--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thanks, Do.rflex, for posting this (below), I appreciate the > historical pinpoints, and agree with the last paragraph completely: > > "Summary: Hillary Clinton's reference to 1968 was accurate (that > campaign was still in doubt) but tacky. Her reference to Bill's 1992 > race was wrong on the facts. Like Tsongas, Hillary Clinton is not > (yet) mathematically eliminated. Like Tsongas, Hillary's campaign is > out of money. Unlike Tsongas, she doesn't know when it's a good time > to wrap it up." > > And as how to determine *when" is the "good time" to wrap up her > campaign, Clinton is obviously using a different metric to measure > that than the writer's (above). She's clearly not opted > for "gracious" and "magnanimous"; nor should she, necessarily, but > many people (I do), have fond memories of the Clinton presidency and > I favor the scenario of a great-hearted Hilary Clinton ending her > campaign with some grand, magnanimous gesture, and garnering the > approbation and respect of everyone, even if she didn't win the > nomination (and accepts some cabinet level appointment -- or Supreme > Court justice). But that's just my preference for a particular > version of events and it's clear that she has not made her decisions > along those lines. And, again, she's doesn't have to. > > We'll see how her decision plays out. It certainly makes the whole > drama that much more interesting. And although it would be a > complete bummer if Obama loses in the general election, A McCain > presidency doesn't totally freak me out. No matter what John McCain > says to pander to his constituency, even a McCain presidency would > (overall) result in significant improvements, both in the US and the > world (IMO). McCain would be in a weak position relative to > Congress; he wouldn't (he doesn't now) have the whole-hearted > support of the Republican base; but, he's far more prudent and > informed than Bush, and less idealogically (and religiously) > informed; and he's pragmatic and used to working for consensus in > congressional and senatorial lawmaking, unlike Bush who has only > occupied executive positions. > > Marek
I appreciate your views on McCain if by some chance he gets elected. I hadn't thought of it as it might be. Besides your very plausible analysis, it IS at least a little comforting to know that he isn't George W Bush. <chuckle> [snip]
