Comments on: Primary Colors

By: countertop

countertop — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 22:26:25 +0000

I suspect if they get behind Richardson early, when Hillary wins eventually it gives them pretty good inroads to her and while things won’t get better, can probably help us hold off things getting worse.

By: countertop

countertop — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 22:24:46 +0000

It would help Bill a lot, but wouldn’t do anything to impact Hillary’s chances. She’s going to win, and at this point based upon what I am hearing from the campaign (one of her advisors is sitting next to me) Richardson is probably at the top of her VP list.

By: DirtCrashr

DirtCrashr — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 21:54:11 +0000

Is this where Rudy’s “something dramatic” comes in? That it’s New-Yorkese for, “Where’s the bag of cash that’s supposed to be waiting for me behind the restaurant door?”
I wonder if he’s waiting and hoping for the kind of “dramatic support” that Normie Hsu was providing The Beast Hillary?? …and suddenly, dramatically, this morphs into the dildoae post.

By: chris

chris — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 16:41:56 +0000

I agree with Rustmeister.

I think that ratings are better than endorsements in the primaries.

I think that Richardson is the smart choice for Hillary or Obama as a running mate.

It will be interesting to see how he meshes with either of them on the issue of gun control.

Gun control is a hot issue with the UN, which is, I believe, where Richardson served as US Ambassador for his boss, Bill Clinton.

By: # 9

# 9 — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 14:27:22 +0000

Rudy vs Hillary = Hillary. 70% of the people want ~~the war~~ cross-dressing to end and that guy is going around all day ~~saying he likes the strategy we�re using right now~~ wearing a dress??

I get it HardCorps, only Ron Paul.

By: HardCorps

HardCorps — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 14:20:01 +0000

Thompson vs Hillary = Hillary. 70% of the people want the war to end and that guy is going around all day saying he likes the strategy we’re using right now??

By: # 9

# 9 — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 14:14:49 +0000

In this environment I think it is a gamble worth taking.

All things considered, I think Thompson is the best candidate to run against Hillary.

When Rudy took that phone call from his wife in the middle of his speech to the NRA you have to wonder what he was thinking.

By: Sebastian

Sebastian — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 13:53:10 +0000

I should say, though, if it came down to someone like Thompson running neck and neck with Giuliani, and you think an endorsement will push Thompson over the top, it might be a good gamble. It’s not a gamble I’d be comfortable with, but I wouldn’t be all “Has NRA lost their minds?” if they decided to roll that dice.

I’d really want to start small with something like this, and in an area where it’s politically safe. We don’t even know yet how much NRA can affect a primary. It’s one of those situations where you want to how sharp the tool is before you start carving your wood with it.

By: Sebastian

Sebastian — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 13:48:44 +0000

It’s very tricky, and you have to be careful if you’re going to do it. As I said in the linked post, it would be a big mistake for the NRA to get involved in a primary situation where you have multiple candidates courting your vote. If you back the loser, the winner will hold your support of his opponent against you. If you wait until it’s clear who the winner is going to be, the endorsement is meaningless.

In this election, it would be a mistake for NRA to get involved in the Republican primary, but endorsing Richardson in the Democratic primary might be a smart move in the right circumstances.

By: Rustmeister

Rustmeister — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 13:40:37 +0000

That would be politically tricky for the NRA.

In primaries, I think it’s best for the candidates to refer to their NRA rating rather than seek an endorsement.