silly Wikea....Obama was not in the Senate in 2002 when the vote took place so of COURSE he did not vote for it....it is EASY for him to SAY he wouldn't have voted for it if he was in the Senate right after 9/11 but I seriously doubt that he really knows what he would have done for political pressures and purposes, I doubt he would have just voted present on it, even though it was a controversial vote, but WHO REALLY KNOWS? He was NOT in the Senate.
Why Hillary is not dropping out
- Thread starter manifold
- Start date
silly Wikea....Obama was not in the Senate in 2002 when the vote took place so of COURSE he did not vote for it....it is EASY for him to SAY he wouldn't have voted for it if he was in the Senate right after 9/11 but I seriously doubt that he really knows what he would have done for political pressures and purposes, I doubt he would have just voted present on it, even though it was a controversial vote, but WHO REALLY KNOWS? He was NOT in the Senate.
The US Senate which you don't vote present in.
No. There was no argument that Iraq had nukes.
Invading Iraq wasn't national security. It was pure unadulterated stupidity based on fear. Hillary, and a lot of the Democrats, were influenced by that. Thats not national security, thats political cowardice of the worst kind.
Jon
The CPA
Oh, so that means there were 39 days that he decided not to attend. That's much better.
Whatever. I know good and damn well what the arguments were.
We'll have to agree to disagree.
So YOU spoke out on this right? You started threads about how Obama should NOT ACCEPT the pledged vote of Kerry or the pledged delegates of Edwards or even be considering Edwards for vp or any other position in his presidency or candidacy because....let's see, how did you put it? Oh yeah,
that's political cowardice of the worst kind! type people.
Care
Shogun
Free: Mudholes Stomped
- Jan 8, 2007
- 30,530
- 2,267
- 1,045
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nGXQElOq-j0&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nGXQElOq-j0&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGXQ...ww.jedreport.com/2008/05/senator-clint-1.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGXQ...ww.jedreport.com/2008/05/senator-clint-1.html
So YOU spoke out on this right? You started threads about how Obama should NOT ACCEPT the pledged vote of Kerry or the pledged delegates of Edwards or even be considering Edwards for vp or any other position in his presidency or candidacy because....let's see, how did you put it? Oh yeah,
that's political cowardice of the worst kind! type people.
Care
Chill out, the entire Democratic party fell into acting like morons after 9/11, Hillary wasn't alone. Obama accepting Kerry's vote has nothing to do with this at all.
Annie
Diamond Member
- Nov 22, 2003
- 50,848
- 4,830
- 1,790
Please, expound.
maneal
Conservative Commentator
Ok, I have a few comments, but this quote starts it off.
Let's look back to 2004. Senator John Kerry was a SURE WIN in the polls right up to a month or so before the election. Polls have been tremendously wrong historically. 2004 was no exception. Despite the polls, President Bush won by over 50% of the vote? Why were those polls so inaccurate? Probably because they only sample random people, and there is no way that it can clearly give us a picture of the electorates thoughts.
Why should 2008 be any different? McCain is the clear choice for the country. Although he isn't a real conservative, he is still our nominee. He is a moderate Republican. He can win other moderate republicans, independents, and REAL (or currently moderate) democrats. Now, he doesn't cut it for the conservative base, but nonetheless, he still wins, according to the math and demographics. Let's use real facts and demographics, instead of opinion polls....
Now, on to Hillary. Why should Hillary quit? Although I wouldn't vote for her in the general election, she has every right to be in the race as long as there isn't a nominee. She also should (and actually is) demand that the votes of Florida and Michigan be counted. In my opinion, the ONLY WAY that Obama could win the nomination is if VOTES ARE NOT COUNTED. Looking at all 50 states, she wins in delegates and in popular vote. Why should the DNC be able to tell people that their vote doesn't count. If the democrats want to truly win in November, the worst thing they could possibly do is tell voters that we don't need you, and that their votes don't count. I already feel that McCain will win Florida, but the margin will be much more if the Democrats thumb their nose at them.
