Comments (32)

I thought that was a production photo of the Joker from The Dark Knight.

I'm a big fan of Hillary; the real Hillary, not the character she is playing now. I'm going to end up voting for her, though. She's a better choice than Rudy.

Let's see if either of them makes it through the primaries first, shall we?

It's almost (almost) a given at this point. Historically at this point in the race on the Republican side the candidate is decided. Whomever is in the lead by October is the nominee.

On the Democrat side Hillary's lead is commanding. It was always her nomination to lose, and so far she hasn't slipped. I'd be willing to make a real cash bet that those are the nominees.

I could be wrong, but like the man said: I'm not.

I hate to point it out, but Howard Dean's lead was commanding in '08.

The "inevitability" of Clinton's nomination is feeding itself at this point, and I think that will doom it to a collapse. It's not built on any kind of foundation, people have just heard Clinton is inevitable and they in turn believe it.

If you look closely at the poll questions they are never, "Who do you plan to vote for?", but rather, "Who do you think will be the nominee?". I myself would answer those two questions differently, and Clinton would be my answer to the second.

I'm still in camp Obama. If Clinton does win the nomination, I will stay at home in November of '08. I'd rather not vote than vote for someone I don't believe in.

A couple of asides though...

1. I would think Clinton's healthcare plan would be a dealbreaker for you.

2. I told you Sam Brownback wouldn't be the Republican nominee.

going backwards:

2. I know. I honestly didn’t think Brownback *would* be the nominee, just that he *could* be. I think Romney grabbed Brownback’s constituency. Plus, I’m not really certain how serious Sam was as a candidate. It looks like he was trying to build name recognition for a later run.

1. It would be, if the other candidate had a good plan. In the general election I’m voting Dem unless something very weird were to happen- if the nominees were a very conservative Democrat against a very liberal Republican, could cause me to swap parties. If we in Kansas get to vote in the primary (which isn’t guaranteed) I would likely vote Kucinich (f he is still in the race, if not it is Obama) (I wish that I was voting Gore).
Clinton has the most money, the highest name recognition, the best machine and the most support among party faithful. She would have to be caught eating kittens or molesting children to lose the nomination.


I am curious, you seem to really despise HRC, and I wonder why. Care to elucidate?

There are people who want to be in the White House for the good of America.

Then there are the Hillary Clinton's and Bush's of the world.

Her middle of the road stances on fundamental issues and corportate supporting policies lead me to believe that she just wants to live in the White House again, and is not interested in improving America. I believe the first time she lived there, things were different.

I think many people think that by having Hillary Clinton in the White House, they're getting Bill Clinton by extension. However, the Bill Clinton of 1992 and the Bill Clinton of 2007 are two entirely different people. The one in 1992 was great, the one in 1996 was okay. If the current one is truly a supporter of his wife's policies, then B.C. v2007 kinda sucks.

I need a little idealism in my President. The only candidate that I believe truly has some of that idealism is Obama. I think most of the rest pretend it. Obama '08 reminds me of Clinton '92 (yes, I was following national politics at age 12).

Also, civil rights are still a large issue to me, and I believe they're of more concern to a black man than a white woman. Maybe a bit of a sterotypical generalization, but still.

(As a further aside, I was playing the part of the capitalist pig in our healthcare discussion way back when just to further explore both sides. I find Clinton's healthcare plan appalling, but I'm sure the insurance companies couldn't be more pleased.)

This isn't a political comment, but more of a gender one. If there was a male candidate whos wife was generally thought of as a slut, would that hurt the candidates chances of being elected? Will it hurt Hillary?

I agree with a lot of what you say. A lot. I like the woman that Hillary was way back when. Like I said, I don’t much care for the role she is playing now. She has embraced the politically expedient over any real ideals. Yet… I believe that we often must choose the lesser of two evils, and looking at the Republican field she is certainly less evil than any of them. Romney makes my skin crawl. McCain is a toad. Rudy is a weirdly mixed bag: good on some social issues, but a jingoistic nutjob.

“(As a further aside, I was playing the part of the capitalist pig in our healthcare discussion way back when just to further explore both sides. I find Clinton's healthcare plan appalling, but I'm sure the insurance companies couldn't be more pleased.)”

Agreed.

"This isn't a political comment, but more of a gender one. If there was a male candidate whos wife was generally thought of as a slut, would that hurt the candidates chances of being elected?"

You mean like Mamie Eisenhower?

