An interesting comment...

I think most can agree that in Washington, time served generally equals
power, status, and a certain amount of gravitas (as defined in DC), be
it actually earned or not. That said, I've heard that one of the
reasons Obama is so keen to carry on with the debates is that he has
little or none of the above, even in his own party. Sure, he may be the
nominee and he may be the next POTUS, but these folks hope to be
"working" in DC (and "working" with each other) regardless of November.
Because of that, the seniors aren't interested in including any junior
****-ant and that's been made clear to him, so he doesn't want to be in
DC and be seen to be marginalized, whereas McCain (and Biden) are among
the senior folks and will be a part of things. I have nothing that I
can post to prove it, but it is an interesting perspective...

R

wrote in message
...
...I have nothing that I can post to prove it,

And "they" say there's nothing new under the sun!

but it is an interesting perspective...

No, it isn't.

Wolfgang

wrote:
...
Because of that, the seniors aren't interested in including any junior
****-ant and that's been made clear to him, so he doesn't want to be in
DC and be seen to be marginalized, whereas McCain (and Biden) are among
the senior folks and will be a part of things.

McCain, like Obama, does not serve on any of the relevant committees
and will not be a "part of things". McCain is a banking and finance
flyweight and the members of his own party know it. The only thing
the old fool can do is get in the way as he convincingly demonstrated
yesterday.

I have nothing that I
can post to prove it, but it is an interesting perspective...

Yeah, it's interesting how much that GOP kool aid has clouded your
perspective.

--
Ken Fortenberry

wrote in message
...
I have nothing that I
can post to prove it, but it is an interesting perspective...

R

well, yes and no. This whole tack is starting to sound like whistling past
the graveyard. Oh, and two interesting poll-
related items:
PA poll of the 'Alabama' part of the state(ie: not Pittsburgh or
Philadelphia) showed McCain statistically tied with Obama. If that holds up,
put Obama FIRMLY in control of 23 electoral votes
Second--Pew Trust study of polling methodologies shows a 5% undercount
estimate of Obama support, due to virtually all polls incapable of hitting
cell-phone only users, who have no landline to identify.
Every bit as interesting as speculation on who wants what out of Obama in
Congress. And, with real numbers to back it up.
Tom
Obama by 48 electoral votes, at least.

On Sep 26, 9:41*am, "Tom Littleton" wrote:
wrote in message

...
*I have nothing that I

can post to prove it, but it is an interesting perspective...

R

well, yes and no. This whole tack is starting to sound like whistling past
the graveyard. Oh, and two interesting poll-
related items:
PA poll of the 'Alabama' part of the state(ie: not Pittsburgh or
Philadelphia) showed McCain statistically tied with Obama. If that holds up,
put Obama FIRMLY in control of 23 electoral votes
Second--Pew Trust study of polling methodologies shows a 5% undercount
estimate of Obama support, due to virtually all polls incapable of hitting
cell-phone only users, who have no landline to identify.
Every bit as interesting as speculation on who wants what out of Obama in
Congress. And, with real numbers to back it up.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Tom
Obama by 48 electoral votes, at least.

As most current guesses are just that -- guesses, here is mine:

McCain by 20-40 electoral votes, but popular vote a toss-up, with
plurality either way.

cheers

oz

MajorOz wrote in
:

On Sep 26, 9:41*am, "Tom Littleton" wrote:
wrote in message

...
*I have nothing that I

can post to prove it, but it is an interesting perspective...

R

well, yes and no. This whole tack is starting to sound like whistling
pas
t
the graveyard. Oh, and two interesting poll-
related items:
PA poll of the 'Alabama' part of the state(ie: not Pittsburgh or
Philadelphia) showed McCain statistically tied with Obama. If that
holds
up,
put Obama FIRMLY in control of 23 electoral votes
Second--Pew Trust study of polling methodologies shows a 5%
undercount estimate of Obama support, due to virtually all polls
incapable of hittin
g
cell-phone only users, who have no landline to identify.
Every bit as interesting as speculation on who wants what out of
Obama in Congress. And, with real numbers to back it up.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * Tom
Obama by 48 electoral votes, at least.

As most current guesses are just that -- guesses, here is mine:

McCain by 20-40 electoral votes, but popular vote a toss-up, with
plurality either way.

cheers

oz


If McCain loses the popular vote, he loses.

fivethirtyeight.com gives McCain a 2.5% chance of winning given a popular
vote loss


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

"Scott Seidman" wrote in message
. 1.4...
MajorOz wrote in
:

On Sep 26, 9:41 am, "Tom Littleton" wrote:
wrote in message

...
I have nothing that I

can post to prove it, but it is an interesting perspective...

