- This topic has 290 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 9 months ago by
Anonymous.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 9, 2008 at 11:34 AM #150724February 9, 2008 at 11:43 AM #150371
Diego Mamani
ParticipantI don’t understand the OP. The “three-way race” lasts only until the Democrats nominate their one presidential candidate. After that it’s going to be either McCain vs. Clinton (McCain wins) or McCain vs. Obama (Obama might win).
Regarding ZK‘s comment: being elected president is all, or mostly, about charisma. Whoever gets to the White House will have armies of highly talented speech-writers and expert advisors in all sort of areas. The president is a figurehead who is there to lead by inspiring and motivating. Of course, it’s true that the wrong kind of advisors (like Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove) may be chosen by the president, but that is a post-election and post-inauguration issue.
To get back to my original point: H. Clinton lacks charisma. She’s bright and experienced, and the only issue of substance against her is that she appears to be politically to the left of her husband. But issues of substance are, for the most part, secondary in a presidential election: It’s charisma that matters, and she has little of it.
Even though she’s bright and experienced, she would never had made it this far in a presidential nomination without her First Lady experience. Why? Because she’s uncharismatic.
McCain and Obama, on the other hand, are extremely charismatic. I hope the Democrats see this and nominate Obama unless they want another eight years outside of the White House.
February 9, 2008 at 11:43 AM #150629ParticipantI don’t understand the OP. The “three-way race” lasts only until the Democrats nominate their one presidential candidate. After that it’s going to be either McCain vs. Clinton (McCain wins) or McCain vs. Obama (Obama might win).
Regarding ZK‘s comment: being elected president is all, or mostly, about charisma. Whoever gets to the White House will have armies of highly talented speech-writers and expert advisors in all sort of areas. The president is a figurehead who is there to lead by inspiring and motivating. Of course, it’s true that the wrong kind of advisors (like Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove) may be chosen by the president, but that is a post-election and post-inauguration issue.
To get back to my original point: H. Clinton lacks charisma. She’s bright and experienced, and the only issue of substance against her is that she appears to be politically to the left of her husband. But issues of substance are, for the most part, secondary in a presidential election: It’s charisma that matters, and she has little of it.
Even though she’s bright and experienced, she would never had made it this far in a presidential nomination without her First Lady experience. Why? Because she’s uncharismatic.
McCain and Obama, on the other hand, are extremely charismatic. I hope the Democrats see this and nominate Obama unless they want another eight years outside of the White House.
February 9, 2008 at 11:43 AM #150642ParticipantI don’t understand the OP. The “three-way race” lasts only until the Democrats nominate their one presidential candidate. After that it’s going to be either McCain vs. Clinton (McCain wins) or McCain vs. Obama (Obama might win).
Regarding ZK‘s comment: being elected president is all, or mostly, about charisma. Whoever gets to the White House will have armies of highly talented speech-writers and expert advisors in all sort of areas. The president is a figurehead who is there to lead by inspiring and motivating. Of course, it’s true that the wrong kind of advisors (like Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove) may be chosen by the president, but that is a post-election and post-inauguration issue.
To get back to my original point: H. Clinton lacks charisma. She’s bright and experienced, and the only issue of substance against her is that she appears to be politically to the left of her husband. But issues of substance are, for the most part, secondary in a presidential election: It’s charisma that matters, and she has little of it.
Even though she’s bright and experienced, she would never had made it this far in a presidential nomination without her First Lady experience. Why? Because she’s uncharismatic.
McCain and Obama, on the other hand, are extremely charismatic. I hope the Democrats see this and nominate Obama unless they want another eight years outside of the White House.
February 9, 2008 at 11:43 AM #150657ParticipantI don’t understand the OP. The “three-way race” lasts only until the Democrats nominate their one presidential candidate. After that it’s going to be either McCain vs. Clinton (McCain wins) or McCain vs. Obama (Obama might win).
Regarding ZK‘s comment: being elected president is all, or mostly, about charisma. Whoever gets to the White House will have armies of highly talented speech-writers and expert advisors in all sort of areas. The president is a figurehead who is there to lead by inspiring and motivating. Of course, it’s true that the wrong kind of advisors (like Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove) may be chosen by the president, but that is a post-election and post-inauguration issue.
To get back to my original point: H. Clinton lacks charisma. She’s bright and experienced, and the only issue of substance against her is that she appears to be politically to the left of her husband. But issues of substance are, for the most part, secondary in a presidential election: It’s charisma that matters, and she has little of it.
Even though she’s bright and experienced, she would never had made it this far in a presidential nomination without her First Lady experience. Why? Because she’s uncharismatic.
McCain and Obama, on the other hand, are extremely charismatic. I hope the Democrats see this and nominate Obama unless they want another eight years outside of the White House.
February 9, 2008 at 11:43 AM #150729ParticipantI don’t understand the OP. The “three-way race” lasts only until the Democrats nominate their one presidential candidate. After that it’s going to be either McCain vs. Clinton (McCain wins) or McCain vs. Obama (Obama might win).
