 Quote:
Originally Posted by forester814  IS it a fair question?
In the fall, Obama won't be running against Clinton, but against McCain.
It's disingenuous to say that the Clinton v Obama results in Penn. have any bearing on the likely Obama v McCain results (or for that matter, the likely Clinton v McCain results) in Penn. in the fall.
Let's say Clinton is Pepsi and Obama is Coke.
That was yesterday's primary election. Coke v Pepsi.
You are an avid cola drinker, and you prefer Pepsi.
And Pepsi won yesterday.
Now, it's fall, and Obama (Coke) got the nomination.
So now, the choice is between Coke and McCain, represented by, oh, hot coffee.
Remember, you are an avid cola drinker.
Are you REALLY likely to pick coffee over your second-favorite brand of cola? | Quote:
Originally Posted by garysher Despite your cute little soft drinks analogy the fact is that Obama is seen as far more "liberal" than Clinton, by many democrats.
If Obama is the nominee McCain has a good chance to lure away many middle-of-the-road and "conservative" democrats, especially if he picks somebody like Lieberman as his running mate.
I think Hillary would make a better President. It's time for the US to catch up to more progressive countries like Pakistan, Turkey and Britain by putting a woman in charge.
| I don't drink Pepsi, though. I prefer Coca-Cola instead, even though I am a registered hot-coffee drinker.
The question is, who would really run the country if Hillary is president? Bill, I think.
If it were the USA and the Soviet Union in the early 1960's, and it was Hillary and Khrushchev at the table, Khrushchev would make mincemeat out of Hillary the way Khrushchev did it with JFK. Hillary could not do any better with Pakistan, Turkey, and Britain. Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. Psalm 119:105 |