humanities.philosophy.objectivism

Let's try that again, shall we?

On Jan 8, 11:46 pm, Ken Gardner wrote:
> [actually, I wrote] "Agent Cooper"
>
> > Here's where we're at: Obama and McCain will win in New Hampshire. I
> > don't place much stock in historical analogies in this context, but
> > the "losing in both Iowa *and* New Hampshire and then winning the
> > nomination" looks much less promising than "losing in Iowa and then
> > winning the nomination." I am guarded about Hillary's chances now, but
> > if I were her, I'd be really really worried.
> > This thing is totally not over, but if I were Rudy, I'd start making
> > other plans for 2009.
> > My guarded prediction, however, is that Obama is our next president,
> > for the following reason: Hillary is in a trap because her argument is
> > so weak. Experience? They are both one term senators. Policy? Not much
> > difference. Make history? They are both not white males. But she has
> > no charisma (!), so she has no choice but to go negative. Just how
> > negative can a Dem go against a black candidate before it backfires
> > and makes her look like crap? Not very far. But they'll have no
> > choice. And the going negative will kill her.
> > McCain has a shot, but he can't run as a change agent, even if he can
> > respectably distance himself from the worst features of the Bush
> > administration. There's a huge hunger for change out there, and only
> > Obama can credibly cash in on it. I predict that Reggie is going to
> > win his little wager.

So far so good.


botfood
botfood
botfood
botfood
botfood
botfood
botfood
botfood
botfood
botfood
botfood
botfood
botfood
botfood
botfood
botfood
botfood
botfood
botfood
botfood
botfood
botfood
botfood
botfood
botfood
botfood
botfood
botfood
botfood
botfood
botfood
botfood
botfood
botfood
botfood
botfood
botfood
botfood
botfood
botfood
botfood
botfood
botfood
botfood
botfood
botfood
botfood
botfood
botfood
botfood
botfood
botfood
botfood
botfood
botfood
botfood