Well...This is a different side of politics...

[Crushaholic]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/29/wa...gewanted=print

2008 May Test Clinton’s Bond With McCain
By ANNE E. KORNBLUT
WASHINGTON, July 28 — Two summers ago, on a Congressional trip to Estonia, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton astonished her traveling companions by suggesting that the group do what one does in the Baltics: hold a vodka-drinking contest.

Delighted, the leader of the delegation, Senator John McCain, quickly agreed. The after-dinner drinks went so well — memories are a bit hazy on who drank how much — that Mr. McCain, an Arizona Republican, later told people how unexpectedly engaging he found Mrs. Clinton to be. “One of the guys” was the way he described Mrs. Clinton, a New York Democrat, to some Republican colleagues.

Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain went on to develop an amiable if professionally calculated relationship. They took more official trips together, including to Iraq. They worked together on the Senate Armed Services Committee and on the issue of global warming. They made a joint appearance last year on “Meet the Press,” interacting so congenially that the moderator, Tim Russert, joked about their forming a “fusion ticket.”

Politics being what it is, there is more friction than fusion. As the 2008 presidential campaign begins to take shape, with Mr. McCain and Mrs. Clinton at the top of the polls for their parties’ nominations, they are increasingly underscoring their differences on issues like the war in Iraq and port security. Advisers to Mr. McCain have put a stop to his inviting Mrs. Clinton on trips.

Whether their friendship is based on anything other than the respect of one political professional for another, or the opportunity to strike a tone of bipartisanship for public consumption, is unclear. But the interplay between the two senators, both well known and both with compelling personal narratives and a knack for infuriating their own parties’ bases, could determine the tone of the 2008 presidential race and make it less personally vicious than the last two campaigns.

Of course, Mr. McCain and Mrs. Clinton are a long way from facing off for the presidency. Neither has even officially announced a candidacy, and both would still have to endure a primary season that is shaping up to be intense. Neither would probably be the other’s first choice as a rival; both would no doubt prefer to run against someone less skilled in blurring ideological lines.

Still, members of both parties are already speculating about what a McCain-Clinton race would be like.

“If they get through a primary election, they would be polar opposites on policy,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican and a close ally of Mr. McCain who has traveled with both senators. “On the major issues, it’d be a fairly clear choice. But I believe that the personal relationship hopefully could survive the political process.”

Harking to the days when a Republican president and a Democratic speaker of the House were friends, Mr. Graham said, “Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill, at the end of the day, would go down to the White House and knock one back, and the country was no worse off for that.”

Rarely is it the case that likely presidential contenders are able to play off each other so much. Two modern races, in 1992 and 2000, pitted governors against Washington insiders, the candidates barely acquaintances. George W. Bush, then the governor of Texas, recalled having met Vice President Al Gore only a few times before they debated onstage in 2000.

Four years later, despite their overlapping years at Yale and their work just down Pennsylvania Avenue from each other, President Bush and Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, made contact almost entirely over the airwaves.

This time, with so many senators thinking about running, the primaries and potentially the general election could find the candidates squaring off against colleagues who are operating in close proximity. Mr. Kerry served in Vietnam around the same time as Mr. McCain, who defended him against Republican attacks during the 2004 race. Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, devised a landmark campaign-finance bill with Mr. McCain (and has since traveled with him and with Mrs. Clinton).

Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain, however, share not just a title, but also a general approach to politics. Both strive to be seen as willing to break with ideological orthodoxy from time to time and to work across the aisle. Both emerged from nasty political battles — Whitewater and her husband’s impeachment in her case, the 2000 Republican primaries in his — declaring their hatred of the “politics of personal destruction,” as former President Bill Clinton called it.

“They would run a completely different campaign than we’ve seen in recent memory,” said Marshall Wittman, a former aide to Mr. McCain who has worked with Mrs. Clinton.

“Both of them realize there is a desire in the country for a different politics of national unity that transcends the current polarization,” Mr. Wittman said.

