2008- what do you think would have happend with diffrent canidates?

[Derek]

http://

Hillary vs. McCain

[Derek]

What do you mean and what are you getting at? It would've come down to Ohio.

[Derek]

http://

Hillary vs. McCain

lol. If Obama, with all his controversies and inexperience, amanged to defeat McCain in a landslide, Hillary would have as well.

None of that mattered. It was all about the economy and getting someone as far from Bush as possible.

[Derek]

http://

Hillary vs. McCain

LOL at Hillary losing Iowa, Florida, Ohio and New Hampshire to McCain. Not to mention that she would have won Arkansas and West Virginia.

I'm glad you brought that up. Arkansas was no longer winnable for the Clintons, hence the escape to NY where they'd be welcome. West Virginia is about as winnable for the democrats as Kansas nowadays. Virginia was due to Obama and Kaine being close and Kaine helping alot. Florida is a few points to the right of the nation and Obama only won it by a couple of points whereas Hillary Clinton was a weaker candidate. Ohio? well that would depend on voter turnout.

[Derek]

http://

Hillary vs. McCain

lol. If Obama, with all his controversies and inexperience, amanged to defeat McCain in a landslide, Hillary would have as well.

None of that mattered. It was all about the economy and getting someone as far from Bush as possible.

Exactly. Hillary could run on her husband's good economic record and Hillary's policies were farther from Bush's policies than McCain's policies were.

It could be flipped around too based on doing nothing to stop terrorism in several cases and her having nothing to do with the good economy too.

[Derek]

Huckabee was a stronger candidate than he appeared he'd have won FL, VA, and OH bringing the GOP up to at least 260.

[Derek]

I don't think Hillary would've won in a landslide. The longer your past, the higher the negatives.

[Derek]

I wonder how John Edwards would have done, assuming no affair with Rielle Hunter.

For that matter, I wonder how Gore would have done.

IT WOULD HAVE BEEN EXPOSED.

[Derek]

I wonder how John Edwards would have done, assuming no affair with Rielle Hunter.

For that matter, I wonder how Gore would have done.

IT WOULD HAVE BEEN EXPOSED.

He means that Edwards would not have had his affair with Hunter in the first place, thus Edwards would have had nothing to expose.

Well he did have the affair. You mean if it just didn't happen?

[Derek]

With John Edwards, we would simply pick apart every case he's ever been involved with and treat it as if he were on the wrong side. Or how bout he was making millions off of others' misfortunes. The difference between a guy like Edwards and someone like Bill Frist is if one were to witness an accident, Bill Frist would save a few lives as a doctor. John Edwards would demand to know if it were the tire or the car because someone is owed money and he is entitled to some of it. Those ambulance chasers just make me sick.

[Derek]

Oh then we would've picked apart his cases as an attorney to make it look like he was on the wrong side of every issue.

[Derek]

9/11 occured under Bush Jr.'s watch, not under Clinton's.

That's true, but I mean, didn't Bill Clinton see something like 4 attacks on U.S. interests during his administration? (WTC 93, Embassies in Africa, Beirut, and the U.S.S. Cole). He didn't do much after those, if I recall. I wonder why?

He was busy bombing medicine factories.

Yep anything to take public eye off of his misdemeanors.

[Derek]

9/11 occured under Bush Jr.'s watch, not under Clinton's.

That's true, but I mean, didn't Bill Clinton see something like 4 attacks on U.S. interests during his administration? (WTC 93, Embassies in Africa, Beirut, and the U.S.S. Cole). He didn't do much after those, if I recall. I wonder why?

He was busy bombing medicine factories.

Yep anything to take public eye off of his misdemeanors.

You Republicans are hypocrites. When Clinton tried to do something against terrorism, you guys said that he was doing too much back in the 1990s. Now you say he wasn't doing enough.

