OK, everybody who had to look up Batavia raise your hand.
:Kukri raises hand feebly:
Nice simile, Lemur. :bow: I wondered what an Illinois town had to do with that. :)
Printable View
OK, everybody who had to look up Batavia raise your hand.
:Kukri raises hand feebly:
Nice simile, Lemur. :bow: I wondered what an Illinois town had to do with that. :)
I'm reposting this clip for the express purpose of making Xiahou and Louis have aneurysms. A small-c conservative writes:
As a libertarian-minded conservative, I agree with almost nothing of Barack Obama's actual policy positions. Whether it is with education, health care, or fiscal matters, Obama is a liberal in the truest sense of the word. He fails to respect federalism and his policies can often border on socialism. Indeed, I have trouble identifying any policy positions of Obama's that appeal to me. In short, I think Barack Obama would make a terrible Head of Government.
Yet, as David Kopel has deftly noted, the Head of State is an entirely different role altogether, and regardless of your ideological perspective, there is something tremendously appealing about Obama. Indeed, several of his recent speeches - his Iowa victory, a speech on MLK Jr. Day, and the South Carolina victory - have given me goosebumps and caused me to swell with pride at being an American.
-edit-
Is the Batavia that obscure? I referenced it since it involves mutiny and cannibalism. I note with dismay that the Wiki article doesn't even touch on some of the more lurid aspects of the Batavia wreck. It's really, really nasty. Check it out sometime ...
I 100% agree. I just wish he could have been a pro-life Republican. He could just as easily be from the speeches he makes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
1. Actually she held a couple "fundraisers" in Florida, and that [sc] definitely doesn't could as campaigning, including the photo-op on the tarmac [/sc]
2. He's said something I can agree with.
3. Nader, well, good job.
4. Oh okay, so we can elect a female president, just because it hasn't occurred before. We just can't elect an African-American one, because he's a guy.
This got my goat, and swung it around, and then smashed it into a bolder. I can handle a woman president, just not this one. Yea, duh! It's not like I'm trying to hold back women's rights or degrading them, it's just that I don't think she should lead the country! For Pete's sake, is that a crime?Quote:
He’s joined the list of progressive white men who can’t or won’t handle the prospect of a woman president who is Hillary Clinton (they will of course say they support a woman president, just not “this” one).
The only woman Ted Kennedy supports is a St. Pauli Girl, as it goes from glass to mouth. But women are welcome in his Oldsmobile any time. ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by TSM's quote
This is what I love about the Democratic Party. All the minorities and "oppressed" at each others throats for their slice of the pie. Should get really juicy as Clinton courts the Hispanic vote for California's primary on Super Tuesday.
Another blogger on Obama, saying things Louis won't like:
He is not a traditional top-down big government liberal. He's a pragmatist who believes in finding ways to empower people to run their own lives. No, he's no libertarian. But his view of government's role has absorbed some of the right-wing critiques of the 1970s and 1980s. Hence the lack of mandates in his healthcare proposal and his refusal to engage in racial victimology. This nuance is worth exploring. Unlike Hillary, he doesn't believe he is going to save anyone. He thinks he has a chance to help some people save themselves.
Haha, I thought he meant Bavaria... "Yeah, they don't exist any more, so I suppose they did go down..." was pretty much my thought process.Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
(PS - new laptop! Happy Birthday CountArach!)
:groan: Don't remind me. Hers are the first adverts to appear on local TV stations here. I've seen 3 versions so far, all aimed at Hispanics.Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
p.s. Congrats on the new lappy, CA! :balloon2:
I had an epifanie about the sudden show of support for Obama. This could be an internal power struggle in the Democratic party. Bill Clinton, as head of the party and former president, would have a lot of power if he was co-president. Since the man absorbs far more light than he reflects I think the other dems are afraid their piece of the pie will get smaller if Billary is elected. I doubt Ted's support and that of others is genuine, or even a reaction against the dirty tricks pulled by the Clintons (He and far too many democrats love playing dirty).Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
Are they willing to take this gamble? Are they hedging their bets? I bet you'll see (and not see :sneaky: ) active support from other members of the democrat establishment. Bill's wrath is harsh and everyone knows it. Once they're in, they're in.
