Jim Farmelant <farmelantj at juno.com> wrote:
"I think that either one of them can beat McCain, and either one of them as president would prove to be a great disappointment to their progressive supporters. Thus, I can't understand people who go gaga over Obama,"
I am Hillary-phobic myself, mainly because of her blatant pandering to Israel. But that's not a reason to think she'd be any worse or better as President than O. We're only talking about subjective matters here, like who's hip, who's sleezy, who's too slick to believe.
BTW, I've just seen two Meryl Streep films in which she portrays a creepy female political figure who looks and sounds a lot like Hillary: Manchurian Candidate (2), and Rendition. Way to go, Meryl!
BW
On Fri, 9 May 2008 15:49:43 -0400 Doug Henwood
writes:
>
> On May 9, 2008, at 2:58 PM, Julio Huato wrote:
> > Doug wrote:
> >
> >>> quantitative change mutates into a qualitative leap
> >>
> >> Latest average of the national polls from RCP, vs. McCain:
> >
> > Please read my previous post on this. And, again, nothing wrong
> with
> > following the day-by-day polls. We just need to be somewhat
> > circumspect about the inferences.
>
> Yeah. I know about daily polls. As I've said every pres election for
>
> the last two or three now, you can reliably predict the results with
>
> just two variables: the president's approval rating and the growth
> in
> real disposable income the spring before the election. And those
> point to a big Dem victory in November. The intervening polls matter
>
> not at all. I just brought them up to fact-check the wild claims
> about the specialness of the Magic Guy.
I agree with Doug on this matter. There are at least several econometric models out there that have to be fairly reliable in predicting presidential election results. While I would never underestimate the ability of the Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, I would say that if the economy keeps sinking like it has been, they are likely to score a blowout in November against the Republicans. As I have said before, under such circumstances, if the Dems were to nominate even a dead dog for president, the mutt would take the White House. That is one reason, among many, why I have difficulty understanding otherwise smart and knowledgeable progressives can work themselves in such a tether over the comparative merits of Obama versus Clinton. I think that either one of them can beat McCain, and either one of them as president would prove to be a great disappointment to their progressive supporters. Thus, I can't understand people who go gaga over Obama, and I can't understand how an ordinarily very smart guy like Andrew Austin can get himself worked up on behalf of Hilary versus Obama on his Freedom and Reason blog at: http://wwsword.blogspot.com/
Jim F/
>
> Doug
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
--------------------------------- Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.