"Douglas Friedman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in small part:
"I believe any GOP male candidate who is not totally unacceptable to the GOP base and not so far right-wing as to be considered a nut will crush Hillary Clinton. Countering your willingness to consider voting for Rice would be people like me who would have to hold our noses to vote for her. Some undoubtedly wouldn't. Most of the other GOPers I would vote for with greater enthusiasm (other than Hagel)." Why do you single Hagel out as someone you wouldn't be more enthusiastic about than the avg. Republican? The reason I ask is that a few weeks ago someone on the LPNY_discuss Yahoo group who frequently blows hot & cold (ironically, she's a professional clown) did so about Hagel. She read something by him that instantly endeared him to her politically, and she praised him to the sky. I did just a little research (RLC ratings) and determined he didn't look outstanding, only average for Republican US senators, which she argued about. Then suddenly Hagel did something that made him appear to have cooties to her. I never thought he was so good, nor so bad. So I'm interested in why you mention him. BTW, as long as we're "polling" about C. Rice, I'll just say I agree with Doug's assessment more than Frank's. The radio talk show circuit has boosted her way beyond what she deserves. Which leads me to remark more generally I don't know if it's just a matter of continued exposure or a real change, but over the past decade most radio emcees have come to sound much more flackish, less sincere and interesting to me than they used to, either as individuals or collectively. The exceptions are usually those with smaller audiences. In Your Sly Tribe, Robert _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list Libnw@immosys.com List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