Sorry guys but Obama is weak. With him as president and the Clintons marginalized the old sharks will be taking bites of dark meat. Now, how will this manifest itself? I don't think we'll really know until Obama gets into the general election. Watch how much his views change and on what to see how the bottom feeders will react.
It's sad really, we have lost all military expertise with a rare exception. That exception isn't acceptable in my opinion. Oh, and did anyone hear about the rumor of Edward's role in an Obama presidency? Was that here? Attorney General or something*. I can't wait to see his other cabinet choices.
Does anyone want to expand on this or throw rotten fruit at me?
Oh, and are you Europeans sick of hearing about this election crap? French politics are much more fun.
*Damn the .org! I keep wanting to type a "u" after an "o".
Vladimir, I'd rather see Obama lose the general election than Billary.
Maybe I wasn't clear. I don't care which one of them looses the general election as long as one of them do. I was attempting to come at it from the eyes of Obama supporters. Whatever side you're on never give up until it's over. I'm sure they aren't hoping for a loss.
Or maybe I was envisioning my own worst-case scenario.
Blast! New page.
Not Florida relevant - but I just saw my first political ad on TV - and it was for Ron Paul! Focused on his military service, delivering babies as a doctor, gun rights, and opposition to taxes. I think the good Dr. has a chance for unique appeal in this state that retains traces of libertarianism.
CR
And racism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
I looked this loonie up. Her name is Marcia Pappas, and she is a definite nutball. After Obama and Edwards teamed up on Clinton during a debate, Pappas issued a press release with the title (no, I'm not making this up): Psychological Gang Bang of Hillary is Proof We Need a Woman President.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Just so we're clear on the mind-set of the woman who penned Senator Kennedy Betrays Women by Not Standing for Hillary Clinton for President.
-edit-
Vladimir, I don't believe for a minute that Ron Paul is a racist. This goes back to a newsletter that was released under his name that included some nasty stuff, none of it authored by Paul. But thanks for dredging it up.
His statement:
“The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.
“In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’
“This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.
“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”
McCain answered that well enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
I certainly don't mean to give that impression. Simply put, McCain comes off as a generally honest politician who often says the wrong things, whereas Romney comes off as the insincere politician who is trying to say all the right things. Both are crappy choices.Quote:
Glad to hear you're ready to kiss and make up with Mac, BTW.
But Lemur, everything in The New Republic is true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I'm going to have to go to link rehab this weekend. :clown:
I don't think it was a good answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
That's sad that you don't support a candidate, but merely attempt to bring the other down. I'd think that if both are bad, you would wait and see how things turn out instead of actively pushing a candidate that you yourself believe is a "crappy" choice.
Romney is the #1 choice and has great breakout potential. Look at how far he has come in 1 year. Who heard of him 1 year ago? You say that he is insencere - I don't believe what McCain says about his ability to go all the way to the white house or direct American policies wisely. I see being a war hero as a great thing, but it doesn't qualify someone for the Presidency. I don't trust his judgement in legislation, why would I trust him in an even more important office?
He uses the old adage "tell people the truth 70 percent of the time, they will believe you the other 30%" - He uses straight talk when it serves him and spins the truth in turn.
I find this very appropriate!
Haha. Edwards is such a [person i don't like].Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
dang it.
Looks like folks are calling Florida for McCain. If the Dems nominate Billary and the Repubs nominate Mac, McCain will win.
That was a closed primary too, meaning that Mac didn't have any independents out to save him. Interesting.
In other news, looks like Giuliani's done.
-edit- CNN Ticker says he might endorse McCain.
Three Cheers for McCain!
High command stars, max chivalry, morale bonii, he will be a perfect faction leader!
Except that he is really old...Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
America loses in Florida. Seems like a common theme in Floridian elections, no?
Hillary/McCain - the only thing that would get me to vote for McCain. Guaranteeing that we have someone in the White House who has no business being in the White House.
