Could Murtha be 08 pres wild card?

by **chiggerbit** » Tue May 30, 2006 11:31 pm

Just wondering. Hillary and Lieberman seem to have screwed themselves on the Iraq war. Gore and Kerry are both been-there, done-that has-beens. So, who is not the usual cold, dead fish (like Vilsack) favored by the Dem machine? Somebody fresh who would appeal to the middle, including the weary, newly-aware blue states? Thoughts? The time to start talking is now. Interested in strengths and weaknesses.

by **Mentalgongfu** » Tue May 30, 2006 11:59 pm

Murtha? That would be wild . . . I've also seen speculation on Gore running. The BradBlog had a great excerpt of a Gore interview (from the New Yorker, I think). Gore was asked if the 2000 election was stolen, and replied: "There may come a time when I speak on that,” Gore says, "but it’s not now; I need more time to frame it carefully if I do.” Gore sighs. "In our system, there’s no intermediate step between a definitive Supreme Court decision and violent revolution." But me, I don't know if I can ever waste a vote on any of the "two major parties" again. I succumbed to fear and voted for Kerry, only to see him bow down like the straw man he was meant to be. I'm relatively certain no one ingrained in either party will work for the interests of people like me. If I'm gonna waste my vote, I'll waste it on a radical. If only everyone thought that way. .. But personally, I'm betting on Hilary vs. Condi 08. Think of the manipulation possible. No matter which one you vote for, you'll be helping America to take a historic step and elect either a woman or a black woman as President.

by **TroubleFunk** » Wed May 31, 2006 8:24 am

I suppose he could be a wild card, though an unlikely one. Personally, no matter how good a man he is, and no matter how I agree with his stance on this particular war - I want my president to be as far away from a "military mindset" as possible, and I wouldn't vote for him. I don't think Gore is a washed-up has-been at all. He WON. And his quote is pretty spot-on, I hadn't read that. While I agree with mentalgongfu about voting for a radical, if "everyone thought that way"- there are too many radicals to ever pick just one, and so many forms of radicalism (I see Bush as a radical). That doesn't preclude the possibility, mind you. I just don't see a good one on the horizon. And I firmly disagree on Hilary vs Condi, while also wondering why we insist on using their first names. Is it because they're women?

by **friend catcher** » Wed May 31, 2006 9:04 am

<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1786442,00.html">www.guardian.co.uk/usa/st...42,00.html</a> Maybe he feels freer to speak his mind whilst away from the US or possibly he absorbs some of the outright verbal hatred for bush that is the norm from all sections of European society. I think that he's had his chance at securing some of his policies as both a senator and VP, but failed, so why give him another chance.On the other hand if he did win and instigated even a fraction of his rhetoric then I would expect him to live only a short while.

by **chiggerbit** » Wed May 31, 2006 12:06 pm

while also wondering why we insist on using their first names Re Hillary, maybe it's just less confusing--you know immediately it isn't Bill. As for "Condi", it's a natural put-down from the Dems, as it hints at "Condi-ment". Also, there are fewer women pols, so people immediately know who you're talking about when you say"Hillary", but with men's names, who are you talking about if you say "Joe" or "John"? But, yes, it could be a gender put-down.

by **Mentalgongfu** » Wed May 31, 2006 8:24 pm

I referred to the aforementioned female politicos by the names which are used in the popular media. Mrs. Clinton has been known as "Hillary" for a long time. And Sean Hannity and other Fox Newsers call Ms. Rice "Condi," so it seems fair for me to do the same. If I intended to make a put-down, due to gender or anything else, there would be no doubt as to my intention, because I would say it clearly, and likely in a rude manner. Never thought of "condi-ment," but I like it. Like ketchup or mustard on a hot dog, she adds flavor and spice to an otherwise bland administration lineup. Too bad it makes me gag. I must be allergic. For a fun song on Condi, check out Steve EArle's last album.

by **chiggerbit** » Wed May 31, 2006 9:10 pm

Didn't mean you, hon. Everybody calls them Hillary and Condi, when they are speaking casually.

by **Mentalgongfu** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 8:36 pm

sorry, chiggerbit. but I do wonder, why do you find it so unlikely to see a hillary vs. condi presidential race? At the very least, the idea has been run up the flag pole. I know I've seen some "news" segments and talking heads frame the possibility, just as a Jeb Bush prez run has been tested in the media to either gauge public opinion or insert the idea into people's imaginations. As for first-names being used as a put-down, you might be on to something. It is perceived as rather uncourteous in the professional world. Now that I think about it, back in 2004, I recall Rush Limbaugh and others in his camp talking about the "John-John" ticket (Edwards/Kerry), in a condescending and insulting manner. As I recall, for a little while I took to calling Bush/Cheny the "Dick 'n' Bush ticket" in response.