He never did anything to fight terror. In 1998 the US Embassy in Africa got bombed and in 2000 he didn't do anything about the USS Cole either. Remember Oklahoma City. McVeigh had a pocket full of phone numbers from Iraq and the FBI wasn't allowed to investigate. All of these things went unaccounted for. Bush was handed the biggest mess in the history of any president. Oh, and the Clinton/Gore recession started in March of 2000.

[Derek]

9/11 occured under Bush Jr.'s watch, not under Clinton's.

That's true, but I mean, didn't Bill Clinton see something like 4 attacks on U.S. interests during his administration? (WTC 93, Embassies in Africa, Beirut, and the U.S.S. Cole). He didn't do much after those, if I recall. I wonder why?

He was busy bombing medicine factories.

Yep anything to take public eye off of his misdemeanors.

You Republicans are hypocrites. When Clinton tried to do something against terrorism, you guys said that he was doing too much back in the 1990s. Now you say he wasn't doing enough.

He never did anything to fight terror. In 1998 the US Embassy in Africa got bombed and in 2000 he didn't do anything about the USS Cole either. Remember Oklahoma City. McVeigh had a pocket full of phone numbers from Iraq and the FBI wasn't allowed to investigate. All of these things went unaccounted for. Bush was handed the biggest mess in the history of any president. Oh, and the Clinton/Gore recession started in March of 2000.

Clinton did try to kill Biden Laden several times. He wasn't very effecient at doing it, but I read that the GOP criticized him for being too obsessed with Biden Laden before 9/11. I agree that Clinton should have responded to terrorism more strongly and decisively, but the GOP didn't exactly support what he did try to do against terrorism. Bush could have also done much more to prevent 9/11, such as increasing airport security after that Biden Laden Determined to Strike the U.S. memo was given to him. As for the dot-com recession, the economy began to slow down and the stock market (NASDAQ) began to collapse under Clinton, but the recession itself officially started under Bush Jr.'s watch.

I'm not sure what sources you're reading but I'm willing to bed it's either the New York Times or the Washington Post. The GOP never did such a thing. In fact, did you know that Al Gore laughed about Bin Laden being a threat in 1991? Google it if you don't believe me. There was no specific memo GIVEN TO BUSH. If there were such a memo, then it would've gone to the head people at the CIA or FBI. As for the Clinton/Gore recession, whose watch a recession starts under is irrelevant. What is relevant is when it started and how it started. So the dates are misleading but what you said is exactly what the democratic party and Nanci Pelosi would want you to think. You just admitted that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I repeat, you just told us that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I do agree with you there.

[Derek]

9/11 occured under Bush Jr.'s watch, not under Clinton's.

That's true, but I mean, didn't Bill Clinton see something like 4 attacks on U.S. interests during his administration? (WTC 93, Embassies in Africa, Beirut, and the U.S.S. Cole). He didn't do much after those, if I recall. I wonder why?

He was busy bombing medicine factories.

Yep anything to take public eye off of his misdemeanors.

You Republicans are hypocrites. When Clinton tried to do something against terrorism, you guys said that he was doing too much back in the 1990s. Now you say he wasn't doing enough.

He never did anything to fight terror. In 1998 the US Embassy in Africa got bombed and in 2000 he didn't do anything about the USS Cole either. Remember Oklahoma City. McVeigh had a pocket full of phone numbers from Iraq and the FBI wasn't allowed to investigate. All of these things went unaccounted for. Bush was handed the biggest mess in the history of any president. Oh, and the Clinton/Gore recession started in March of 2000.

Clinton did try to kill Biden Laden several times. He wasn't very effecient at doing it, but I read that the GOP criticized him for being too obsessed with Biden Laden before 9/11. I agree that Clinton should have responded to terrorism more strongly and decisively, but the GOP didn't exactly support what he did try to do against terrorism. Bush could have also done much more to prevent 9/11, such as increasing airport security after that Biden Laden Determined to Strike the U.S. memo was given to him. As for the dot-com recession, the economy began to slow down and the stock market (NASDAQ) began to collapse under Clinton, but the recession itself officially started under Bush Jr.'s watch.