As for Texas, its safely republican. California could actually be a swing state.
Look forward to further discussion.
Jon
The CPA
maneal, nice post, but I have a question:
How can you claim California a swing state, guarantee a win for McCain in Florida, AND say that Texas is definitely Republican. If California can swing Republican, Texas can swing Democrat. My reason for this is that Clinton AND Obama received more votes than all the Republicans combined in the primaries in Texas. The truth is, the Democratic party has drawn in such a large crowd of voters this year, it's interesting to think, but I could actually see states like Texas swinging their way - especially Hillary. The sad thing about this election is, there are some people who actually see Hillary as more conservative than McCain. Plus, I think Hillary would hands down take Florida (and Arkansas), and I don't think Obama can carry either.
You're right, polls are often wrong. But for the most part, they are a clear estimator of who could win elections. The media use their own exit polls to declare winners, they don't even wait for the actual votes to be counted (unless it's a close race, ie. Ohio).
Not really a question, but you are absolutely right about Florida and Michigan. If the Democrats do not count their votes, they are shooting themselves in the foot. Many disenfranchised voters will cast a vote for McCain, out of spite for being cheated out of their nominee for the Democratic ticket. And plenty more will cast their vote for McCain because they do not want Obama in office.
How can you claim California a swing state, guarantee a win for McCain in Florida, AND say that Texas is definitely Republican. If California can swing Republican, Texas can swing Democrat. My reason for this is that Clinton AND Obama received more votes than all the Republicans combined in the primaries in Texas. The truth is, the Democratic party has drawn in such a large crowd of voters this year, it's interesting to think, but I could actually see states like Texas swinging their way - especially Hillary. The sad thing about this election is, there are some people who actually see Hillary as more conservative than McCain. Plus, I think Hillary would hands down take Florida (and Arkansas), and I don't think Obama can carry either.
You're right, polls are often wrong. But for the most part, they are a clear estimator of who could win elections. The media use their own exit polls to declare winners, they don't even wait for the actual votes to be counted (unless it's a close race, ie. Ohio).
Not really a question, but you are absolutely right about Florida and Michigan. If the Democrats do not count their votes, they are shooting themselves in the foot. Many disenfranchised voters will cast a vote for McCain, out of spite for being cheated out of their nominee for the Democratic ticket. And plenty more will cast their vote for McCain because they do not want Obama in office.
jillian
Princess
The polls weren't wrong... he got swiftboated. That turned the polls. If McCain swiftboats Obama, it could turn the tide his way, too.
On the other hand, he's 8 points behind now. And Obama has barely started the general campaign.Technically, he hasn't at all.
I don't see Cali as a swing state.
That doesn't mean polls are wrong, that means people change their minds.
You are assuming polls are wrong...and skewed against Republicans. Maybe they are wrong and Obama will win by even MORE than 8 points?
You are aware that demographics is just stereotyping people based on their background? Its much more accurate to actually ask them, as opposed to asking their background and assuming based on that.
She does have a right to be in it. But she should quit because there is 0% of her winning, and she is hurting the Democratic party.
No, actually. Unless you just kick Obama out and give all the delegates in MI and FL to Hillary, Obama will still be ahead in delegates regardless of what happens in MI and FL.
Because its their party. It will probably hurt them, but they fully have the right to do it. And frankly, they have the responsibility as well.
Obama is ahead 18 points in California. There is no way California goes for McCain. I doubt Texas will go for Obama, but hes got a shot at it at least.
maneal
Conservative Commentator
To answer a few things.
1. California Democrats are taking a swing toward a moderately conservative agenda. NOT ALL of California, but many. This is shown by the election and overwhelming re-election of Arnold Swarchenegger. He is a very moderate republican governor, but a huge McCain supporter (as scene by his endorsement). It may never come to pass, but it is a looming possibility.