At the same time, both have endured serious presidential campaigns before and market themselves as independent power brokers within their parties.

“That’s their great commonality,” Mr. Wittman said. “Obviously, if they faced each other in a general, they would emphasize their differences.”

A friendly relationship, or just the appearance of one, brings risks and advantages to both, although political strategists agreed it was wise for Mr. McCain to distance himself from Mrs. Clinton. (One reason is that Republicans said they could imagine a photograph of Mr. McCain with Mrs. Clinton, considered one of the most polarizing Democrats in politics, being used in a negative ad during a Republican primary.) Mr. McCain is also weakest among conservative Republicans, who dislike his willingness to take independent stands and work with Democrats.

Mrs. Clinton, by contrast, has been working to convince moderate voters that she is a centrist who can work across the aisle, a claim bolstered by Mr. McCain’s tacit approval of her.

Both senators are accustomed to being sought out by other politicians hoping to burnish their own images. What makes their rapport different, advisers said, is that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain are essentially of equal stature.

During their Estonia trip — also attended by Mr. Graham and Senators John E. Sununu, Republican of New Hampshire, and Susan Collins, Republican of Maine — Mr. McCain and Mrs. Clinton were the ones recognized as they walked through the streets of the capital, Tallinn.

It was during their joint trip to Iraq in late February 2005 that Mr. McCain and Mrs. Clinton appeared via satellite on “Meet the Press,” an appearance that put their civility on display. When Mr. Russert asked Mr. McCain at the end of the interview whether he thought Mrs. Clinton would make a good president, Mrs. Clinton came to his rescue, saying: “Oh, we can’t hear you, Tim!”

“Yeah, you’re breaking up,” Mr. McCain added, laughing. But then he said: “I happen to be a Republican and would support, obviously, a Republican nominee, but I have no doubt that Senator Clinton would make a good president.”

Asked the same question about him, Mrs. Clinton replied without skipping a beat: “Absolutely.”

Mr. McCain’s advisers played down their relationship, saying he was friendly with a number of Democrats. “They underscore their differences every day,” John Weaver, a political adviser to the senator, said of Mr. McCain and Mrs. Clinton. “That doesn’t mean you treat each other less civilly.”

[Spider]

Advisors are already telling them to lie , and niether have stated they will run .....lets hope they only have 1 advisor ... no telling what these politicians will blurt out .......

[W*GS]

Buddy-buddy between two megalomaniacs?

Just what we need...

[Spider]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Buddy-buddy between two megalomaniacs?

Just what we need...

McCain has earned the right to be a meglomaniac ........

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by §Pide®

McCain has earned the right to be a meglomaniac ........

I disagree. Spending years as a Vietcong POW and being tortured doesn't excuse his rights-violating behavior.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by W*GS

I disagree. Spending years as a Vietcong POW and being tortured doesn't excuse his rights-violating behavior.

Get over it ........as long as there are people like me , you will have to wait for guns ..... We know better then you , you just accept what we say , and do what you are told to do , it is obvious you can not be trusted with choices .......

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by §Pide®

Get over it ........as long as there are people like me , you will have to wait for guns .....

I was referring to the McCain-Feingold campaign finance "reform" legislation.

Originally Posted by §Pide®

We know better then you , you just accept what we say , and do what you are told to do , it is obvious you can not be trusted with choices .......

Joshing aside, the above is what lies at the heart of a true Democrat (or Republican, for that matter)... Now you know why I despise both.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by W*GS

I was referring to the McCain-Feingold campaign finance "reform" legislation.

oops ...... well you will have to limit how much money you send to a congress man , we are sick and tired of the NRA , the party of Child molesting Ted Nugent thinking that they can buy people in office .....there fixed

Joshing aside, the above is what lies at the heart of a true Democrat (or Republican, for that matter)... Now you know why I despise both.

well W*GS we have been over this , some measures have to be in place , I would never advocate making gun owners go through what Car owners go through , think about it , you have more restrictions in buying and operating a car then you do a gun ..........

