hillary for president in '08

[Marlowe]

that subject is not ironic -- i have come to the conclusion that hillary will make a good president, and i hope she wins the dem nomination.

she has really surprised and impressed me in the senate, and distinguished herself as a rare modest-ego within a body that is notoriously rife with outsized egos. she has reached across the aisle and worked with conservatives such as sam brownback, trent lott and newt gingrich, and beleive me that doesn't happen very much these days in washington. she's also distinguished herself on the armed services committee as being strong on national defense.

her major negative is that unlike bill, she can come across in public as too calculating and somewhat brittle. also, the primaries will not necessarily be easy for her because a lot of the strong democratic base has become somewhat skeptical of her due to the very things that make her a promising national candidate, namely, her centrist credentials.

this may come as a surprise for those of you who know me as a conservative. i'm under no illusions that she will become some free market advocate, because she is reflexively statist. but, she's impressed and surprised me over the last two years, and i think that she would do a good job. (there's a really good profile of her in the latest atlantic monthly, for those who are inclined to read a 20-pager)

that doesn't mean i'll necessarily vote for her, but i am hoping for a mccain v. hillary election, which would put us in the RARE condition of having two good, likeable candidates, each of whom would make a good president. and that will be a good thing for the country.

[Unrequited]

I am a lifelong liberal, have never voted for a Republican, and I would not vote for Hillary Clinton.

[markalot]

Hillary is to conservative for the liberals, too Hillary for the moderates, and too liberal for the conservatives.

[jneale]

I am a lifelong liberal, have never voted for a Republican, and I would not vote for Hillary Clinton.
I too think it would be a mistake - she is far too polarizing.

[Marlowe]

Hillary is to conservative for the liberals, too Hillary for the moderates, and too liberal for the conservatives.
right, and that's why she'd make a very good president and would be elected in the general election... and also why she'll have a tough time getting through the primaries. luckily for her, there aren't many other presidential types out there, other than barack obama, who i don't think will end up running.

[REMgirl]

The Republicans don't have a frontrunner for '08, either. McCain is up, then he's down. I don't see anyone foaming at the mouth for them to pick a single candidate yet.

Hillary is a good Senator and she should stay there. I say the Dems should go with John Edwards and Russ Feingold. I think Feingold is brassy and hardline, and I like that. I'm sick of catering to the Republican right and if the Dems don't get someone out there with some real goals, they're going to get trampled. Edwards is a key to the South and he's moderate enough for the masses.

I like Gore, but I'd rather see him in the Cabinet. And Kerry, no thanks. He's "damaged goods" in the public eye.

[jneale]

And Kerry, no thanks. He's "damaged goods" in the public eye.
And isn’t that sad.

I’ll agree that he would never be a dynamic star – but I think he would have been exactly what the country needed – a no-nonsense steward of the country – someone to face the problems and work through them.

Until people stop being so damn sound bite oriented things will never get better. I honestly believe on core issues – we are all the same, things just get mucked up with labels of Democrat or Republican. Government is too big, the war had turned into a sad farce, people ought to have the right to be left alone & treated equal, and we need to remember the importance of the separation of church and state.

It saddens me that on any politically oriented show the outcome is the same – one side shouts at the other, Ronnie & Bill’s names get brought up, and nothing is ever answered. Emotional issues of who has the better morality are taking the country to the dark side.

[gwar469]

wait wait wait...are we talking about Hillary Swank or Hillary Duff? what about Hillary from the Fresh Prince of Bellaire? :confused:

[tinnitus]

wait wait wait...are we talking about Hillary Swank or Hillary Duff? what about Hillary from the Fresh Prince of Bellaire? :confused:
It's not Duff, she won't be old enough by 2008, and the others haven't been in the limelight, so obviously since the post came from down under, Marlowe must be advocating Sir Edmund Hillary in 2008...

[slopechz]

I don't think she can win. And I never liked her. A woman president is cool, but not Hillary. She is way too polarizing.

[the_birds]

I don't think she can win. And I never liked her. A woman president is cool, but not Hillary. She is way too polarizing.

I am a HUGE liberal. But I say NO to Hillary. Her getting the nomination will rally her enemies to the polls. John Edwards is the answer, was in 2004, still is. The only Democrat that will win is a Democrat from the South.

[slopechz]

I am a HUGE liberal. But I say NO to Hillary. Her getting the nomination will rally her enemies to the polls. John Edwards is the answer, was in 2004, still is. The only Democrat that will win is a Democrat from the South.
I like John Edwards. I think he would be a good choice.

[monkey neck]

...still waiting for the punchline, Marlowe. :p

[dannyboy]

Legislators do not make good Presidents. The highest office of the executive branch would be better filled by an executive. That's why most of our most recent Presidents have been former governors.