2. Texas is a primarily republican state. The Democrats have not done well there in many years. The Governor is a good conservative. President Bush (who is still widely popular in Texas) endorsed McCain, as did the governor. This places him in a very strong position to take Texas hands down.
3. Democrats normally participate in primaries more than republicans. However not all democrats vote for a democrat in the general. We must also look that there are more "registered" democrats than there are republicans, but we see that many more Republicans have held the presidency in the last 60 years than democrats.
4. Arkansas is a heavily republican state. Even though Hillary and Bill are from there, they may not win it. Mike Huckabee is very popular there. If and when he endorses McCain, I do not see (at this time) McCain losing there.
5. Swiftboated???? You think that is what changed the election? Heck no... that was just the excuse. The media needed a way out from their inaccurate and nearly moronic polls. Bush was never in trouble in 2004.
Thanks
1. California Democrats are taking a swing toward a moderately conservative agenda. NOT ALL of California, but many. This is shown by the election and overwhelming re-election of Arnold Swarchenegger. He is a very moderate republican governor, but a huge McCain supporter (as scene by his endorsement). It may never come to pass, but it is a looming possibility.
2. Texas is a primarily republican state. The Democrats have not done well there in many years. The Governor is a good conservative. President Bush (who is still widely popular in Texas) endorsed McCain, as did the governor. This places him in a very strong position to take Texas hands down.
3. Democrats normally participate in primaries more than republicans. However not all democrats vote for a democrat in the general. We must also look that there are more "registered" democrats than there are republicans, but we see that many more Republicans have held the presidency in the last 60 years than democrats.
4. Arkansas is a heavily republican state. Even though Hillary and Bill are from there, they may not win it. Mike Huckabee is very popular there. If and when he endorses McCain, I do not see (at this time) McCain losing there.
5. Swiftboated???? You think that is what changed the election? Heck no... that was just the excuse. The media needed a way out from their inaccurate and nearly moronic polls. Bush was never in trouble in 2004.
Thanks
maneal
Conservative Commentator
As for Clinton....
If Florida and Michigan are counted as is, and you also include the super-delegates that would come from those states as well, and also the super-delegates that would flock back to Clinton with the possibility of a near tie, it would actually put Hillary ahead by just a few total delegates. It would be a statistical tie, basically. It also gives neither of them a majority of delegates, or the actual number of delegates needed to secure a nomination.
Then the back room deals set in. Clinton can voice that Obama can't win swing states such as West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, New Mexico, (now throwing in) Michigan, and possibly California. Since the democrats are about winning, this would be a great move by the Dems to place Clinton as the nominee. Now, heading up against McCain is a different story. The moderate Democrats and the Obama die-hards will either flock toward McCain, a third party candidate, or stay home. He does just as well with Blue Collar, but takes moderates on both sides, unlike Hillary, who takes mainly Liberals and some Moderates (again, against McCain.)
My electoral prediction at this time is: 290 (R) - 248 (D), and that is with Penn going to Dems, as well as California. McCain takes Florida, Ohio, etc. Texas stays red and Republicans take NH.
Thanks
If Florida and Michigan are counted as is, and you also include the super-delegates that would come from those states as well, and also the super-delegates that would flock back to Clinton with the possibility of a near tie, it would actually put Hillary ahead by just a few total delegates. It would be a statistical tie, basically. It also gives neither of them a majority of delegates, or the actual number of delegates needed to secure a nomination.
Then the back room deals set in. Clinton can voice that Obama can't win swing states such as West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, New Mexico, (now throwing in) Michigan, and possibly California. Since the democrats are about winning, this would be a great move by the Dems to place Clinton as the nominee. Now, heading up against McCain is a different story. The moderate Democrats and the Obama die-hards will either flock toward McCain, a third party candidate, or stay home. He does just as well with Blue Collar, but takes moderates on both sides, unlike Hillary, who takes mainly Liberals and some Moderates (again, against McCain.)
