lot of democrat friends that feel much the same way about the extreme left of the democrat party. JR I think your party will make a very serious mistake by taking the results of the last election as a mandate to move further left. But who am I be giving advise, keep moving.
“Dan Rather lost credibility by pushing the military thing with GWB that turned out to be false?”
Um, no. Think a little about what transpired, and maybe you’ll get to the heart of it. The ONLY thing that was questioned was the font/type used on the paper. The actual truth of the words was never a part of it. No falsehood about Dubya’s military was ever proven, but instead it was tied in with the font/type thing, making it appear false.
As usual, Republicans only look to the surface and rarely get beyond what they’re told to see.
…….
Oprah needs to either throw her feathered hat in the ring or sit down, shut up, and stay out of politics.
…….
2REL4U, excellent points. One of the first things that came to mind while reading it was Eisenhower, who did not have a political background, but ran on his miltary service.
If a longterm political background is what we’re looking for, Richardson of NM would be the man.
……..
Hillary is not my choice, but I tend to look at her as an individual candidate, not Bill’s wife. I laugh every time someone says she’s too liberal, because, when compared to Bill (which I’d rather not), she’s even more “right” than he is.
I’d like to see someone (again) who does not preside as a “party.” Not necessarily someone in the “middle,” but someone who works for the people. All people. The ability and willingness to compromise and individual intelligence play a large part in who gets my vote. Would that be Obama? Possibly. Hillary? A big maybe. Giuliani? A big NO. Rice? ROFL
RD you and I agree that Bill Richardson would be a good candidate. I think he has he finger on the pulse of the immigration debacle. I don’t agree that the only thing questioned was the font type. The real reporters unearthed a conspiracy by an enemy of the Bush’s in Texas to discredit the president.
Lol, Rice can’t even run a decent State Department much less a nation…
As for Oprah, she has as much right as anyone to chime in on politics. She is a self-made billionaire, so you have to respect her intelligence. She also has an almost cult-like following who WANT to know what she thinks about politics. What’s wrong with telling them what they want to hear?
I don’t like Hillary either. She plays politics a little too well for my taste. I like Obama because he seems to value his beliefs on the issues over what polls say he should think (like Hillary). And he is very left, which I am all about. Of course, this could just be what I am SUPPOSED to think about him, but I’m going with my gut on this one anyway.
I know many people who aren’t involved in any ways that are visible (no blogging, appear not at all interested in politics…) but DO vote. My grown children (like many others) are busy with jobs, children, sports, LIFE, but they vote. I logged in to a blog for the first time less than two years ago but have never missed an opportunity to vote. I think those people, not any of us who are here, are the majority. And some of them are paying attention, others are not. Sadly even those who don’t pay attention are among those who regularly cast their vote.
L55, I’m sure you are right about some voters. My kids are the same as yours but I can set down and have an intelligent conversation with them about issues. They do stay informed even if it is only watching TV at the health club or listening to the radio when driving. I guess it is those people who just hear a name and say he/she would make a good president. They never educate themselves on any issues.
They are the most likely to find something else to do on election day unless someone contacts them and encourages them to send in an early ballot.
Perhaps it should be a ‘get out the vote’ slogan:
Old people vote, do you really want them deciding your future?
Who are you calling old??I didn’t say that I said disinterested. I would rather have an informed voter no matter what their age that an voter that steps into a booth and looks at the names to see which ones he recognizes.
lol, you’re onto something pmom! Those who would use it as their slogan would just need to say it quietly to the right people at the right time. lol
Sure doesn’t seem like long ago that I was young…
I remember the commercial a few years ago that shows a rocker with earphones on. The slogan said he’s tuned in but tuned out. He votes – don’t you think you should to.
If it gets out the vote – I’ll go for it.
“Old people vote, do you really want them deciding your future?”
Oh, P Mom, you are in serious trouble now! Please take yourself out behind the barn and give yourself a good whacking.
I would do it myself, but you’re too far away and it would be hard to explain to your husband anyway.
Sheeeez – Old people!
Some of us are still pretty sharp for being “old people.”
Actually pmom I wear my years proudly. I worked hard to get where I am and I wouldn’t have my terrific grandkids if I were young again. I can assure you they are a lot more fun than I had raising three sons.
I’m going to leave for a while. WSU pulled within 6 and I have to give it my whole attention.