[SactownOrangeSunday]

Ok let me ask you a question then.

At what point is the minumum wage going to be high enough in the Dems view. When a guy flipping burgers is making 50,000 a year? I am sure than even the most ardent Dem cant claim that a burger flipper deserves to make the same amount every year as an dentist, engineer, or architect does.

So if there is some magical cutoff point what is it?

[Spider]

Originally Posted by SactownOrangeSunday

Ok let me ask you a question then.

At what point is the minumum wage going to be high enough in the Dems view. When a guy flipping burgers is making 50,000 a year? I am sure than even the most ardent Dem cant claim that a burger flipper deserves to make the same amount every year as an dentist, engineer, or architect does.

So if there is some magical cutoff point what is it?

wrong thread , you want the Republican blackmail , next thread down ......

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by §Pide®

oops ...... well you will have to limit how much money you send to a congress man , we are sick and tired of the NRA , the party of Child molesting Ted Nugent thinking that they can buy people in office .....there fixed

McCain-Feingold was written by George Soros - read about it before you think too highly of McCain.

Originally Posted by §Pide®

well W*GS we have been over this , some measures have to be in place

You've never specified them, nor have you proven that they would have the effect you want.

Originally Posted by §Pide®

I would never advocate making gun owners go through what Car owners go through , think about it , you have more restrictions in buying and operating a car then you do a gun ..........

In some places, getting a gun (a right, not a privilege, like driving is) is almost impossible. Getting a driver's license is trivial in comparison.

[enjolras]

McCain-Feingold, as originally written (1997), was a good piece of legislation.. As a libertarian its not one I particulary agree with, but it clearly set out to put a stop to practices that the American people where widely unhappy with. It was narrow, and well thought out.

The bill that ended up passing was an abortion of loopholes and provisions.. I hold the Republican leadership (that refused to pursue the bill as written) squarely responsible for that.

And while Soros certainly put his considerable wealth behind the bill, I can find nothing supporting your statement that he was in any way involved in its authorship.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by W*GS

McCain-Feingold was written by George Soros - read about it before you think too highly of McCain.

throwing money behind it is different then writting it .......

You've never specified them, nor have you proven that they would have the effect you want.

oh yes I have ........ but your plan would arm every felon and terrorist from Miami to Seattle and from San Diego to Bangor maine .......

In some places, getting a gun (a right, not a privilege, like driving is) is almost impossible. Getting a driver's license is trivial in comparison.

Like where ?

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by enjolras

McCain-Feingold, as originally written (1997), was a good piece of legislation. As a libertarian its not one I particulary agree with, but it clearly set out to put a stop to practices that the American people where widely unhappy with. It was narrow, and well thought out.

I disagree.

Originally Posted by enjolras

The bill that ended up passing was an abortion of loopholes and provisions.. I hold the Republican leadership (that refused to pursue the bill as written) squarely responsible for that.

I also hold the SCOTUS responsible for inexplicably rationalizing McCain-Feingold as constitutional. It it (rather blatantly) NOT.

Originally Posted by enjolras

And while Soros certainly put his considerable wealth behind the bill, I can find nothing supporting your statement that he was in any way involved in its authorship.

I was a little sloppy in my choice of the word "written" - Soros did indeed very strongly influence its passage, and then exploited its then-new provisions for his 527s, MoveOn.org among them. He got the law altered to make his later activities possible. We'll never hear much from the hard-left chorus around here about Soros' influence on our political system, because they happen to agree with what he's trying to do. The ends rationalize the means for them.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by §Pide®

throwing money behind it is different then writting it .......

Like I explained to enjolras, "written" wasn't the best choice of words.

Originally Posted by §Pide®

oh yes I have ........

You misremember, again.