My electoral prediction at this time is: 290 (R) - 248 (D), and that is with Penn going to Dems, as well as California. McCain takes Florida, Ohio, etc. Texas stays red and Republicans take NH.
Thanks
Jon
The CPA
Arkansas is NOT a very Republican state. And Huckabee was not very well favored. We have a mostly Democratic legislature, and we now have a Democratic governor. The only reason Huckabee won the Arkansas primary was because he was the only name most people recognized. Clinton would win Arkansas without even campaigning here, I promise you. She won every county in the state of Arkansas, except the one I'm from (it's a county that is 91% black). Huckabee didn't even win that much here. I believe he lost 4 or 5 counties.
Northwest Arkansas (where I live now) is a very booming, young, college area. It is dominated by a Democratic mindset, and more than a third of the population of the state lives in the area. It's one of the fastest growing areas in the country. We attract a lot of Mexicans, as well, further skewing the state in favor of Clinton.
Arkansas is Clinton's for the taking. In fact, she also dominated much of Southern Missouri because it's more the same demographic as Arkansas. It was Kansas City and St. Louis that won Missouri for Obama, but she walked away with more delegates.
maneal
Conservative Commentator
This information is incorrect. Gov. Huckabee won every county overwhelmingly. Hillary lost 3 counties to Obama. Historically, Republicans have won Arkansas Since 1980, The state was republican in the general 5 of the last 7 elections. The only 2 were Clinton era, but that means nothing for Hillary, especially with McCain and a Huckabee endorsement.
The reason that Arkansas has such a democratic control in the state legislator is because most of the democrats there are conservative democrats (or true democrats in my opinion). Arkansas is not a Liberal State. Clinton and McCain would come close here, but I feel she would lose this state (especially since she changed her home state from Ark. to NY.
And Obama putting Senator Edwards on Show, the day after he got a big time whooping in Kentucky, (GREAT political move by him to STEAL THE THUNDER from Hillary, btw....who are his political advisors again?) and implying to his constituants that Edwards could be his VP....having a photo of him and Edwards together, arm in arm, up on his web site the day after his defeat and Hillary's big win isn't important if, as you said....
"That's Political Cowardice of the worst kind." about Hillary for her Iraq Resolution vote, while Obama supports, according to your definition of those that voted yes on the Iraq resolution, a Political Coward of the Worst kind, by supporting Edwards or even considering Edwards for VP or any position in his Presidency.
Now I don't feel this way about Edwards or Clinton, I think they are both capable people and not political cowards....
I just wanted to point out to you, that "this" is what happents in contests, where one is so totally invested in their guy or gal to be the winner, that they say things, vicious, thoughtless things, that seem to ONLY APPLY to the "other side" making themselves, hypocrits and fools....and IT HAPPENS, to "the Best of us"....it really, really, does....
One reason I hate politics.
And if I didn't care so damn much about America, my country, our country...I wouldn't spend a minute on any of these boards.
Now let me point something out to you and Jeepers that I just found on the link that Jsanders posted on the Issues in the Senate and Bills presented and how the Candidates voted on them.
It is very, very troubling that Obama continued his trend that he had as a Senator of Illinois of NOT voting on controversial issues, so to discern his stances, in to the US Senate.
Here is just ONE of the issues that he SHOULD have voted on, especially with all the GARBAGE he threw out on to Hillary for her Iraq resolution vote, and for his SUPPOSEDLY STRONG stances on on getting us out of Iraq right away....(how he got most of his supporters to follow him), but HE DID NOT VOTE....????
Soooooooo, why was he so afraid to commit to a position on this issue, the issue that brought him to the top of the nomination?
What exactly is it, that involves, "Hope and Change" with Obama?
And what makes you think he is able or capable to bring the troops home, or run this country, when he didn't even have the gusto or initiative to make it to his JOB in the Senate, and give his position on this issue via his vote?