I'm not sure what sources you're reading but I'm willing to bed it's either the New York Times or the Washington Post. The GOP never did such a thing. In fact, did you know that Al Gore laughed about Bin Laden being a threat in 1991? Google it if you don't believe me. There was no specific memo GIVEN TO BUSH. If there were such a memo, then it would've gone to the head people at the CIA or FBI. As for the Clinton/Gore recession, whose watch a recession starts under is irrelevant. What is relevant is when it started and how it started. So the dates are misleading but what you said is exactly what the democratic party and Nanci Pelosi would want you to think. You just admitted that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I repeat, you just told us that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I do agree with you there.

That Al Gore laughing at Bin Laden thing in 1991 was just a hoax. As for the memo,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_Determined_To_Strike_in_US

Here you go. It was given to Bush directly a month before 9/11.

It's a fake document and if it were real what were the odds of 9/11 happening?

[Derek]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Millennium_Plot&redirect=no

Oh give it up already.

[Derek]

9/11 occured under Bush Jr.'s watch, not under Clinton's.

That's true, but I mean, didn't Bill Clinton see something like 4 attacks on U.S. interests during his administration? (WTC 93, Embassies in Africa, Beirut, and the U.S.S. Cole). He didn't do much after those, if I recall. I wonder why?

He was busy bombing medicine factories.

Yep anything to take public eye off of his misdemeanors.

You Republicans are hypocrites. When Clinton tried to do something against terrorism, you guys said that he was doing too much back in the 1990s. Now you say he wasn't doing enough.

He never did anything to fight terror. In 1998 the US Embassy in Africa got bombed and in 2000 he didn't do anything about the USS Cole either. Remember Oklahoma City. McVeigh had a pocket full of phone numbers from Iraq and the FBI wasn't allowed to investigate. All of these things went unaccounted for. Bush was handed the biggest mess in the history of any president. Oh, and the Clinton/Gore recession started in March of 2000.

Clinton did try to kill Biden Laden several times. He wasn't very effecient at doing it, but I read that the GOP criticized him for being too obsessed with Biden Laden before 9/11. I agree that Clinton should have responded to terrorism more strongly and decisively, but the GOP didn't exactly support what he did try to do against terrorism. Bush could have also done much more to prevent 9/11, such as increasing airport security after that Biden Laden Determined to Strike the U.S. memo was given to him. As for the dot-com recession, the economy began to slow down and the stock market (NASDAQ) began to collapse under Clinton, but the recession itself officially started under Bush Jr.'s watch.

I'm not sure what sources you're reading but I'm willing to bed it's either the New York Times or the Washington Post. The GOP never did such a thing. In fact, did you know that Al Gore laughed about Bin Laden being a threat in 1991? Google it if you don't believe me. There was no specific memo GIVEN TO BUSH. If there were such a memo, then it would've gone to the head people at the CIA or FBI. As for the Clinton/Gore recession, whose watch a recession starts under is irrelevant. What is relevant is when it started and how it started. So the dates are misleading but what you said is exactly what the democratic party and Nanci Pelosi would want you to think. You just admitted that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I repeat, you just told us that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I do agree with you there.

That Al Gore laughing at Bin Laden thing in 1991 was just a hoax. As for the memo,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_Determined_To_Strike_in_US

Here you go. It was given to Bush directly a month before 9/11.

It's a fake document and if it were real what were the odds of 9/11 happening?

That document wasn't fake and Bush did get it. It was even classified top secret until 2004.

It was a fake document. http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040910.asp

[Derek]

9/11 occured under Bush Jr.'s watch, not under Clinton's.

That's true, but I mean, didn't Bill Clinton see something like 4 attacks on U.S. interests during his administration? (WTC 93, Embassies in Africa, Beirut, and the U.S.S. Cole). He didn't do much after those, if I recall. I wonder why?

He was busy bombing medicine factories.

Yep anything to take public eye off of his misdemeanors.