by **chiggerbit** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 9:57 pm

Ok, where did I post that article? Got it. Not sure about the company mentioned here. Couldn't find out anything on a quick Google. But if they aren's blowing smoke up everybody's behind, then their prediction is interesting, to say the least. My gut tells me that they are right on. Both women are hard to like, and Americans find it important to like the people they vote for. But what bothers me is that we can't see the raw data this company used. Did they only consider the usual supects? Could they have possibly considered wild cards like Murtha? And who the heck is putting Jeb Bush's name into this "tool"? I think they are right about Hillary, but am uncomfortable with the rest of their material. Ok, scratch that link. Take a look at this one: <a href="http://www.prweb.com/releases/2006/5/prweb391395.htm">www.prweb.com/releases/20...391395.htm</a> New Research Tool Predicts Landslide for Gore in 2008, Defeat for Clinton A new behavior prediction tool is forecasting a landslide victory for former Democratic Vice President Al Gore in the 2008 presidential election. However, should Hillary Clinton gain the Democratic nomination, any potential Republican challenger will win the presidency. Los Angeles, CA (PRWEB) May 29, 2006 -- A new behavior prediction tool is forecasting a landslide victory for former Democratic Vice President Al Gore in the 2008 presidential election. However, should Hillary Clinton gain the Democratic nomination, any potential Republican challenger will win the presidency. These are among the surprising findings reported by Dr. James N. Herndon, a media psychologist with Media Psychology Affiliates. Using a new research tool called Affective Encryption Analysis, Dr. Herndon led an investigation into the likely outcome of the 2008 Presidential election. “Affective Encryption Analysis is a new behavior forecasting tool that looks at how our feelings and emotions can influence our long-term actions,” explains Dr. Herndon. “Traditional survey techniques are not very good at predicting trends. Affective Encryption Analysis was developed to dig deeper into the emotional factors that control our future behaviors.” Although created as a potential tool for the intelligence community, Affective Encryption Analysis has seen its early uses in the political arena. “Voter behavior is not primarily issue-driven,” states Dr. Herndon. “Subtle emotional factors drive our actions at the ballot box. When we decided to study the potential outcome of the 2008 Presidential election, we had no preconceptions about what we’d find. Nonetheless, there were some surprises.” Among the surprises was the overall weakness of potential Democratic presidential challengers. “Despite the widespread public dissatisfaction with the George W. Bush administration, our results showed even greater ill-feelings toward potential Democratic challengers,” says Dr. Herndon. “But there was one exception: Al Gore.” “With a predictive accuracy of 93%, our results showed that Al Gore would easily defeat any Republican challenger in 2008. However, he is the only Democrat on the scene today who has the ability to defeat the likely Republican challengers, who we believe will be either John McCain or Jeb Bush.” Results were not rosy for Hillary Clinton. “Hillary Clinton would suffer a disastrous defeat at the hands of any Republican who receives the nomination,” states Dr. Herndon. Should Al Gore decide not to seek the 2008 nomination, the Democrats “have their work cut out for them,” according to Dr. Herndon. “Our results suggest that a potentially successful Democratic nominee may be lurking in the entertainment industry. Does this sound strange? Maybe. But when it comes to politics, we may have to get used to a future full of surprises.” Media Psychology Affiliates is a media research and analysis firm based in Los Angeles and Coburg, Germany. It can be found on the web at <a href="http://www.mediapsychology.tv">www.mediapsychology.tv</a> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=chiggerbit@rigorousintuition>chiggerbit</A> at: 6/1/06 10:10 pm

by **professorpan** » Fri Jun 02, 2006 3:05 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>but I do wonder, why do you find it so unlikely to see a hillary vs. condi presidential race?<hr></blockquote> I'll go out on a limb here. I've already put some money down on this. It ain't gonna happen. The perfect way for the Plutocratic machine to retain its chokehold on the American throat is to pit Hillary Clinton -- a divisive, unprincipled, sell-out, flip-floppin' Baba Yaga's Hut of a human being-- against John McCain -- a wolf-in-sheep's clothing Bush-bootlicker framed as a "moderate" Rethuglican who "cares" about "fiscal responsibility" and is for a "strong defense" and against "gay marriage" because, dammit, Jesus hated fags -- even worse than he hated immigrants. Done deal. Draft Gore, and hold his heels to the solar fire if he wins. But strongly encourage him to avoid taking campaign trips in small planes.

by **professorpan** » Fri Jun 02, 2006 3:28 am

We know Bush wants to get his new war on so bad it hurts. But Mr. 29%-and-falling, worst-president-of-all-time knows he's gonna have to be trickier this time around or the peasants will storm his house with pitchforks. They're already lighting the torches. I can divine only one way he'll be able to do it. An IED, or some other insurgent attack, blows a U.S. convoy to shreds. Multiple horrible deaths. This will probably take place during the height of the mass media inquiry into civilian killings, which should be peaking on the evening news in the next couple of months. Many interviews with the widows and soft-focus montages of the orphaned children staring blankly at flag-draped caskets. Then General Casey comes on TV for a hastily-assembled press conference. "Some of the materials we've found in the wreckage are clearly Iranian-made. We've also noticed a spike in chatter between Iran and known Al Qaeda operatives, thanks to our increased phone monitoring efforts." CNN breaks in with a developing story -- an Iranian passport has been found atop a burning tire in the convoy wreckage. It belongs to a vice deputy lieutenant of al-Zarqawi's. There's a menu for an Iranian carry-out restaurant tucked in the barely-singed passport, with the words "Nuke Israel" in bold Sharpie. As Pat Travers was wont to say, "Boom boom, out go the lights." Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=professorpan>professorpan</A> at: 6/2/06 1:40 am

Could Murtha be 08 pres wild card?

Could Murtha be 08 pres wild card?

2008 Dem Wild Card

hmm

Gore -"Bush is a right wing extremist"

Re: Gore -"Bush is a right wing extremist"

first names

Re: first names

re: first names

Re: re: first names

Re: re: first names

Since I'm feeling prophetic

Who is online