R

well, yes and no. This whole tack is starting to sound like whistling
pas
t
the graveyard. Oh, and two interesting poll-
related items:
PA poll of the 'Alabama' part of the state(ie: not Pittsburgh or
Philadelphia) showed McCain statistically tied with Obama. If that
holds
up,
put Obama FIRMLY in control of 23 electoral votes
Second--Pew Trust study of polling methodologies shows a 5%
undercount estimate of Obama support, due to virtually all polls
incapable of hittin
g
cell-phone only users, who have no landline to identify.
Every bit as interesting as speculation on who wants what out of
Obama in Congress. And, with real numbers to back it up.

Tom
Obama by 48 electoral votes, at least.

As most current guesses are just that -- guesses, here is mine:

McCain by 20-40 electoral votes, but popular vote a toss-up, with
plurality either way.

cheers

oz


If McCain loses the popular vote, he loses.

fivethirtyeight.com gives McCain a 2.5% chance of winning given a popular
vote loss

The winners: ExxonMobil, Disney, Microsoft, Chase Manhattan, India, China,
etc., by a landslide.

The losers: Not me.

Wolfgang
who remains childless and loves betting on a can't possibly lose
proposition.

On Sep 26, 2:49*pm, "Wolfgang" wrote:
"Scott Seidman" wrote in message

. 1.4...





MajorOz wrote in
:

On Sep 26, 9:41 am, "Tom Littleton" wrote:
wrote in message

...
I have nothing that I

can post to prove it, but it is an interesting perspective...

R

well, yes and no. This whole tack is starting to sound like whistling
pas
t
the graveyard. Oh, and two interesting poll-
related items:
PA poll of the 'Alabama' part of the state(ie: not Pittsburgh or
Philadelphia) showed McCain statistically tied with Obama. If that
holds
up,
put Obama FIRMLY in control of 23 electoral votes
Second--Pew Trust study of polling methodologies shows a 5%
undercount estimate of Obama support, due to virtually all polls
incapable of hittin
g
cell-phone only users, who have no landline to identify.
Every bit as interesting as speculation on who wants what out of
Obama in Congress. And, with real numbers to back it up.

Tom
Obama by 48 electoral votes, at least.

As most current guesses are just that -- guesses, here is mine:

McCain by 20-40 electoral votes, but popular vote a toss-up, with
plurality either way.

cheers

oz

If McCain loses the popular vote, he loses.

fivethirtyeight.com gives McCain a 2.5% chance of winning given a popular
vote loss

The winners: *ExxonMobil, Disney, Microsoft, Chase Manhattan, India, China,
etc., by a landslide.

The losers: *Not me. * * * * *

Wolfgang
who remains childless and loves betting on a can't possibly lose
proposition.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Exactly!!! ...and go ahead of the class.

So far as the debate last night...it was a dog and an embaraament to
our country. Either of the clowns brought ANYTHING to the table
except the same business as usual bull**** that typically spews out of
Washington. You might as well vote for Paris Hilton or Pee Wee
Herman...things won't be any different.

I can't believe the public can't see through this nonsense. Moreover,
I am absolutely stumped that American taxpayers don't understand the
simple capitalist concept: You get more of what you happily pay for.
In other words, the more bailouts you give, the more failures you
get.

"Igor The Terrible" wrote in message
...

Exactly!!! ...and go ahead of the class.

So far as the debate last night...it was a dog and an embaraament to
our country. Either of the clowns brought ANYTHING to the table
except the same business as usual bull**** that typically spews out of
Washington. You might as well vote for Paris Hilton or Pee Wee
Herman...things won't be any different.

I can't believe the public can't see through this nonsense. Moreover,
I am absolutely stumped that American taxpayers don't understand the
simple capitalist concept: You get more of what you happily pay for.
In other words, the more bailouts you give, the more failures you
get.

I cannot believe that some anonymous ****-maggot with such a **** poor grasp
of the English langauge would think that any American taxpayer gives a ****
about anything that he, she, it is trying so desparately to convey?

Op

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
...I have nothing that I can post to prove it,

And "they" say there's nothing new under the sun!




except tomorrow morning

mk5000

"Till the sun comes up?
Who's gonna take your place?
There ain't nobody better.
Oh baby, baby"--mariah carey, we belong together