America deserves an Obama/Romney race
On the plus/spin/optimist side, WHEN the Republicans lose this election and Hillary continues to ruin the United States, Romney won't be as much of an outsider in the 2012 election. By then, the G.O.P. should look like angels and we can give it another shot.
That is a matter of opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
As a Floridian, I think that the Democrats brought this on themselves, by putting the moratorium on campaigning for the major candidates. Then, Hillary, after she finds the hole in her sinking ship (or running aground), decides to 'make the DNC change' and 'make your votes count'. Talk about scraping the barrel, especially after she was supposed to have shot all the fish that resided in the barrel. It makes me sick that she's so easily turned on her word, and played the 'I'm not campaigning, but I'm going to be here, so take a couple pictures of me!'
Ugh.
Well, as anyone who watches the Weather Channel knows, God hates Florida. That's why he keeps lobbing hurricanes at you.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
One thing we can count on, if McCain is the nominee: The era of authorized, institutional, semi-legal American torture is over. It's only fitting that a man who was tortured and degraded by our enemies should be the man to put and end to this madness.
Go Mac!
Bah.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
That would be anQuote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
interesting, painful race.
I'm with Lemur, go Mac. Since Dr.Paul looks like he isn't going to make it, I'm forced to support the next best thing the Republicans have.
Interestingly, there are reports of independents showing up at the polls and voting for McCain- which, of course, would be illegal in Florida.Quote:
Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief
This
story makes one such reference. I'd be surprised if this was widespread enough to make the difference for McCain, but it shouldn't be happening regardless. Apparently, Florida just can't manage a scandal free election. :shrug:
Ding dong, the witch is dead!
Who would have thought, the Republicans wouldn't in fact elect someone who is pro-Choice, pro-Gun Control and pro-Gay Marriage and had no idea about how to run a national primaries campaign.Quote:
ORLANDO, Fla.—Rudy Giuliani, who bet his presidential hopes on Florida only to come in third, prepared to quit the race Tuesday and endorse his friendliest rival, John McCain.
The former New York mayor stopped short of announcing he was stepping down, but delivered a valedictory speech that was more farewell than fight-on.
Giuliani finished a distant third to winner John McCain and close second-place finisher Mitt Romney. Republican officials said Giuliani would endorse McCain on Wednesday in California. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity in advance of the public announcement.
And the latest numbers according to CNN:
95% percent of precincts reporting
McCain 677,865 (36%)
Romney 582,806 (31%)
Giuliani 275,676 (15%)
Huckabee 253,886 (14%)
Paul 60,583 (3%)
Thompson 21,868 (1%)
--
Clinton 835,848 (50%)
Obama 555,292 (33%)
Edwards 243,332 (14%)
He's not pro choice or pro gay marriage. Qute the opposite if you read his website.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
He believes both are state issues, and SCOTUS should not legislate from the bench when states make laws prohibiting both.
Comments that he made while on campaign on Wikipedia:
andQuote:
In a February 2007 interview with Sean Hannity, Giuliani said, "I hate [abortion] ... However, I believe in a woman's right to choose."
Lots of other comments he has made over the years hereQuote:
In a 2007 interview he said, "I have also stated that I disagree with President [George H.W.] Bush's veto last week of public funding for abortions."
As for gay marriage, some quotes from here:
http://www.observer.com/node/26855
Quote:
On Gay Domestic-Partner Rights:
National Republicans can lump it if they don't like his new domestic-partners bill, Mayor Giuliani said yesterday.
"I really haven't thought about what the impact is on Republican politics or national politics or Democratic politics," Giuliani said.
The bill he submitted to the City Council would extend the benefits city agencies must grant to gay and lesbian couples.
"I'm proud of it," Giuliani said of the bill. "I think it puts New York City ahead of other places in the country."
--New York Daily News, May 13, 1998
On Gay-Rights\Gay Rights Bill:
Giuliani favors extended civil-rights protection for gays and lesbians. Giuliani urged, by letter, to the New York Senate Majority Leader to pass the state's first ever gay rights bill, but did it privately.