It is becoming clearer and clearer to me that Obama needs some vetting...NO ONE really does know where he stands on issues....they do know what he "says" but not necessarily where he stands or has stood.
This will come out in the General.....and Hillary really missed a good political move like Obama's with Edwards the day after a beating in Kentucky.
She should have exploited this issue with him not voting more often, than others, in the Primary....it would have in the least, prepared him an answer for this, before the General...
Anyway, I still stand by Hillary being the MUCH STRONGER and better candidate to be President.....
And I pray every night that some super delegates that were supporting her, but recently changed their minds and went with Obama, to change their minds ONCE AGAIN and go BACK to supporting her, as they did originally when they gave her their Super Delegate pledge.....
(Of course, I know this will take an absolute Miracle, under any definition of such)
And this is not about hating Obama or anything like that.....it is about me knowing that Hillary is the Stronger candidate, and knowing that she is ready, right now, to take office, and be a Strong Capable President, from Day one.....
Obama's whooped by this race....looking drawn, appears to have lost alot of weight, saying things like visiting 57 states, and silly mistakes that come from being tired....i can understand this with what a campaign can do to ya, the stress of being on the road too....
But he is 20 years Hillary's younger, while she is the Energizer Bunny...keeps going and going and going..... Tenacity, that I personally have never seen before....
Yes, is she a "politician" and yes, will she along with the rest of them, bastardize themselves from time to time, for the "vote" of the people to go their way.....of course....and it will disgust me when i see it, and i will say such when i see it, and not cover it up, for the "sake" of supporting my candidate...
Care
Jesus Christ, are you so desperate to paint Obama negatively that your doing this stupid guilt by association thing as well?
Yes, Edwards was a political coward. A lot of the Democrats are/were. That doesn't mean I condemn them unequivocally. I've never condemned Hillary, despite you and Ravir acting as if I have. If Hillary was in Obamas position, I'd be saying Obama needed to drop out.
Yes, Obama will associate with Edwards. He will associate with a lot of people who are cowards/make bad judgement calls/made mistakes. Whats your point?
So the entire Democratic party who voted for the Iraq war is the "other guy"?
Alright then. Perhaps you should look inward at your own hillarphile tendencies before preaching to others.
He had 4,000 votes in the Illinois Senate. I'm sure many of those were controversial. So no, the "trend" is you guys fabricating shit. By the way, I like how your gal attacked Obama and called him against pro-choice on the abortion bill he voted present on. Planned Parenthood in Illinois defended him though, because a present vote doesn't mean you are just trying to skip controversial issues.
Good job at cherry picking there.
And no, thats not how he got most of his supporters to follow him.
Because you are assuming that it was because he didn't have the guts or the initiative.
She tried, and looked like an idiot doing it. Criticizing Obama for a present vote on an abortion bill when Planned Parenthood, those conservative pro-life folks, wanted him to vote present? Right.
Capital S, Capital C, eh? You are blinded.
Like all her foreign policy experience, right? All those trips she "went on", and was "involved in", and then when the details of when Bill was in office came out, she was found to have had nothing to do with them?
Like Hillary saying she was under sniper fire in Bosnia? They both have made mistakes. But of course you notice Obamas, while ignoring Hillarys.
Yes, Edwards was a political coward. A lot of the Democrats are/were. That doesn't mean I condemn them unequivocally. I've never condemned Hillary, despite you and Ravir acting as if I have. If Hillary was in Obamas position, I'd be saying Obama needed to drop out.
Yes, Obama will associate with Edwards. He will associate with a lot of people who are cowards/make bad judgement calls/made mistakes. Whats your point?
So the entire Democratic party who voted for the Iraq war is the "other guy"?
Alright then. Perhaps you should look inward at your own hillarphile tendencies before preaching to others.
