Bill could beat McCain or Dumbo w/o campaigning. One speech the night before the election and a few debates would deep-six them. The only Republican in memory who would stand a chance against him would have been Reagan in his prime. They are two of a kind.

That was middle-of-the-road as far as Clinton speeches go, but it was strong. He got that convention fired-up big-time, Obama will knock it out of the park and into Aspen or Vail tomorrow night. I predict that Obama will get a pretty good bounce from the convention, McCain not so much. I could be wrong, though. Wouldn't be the first time.

Clinton can brag about the way things were when he was president, and he bragged when they were happening. It's hard to argue w/ hard numbers of economic indicators like job creation, % living in poverty, unemployment figures, average income, etc... Bush has never really been able to talk about things that improved over his watch, only fear-mongering and other BS. McCain is going to treat him like the clap in this election.

Obama, OTOH, better not repeat Kerry's mistake with avoiding Clinton. Besides just being a weak candidate in general, he made the fatal mistake of not utilising BC on the campaign trail. Clinton's appeal w/ Democrats and anybody who misses the 1990s is HUGE. I didn't think that they were ever going to calm down and let him speak tonight. He can get out the vote like no one on earth in the general election. He couldn't do it for Hillary because of the unusual dynamic of being her husband. He lost his head. He'll be valuable to Obama.

Bill has always been a great speaker, and he makes for a bit of it being dynamic, instead of just run of the mill type of crap.

...or, he will jump the shark.




http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1219905276.jpg

pretty much all i read about on this website when it comes to politics is how one side is a lier and the other one isnt. never any real issues except broad general stmts about how taxes will be raised.

I cant stand either candidate but i sure as hell am not going to vote for that anti-abortion wacko McCain. how can anyone who isnt a brainless bible thumper vote for that pro-life nut head. that element of this country is just embarassing and im not endorsing it by voting for a guy that probably doesnt know how to work a cell phone

As a dose of reality I wish to remind you that Clinton never even got 50% of the vote. And he got that 42-48% against the towering charismatic powerhouses of Bob Dole and Bush I. Comparing his campaigning prowess to Reagan is quite the stretch.

There was no Clinton love-fest until he porked the porker, that's when he got popular.

If someone could explain this to me I'd really appreciate it.

While campaigning Bill said Obama isn't ready to lead, he fully endorsed his wife. Last night he said that Obama IS the right man for the job.

So is he admitting that Hillary isn't right for thejob? Is he admitting he was wrong? Or was he equivocating by saying Obama is the right MAN for the job, not the right PERSON?

And why oh why do people fall for this crap?

Or maybe I'm picking at nits.

That is the conventional wisdom, however, it's just not true. In 2004, Clinton campaigned for 14 candidates, 12 of them lost. After he was elected in '92, he turned an overwhelming majority in both houses of congress into a GOP majority. Al Gore was right in avoiding him. In reality, he has been irrelevant politically since 1994.

And his "wife" Hillary turned $100 million and an inevitable cake walk to the presidency into a $30 millon debt, a token 15 minutes at this year's convention, and a fractured party.

The Clintons have done less with more than anyone since Nixon.

Oh, it's pretty easy. I'm an atheist and will vote for McCain. Abortion means nothing to me and no one I know is affected by it either way beyond the fact that Roe v. Wade was a gross perversion of the 14th Amendment, when it's pretty clear the 10th Amendment makes it a state issue and not a federal one.

Well put. How does one explain away those facts?

Oh, maybe just the fact that abortion is a selfish attempt to dodge accountability for irresponsible behavior by killing a child. Don't want a baby? Don't have sex, or do it safely. If you're pregnant, give it up for adoption. My wife's cousin and his wife have been waiting for over a year to adopt a baby.

How anyone, especially someone that has kids, can support abortion is beyond me. But what do I know, I'm just a brainless bible thumper.SmileWavy But unlike most who have had abortions, I do sleep well at night.

Wish I had known about your cousin Matt--they could've adopted our unborn baby that developed with half of a heart. Wish I believed in God--he would've fixed it most certainly.