"I am writing to convey my support for the current legislation to prohibit discrimination against gays and lesbians, and to urge you to allow the bill onto the floor of the Senate for prompt action."
"...It is my belief that we can penalize discrimination [against gays] without creating any potentially objectionable special privileges or preferential treatment."
--New York Post, June 5, 1993
Now Rudy Giuliani has jumped on the bandwagon, pressing the state Republican Party to release a gay-rights bill to the Senate floor for a vote. Marching in Sunday's [Gay Pride] parade, he has enlisted in the struggle to destroy the family. What a perfectly abominable springboard to seek high political office.
--Ray Kerrison New York Post, June 30, 1993
Giuliani said homosexuality is "good and normal."
--Ray Kerrison New York Post, July 7, 1989
On Gay Domestic Partnership:
"I have no objection to the concept of domestic partnership."
--Rudy Giuliani Informed Sources New York T.V. Show (PBS), May, 1992
I was talking about John McCain. Whoops.
I was about to say that you have a pretty broad definition of those things...
I think you are jumping the gun here. McCain and Romney have won 3 states each, this isn't over yet. Super Tuesday may decide it, we will see. I'm hoping it goes all the way to the convention.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
It's good to see the wheels coming off on the Hillary campaign though. She is not a very gracious loser. ~D
Don't mislead yourself. McCain and Hillary will be the nominees. Look at the polls a week before super Tuesday. Hillary was never in real trouble for some reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
www.realclearpolitics.com
Romney is done. Technically it is a 2 man race, but look at the winner take all races that he is up agaisnt and tell me 2 states where he is leading in the polls on super Tuesday. Romney absolutely needed Florida to have a shot next Tuesday - which still would have been tough.
Obama still has 2 hands on the ledge, so he could theoretically pull himself back up, but it won't happen.
Yes, McCain can now be considered the frontrunner. But if Romney can get the more conservative base out, he still has a chance. And don't trust the polls, they haven't really been accurate.
Rumors are that Edwards is going to join Guiliani in bailing out today. If he throws his support behind Obama (as expected), and Billary continue to show how power-hungry they are, the tide may turn there.
Well, it looks like McCain would beat Hillary or Obama in the election:
RASMUSSEN:
McCain 48% Clinton 40%
McCain 47% Obama 41%....
From the drudge report.
And at least he's more pro-gun than Romney.
Stupid Huckabee, though, and his sucking of votes away from Thompson. At least I can throw this in the face of people who said 'He's the one!' - who can win the election, yeah right.
CR
Edwards is out. That Onion video probably finished it for him ...
Personally, I blame Iowans. It's because of them that Huckabee was able to give a false impression of electability. :soapbox:Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Anyone ever see the "Douche and Turd" South Park episode? That's this election. :yes:
Assessment that will make Lemur happy:
McCain will be the GOP nominee.
His win in FL gives him a small lead, but the real story is in the breakdown of the polling numbers.
Romney wins, hands down, in two categories (income 100-150k, self-described "very conservative"s) McCain wins modestly or big-time in all other sub-groups. Hispanics voted for McCain over Romney by nearly 4 to 1 and Romney polled behind Giuliani in that group -- and Giuliani will endorse McCain. Please note, in one week, the 2/5 primaries feature Cali and NY as the biggest plums and McCain is crushing among Hispanics and will win the popular NYC mayor's endorsement.
Romney's case is not hopeless, but it's 4-1 McCain at this point.
A second assessment that will make Lemur happy:
While still the likely nominee, Clinton is no longer "safe." One or two screw-ups between now and 2/12 and Obama will pass her -- recent trends show a nearly perfect 50-50 split between them and only her entrenched organization is giving her the edge. If Obama takes a real lead against her, she'll start shedding superdelegates like leaves in the Fall and Obama will take enough of a lead to ensure his win.
If it gets down to McCain v Obama, Obama takes it by a modest though consistent margin.
And a McCain v Billary contest = ? in your estimation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus
I swear that Hillary will be the next president. McCain has a Bi-polar relationship with the G.O.P.
