>Z, I need to be candid.......you speak like you know how this election is going to play out and what I am trying to tell you is that you don't know.
Well, I can look at the polling and voting trends and make projections. I can also look at the past versus now and see that McCain's ratings, which were not good when he was the front-runner earlier last year, improved considerably when he was out of the picture, while the other Reps who were ahead of him had low ratings, and make an educated guess that once America sees him again on a regular basis, they won't like him. I also know that the Republicans really hate him and that a lot of the base would rather a Dem win than have McCain as President.
>All we can go by is what's happening today.
That is so not true.
>And today, Clinton is the lesser candidate in a match up with McCain.
By a couple of points nine months out.
>Well then, why isn't she appealing to men?
Because she's a strong woman.
>Men are 50% of this country; they deserve a candidate with whom they can identify
They're 50% of this country and 100% of the Presidents.
>But what does it say that the two men she holds dear you consider "scumbags"?
That she's conducting her campaign as a business. They're career operatives. And I'm sure they're not the only two men high up on her campaign. The point is that they're the only two people high on her campaign that I know by name, and they're men, not women.
>Its important only what it says about her. I sense a lot of anger in her and suspect it comes at least in part from her bad marriage.
I sense anger in Edwards, too. I sense anger in me, as well. After the shit she's been through and after the shit the country has gone through, we'd better be angry, and I don't mind having an angry candidate.
>Are you expecting to vote for someone who thinks exactly the way you think?
No, I'm hoping to vote for the candidate who thinks the closest to the way I think.
-Z |