I’d like to see someone (again) who does not preside as a “party.” Not necessarily someone in the “middle,” but someone who works for the people. All people. The ability and willingness to compromise and individual intelligence play a large part in who gets my vote. Would that be Obama? Possibly. Hillary? A big maybe. Giuliani? A big NO. Rice? ROFL
Posted by: RD | February 03, 2007 at 01:25 PM
I’d like that too. To happen we would have to have basically Government funding of campaigns in equal amounts with no private donations. Cuts out all the special interest whether they be corporations, labor unions, social/environmental/religious interests, etc.It would give a much more realistic view for people of values of specific party’s and candidates as well.More than likely never going to happen as said candidates don’t only like the campaign contributions there are kick backs as well.
“The ONLY thing that was questioned was the font/type used on the paper. The actual truth of the words was never a part of it….” by rdThe documents were forged. Period.Would you be defending the indefensible?Are you saying the documents were forged, but that’s not important, because what was in the forged documents was true?Are you saying forgery is OK, as long as it’s true? Step up!
“Would you be defending the indefensible?”
Fleet, do you ever ADD anything to the discussion, or do you just lurk around waiting to toss out some talking point from Rush or Billo?
In seven or eight months on this blog, I have yet to see you actually do anything other than criticize. You never do anything other than throw out insults. You never make an intelligent point, left or right, to add to the public discourse.
If you are just going to add trash to the mix, get a bullhorn and drive around town yelling.
Otherwise, try ADDING something other than insults to the debate.
Are you being trolled or off meds we don’t know about?
Fleet is trolling again – it’s Saturday Night.
pmom,it’s statements like that that have forced me to lose all interest in responding to you.
Dear PM,
Does that mean I don’t get to participae in the group hug at the next meetup?
Hank
I’d imagine that your opinion, when added to the personal traits you’ve clearly expressed here, could prove less than moving to political_mom.
Maybe it’s just me, but I’m getting the impression that lying about your marital status, in conjunction with the open possibility that you could up and choose to be gay, is proving less than seductive to our Salina belle.
Course you’d have to take that up with her.
Just tryin’ to be helpful. =)
ws-Thank you for your worthless rant. Any answers to the post regarding the forgery of which I wrote?Perhaps, you could respond for rd.P.S. Please point out the insults in my last post, as I fail to see them.
I stand by my statements, Fleetwood. You have yet to ADD anything to a thread other than insults and Rush O’Hannity talking points.
For once, instead of attacking someone else on the blog or accusing a Democrat of treason, etc, try to express an opinion that has actually been thought out.
So, ws, my point stands? Forgery is OK as long as it is about Bush?
More BS, Fleet. Time to cross you off the list along with Nutz and Dothead.
When you start behaving like a mature adult, Fleet, you’ll get a response. Until then, you are just another two-faced blog troll.
See ya’, Fleet.
political mom is being trolled by fleetwood.
The sentiment is too simplistic. But it it CLOSE to true.
Many Republicans ARE evil. MOST Republicans are simply not terribly bright.
Oh and WS is correct. The font format was the only issue on the documents. There was never any refutation of the story itself. The “real reporter” that germie refers to upthread? That would be Sean Hannity. Sean Hannity is to real reporting as Eric Seveereid was to tap dancing.
Perfect! No response to the charges. My point stands.I win, again.Credibility of you people continues to decline.Bush lied, people died, fleettwood trolls = same old nothing charges that can’t be supported.I win, again. Which means, you lose.
The documents were forged. Does anyone refute that?
Maybe.
What documents?
Pmom,
>Republicans, all of them, are evil
Conservative Republicans hijacked the party and some went along too willingly. I respect Republicans in general if they dislike Bush for his policies. They can like the man, his family, Texas or whatever else.
It’s too early tossing up favorites for President. Hillary does have the “Bill” questions. Is America is ready for a former President in the White House that way? Women voting for gender have to forgive Bill and Monica. I don’t forgive Bill for that.
Won’t Richardson be her Vice President choice eventually? He doesn’t have national exposure name recognition, but well qualified to be in the White House administration again.
Obama will be better served choosing a Vice President and if he doesn’t win the Dem nomination, run anyway, independently somehow.
Eliot Spitzer, new gov of New York should be his V.P. Because the fed budget does need a financial wizard. He also would get to pick SEC chairperson to keep screws on stock corporations.
Republicans need better voting possibilities than the guys running for Prez. Milt Romney or Rudy Guilani could be their Prez/VP choices, whichever wants the big chair most. Guilani has “women” problems.
Should women of either party vote for guys who cheated on their wives.
Are we done with the forged docs? Should I place the plaque of the wall? Too late, I already have.
I thought that got answered already in 1992 and 1996.
Why is it so sad to me that only JR figured out that I didn’t write the above post?