Very, very, painfully, y2k-type close.Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
Hillary goes in with the advantage of being a Democrat de jure as well as de facto. But she's the person the right loves to hate.
McCain -- who may as well be a pre-Kennedy Democrat --would have some conservatives sitting home or voting fringe. If all of them held their noses and voted McCain (admittedly a good man on nat sec and probably on fopo), Hillary would lose. If lots stay home, hill wins.
In the context of a conventional left-right two party contest, I've never really bought the argument that the hardcore (conservative Republicans in this case, but you could say left wing Labour in the UK or whatever) will stay at home if a moderate is selected. It just seems that however much the hardcore dislike the moderate their party has selected, they will detest the opposition candidate even more. For some reason (hard to fathom for this left-wing Euro), this detestation will apparently go double if the Democrats select Hilary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
The opposite argument always seems more convincing - that a moderate candidate will pick up more popular support than a hardcore one, by appealing to the uncommitted ("independents") and even some natural opposition supporters. At least that's how Clinton won and how Blair won - by being significantly more conservative than their own hardcore. Perhaps a charismatic conservative - a Reagan or a Thatcher - could appeal to natural opposition supporters too, but that seems rather rare. Plus to an outsider, it is McCain who has the charisma, not Romney.
Fighting for the middle ground just seems a no-brainer if you want to win a close fought two party election.
It does, I agree. But the past 3-4 campaigns have been marked more as flanking actions squeezing in toward the middle ground. Anyone initially staking himself out in the middle has been eliminated early on.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
@Seamus: were you ever in the military? "Nat sec", and "fopo" are the kind of shorthand we had to use in 70's & 80's -era electronic messaging. We used them so much when I worked at Readiness Command, that guys started using them in everyday speech, too. Funny to see it here.
p.s. Thanks for your estimate. Gives me more confidence in placing that $20 bet I wanna make. :)
Point taken - appealing to the core to get selected by the Party and then changing tack to win the popular vote makes sense. I guess what sometimes negates that is if the party is so desperate to win - usually due to a string of defeats - that it chooses someone with a wider appeal from the start rather than going for ideological purity. At least that's what seems to have happened in the UK, when the Labour Party chose Blair and more recently when the Conservatives chose Cameron.Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
~:confused: We use those terms all the times in Speech and Debate, though not formally...Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
I think McCain is very capable of beating both Billary and the Obamination. He is in a far better position to carry the independents than either one of the Dem candidates. As much as I respect Bill Clinton, I will not be voting for his wife, and Obama is just wrong on too many levels. So, myself, a (Bill) Clinton-style liberal will be voting for McCain in November, provided that Romney doesn't pull a miracle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
I'd prefer Romney over Obama, but not Over Hillary.
Better Hillary than Obama.... :sweatdrop:Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Big fan of dynasties?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
No. But I'm even less of a fan of candidates who run exclusively on BS platitudes and ignore the issues. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Hillary has a longer, and much better senate record than Obama. Obama's been nothing buy an empty suit on the campaign trail- no substance. All that leaves to judge him on is his record and it's one that's far more liberal than Hillary's.
On a different tangent, let's contrast the AP's coverage of Edwards' dropping out of the race to Guiliani's:Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
'Fess up, Xiahou. I expect you prefer Hillary for two reasons:
- She will unite and inspire Republicans in the November election.
- She will damage the Democratic party.
In other words, she is the ideal candidate for a Republican to face in the general election. If anyone can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, it's Billary. Not to mention that her election will put the seal on sixteen (perhaps twenty) years of dynasty. What a joke.
If you believe the issue papers and statements, Billary and Obama are nearly identical. But for anyone who relishes hard partisan warfare, there's one clear choice.
You guys are too young to remember, but the same exact things were said about both JFK and Reagan by pundits of the time. "Empty suit" brought it back.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Some truth ther Lemur.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
However, the "dueling dynasty's" needn't stop there! After 8 years of Hillary, either of the Bush twins would be old enough to take a try at the Oval as would Chelsea Clinton. Plus Bush sibs Jeb, Neil and Doro would all be in their early 60s. We can keep this thing going for a while!!!!! :devilish:
Maybe this is why we should sterilize politicians....
