This week's Time Magazine cover conjures up memories of a similar cover image from another memorable presidential race. (Above: The latest issue of Time Magazine and the November 20, 2000 issue of Newsweek) TIME says their cover was inspired by a current NBA television ad promoting the playoffs.
TIME.com: There can only be one
1 + 2 equals 3....very good .....you deserve a sticker.....
Yes, there can only be one but there is something huge going on that people don't understand. I see that the GE campain is already on and that Hillary is the VP candidate. That is why Hillary is trying to immunize Obama against the GOP and I think Obama knows that. She is actually bringing people (mostly women) who would normally vote Republican. Sooner or latter she'll bring in her catch. She might be polarizing but not stupid.
I LOVE IT!
Choose the honest one.
Just like the movie "Ground Hogs Day" we are faced again with a candidate who is attempting to steal an election. How many life cycles will it take for the American people to finally wake up and move into the 21st century?
it's reagan,you idiot!and he didn't lose to nixon.he won,both times!take a political history course,or buy a book.
Maybe in future, without a Bush running, they'll actually allow everybody to vote and count all the votes?!
It amazes me a bunch of "democrats" are screaming at HRC for being a republican. It shows the irony of a "uniter" by dividing his own party in two....
First, your case holds no water. Obama and Clinton have similar reforms. Second, Obama is a far left wing guy. OF COURSE Clinton looks like a Republican to you because your ideals and beliefs of government are so far left that someone like Clinton is conservative. It makes me wonder what you think of Ron Paul, who is as far right as you could get in the debates.
Lastly, from your angle, Clinton and Bush are on the right, but based on their eyes, Obama is on the right side... all a matter of viewpoint.
Strangely, the Gore/Bush photo looks a little like my dad.
Dale, what media do you listen to? I've seen nothing but Obama bias, and I'm an objective third-party person (I dislike both of them almost equally).
Even the Obama-biased media knows Clinton is more moderate than the liberal Obama.
Hardly similar situations. In the present case we are still awaiting primaries in IN, PR, WV, NC and others. In the latter, it was a candidate's brother, a biased FL Secretary of State and US Supreme Court justices colluding to undermine the will of the people.
The one that doesn't win the nomination can always run as a 3rd party candidate and then they can continue fighting about it all the way through to November when McCain wins the election. Then they can fight about it all over again in 2012.
I think the Bush/Gore pic looks a little cooler. Besides, what's with putting Senator Clinton in complete darkness while Senator Obama is in the light? Bias!
Well ---– here's the lastest news! It's over for Hillary!
Obama has won more states and more votes!
To Kenneth M above – I agree with you! Obama could throw a river at Hillary regarding being negative. However – he has tried to take the high road and – considering what Hillary and Obama throw at each other – makes it easy for John Mc Cain!
The news is coming out today – Hillary has to step to the side!
Do anyone recall Obama's 10-wins prior to Ohio? That pretty much closed this race! Hillary can not win this race. It's over with!
I pray that Obama keeps up his spirits and honesty as more attacks are sure to come from Billary's campaign heading up to Indiana.
I would think that Billary would be the most exhausted from all the energy it takes to constantly throw so much political mud in Obama's face........hmmm
We shall see who will stand at the end.
Yes of course! God and the American people who wants progress and prosperity chose OBAMA!
This it just me or does Hilary just look plain scarey in this picture?
I am in my late 60s and have actively participated in Elections since JFK energized me and the rest of the country, for that matter, to “…..ask what you could do for your country”.
Waht Obamam needs is informed voters. The News Media doesn’t often inform voters of a candidate’s past performances on issues, especially one as important as the economy. I wish voters would do some research and find out the facts instead of believing the “spin”. Very little is said about Hillary’s performance; or Obama’s for that matter. To be fair, Hillary’s “35” years of “service” makes her easier to research.
Pay more attention to the promises she made to New York Voters to win the election to the Senate. She promised to bring to bring 200,000 jobs to upstate New York. An area’s with economic needs very similar to the so called “rust belt” states.
In her term as Senator, upstate New York actually lost 240,000 additional jobs. When she was asked why she couldn’t deliver on her promise, Hillary said it was because Gore couldn’t win the Presidential Election. I wonder why she didn’t say it was because Bush won the Presidential Election. She has a tendency to blame Democrats more than she does Republicans.
Clinton also supported bringing a company called Tata Consulting Services to Buffalo, It offer outsourcing services in “helping companies identify jobs that could be outsourced overseas”. I guess some people in Buffalo got jobs, but I wonder how many folks in upstate New York saw their jobs go overseas. I did a Google search on Tata Consulting Services and they are a giant outsourcing company with group headquarters in India and a regional headquarters in Buffalo. As Bill would say, “I feel your pain”….all the way to the bank, Bill, all the way to the bank..
I am still up for a joint ticket. Anyone else? Why can't we have both? Eight years of Hillary as pres and Obama as VP. Then he will have the experiance that everyone questions and then we can have 8 years of Obama as pres. Sounds good to me.
I have gathered some numbers based on the democratic primary to show what will happen in November if Obama is the nominee.
The democratic primary is different as it shares delegates based on percentage but in the general election it is winner takes all in each state. Each state won is that many delegates to winning the overall count. So if we treat the democratic primary just like the general election this is what we are looking at against McCain.
I have taken each state that has won by Obama or Clinton and given all the delegates of that state to the majority winner. I even gave Obama all the upcoming states and made him the winner giving him the delegates from them. I did not include Florida or Michigan to avoid any argument. This includes Guam and others that are counted in the democratic primary. This is only actually won states and future states given to Obama:
Obama won 37 "states"
Hillary won 17 "states"
However in a general election setting:
Obama delegate count: 1486
Hillary delegate count: 1750
If you count Florida and Michigan which Hillary won and polls show that even if Obama campaigned in those states Hillary would have won them at that time:
Obama delegate count: 1486
Hillary delegate count: 2118
If we gave Florida to Obama and Michigan to Hillary as polls suggest a primary today would give them:
Obama delegate count: 1692
Hillary delegate count: 1907
The bottom line is that Hillary has won in a general election model based on primaries of the democratic party and even giving Obama all the next primary states coming up. The reason Hillary won is she won all the big states practically? These states are historically won by the Republican party as to why Bush beat Kerry in 2004. Therefore if Obama cannot win the big states that Republicans tend to win he has no chance against McCain in the general election. Hillary has the only chance of being a democratic president in 2008.
So do you want a Republican in office or do you want a Democrat? The choice is clear who is more electable in November.
Then and now is where women have always been. We, the over sixty females, are guilty of creating this mess. We went to work to make a better life for ourselves and our children. We worked for less pay than our male counterparts. We saw promotions based on gender rather than ability. We worked 8 or more hours per day and still had all the housework to do. We wanted our own car. We wanted our own money. We wanted to be more than the Mrs. Cleavers of the world. We did it all, and tried to teach our boys that it is ok to help around the house. You are still a man if you change a diaper. You are still a man if you help your wife clean house. The male EGO is very fragile. They have more muscles then we do, but we know how to use what we do have to the best advantage. Physically, they are the stronger of the sexes. The age of modern conviences makes muscle less important then it once were. We are finally at a time when women can do it all with relative ease. The male EGO is still very fragile and makes them resent the success of the female gender. Sorry boys, were here to stay. Hillary all the way
I'll tell you how this will end: Barack Obama as President of the United States.
Why is only one side of the face full of wrinkles?
It seems Clinton is always up in Obama's face.