Originally Posted by §Pide®

but your plan would arm every felon and terrorist from Miami to Seattle and from San Diego to Bangor maine .......

Your plan cannot and will not prevent those felons and terrorists from acquiring arms. Show me how it will do so.

Originally Posted by §Pide®

Like where ?

NYC, for one place.

Possesion of a driver's license hardly means one is a good driver. It's more an exercise in fee collection for the State than an assurance that the possessor can drive a car safely. You know that.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Like I explained to enjolras, "written" wasn't the best choice of words.

fair enough

You misremember, again.

got a chart on that ?

Your plan cannot and will not prevent those felons and terrorists from acquiring arms. Show me how it will do so.

the entire concept of a Backgroundcheck completely eludes you doesnt it .......Back ground check = See if thy have felonies , or under suspision of a felony ..... Hence background check .... nevermind

NYC, for one place.

Possesion of a driver's license hardly means one is a good driver. It's more an exercise in fee collection for the State than an assurance that the possessor can drive a car safely. You know that.

I have been to New york City , damn pawn shop with guns on every corner ..........Harlem 152 street and Broadway is full of them .......
Of course you are right about the drivers license , thats why I would never advocate a system like that for gun owners ....... my position on Guns is real easy , own as many as you want , as long as you are not a felon .......

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by §Pide®

the entire concept of a Backgroundcheck completely eludes you doesnt it .......Back ground check = See if thy have felonies , or under suspision of a felony ..... Hence background check .... nevermind

Tell me how many terrorists and felons you believe will get background checks when they choose to purchase guns.

You're assuming that terrorists and felons will obey the law. That's dumb.

Originally Posted by §Pide®

I have been to New york City , damn pawn shop with guns on every corner ..........Harlem 152 street and Broadway is full of them .......

More anecdotal "evidence".

Read the following

http://www.nysrpa.org/nygunlaws.htm

and

http://www.ci.nyc.ny.us/html/nypd/html/dclm/ldinfo.html

And tell me it's easier to get a gun in NYC than a driver's license.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Tell me how many terrorists and felons you believe will get background checks when they choose to purchase guns.

You're assuming that terrorists and felons will obey the law. That's dumb.

thick as a brick wall , First off to buy a gun from a gun dealer he is required to do a back ground check , the only thing that isnt covered is a private owner selling a gun ..........try to keep up W*GS

More anecdotal "evidence".

Read the following

http://www.nysrpa.org/nygunlaws.htm

and

http://www.ci.nyc.ny.us/html/nypd/html/dclm/ldinfo.html

And tell me it's easier to get a gun in NYC than a driver's license.

So does that mean that they are not there ?
tell me where did i say it was easier to get one or the other ?
I just said Pawn shops on every corner has guns .......

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by §Pide®

thick as a brick wall , First off to buy a gun from a gun dealer he is required to do a back ground check , the only thing that isnt covered is a private owner selling a gun ..........try to keep up W*GS

You're getting there...

So, the guy who swaps a gun for some crack won't be doing a background check, right? Or, when Joe Terrorist smuggles in guns over the border, he won't be doing background checks on the other dudes in his terrorist cell.

We don't want terrorists or felons to have guns, right? A background check does absolutely nothing to keep them from getting guns.

Got it? Good.

Originally Posted by §Pide®

So does that mean that they are not there ? tell me where did i say it was easier to get one or the other ? I just said Pawn shops on every corner has guns .......

Another instance of one of your tangential anecdotes that's irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Anyway, this thread was about McCain and Clinton being drinking buddies. What your deflections about guns have to do with it has yet to be shown.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by W*GS

You're getting there...

So, the guy who swaps a gun for some crack won't be doing a background check, right? Or, when Joe Terrorist smuggles in guns over the border, he won't be doing background checks on the other dudes in his terrorist cell.

We don't want terrorists or felons to have guns, right? A background check does absolutely nothing to keep them from getting guns.

Got it? Good.