You Republicans are hypocrites. When Clinton tried to do something against terrorism, you guys said that he was doing too much back in the 1990s. Now you say he wasn't doing enough.

He never did anything to fight terror. In 1998 the US Embassy in Africa got bombed and in 2000 he didn't do anything about the USS Cole either. Remember Oklahoma City. McVeigh had a pocket full of phone numbers from Iraq and the FBI wasn't allowed to investigate. All of these things went unaccounted for. Bush was handed the biggest mess in the history of any president. Oh, and the Clinton/Gore recession started in March of 2000.

Clinton did try to kill Biden Laden several times. He wasn't very effecient at doing it, but I read that the GOP criticized him for being too obsessed with Biden Laden before 9/11. I agree that Clinton should have responded to terrorism more strongly and decisively, but the GOP didn't exactly support what he did try to do against terrorism. Bush could have also done much more to prevent 9/11, such as increasing airport security after that Biden Laden Determined to Strike the U.S. memo was given to him. As for the dot-com recession, the economy began to slow down and the stock market (NASDAQ) began to collapse under Clinton, but the recession itself officially started under Bush Jr.'s watch.

I'm not sure what sources you're reading but I'm willing to bed it's either the New York Times or the Washington Post. The GOP never did such a thing. In fact, did you know that Al Gore laughed about Bin Laden being a threat in 1991? Google it if you don't believe me. There was no specific memo GIVEN TO BUSH. If there were such a memo, then it would've gone to the head people at the CIA or FBI. As for the Clinton/Gore recession, whose watch a recession starts under is irrelevant. What is relevant is when it started and how it started. So the dates are misleading but what you said is exactly what the democratic party and Nanci Pelosi would want you to think. You just admitted that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I repeat, you just told us that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I do agree with you there.

That Al Gore laughing at Bin Laden thing in 1991 was just a hoax. As for the memo,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_Determined_To_Strike_in_US

Here you go. It was given to Bush directly a month before 9/11.

It's a fake document and if it were real what were the odds of 9/11 happening?

That document wasn't fake and Bush did get it. It was even classified top secret until 2004.

It was a fake document. http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040910.asp

That source says nothing about the authenticity of the Bin Laden memo.

all the times Clinton missed Bin Laden.

[Derek]

9/11 occured under Bush Jr.'s watch, not under Clinton's.

That's true, but I mean, didn't Bill Clinton see something like 4 attacks on U.S. interests during his administration? (WTC 93, Embassies in Africa, Beirut, and the U.S.S. Cole). He didn't do much after those, if I recall. I wonder why?

He was busy bombing medicine factories.

Yep anything to take public eye off of his misdemeanors.

You Republicans are hypocrites. When Clinton tried to do something against terrorism, you guys said that he was doing too much back in the 1990s. Now you say he wasn't doing enough.

He never did anything to fight terror. In 1998 the US Embassy in Africa got bombed and in 2000 he didn't do anything about the USS Cole either. Remember Oklahoma City. McVeigh had a pocket full of phone numbers from Iraq and the FBI wasn't allowed to investigate. All of these things went unaccounted for. Bush was handed the biggest mess in the history of any president. Oh, and the Clinton/Gore recession started in March of 2000.

Clinton did try to kill Biden Laden several times. He wasn't very effecient at doing it, but I read that the GOP criticized him for being too obsessed with Biden Laden before 9/11. I agree that Clinton should have responded to terrorism more strongly and decisively, but the GOP didn't exactly support what he did try to do against terrorism. Bush could have also done much more to prevent 9/11, such as increasing airport security after that Biden Laden Determined to Strike the U.S. memo was given to him. As for the dot-com recession, the economy began to slow down and the stock market (NASDAQ) began to collapse under Clinton, but the recession itself officially started under Bush Jr.'s watch.