He had 4,000 votes in the Illinois Senate. I'm sure many of those were controversial. So no, the "trend" is you guys fabricating shit. By the way, I like how your gal attacked Obama and called him against pro-choice on the abortion bill he voted present on. Planned Parenthood in Illinois defended him though, because a present vote doesn't mean you are just trying to skip controversial issues.
Good job at cherry picking there.
And no, thats not how he got most of his supporters to follow him.
Because you are assuming that it was because he didn't have the guts or the initiative.
She tried, and looked like an idiot doing it. Criticizing Obama for a present vote on an abortion bill when Planned Parenthood, those conservative pro-life folks, wanted him to vote present? Right.
Capital S, Capital C, eh? You are blinded.
Like all her foreign policy experience, right? All those trips she "went on", and was "involved in", and then when the details of when Bill was in office came out, she was found to have had nothing to do with them?
Like Hillary saying she was under sniper fire in Bosnia? They both have made mistakes. But of course you notice Obamas, while ignoring Hillarys.
Jesus Christ, are you so desperate to paint Obama negatively that your doing this stupid guilt by association thing as well?
Yes, Edwards was a political coward. A lot of the Democrats are/were. That doesn't mean I condemn them unequivocally. I've never condemned Hillary, despite you and Ravir acting as if I have. If Hillary was in Obamas position, I'd be saying Obama needed to drop out.
Yes, Obama will associate with Edwards. He will associate with a lot of people who are cowards/make bad judgement calls/made mistakes. Whats your point?
So where is this Candidate of CHANGE, if your explanation is the simple answer Larkin?
So the entire Democratic party who voted for the Iraq war is the "other guy"?
Alright then. Perhaps you should look inward at your own hillarphile tendencies before preaching to others.
I have no idea what you are talking about here???
He had 4,000 votes in the Illinois Senate. I'm sure many of those were controversial. So no, the "trend" is you guys fabricating shit. By the way, I like how your gal attacked Obama and called him against pro-choice on the abortion bill he voted present on. Planned Parenthood in Illinois defended him though, because a present vote doesn't mean you are just trying to skip controversial issues.
I know nothing on this particular issue...and was not speaking on this particular issue, but you do have my interest!
So, maybe you can tell me how NOT voting yes or no on a Planned parenhood bill somehow was taking a "stance" on it, for the "record"?
Good job at cherry picking there.
This is NOT cherry picking, I just did not "write off" jsander's link that he gave that went over each and every vote taken in the Senate and how each senator voted on each Bill....this is one of the only ways to get to know ones candidate's positions compared to their own positions on these bills and issues.
And no, thats not how he got most of his supporters to follow him.
Really? I think you are wayyyyyyy wrong on this....I know you are....the only position that could seoarate Obama from the other candidates was his stance that he would not have voted for the war and he would bring the troops home right away....? This is why he was SUPPOSEDLY, the candidate of "change"....not the Insider candidate.... what a crock of shit! hahahahaha...lmao.
Because you are assuming that it was because he didn't have the guts or the initiative.
Why haven't you asked for an answer on it as a supprter...tooo mezmorized with His CHANGE that he brings? The war and bringing troops home was a key issue......why couldn't he take a stance on it? Was he just NOT PRESENT AGAIN or was he there and did not want to commit in fear of republican backlash in his presidential bid? WHO KNOWS....but I bet ya, the Mccain group will certainly press to find out.when and IF he does EVER get enough votes to secure his nomination....
She tried, and looked like an idiot doing it. Criticizing Obama for a present vote on an abortion bill when Planned Parenthood, those conservative pro-life folks, wanted him to vote present? Right.
Again, I know nothing about this and how NOT VOTING yes or no stands for ANYTHING, is still beyond me.... what I was talking about is the many votes he has in the US SENATE where he did not vote, one way or the other, on some key issues, of which I pointed ONLY ONE OF THEM out to you...the one where he did not take a stance on this particular withdrawl vote, that was on the link.
