Watching the Repub Debate made me even more certain that Hillary must be our candidate.

It seemed to me McCain won that debate. Romney certainly was bloodied from all sides. And as ABC told us in a post-Iowa, pre-debate poll, McCain is already leading comfortably on the Repub side in New Hampshire.

McCain is looking a lot better than he did when this campaign started. (In some ways, Fred Thompson has helped him: Fred is what a tired old man REALLY looks like.)

Look, (to use an Obamaism) believe it or not, the Republicans may just end up with an electable nominee. The Dems have the advantage in 2008, but nothing is certain: it's ours to lose. And we have the ability to screw this one up too, if we so choose. Now is NOT the time for the Democratic Party to indulge a temporary whim of the upper-middle-class Latte Liberals, and the honorary Latte Liberal young folks in college.

And you're trying to tell us to do it one more time?

Just my opinion.

I continue to be amazed that folks around here don't see that. Everyone's entitled to support whom they choose, so I guess I can't complain. But, I for one don't want to be wandering in the wilderness for another eight years.

to come out and vote AGAINST the Democrats.

Plus, she's widely hated on the left, as well.

Better to run someone young and fresh, like Obama.

:thumbsdown:

Calling higher-income Dems "latte liberals" seems like a fair enough description. Honestly, I think Hillary probably WILL lose New Hampshire, because there are a lot more of those types in New Hampshire than there are in Iowa.

It sounds like right wing bullshit to me, but to each his own.

Howard Dean in late 2003.

it's so clear how easily she would beat him.

Moving effectively and efficiently take experience and planning.

And who would those "Latte Liberals" be? People who don't support Hillary (instead of, for example, the far more progressive John Edwards) are "latte liberals"? How does that work? I'd say it's pretty insulting to suggest that anyone who doesn't support Clinton is some sort of spoiled political dilettante.

I've been flipping back and forth between Hillary and Obama for the last few months before settling on Obama the last few weeks. I know what you're thinking, Hillary's experience and her strong debate performances (for most of the other debates) made me think that she just seemed like a better pick with how far to the left Obama/Edwards were, and Edwards being on public financing which makes it extremely difficult to campaign.

What got me over to Obama however is the fact that nominating Hillary is just plain suicide according to the polls. America hates her, over half the nation today would NEVER vote for her, we have NEVER had a president elected with negatives that high before. Hillary has been trying to reduce her negatives all year, it hasn't worked, people have made up their mind. They want someone likeable, someone who as Hillary said they could go out and have a beer with. They don't want someone half of America views as cold and polarizing, they don't want someone like Hillary.

in foreign policy, which is why I supported Biden.

Richardson, with all his impressive resume, was disappointing in this debate, again.

Clinton was the only one who was clear and concise about her proposed actions and her knowledge.

Yes, Obama is charming and energetic but in a debate with McCain about foreign policy - and I agree with you that McCain will be the candidate - he will appear clueless.

Worse, if there is instability in any area of the world - does not have to be a terrorist attach, he will stammer that he "calls for all sides to use restraint" and McCain will sail to the White House.

Obama is no slouch. McCain is NOT on the FRC, like Obama is, and McCain is getting schooled by neocons and wants us to be in Iraq for 100 years. I am not worried about it at all.

and no, I am not a church-goer! Don't try to pin that one on me in my absence!