Is anybody else getting a “popping” sound when playing this audio?

That popping is the sound of the pilot light in Bruce’s brain trying to come on.

Krydor, don’t be fooled. Her husband was pragmatic, and shifted with every poll, including to the right. He signed welfare reform, recall.

She is an idealist socia*ist, the most dangerous kind.

Entelechy on May 8, 2007 at 1:57 PM

Clinton knew that the Republicans could overturn his veto. You’re right that he’s a chameleon, and shifts colors for political expediency. He realized that it would be dangerous to oppose the Contract with America, so instead he took credit for it all.

You’re also right in how much more dangerous Hillary is.

Krydor, don’t be fooled. Her husband was pragmatic, and shifted with every poll, including to the right. He signed welfare reform, recall.

She is an idealist socia*ist, the most dangerous kind.

Like Fred?, Shrillary has no executive experience,

pedestrian on May 7, 2007 at 6:55 PM

Woah, you think running an Aircraft Carrier and Dulles International Airport doesn’t count as experience?!!

- The Cat

Hillary Clinton is the one person who has the best chance to get away with launching a few w88′s. She’s a woman so she wants to appear tough internationally. She’s a lib so she’ll get more of a pass than anybody else.

Nah, still not enough of a carrot for me to vote for her.

Fixed it for you Bryan

I can see arguments at least as compelling Bartlets suggesting the opposite; that a victory for the most radically leftist Democrat would be preferable. If one believes that leftist policy when put into practice truly is repellent to the bulk of American voters, then the tenure of such an ideologue could serve to alienate most of the electorate, actually improving the chances for Republicans to regain control of one or both houses mid-term(as happend with Clinton), as well as increasing the likelihood that the liberal would serve a single term then fall to a strong–and likely more conservative than otherwise–reaction in favor of Republicans come the next presidential cycle (as happened with Carter).

That scenario would reflect a short-term setback for conservativism, but a long-term gain. Alternatively, Bartlett’s notion of backing the apparently most middling pragmatist in the Democrat field could result in, rather than a future reactionary turn towards the conservative, the mere propagation of yet more middling pragmatists (from both parties) come future elections. Such a move toward centrist homogeneity could actually serve to damage long-term conservative prospects.

Do I like her? Do any conservatives? Not the point. Enough neutral observers might.

That’s a percentage assessment of the Democrats winning.

The values on Tradesport aren’t percentages either. They are the discounted value of a possible payoff. Investments that are highly correlated with the market portfolio are worth less than investments that add diversification. Since the election of a socialist would lower the market, the rate of a return on a Democrat payout would be lower since it is in effect a form of insurance against a market dive resulting from their election. That would tend to raise the value quoted on Tradesport, so the probability of a Democrat being elected is being estimated as less than 55%.

BTW, Bartlett referred to Tradesport and a 55/45 split. That’s ***not*** a prediction of Democrats winning 55 to 45. That’s a percentage assessment of the Democrats winning. It would be expected to widen at *any* point of difference (whether or not statistically significant) in the relative percentages of Democrats v. Republicans. In other words, a 51/49 split in the vote expectation could rationally lead to a “55% chance” of Democrat victory on a predictive market.

Anyone with Billary delusions has to be kidding themselves.

After Inauguration Day, Bill will spend most of the term on the road continuing his gloryhog poke-a-hog tour- only returning to D.C. to restore his legacy when the glacier screws up.

Probably someone’s head exploding…

it is reasonable to assume that Mrs. Clinton’s policies would not be altogether different from Bill Clinton’s

Sexist pig! Claiming she has no thoughts of her own…

Trust me, she is the LAST person I’d want to defend, but that’s just dumb.

Rock on……………..

On economics, it is reasonable to assume that Mrs. Clinton’s policies would not be altogether different from Bill Clinton’s.

Tell me something… do you think that the president… any president… has a direct effect on the economy? Every time thet are either credited or blamed for the economy, it’s immediately “debunked.” In Cliton’s terms, it was around 12K. Now, it’s over 13.3K. It’s been over 12K far longer than the dimz takeover.

Is anybody else getting a “popping” sound when playing this audio? Or is it just my computer?

Lovely Laura puts ‘em in their place!