Don’t you realize I never stop at just one post? And I would never say something quite like that.
Come on folks, you should know me better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sct9igr7wMA
PM
Don’t be sad !! Likely not many read the post — DON’T WORRY — BE HAPPY
GO BEARS
Hey Mom I did too. Or at least recognized enough to question it.
The thing I think about most republicans, the ones who toe the party line no matter what…
I really don’t get it. You would think being patriotic would be like taking care of your own house. If your gutters are falling down, you fix them. You don’t deny that they’re falling down!
But that’s not happening, it’s more like denial of alcoholism…I can control my party, there’s nothing wrong here…our government won’t do anything to hurt us. Denial denial denial.
I’m sure it was the same in Nazi Germany.
Yeah but Kia you also asked if I was off my medication!
(I’m not by the way lol).
I was doing my taxes- BY MYSELF AGAIN GOLF…today would have been a day to make a comment like that lol.
yea but that was in sarcasm.i hope you used turbo tax
I qualify for the free online program so I used that- turbo tax yes.
It was MUCH more thorough than H&R
Political_mom! If you want to understand why some people tow the Republican Party line no matter what, just look at yourself and you loyalty and dedication to the Democratic Party and then you will understand why.
I condem Republican strategies, positions, and members all the time. But somebody like you won’t aknowledge or believe that their are some very bad and corrupt members of the Democratic Party. In your eyes, all Democrats are angels and looking after your best interest. But in reality, they could care less about you.
Oh and in the past I’ve used H&R block’s free program, this year, I followed the correct links, met all the criteria for the free program, I got all the way through the damn thing and then it was asking me to pay.
I was SO incredibly p’d.
That’s why it took me twice as long, I had to do it twice…second time on the Turbo Tax site. GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.
The Federal Tax reporting is free. They get you on the State.
Just file Federal for free with H&R and you can go here to file your State for free.
https://www.accesskansas.org/ssrv-webfile/index.html
I am not like that, I’ve mentioned many things over the years of things I don’t agree with my party over.
That dem who had the money in his freezer, totally not happy about that, can’t believe he was backed up by Republicans.
Illegal immigration, major issue for me.
I’ll admit I’m more apt to believe a dem over a republican.
Are we done with the forged docs? Should I place the plaque of the wall? Too late, I already have.
This is too easy.
Joe I’m telling you that I followed the right links directly from the Govt website, and I was asked at the end to pay for the service from H & R. Maybe it’s because I’ve used that program before?
If you earn less than 52k, you can use any of these free online tax preps.
http://www.irs.gov/efile/article/0,,id=118986,00.html
Besides I’m happier with the turbo tax, and I’ll use that one in the future.
Turbo tax is the best, asks you lots of questions all thru the process rather than pushing you thru to get to the next person like a H&R (just an example) live person would.
What’s most comical about the forged docs is the idiots that did it never gave thought or enough to it that personal computers around in 1971. You really want to take down a President, sack up and spend the money to find an “antique” typewriter. lol
Really, $52,000?The watermark of “the rich” keeps getting lower and lower.
No, what it takes to live comfortably gets higher and higher.
Mr Kia-You are so right!In the mean time, I am still waiting for anything resembling refutation.
enema, you ranting again?
We know you’re the troll, give it up.
we’re the only country where “poor” = two cars, big-screen TV, cell phones, nintendo and computer.
I have two vehicles that are ugly and old, and no big screen.
Nobody said 52k was poor.
Just that they’re not likely to need a lot of tax schedules.
KSGolfnut and fleetwood
related somehow……
popup!<—–{(oo)} looking into it…..
: )
Nobody said 52k was poor.Posted by: political_mom | February 03, 2007 at 09:46 PM
Did you mean nobody said that was rich ?
Is there an in-between?
I’d be happy with 50k a year.
I’m not asking you if you’d be happy or satisfied with that much. I am. I’ve only made north of that 4 years.But I’d say ask someone making $50K if they feel like the rich and I don’t think they’d say Yes. Comfortable sure as long as living within the means, but rich no.My point is there are Democrat tax plans have someone making $50K in the same class as someone making $500K.
50k is certainly not the same as making 100k.
And no, I dont’ think it’s rich nor poor….closer to poor than rich.
Its the place where you can make it, can afford health insurance, can afford a house and a new car occassionally, maybe save a little, but it’s not like you can just up and take a day off and fly to florida for the week.
I always said my ideal earnings would make it so I could pay my bills, afford something that comes up, save a little and take a real vacation every five years.
That’s all, it’s not asking too much is it?
No not at all.