I'm not sure what sources you're reading but I'm willing to bed it's either the New York Times or the Washington Post. The GOP never did such a thing. In fact, did you know that Al Gore laughed about Bin Laden being a threat in 1991? Google it if you don't believe me. There was no specific memo GIVEN TO BUSH. If there were such a memo, then it would've gone to the head people at the CIA or FBI. As for the Clinton/Gore recession, whose watch a recession starts under is irrelevant. What is relevant is when it started and how it started. So the dates are misleading but what you said is exactly what the democratic party and Nanci Pelosi would want you to think. You just admitted that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I repeat, you just told us that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I do agree with you there.

That Al Gore laughing at Bin Laden thing in 1991 was just a hoax. As for the memo,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_Determined_To_Strike_in_US

Here you go. It was given to Bush directly a month before 9/11.

It's a fake document and if it were real what were the odds of 9/11 happening?

That document wasn't fake and Bush did get it. It was even classified top secret until 2004.

It was a fake document. http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040910.asp

That source says nothing about the authenticity of the Bin Laden memo.

all the times Clinton missed Bin Laden.

That's true but irrelevant. Bush did get that memo.

If you think that's true why wasn't that Kerry's campaign slogan?

[Derek]

9/11 occured under Bush Jr.'s watch, not under Clinton's.

That's true, but I mean, didn't Bill Clinton see something like 4 attacks on U.S. interests during his administration? (WTC 93, Embassies in Africa, Beirut, and the U.S.S. Cole). He didn't do much after those, if I recall. I wonder why?

He was busy bombing medicine factories.

Yep anything to take public eye off of his misdemeanors.

You Republicans are hypocrites. When Clinton tried to do something against terrorism, you guys said that he was doing too much back in the 1990s. Now you say he wasn't doing enough.

He never did anything to fight terror. In 1998 the US Embassy in Africa got bombed and in 2000 he didn't do anything about the USS Cole either. Remember Oklahoma City. McVeigh had a pocket full of phone numbers from Iraq and the FBI wasn't allowed to investigate. All of these things went unaccounted for. Bush was handed the biggest mess in the history of any president. Oh, and the Clinton/Gore recession started in March of 2000.

Clinton did try to kill Biden Laden several times. He wasn't very effecient at doing it, but I read that the GOP criticized him for being too obsessed with Biden Laden before 9/11. I agree that Clinton should have responded to terrorism more strongly and decisively, but the GOP didn't exactly support what he did try to do against terrorism. Bush could have also done much more to prevent 9/11, such as increasing airport security after that Biden Laden Determined to Strike the U.S. memo was given to him. As for the dot-com recession, the economy began to slow down and the stock market (NASDAQ) began to collapse under Clinton, but the recession itself officially started under Bush Jr.'s watch.

I'm not sure what sources you're reading but I'm willing to bed it's either the New York Times or the Washington Post. The GOP never did such a thing. In fact, did you know that Al Gore laughed about Bin Laden being a threat in 1991? Google it if you don't believe me. There was no specific memo GIVEN TO BUSH. If there were such a memo, then it would've gone to the head people at the CIA or FBI. As for the Clinton/Gore recession, whose watch a recession starts under is irrelevant. What is relevant is when it started and how it started. So the dates are misleading but what you said is exactly what the democratic party and Nanci Pelosi would want you to think. You just admitted that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I repeat, you just told us that the stock market started to downturn under Clinton. I do agree with you there.

That Al Gore laughing at Bin Laden thing in 1991 was just a hoax. As for the memo,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_Determined_To_Strike_in_US

Here you go. It was given to Bush directly a month before 9/11.

It's a fake document and if it were real what were the odds of 9/11 happening?

That document wasn't fake and Bush did get it. It was even classified top secret until 2004.

It was a fake document. http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040910.asp

That source says nothing about the authenticity of the Bin Laden memo.

all the times Clinton missed Bin Laden.

That's true but irrelevant. Bush did get that memo.

If you think that's true why wasn't that Kerry's campaign slogan?

Because Kerry didn't know how to run a good campaign.

You got that right.

[Derek]

What are we agreeing on?