[BigSugar]

so, when Hillary gets caught with an intern sucking on her dick in the oval office, will that complete the circle? :eek:

"That's not your mother, THAT'S A MAN BABY!!"

[Jumpman]

How do we know if they make good presidents or not if we don't ever get to see them in office?

Although I personally believe Hillary would make a fine president and I would most likely vote for her unless an intriguing 3rd party option came along, I don't believe she is electable. The republican war machine will be out in stronger force than ever if she is nominated.

As for McCain, it be interesting to see if he will run again. I wonder how he would do here in SC, 8 years after the famous Rovian push-polls told everyone in the state he was a gay homosexual with an immigrant love child spawned through John's sexual congress with Satan. Ah nevermind, people have short memories.

[Unrequited]

I used to respect McCain, not anymore. The fact he would even be in the same room with Bush, let alone support him, after the vicious lies Bush/Rove spread about him in the South Carolina primaries years ago is testimony to the fact he's just like the majority of politicians.

[slopechz]

so, when Hillary gets caught with an intern sucking on her dick in the oval office, will that complete the circle? :eek:

"That's not your mother, THAT'S A MAN BABY!!"
If Hillary had a dick she would probably run away with it. :D

[the_birds]

If Hillary had a dick Mark Foley (R.-Fla) would probably have already sucked it. :D

Fixed that for you...

[slopechz]

I used to respect McCain, not anymore. The fact he would even be in the same room with Bush, let alone support him, after the vicious lies Bush/Rove spread about him in the South Carolina primaries years ago is testimony to the fact he's just like the majority of politicians.
He is just as bad as Hillary in my book. As a liberal, I had much respect for him even though I didn't agree with many of his policies. McCain's nonsense with the religious right and his ridiculous "compromise" with the administration over torture have really deflated any respect I had for him.

[slopechz]

Fixed that for you...
Touche. You bad. :o

[DaHood]

Hillary is to conservative for the liberals, too Hillary for the moderates, and too liberal for the conservatives.
right, and that's why she'll never be elected
Fixeded.



BTW Great line there, Mark.

[Shlep]

As I sincerely doubt either major party is going to serve up someone who isn't a complete pant-load as a candidate, I expect to be voting independant again.

As for Hillary: I think this country is ready for a female president, but HIllary ain't it. Near as I can tell, she and Bill are perceived as a unit by conservatives and probably a lot of liberals besides...I'm sure we all remember referenaces to "Billary" (which come to think of it predated "Bennifer" and "Tomcat" by a decade at least) and those snarky bumperstickers declaring "Impeach President Clinton (And Her Husband, Too!)."

I think if she runs, she'll not only be hauling her own political baggage around but Bills' as well, which would proving difficult even if she had Bills' considerable charisma and slick charm and wouldn't be too easy to caricature as a mean-spirited, snippy, copper-bottomed bitch.

I could see her maybe getting put on the ticket as the VP. I think the job of VP comes across as being largely inconsequential, thus making her less of a liability to the Dems' ticket in '08. At the same time, liberal voters looking to revive a little taste of their glory years in the '90s by having a Clinton in the White House would be apt to vote for her. I only imagine she could hurt the Dems' chances of reclaiming the presidency if GOP spinners are successful at conjuring up nightmare scenarios of Vice President Hillary Clinton throwing her weight around and being the one who's truly running the show...not too hard to do considering how influential and involved in crafting policy she was as First Lady.

[AvatarOfVishnu]

good points shlep!

i think Hillary would make a fine president, i think she has a great chance of getting the Dem nomination, but i know she will never beat John McCain or Rudy Guiliani. I'm not sure if the GOP is smart enough to go for 1 of these 2 guys, but if they don't, then Hillary has a chance.

I'll concur that Edwards is the Dem's most electable (Obama as VP maybe? :D )

[akip]

i like hillary---she's smart enough, tough enough, politically-savvy enough, pragmatic enough, moderate enough. the spouse has met her at least three times and he's completely wowed by her. i met her once----she is very, very impressive in person, a super-quick study. plus she'll have bill as an advisor. i'll vote for her if she runs; i might even vote for her in the primary if there isn't some dark horse candidate who seems more likable on tv. right now there is absolutely nobody else in the field, besides the ultra-likable, but terribly young and green, obama.

mark halperin (the note) thinks she can win, though he also thinks mccain could beat her. as i stated before, i think mccain looks physically terrible these days, and the ultra-conservatives who vote in primaries don't like him. so we'll see who gets the repub nomination.

[BigSugar]

i think it should be Blackwell v. Obama.....talk about the southern states taking a big 'ol dump on themselves when that comes to be.....i think it would be awesome! time to shake up DC and get the dead fruit off the tree!