However many liberal Democrats seem to want to categorize all Republicans in the ultra rich catergory, including many on this blog.However from where I sit we just want as little government interference in our lives as possible and to be left to our own free will.Many als have talked about Republicans and special interests. ALL politics and party’s are funded and based on special interests. It’s a matter of which are closer to your needs/morals/wants/beliefs and how you rank them in order of importance.
No not at all.
However many liberal Democrats seem to want to categorize all Republicans in the ultra rich catergory, including many on this blog.However from where I sit we just want as little government interference in our lives as possible and to be left to our own free will.Many als have talked about Republicans and special interests. ALL politics and party’s are funded and based on special interests. It’s a matter of which are closer to your needs/morals/wants/beliefs and how you rank them in order of importance.
I’ll say this with no hesitation: If I was given the opportunity to have health insurance, and it was going to be difficult to afford…
I would cancel cable, cancel the internet, stop smoking, kill the cell phones, live with one car…whatever it takes to ensure that my family was covered.
Today’s “poor folks” aren’t willing to make that kind of sacrifice. AND, they don’t really care – if someone gets sick or breaks a leg, no problem – someone ELSE will pay for it.
Yeah sure. The problem is that even with all that, it isn’t enough!
ONE trip for something major and you’re screwed anyway.
And I’ll have you know, everything we have to pay for anyway, with or without health insurance. You don’t seem to understand that.
You’re going to pay one way or another, either through wage garnishments or lawsuits.
Sucks to be you pee mom….It’s evolution in action. My family is more evolved than yours.
So I see we’re back to the name calling?
Ok.
I’m just done with you.
Golfer,
Some people like I, never smoked, still don’t own a cell phone, only drive one car, have refused to own cable since like the week it started. MTV’s early, Girls want to have fun, repeadedly drove me from the media. I saw at work, that old Chi-Chi’s on West Street.
No interest in ESPN and can do without watching every single sports game. I like free tv.
I rarely drink much but water. Beer, pop and whatever wine when people come over. Not for my own use.
I haven’t wasted hours playing golf either since being 20. 20 years ago.
Tiger plays all the golf I need.
For years, and I thank my parents for good genes, really all my relatives have good health, I went without health insurance from age 20 to 34 to SAVE MONEY!
Never in an accident or sick during that time.
So keep your “poor” talk about giving things up in perspective, some of us never needed it.
Poor is anyone with challenging credit.
Being rich or glorfying it leads to creating fraud or ripping others off to get richer. Bill Gates did with Microsoft, overcharging business and taking dollars from the public with no upgrades to Win 95.
Richest man in the world ripped off to keep it going. Corporate fraud exposes excessive stealing by executives.
Industry creating unfair interest rates on loans, credit cards, attacks consumers for profit.
A sudden bad medical problem can bankrupt even those with health insurance.
Insurance is ripping off consumers based on living in some zip code or city. Dropping coverage with those making yearly payments on time.
Hurricane Katrina victims love their insurance companies.
I’m with those who hate to pay for health insurance while I’m healthy. Trying to stay healthy so never to use it and potentially could be dropped.
If not caught, no matter health insurance covered, hospitals will rip off with pricey bills. Amazing how hospitals overcharge and get away with it.
Your bull shows evolution is probably stuck in that brain of yours.
I am tired of the Bushes and Clintonians running this country, lets get someone totally new in the Whitehouse for a change.
the 11:49 post was not me
err, 45
I would cancel cable, cancel the internet, stop smoking, kill the cell phones, live with one car…whatever it takes to ensure that my family was covered.
Today’s “poor folks” aren’t willing to make that kind of sacrifice. AND, they don’t really care – if someone gets sick or breaks a leg, no problem – someone ELSE will pay for it.
*****
This shows why RepubliCONs are so out of touch with today’s average voters.
Even if “poor folks” gave up all those things, they still couldn’t afford private, unsubsidized health care.
Health care costs have risen at a blistering 10 percent rate for over a decade with no end in sight.
“Giving up cable” is not going to do it.
CaptA:
I think what they really want is to shallow the gene pool by letting all the poor die from lack of care, shelter, education. You know, all the stuff that we “rich” folk take for granted.
Do campaigns even matter today? They’re all going to lie to get into office, and then they will restructure their lies continuously to stay in office. I was not a supporter of clinton because of his war against the former Yugoslavia. I am not a supporter of the current administration because of the war with Iraq. Obama may be against the war in Iraq, but give him time. Like most other presidents, he’ll find some crack in the earth where he will feel the need to send our troops (not that Yugo or Iraq are cracks in the earth.)