I don't know if she was a slut, but I would've hit this:



Which reminds me, Ann Coulter was spotted hanging out at a gay resturant.

Not quite certain how one reminds you of the other but... did they attack her?

Forgot this earlier: as far as Idealism goes, what about Kucinich? Why discount him?

I don't think Mrs. Eisenhower was considered a slut. She was considered miserly and a bit stand-offish. But yes, If she were a slut that have hurt Ike's presidency. But what about today? Most popular culture considers Bill Clinton's sexual appetite a joke. Will that hurt Hillary's run? Would it hurt Obama if his wife were in the same category?

Quote Nathan Tyree

They both look like dudes.

"They both look like dudes."

True.

"I don't think Mrs. Eisenhower was considered a slut. She was considered miserly and a bit stand-offish. But yes, If she were a slut that have hurt Ike's presidency. But what about today? Most popular culture considers Bill Clinton's sexual appetite a joke. Will that hurt Hillary's run? Would it hurt Obama if his wife were in the same category?"

Probably not, really. It shouldn't.

I just can't imagine the American people electing a woman or a minority to the presidency (Sorry, Obama).

Don't get me wrong; they're every bit as capable as white men, but I don't think the average American is forward-thinking enough to actually do it. I would love to be proved wrong (provided I'm proved wrong by a candidate worthy of holding the office).

Since the average American is a woman, you may well be wrong...

I think you're confusing "average" with "majority".

no. No, - If you dropped all Americans into a vat and chose one out at random you would be statistically more likely to choose a female than a male. Perhaps you would be more comfortable if I said that the average american is statistically more likely to be female?

if you threw all americans in a vat, you could not be sure of pulling an "average American" out. if there is a gender gap, the "average American" may be less likely to be female. The correct way to say this is that the majority of eligible voters are female. the word "average" should not even be in the sentence as it has no bearing on being able to vote.

Dammit, I knew I should've kept my mouth shut. Now I'm arguing semantics again.

An average is a number. If you were to say, "The average number of women found in a population of 36,000 people is 18,750," you would be using the term correctly (the numbers are obviously from my head). You can not mathematically say, "The average automobile has four wheels." Most automobiles may have four wheels, but that is something else entirely. There is no such thing as an average automobile in the context of how you are using the word.

There is no such thing as an "average American" mathematically. An "average American" would have to be different percentages of different races, genders, abilities, beliefs, etc. with many being diametrically opposed.

The term "average American" may be used wherin average is an adjective meaning "unassuming" or "within the norm". Using this context, your statement would appear to infer that male Americans are unusual.

You are using the term "average" colloquially to mean "most".

Quote Nathan Tyree

Aside from the fact that your initial comment caused little to no discomfort to begin with, your revised statement works for me. The term "the average" is rendered unnecessary in this phrasing, however (being just as easily replaced with "an"), and it is by no means the same statement.

Average is actually an imprecise word in common usage. Mathematically an average is either a mean, a median or a mode, but none of those are what we mean when we say “average”. According to census bureau documents the “average American” has some college, but no degree; is 40 years old; and is divorced. None of these facts refer to an actual mathematical average. They simply mean that a plurality of those studied fit into those categories. In the case of gender a majority (not just a plurality) of Americans fit in the category “female”. Thus, it is fair to say that the average Joe is actually a Josephine.

Census Bureau or not, this is still improper usage of the word "average".

You may find it improper, but it has become the common usage. Some words, like 'average', 'theory', etc, have a common (or colloquial) meaning, and another technical meaning. What can you do...

by the by, per dictionary.com:

typical; common; ordinary: The average secretary couldn't handle such a workload. His grades were nothing special, only average.

by the by, I covered that usage above. Male Americans are common and ordinary. Are they, then, the average American?

Hmmm... good point. But, as I mentioned, we are speaking of the most common type. Chicks are more common than dudes... all of this has led me to another train of thought: http://www.sevensoupcans.com/vent2/index.php?journal=109#2265

And as I mentioned, if we are speaking of the most common type, then we're not talking about the "average".

I'm glad we are finally in agreement.

I don’t know that we were ever disagreeing here. Surely I was saying that the assertion that a woman cannot be elected president is spurious (due largely to the fact that the majority of Americans are women). We tussled about the usage of the term ‘average’, but I would wager that you agree with my main point.

Let me attempt to revise my comment from before that used the offending term "average:"

I don't think a large enough number of Americans are forward-thinking enough to actually elect a woman or minority to the presidency.

Again, I would love to be proved wrong by someone deserving of the position.