[mimi_merlot]

Until people stop being so damn sound bite oriented things will never get better.

I couldn't agree more. And coming from a liberal's perspective, if we could remove this affinity for sound bites, Howard Dean would have been the '04 candidate and would have made a viable (and in my opinion, successful) candidate in '08.

In terms of shaking things up, and providing different perspectives on current issues, Dean is the man.

As for John Edwards, he is simply going to become the John F. Kennedy of our generation. He's a good looking man with a charming accent. Underneath, he's a moderate Democrat who often aligns himself with fairly traditionaly conservative views, so much so that it is often difficult to determine which party he identifies with more. And again, in my opinion, that is not what the Democratic Party needs.

[The Sheck]

Obama should run simply because he's one of the few, if not only politicians people get excited about anymore. When was the last time that happened?

But ultimately, I think Kerry will run again.

[mimi_merlot]

Even though he has stated he will not run again, I still think Gore is considering making another go at the primaries. And in all honestly, he may have a decent shot. Since the '00 election, he's faded into the background a bit, giving himself time to refocus, and when he emerged, he emerged as the environmental activist that he has always been, but he was able to merge that with an almost "Hip" identity amongst liberals of all ranges due in most part to "An Inconvenient Truth" and to some due to his fairly comical appearances on SNL.

[Jumpman]

Obama should run simply because he's one of the few, if not only politicians people get excited about anymore. When was the last time that happened?

But ultimately, I think Kerry will run again.


He will run eventually, just not this time around. And he will be our first minority president. You heard it hear first.

[seafoamgreen]

some thoughts:
from what i've heard, Obama is no longer catagorically dismissing running, so i wouldn't be shocked to see him nominated VP. I'd rather see him wait, and get some more experience under his belt, but he may be too attractive a candidate right now.

with Warner pulling out of the race, i don't see anyone attacking Hillary from the middle during the primaries, which i think gives her a bump.

Kerry's almost certainly going to run, if he weren't, he wouldn't be on the Sunday shows every freaking weekend. Lessons learned or no, he'll still be a disaster.

Biden doesn't seem to have a chance, but i like the guy and i think he'll play spoiler for someone in the debates.

As of right now, I don't see how hillary loses the nomination. She's too good a fund raiser, is a better campaign speaker than people might think, and no one to her left has a shot against McCain, Guiliani, or Romney.

as for the republicans...
I don't see how Guiliani survives the primaries. Between his personal life and his social policies, i can't see the republican grassroots getting behind him.

McCain, something tells me this isn't going to happen. I think there is still a lot of bad blood between him and the conservative grassroots, especially considering the ire he brought upon himself with the 'gang of 14' compromise a few years ago. Activists don't forget that sort of thing.

If i had my money on anyone in the republican party, it would be romney. A blue state governor, the guy just looks presidential. And he can pull the 'universal health care' card and take the legs out of the domestic policy iniatiatives of the left wing of the democratic party. The mormon thing might be a problem, but if you get him into a three way race with Guiliani and McCain, he might start looking awfully good to religious conservatives.

[Unrequited]

The mormon thing might be a problem, but if you get him into a three way race with Guiliani and McCain, he might start looking awfully good to religious conservatives.

The Mormon thing and being from the Northeast would bring Romney sound defeat across the board in the South. Catholics and Protestant fundamentalists don't really cotton to Mormonism. They consider it an abomination.

[seafoamgreen]

The Mormon thing and being from the Northeast would bring Romney sound defeat across the board in the South. Catholics and Protestant fundamentalists don't really cotton to Mormonism. They consider it an abomination.

i know, but worse than losing the south, which he could very well win just by not being the democrat, would be losing the western mountain states, which the republicans look like they could pull off. My gut tells me he could play well there. As far catholics and protestant fundamentalists go, i'm not sure they wouldn't go for a values vote from a mormon over Guiliani or McCain.

[akip]

As far catholics and protestant fundamentalists go, i'm not sure they wouldn't go for a values vote from a mormon over Guiliani or McCain.

but many evangelicals do NOT like mormons---do not even believe they are christians.

btw, i think obama as vp to hillary could be interesting.

[seafoamgreen]

but many evangelicals do NOT like mormons---do not even believe they are christians.



oh, i get this, don't get me wrong.

if someone like Allen were still in the picture, i'm fairly sure he wouldn't have a chance in hell. But you put him next to McCain or Guiliani, and i'm not sure what happens.

[akip]

oh, i get this, don't get me wrong.

well, it would be interesting to see what would happen if a mormon did make the nomination.

but i'd have to admit, with my own personal split-mormon-v.-secular family situation, it would make me extremely nervous...