Oh please. I prefer her because I think she would make a much better president than Obama. The only upside I can think of to an Obama presidency is that the "new" would almost certainly wear off in the first term and would allow a decent GOP candidate to hopefully knock him off in 4yrs. Hillary, otoh, would probably get re-elected which would mean it would be a full 8yrs before we get another chance at a real conservative. Of course, if McCain or Romney win it would mean the same thing- at least 8yrs til we can try for a real conservative (it wouldn't matter if they get a second term or not as they'd be unopposed for the nomination).Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Your accusations are based on the premise that I actually care if McCain or Romney win- I don't really. I am completely uninspired by all the candidates- they're all very flawed. I can't believe a word Romney says- he has a record of taking whatever the politically expedient position is. McCain is good on pork and on Iraq- and that's it. Obama is a liberal who's dodging the issues. Hillary is a comparatively moderate Democrat who's been tougher on defense and foreign policy than Obama.
Kind of off topic, but what did JFK accomplish? Sure, the Cuban missile crisis- but I don't think he did anything different than any other prez would've who isn't completely incompetent. He also cut taxes, which is good. What other accomplishments did he have? I wasn't alive then, but in retrospect he seems fairly unremarkable.Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
A) He didn't exactly get two full terms, now did he?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
B) Hmm, Cuban Missile crisis was kinda important...you know, avoiding a nuclear holocaust with the USSR, I dunno, it wouldn't have been that bad if the entire planet had been vaporized. :rolleyes:
Sorry to have mentioned Kennedy and Reagan in the same sentence. :beam:
I meant to draw a parallel between them and Mr. Obama, vis-a-vis the pundits' critique of their soaring, inspirational rhetoric, held in high esteem by americans of all camps, despite their lack of concrete details on governance itself.
JFK and Reagan both 'hired well', in my opinion. If Obama gets america's nod, I hope he follows suit.
I hope he doesn't imitate the other thing they had in common: getting shot.
Didn't Lewinski claim that this is what she was trying to do? :wink: :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Murat
I've been watching some live CNN for a little while now. Obama and the woman are discussing, answering questions and such. Well, what should I say about it...? Hilary (with one or two Ls?) is talking rubbish. She also seems to get lots of applause. Obama seems to get cut off as is the applause he receives.
Well, whatever.... I think Obama is to be the one.
Hillary (With 2 l's) continues talking even when her time is up. She has gone overtime by about half a minute a few times. I think that Hillary has scored a few points so far, but so has Obama.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijo
Wolf: "Senator Clinton, why can't you just say you were wrong now about what you did before, blah blah blah...?"
Clinton: "Well, Wolf (<-- oh please.....) [big whole story of many different stuff]
Wolf: "So,..." [gets cut off]
Clinton: "blah blah blah"
Wolf: "So what I'm hearing is that you were naive and trusting....?" [gets cut off]
Clinton: "Nice try, Wolf."
[the whole original question is almost forgotten]
[Wolf repeats]
Clinton: "blah blah blah, nice try, blah blah blah"
My thoughts? Sensationalist talk from the woman and a nasty attitude. Instead of directly and properly answering a question she talks too much and is able to easily distract. She is also too personal when she responds to a question giver, calling them by their first names in such a way that almost makes me cringe. What the hell does that matter? She wants to show that she's nice and... "human?" Get the hell outta here and just answer the damn question directly. She also has the tendency to let the audience applaud pretty long with which she is wasting valuable time. I bet she enjoys the applause.
Obama at least answers more directly and gets to the issue fast. He also appears more trustworthy. He also doesn't let the audience nicely finish their applause as he doesn't waste time. Obama jokes around a bit, but he does it in such a good way.
There is also too much noisy applause from the audience and too much joking around generally.
Well, whatever.... Hillary must not be president. Obama must be. His fresh unspoiled character that reeks of proper leadership qualities will bring good.
Well, if Bijo supports it, he must have looked at it objectively and considered all possible viewpoints.
A vote by Bijo is worth ten of mine.