To say I'm sorry would be an understatement, I can't imagine having to go through that. However, saying that God would "fix it" is not what religion is about. For that matter, nothing would "fix" that situation, abortion included.

You're right. Slight over reaction.
Christian.

I too am sorry for your heartbreak, Christian.

I am opposed to abortion, but also opposed to America trying to legislate morality. God loves "good" choices. Not necessarily "legal" choices. If people are free to choose, they are free to choose "good" or "evil." And it's not just abortion. Conservatives love to regulate peoples' behavior, and that sets them in opposition to my beliefs.

Clinton and the other Dems are not trying to scare America, but they will not let America forget what party made the bad decisions that got us into the terrible position we are now in. Fair is fair. You guys' "party" and its candidates will now take their medicine.

The best Republican president we've had in the past thirty-five years was Dubya's dad. Head and shoulders above Reagan frankly. A performance to be fairly proud of, if I were you guys. But the best president of any party that we've had in that time period was, without a doubt, Bill Clinton.

I did not see or hear the speech, but am not surprised it was so effective. The Dems have another fairly powerful speaker. His name is Barack Obama.

Where we part ways is that abortion is a "choice". That sounds so sanitary. That choice is killing a kid. Personally, I don't think that should be anyone's choice.

I'll give you that conservatives (not Republicans, big difference) like to legislate morality. Sometimes I agree, sometimes I don't. Liberals like to legislate everything else. Fair enough?;)

Well, it certainly shouldn't be a choice by by judicial fiat or an invented right. The 10th Amendment says that whatever isn't covered in the Const. is to be left up to the states and the people. I think that means abortion is a state issue. If it doesn't mean that, then there really is nothing the fed. gov't. can't do to the states.

That the SCOTUS usurped that power is outrageous. That countless politicians refer to it as a woman's right to choose, when it should be called it is - the SCOTUS's right to make up whatever laws they want - is also a travesty of justice.

Hmmmmmm........

Rick, based on my understanding you may need better information. Roe v. Wade is the SC decision to NOT stand in states' shoes. It is, currently, not a federal decision but rather a state one. The conservative agenda is to remove that opportunity from states, and make abortions unlawful in the United States of America.

Matt, we're on the same page. Yes, conservatives like to regulate citizens and liberals prefer to regulate businesses. No quarrel there. I support regulation of businesses, and deregulation of persons.

And yes I am mindful of the unique nature of the abortion debate. And respectful. My personal preference is to not criminalize abortions, but I am respectful of the brute fact that, assuming it is a life, folks on your side of the issue are correct. That is.....if it is a life, then it is not a 'choice.' I guess that, defacto, I am concluding it is not a life. And I understand the tenuous nature of that conclusion. Tough, tough issue. Very tough. I am very respectful. And naive and pollyanna. I am so silly as to imagine that our society could have integrity and security and values and respect for life to the degree that there are few unwanted pregnancies, and good decisions....happy adoptions....in those instances. By choice. That is what I want to see, and I am not yet willing to give up on that vision.

This is the exact opposite of the truth.

I assume I stand corrected.

Supe, if AL or MS tried to ban abortion, what do you think would happen? Roe v. Wade was very much a decision that took away the states' right to pass their own laws on issues not mentioned in the U.S. Const.

Of course, there may be future cases that try to get Roe v. Wade overturned on 10th Amend. grounds and I would fully support that. But it has nothing to do with banning abortion, which would probably never be politically possible at the federal level, and everything to do with states getting their rights back, rights that are supposedly guaranteed by the 10th Amend.

If Roe v. Wade were overturned tomorrow, it would not at all make abortion illegal anywhere in the U.S. And even if a small handful of states soon thereafter passed abortion bans that passed Const. muster, there'd still be a good 40-45 states and territories in the U.S. where it'd be no problem to get an abortion. Main point being that the fed. gov't. would lose some of the power the SCOTUS handed them which was never granted them by the Const. That can't be a bad thing. But it's a lot more difficult to explain this to the average dolt voter who thinks abortion is somewhere in the Bill of Rights.