Re: Is she toast?

Greg Goss wrote:
> 
> "Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack' )"
> <tributyltinpaint@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 
> >Dover Beach wrote:
> 
> >> I think she'd have a better shot at 2012 if she'd back out now.  I
hate
> >> to see her do it, and I can understand if she wants to keep fighting,
> >> but she'd preserve more goodwill if she'd wait four more years.
> >>
> >Where's Gore now? He's reduced to blaming a big whirlwind on
> >"Global Warming".
> 
> Gore could probably have had this nomination if he'd wanted it.
>
After the nonsense he's pulled with his Global Warming business
ventures and his Bigfoot carbon footprint?


>  For
> most of the campaign, the betting site that I watch had Gore at better
> odds than Edwards, even though he wasn't running.  (I guess bettors
> figured he'd be an up-the-middle compromise at a deadlocked
> convention?).  Gore didn't want it.  He's happy where he is.
> 
This isn't his election. He screwed it up in 2000. In fact, it was
as close as it was because, if you'll recall, Bush's DUI was leaked
right before the vote. 


> Another example might be Reagan.  I was going through my old playboy
> clippings once and found a political article on the back of one of
> them about the presidential race -- including Reagan.  In 1968.  You
> keep at it, and eventually you might get it.  But I don't think that
> would work for Clinton.  She's made too many enemies to come back in
> four years and try again.
>
What you don't get usually is more than one shot at being the major
party nominee. You can run and run and not get that far, but once
they attach the party to you as their draft horse, you better win.
Unless you are Nixon. Then maybe it would've been better to not
win.



-- 
"Question, two men starving to death decide to eat their hair like
spaghetti. Is that funny?"
"Hmmm, well, it depends on if by funny you want to make people
laugh."
-+Eddie Izzard and Joanna Lumley, "The Cat's Meow"