Posted on 01/06/2008 4:13:42 AM PST by Alas Babylon!
From what I have read and heard about Obama on TV the blacks view him as “too white” I wonder if that is true or if he is likely to pick up the black vote.
With all due respect, I believe I should receive some kind of award: Week after week, against doctor’s orders, I force myself to read bray’s comments.
I recall this (”too white”) being said about Tiger Woods too. But will never forget as he was nearing his first win at The Masters and all the kitchen help coming out of the club house and just standing there full of pride that “one of their own” could actually win such a major prize theretofore reserved unto Massa. The pride will swell if and when they think he can win.
Bill Kristol was eluding to that the other day about South Carolina. (which Hillary smugly thinks she has in the bag)
Yes, I can agree with #2.
I also think the SS would make sure no one gets near the President. I don't think this will happen for two reasons.
First, he has been in that area several time before, and no attacks have happened on his visits before.
Second, he is near the end of his term, and they don't ever want to see the words President Dick Cheney.
Just because Hillary says she would do something does not mean she would do it.
Old Bill promised to lower taxes and then said things were so bad that he couldn’t, and he raised them. Jon Corzine in NJ did the same thing, if I remember right.
The trick is to say anything to get elected, as you already know, and once in office it’s too late for any reversal.
Bill Clinton lost both Iowa and NH and still won.
I know it is not what the early states want to hear but they all really are not that relevant to winning the nomination.
Looking at the state by state polling data, Mike Huckabee will be our nominee. I am starting to feel really sick how we are going to do in 2008.
Keep the faith. Things can, and do, change on a dime.
And 2 adorable looking children he is a media dream
Huckabee is this cycle’s Pat Robertson.
Duncan Hunter has, in a year-plus of campaigning, never been able to get above the margin of error.
Fred Thompson, who entered the campaign a few months ago, has consistently polled within the margin of error of the top two and three candidates.
Brit Hume, Fox, and the rest of the MSM (Brit and Fox are MSM) report what they want you to know and refrain from reporting what they'd just as soon you not know. I watched in amazement as I heard ZERO, as in zilch, as in nada, as in null, as in ABSENT -- not a single mention of Fred Thompson on today's Fox News Sunday among the panel. Even though Thompson came in THIRD in Iowa, ahead of McCain. Even though he did it in a fraction of the time and on a fraction of the budget of his opponents. If that's not newsworthy, then water is not wet.
The MSM keeps its viewers ignorant of what's really happening in the world. What's really happening is that Joe Blow conservatives on sites like Free Republic who watched the debate have as much, if not more, to say about Thompson on the debates as any of the other candidates. What's really happening is that super-star conservative pundits like Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Steyn, and even Thomas Sowell, have identified Thompson as the most truly conservative candidate. Steyn and Levin have made it pretty clear they like Thompson best, and Rush has, in the opinion of many of his listeners, done the same. More important, Fred Thompson is viable -- clearly, consistenly ranking well within the MOE of the top poll winners is validation of viability. Indeed, the only reason apparently YOU think Thompson isn't viable is because you don't hear the media heads talking about him.
You gotta pay attention you'll get duped by the MSM, my FRiend.
It doesn't matter, hillary clinton, barack Hussein Osama, and johnnie "ambulance chasing" edwards are all socialists.
Then, you have dennis the menace Kook Spinach who is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyy out there in left field.
The biggest problem I have with Ron Paul, is that there are way too many Austin hippies and other local liberals who actually AGREE with him on many issues. If liberals agree with him, I don't think he is worth supporting in the general elections.
I manage to miss BOR also. My sweetie watches and I go to FR instead! :) I really do not know which candidates have appeared. You made a good point, as BOR does infer that Fred is the only one that hasn’t appeared. GO FRED!
Would be great if the Republican Party could find a way of welcoming in the young RP supporters for the libertarian/small government positions for which we have common ground. Iraq is a fading issue anyway, but if they felt they could find some hipness and understanding beyond RP in the party it could turn out to help the Pubbies.
I’m still keeping my powder dry and not jumping to conclusions.
Fred Thompson has stumped the pundits for months now. He is not playing their game or following this new time table. Personally, I think Fred’s timing is one reason FNC has not covered him more. Fred’s not playing the game with them and Fred is quick to call FNC on their obvious biased comments and reporting.
It boils down to what happens in South Carolina and how enthusiastic Fred is there, and from then on.
Just a thought.
I've always been dubious of the "inevitability" of Clinton. The only way she can win is through fraud, in either the primary or the General. I think the prospect of Obama or Edwards is more likely as the Republican candidate's opponent. Regardless, any of them would be easy for Republicans to beat. They're all weak, frail, and puffed-up. The Democrats are going down regardless.
Romney has a nice wife and 5 boys.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.