Capital S, Capital C, eh? You are blinded.
Like all her foreign policy experience, right? All those trips she "went on", and was "involved in", and then when the details of when Bill was in office came out, she was found to have had nothing to do with them?
I was very clear that I could understand Obama's blunder on 57 states and on some other blunders he has made....and even have voiced i did not buy in to hillary being too tired on her bosnia gaf......but youuuuuuuuu.....?
Can you say ?
A capital:
O
B
A
M
A
you got it bad Larkin, real bad!
I don't see what I am saying as insulting Obama....you take it as an insult while you do INSULT Hilliary with useless garbage and expect me to sit back and take it "like a woman should" I suppose....?
All I am pointing out is that your candidate IS NOT a God, and is not sinless and will not bring any kind of change that any of the Democratic candidates would not have brought after the Bush Administration's reign.
He is a politician as Clinton and Mccain are politicians, as John F Kennedy was a Politician and as Nixon was a politician and as Roosevelt was a politician
and don't want you to het your hopes up that Obama is the Candidate of Change that Washington needs, because he is no more less a Politician than the Best of Politicians, that is why he is where he is...due to his connections and insider position.
To believe otherwise, is simply naive.
care
Jon
The CPA
You were right, Huckabee did win all the counties, the numbers are different than they were the night of the actual election. Let me tell you about the three counties Clinton lost in Arkansas: Crittenden county is West Memphis. Phillips and Lee counties are approximately 90% African American. I don't really think I have to explain much more than that, it should be apparent why Clinton lost those counties. She also won by a larger majority than Huckabee did, and he was our most recent governor - she hasn't been a resident in 16 years.
Clinton is the exact kind of Democrat people in Arkansas like. She's identical to Senator Blanche Lincoln, and Lincoln is very well favored in the state. You're right, we are a moderate state, which is why Huckabee fit in here. He was a moderate Republican. An endorsement from Huckabee would not help him much here. Huckabee campaigned avidly for Asa Hutchinson to succeed him in office, and Asa lost by some 100,000 votes.
Saying that Arkansas was Republican in 5 of the last 7 elections is irrelevant. Bush Sr even won California in his first election. He may as well have been running unopposed. Looking at local politics, Arkansas has only had 3 Republican governors since 1873. Winthrop Rockefeller was a national icon, it was an easy election for him. Frank White defeated Clinton in 1981 after he changed parties the year before JUST to oppose Clinton. Clinton defeated him in the next election. And Huckabee narrowly won his seat as Lt. Governor, and became governor only because Jim Guy Tucker resigned because of his involvement in Whitewater.
To say Arkansas is a Republican state is very off. We are a moderate state, and Clinton is the type of politician we like. She would handedly defeat McCain here. Obama is much too liberal for our tastes.
jsanders, you have so much anger when someone says bad things about hillary. try not to take everything so personally.
now, if obama and hillary are very different, as you claim, why not provide a list of various topics and their positions. like abortion, the economy, crime, drugs, foreign policy, gun control, health care, immigration, tax reform, etc. everything ive heard makes them seem quite similar, so disprove this notion for me.
as to iraq having nuclear weapons, it was never claimed that they possessed them, only that they were reconstituting their program and could potentially have the materials to construct one by the end of the year.
now, if obama and hillary are very different, as you claim, why not provide a list of various topics and their positions. like abortion, the economy, crime, drugs, foreign policy, gun control, health care, immigration, tax reform, etc. everything ive heard makes them seem quite similar, so disprove this notion for me.
as to iraq having nuclear weapons, it was never claimed that they possessed them, only that they were reconstituting their program and could potentially have the materials to construct one by the end of the year.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
Poll Question: How Many Believe Biden Has Had Prostate Cancer For Years?- Started by WelfareQueen
- Replies: 0
-
4 ingredients, 5 minutes, better than Dairy Queen? Is it possible?- Started by odanny
- Replies: 0
-