I didnt say it was perfect , or it stopped every one , but it is a hellva lot better then your plan of arming everyone ...... at any given time .......

Another instance of one of your tangential anecdotes that's irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

you are in denial , seriously I pointed out there are plenty of Guns in New York city , but that didnt fit with your we are being picked on attitude ...... Sorry , but they are there , and you go through the same steps as you do in Colorado ......

Anyway, this thread was about McCain and Clinton being drinking buddies. What your deflections about guns have to do with it has yet to be shown.

Winner= Spider , Gun control thats where it is at .......

[Spider]

oh and W*GS , I could care less if Hillary and McCain were banging each other wearing latex and leather ......... realy doesnt matter to me what they do or when they do it , as long as it is legal ................

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by §Pide®

I didnt say it was perfect , or it stopped every one , but it is a hellva lot better then your plan of arming everyone ...... at any given time .......

Pass a background check (assuming you bother with the system, as terrorists and felons do not), get a gun, and kill that strawman above, again.

Originally Posted by §Pide®

you are in denial , seriously I pointed out there are plenty of Guns in New York city , but that didnt fit with your we are being picked on attitude ...... Sorry , but they are there , and you go through the same steps as you do in Colorado ......

We were discussing the relative difficulty of buying a gun compared to getting a driver's license; that there are guns in NYC doesn't mean that buying one (going through legal channels) is easy. And no, buying a gun in NYC is a heck of a lot harder than in Colorado.

Geezus, you can be stinking obtuse when you think it suits you, Spider.

Originally Posted by §Pide®

Winner= Spider , Gun control thats where it is at .......

Whatever...

It's a bit early in the day to be drinking.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Pass a background check (assuming you bother with the system, as terrorists and felons do not), get a gun, and kill that strawman above, again.

so I can go to a gun dealer and say , dont run a background check ....... nice option , to bad it is only in your fantasy world ......

We were discussing the relative difficulty of buying a gun compared to getting a driver's license; that there are guns in NYC doesn't mean that buying one (going through legal channels) is easy. And no, buying a gun in NYC is a heck of a lot harder than in Colorado.

No we wasnt , and this is your problem , you cant follow along , I said I didnt advocate gun owners going through what it takes to OWN A CAR ....... you went off on drivers license , has very little to do with owning a car , but hey I let you play ......

Geezus, you can be stinking obtuse when you think it suits you, Spider.

ok then explain to me what having a Drivers license is the same to regestering , insuring your car ........

Whatever...

It's a bit early in the day to be drinking.

, as many times as you went off track ........ I probably need to be drinking just to follow what you are saying .......

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by §Pide®

so I can go to a gun dealer and say , dont run a background check ....... nice option , to bad it is only in your fantasy world ......

You started on the wrong foot... I'll let you figger it out.

Originally Posted by §Pide®

No we wasnt , and this is your problem , you cant follow along , I said I didnt advocate gun owners going through what it takes to OWN A CAR ....... you went off on drivers license , has very little to do with owning a car , but hey I let you play ......

My apologies.

The only "background check" involved in buying a car (assuming it's not a private party transaction) is strictly financial.

Originally Posted by §Pide®

ok then explain to me what having a Drivers license is the same to regestering , insuring your car ........

If you don't intend to drive a car on public roads, you don't need a license to operate it, register it, or insure it.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by W*GS

You started on the wrong foot... I'll let you figger it out.

Yeah ok .......

My apologies.

accecpted ......

The only "background check" involved in buying a car (assuming it's not a private party transaction) is strictly financial.

Not to mention regersting it , making sure it conforms to EPA standards , checking past history accidents , breakdowns etc ......

If you don't intend to drive a car on public roads, you don't need a license to operate it, register it, or insure it.

what you can have a drivers license without owning a car , you can own a car without a Drivers license ........
But you cant keep a car on the road without regersting it every year , making sure it conforms to EPA standards , Insuring it .............