Regarding ZK‘s comment: being elected president is all, or mostly, about charisma. Whoever gets to the White House will have armies of highly talented speech-writers and expert advisors in all sort of areas. The president is a figurehead who is there to lead by inspiring and motivating. Of course, it’s true that the wrong kind of advisors (like Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove) may be chosen by the president, but that is a post-election and post-inauguration issue.
To get back to my original point: H. Clinton lacks charisma. She’s bright and experienced, and the only issue of substance against her is that she appears to be politically to the left of her husband. But issues of substance are, for the most part, secondary in a presidential election: It’s charisma that matters, and she has little of it.
Even though she’s bright and experienced, she would never had made it this far in a presidential nomination without her First Lady experience. Why? Because she’s uncharismatic.
McCain and Obama, on the other hand, are extremely charismatic. I hope the Democrats see this and nominate Obama unless they want another eight years outside of the White House.
February 9, 2008 at 12:21 PM #150376meadandale
Participant“Get ready for four more years of Bush-Cheney type politics.”
With John McAmnesty in the Whitehouse? Hardly.
McAmnesty, Shrillary…six of one, half dozen of the other. Basically we are screwed. Get ready for higher taxes, expensive gubment subsidized healthcare that doesn’t cover anything and an open gate at the border with subsidized everything for anyone who can manage to elude DHS under the cover of darkness.
It’s times like these that NZ or AUS citizenship start to look attractive….
February 9, 2008 at 12:21 PM #150634Participant“Get ready for four more years of Bush-Cheney type politics.”
With John McAmnesty in the Whitehouse? Hardly.
McAmnesty, Shrillary…six of one, half dozen of the other. Basically we are screwed. Get ready for higher taxes, expensive gubment subsidized healthcare that doesn’t cover anything and an open gate at the border with subsidized everything for anyone who can manage to elude DHS under the cover of darkness.
It’s times like these that NZ or AUS citizenship start to look attractive….
February 9, 2008 at 12:21 PM #150647Participant“Get ready for four more years of Bush-Cheney type politics.”
With John McAmnesty in the Whitehouse? Hardly.
McAmnesty, Shrillary…six of one, half dozen of the other. Basically we are screwed. Get ready for higher taxes, expensive gubment subsidized healthcare that doesn’t cover anything and an open gate at the border with subsidized everything for anyone who can manage to elude DHS under the cover of darkness.
It’s times like these that NZ or AUS citizenship start to look attractive….
February 9, 2008 at 12:21 PM #150662Participant“Get ready for four more years of Bush-Cheney type politics.”
With John McAmnesty in the Whitehouse? Hardly.
McAmnesty, Shrillary…six of one, half dozen of the other. Basically we are screwed. Get ready for higher taxes, expensive gubment subsidized healthcare that doesn’t cover anything and an open gate at the border with subsidized everything for anyone who can manage to elude DHS under the cover of darkness.
It’s times like these that NZ or AUS citizenship start to look attractive….
February 9, 2008 at 12:21 PM #150735Participant“Get ready for four more years of Bush-Cheney type politics.”
With John McAmnesty in the Whitehouse? Hardly.
McAmnesty, Shrillary…six of one, half dozen of the other. Basically we are screwed. Get ready for higher taxes, expensive gubment subsidized healthcare that doesn’t cover anything and an open gate at the border with subsidized everything for anyone who can manage to elude DHS under the cover of darkness.
It’s times like these that NZ or AUS citizenship start to look attractive….
February 9, 2008 at 12:22 PM #150380Eugene
ParticipantI don’t see that happening. Obama and Clinton have near zero differences on real issues. They both understand that it would be tough for either of them to defeat McCain (which I personally find very puzzling after 8 years with Bush).
In the end they’ll make some kind of deal and one will run as a VP for the other. Obama with Clinton as a VP is more likely to win, Clinton with Obama as a VP is more likely to happen.
February 9, 2008 at 12:22 PM #150638ParticipantI don’t see that happening. Obama and Clinton have near zero differences on real issues. They both understand that it would be tough for either of them to defeat McCain (which I personally find very puzzling after 8 years with Bush).
In the end they’ll make some kind of deal and one will run as a VP for the other. Obama with Clinton as a VP is more likely to win, Clinton with Obama as a VP is more likely to happen.
February 9, 2008 at 12:22 PM #150651ParticipantI don’t see that happening. Obama and Clinton have near zero differences on real issues. They both understand that it would be tough for either of them to defeat McCain (which I personally find very puzzling after 8 years with Bush).
In the end they’ll make some kind of deal and one will run as a VP for the other. Obama with Clinton as a VP is more likely to win, Clinton with Obama as a VP is more likely to happen.
February 9, 2008 at 12:22 PM #150667ParticipantI don’t see that happening. Obama and Clinton have near zero differences on real issues. They both understand that it would be tough for either of them to defeat McCain (which I personally find very puzzling after 8 years with Bush).
In the end they’ll make some kind of deal and one will run as a VP for the other. Obama with Clinton as a VP is more likely to win, Clinton with Obama as a VP is more likely to happen.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.