[slopechz]

as for the republicans...
I don't see how Guiliani survives the primaries. Between his personal life and his social policies, i can't see the republican grassroots getting behind him.
You are exactly correct. ;)

[slopechz]

As for John Edwards, he is simply going to become the John F. Kennedy of our generation. He's a good looking man with a charming accent. Underneath, he's a moderate Democrat who often aligns himself with fairly traditionaly conservative views, so much so that it is often difficult to determine which party he identifies with more. And again, in my opinion, that is not what the Democratic Party needs.
I don't agree. Edwards is much more of a centrist on the liberal side of the ledger vs. conservative side.

[classicgrrl]

Until people stop campaigning on tv things will never get better.

fixeded.

damn mother fucking too short messages.

[the_birds]

Sadly, Obama will suffer from the same issues as Hillary. He will polarize the voters and not be elected. Besides, he too is a Yankee.

I repeat. Only a Democrat from the SOUTH. The SOUTH will win. This isn't up for debate. If we want to waste 100's of millions of dollars, nominate another Yankee.

Its not about North vs. South. Its about the largest group of available swing voters is the Suburban, White, Southern voter.

[twentyshots]

I used to respect McCain, not anymore. The fact he would even be in the same room with Bush, let alone support him, after the vicious lies Bush/Rove spread about him in the South Carolina primaries years ago is testimony to the fact he's just like the majority of politicians.

He is just as bad as Hillary in my book. As a liberal, I had much respect for him even though I didn't agree with many of his policies. McCain's nonsense with the religious right and his ridiculous "compromise" with the administration over torture have really deflated any respect I had for him.

that sums it up for me. it seems like he really copromised his convictions in the last few years. in trying to contend with such an extreme administration he often ended up looking contradictory himself.

[Unrequited]

Sadly, Obama will suffer from the same issues as Hillary. He will polarize the voters and not be elected. Besides, he too is a Yankee.

I repeat. Only a Democrat from the SOUTH. The SOUTH will win. This isn't up for debate. If we want to waste 100's of millions of dollars, nominate another Yankee.

Its not about North vs. South. Its about the largest group of available swing voters is the Suburban, White, Southern voter.


Is it too late to give the South their independence back? Of course, I consider anything south of Toledo as the South. :D

[akip]

that sums it up for me. it seems like he really copromised his convictions in the last few years. in trying to contend with such an extreme administration he often ended up looking contradictory himself.

used to be, even though i didn't agree with half of what he was about, i thought the other half was good (campaign finance reform at the top of the list) and if he got in, he'd at least shake things up.

now i just don't trust him; he's had to suck up to the enemy and he owes them. also, the court is tilting too far right to let another highly conservative president, who'd be beholden to the christian nationalists, make the next pick.

[jneale]

i think mccain looks physically terrible these days
I noticed that recently – guess that is what happens when you sell your soul.

I’ve said that I think he should be hung for campaigning for that little tyrant, but having his essence sucked out of him by a party full of Skeksee seems more fitting.


http://4815162342.canalblog.com/images/d_skeksis4.jpg

[akip]

I noticed that recently – guess that is what happens when you sell your soul.

I’ve said that I think he should be hung for campaigning for that little tyrant, but having his essence sucked out of him by a party full of Skeksee seems more fitting.


http://4815162342.canalblog.com/images/d_skeksis4.jpg

:eek: :D

he was on hardball yesterday, looking ruddier than last time i saw him (when he was white as a sheet), but as wrinkly as an ass that's been sitting in the senatorial bathtub too long.

[akip]

Is it too late to give the South their independence back? Of course, I consider anything south of Toledo as the South. :D

an optimistic prediction----as more outsiders flood into the the south for economic opportunities, the region will change politically.

also, as the dems gain back power, they'll be fucking around with redistricting as well---rightly or wrongly.

[drougan]

i think Hillary would make a fine president, i think she has a great chance of getting the Dem nomination, but i know she will never beat ... Rudy Guiliani.

She beat him in the senatorial election (or at least was ahead in the polls before Guiliani withdrew on account of cancer). Certainly though, that's NY and not the country, and a yankee repub and a southern repub are two different things just like a yankee Dem and a southern Dem. I would say owing to this simple fact McCain has a slight edge in electability over Rudy since Arizona is a decent middle ground in the N/S situation.

Who's sitting pretty in the state capitals for either party? My guess is that the next pres is going to be another governor from either the south or another state that is "mainstream american" like Ohio, since that is the running trend. Since Warner is out for the Dems and Arnold is constitutionally ineligible for the repubs, are there any other high profile governors out there?

I'll concur that Edwards is the Dem's most electable (Obama as VP maybe? :D )

He certainly seems well mannered enough, I'd just hate to see him turn into another Jimmy Carter (a good man in a bad presidency).

[akip]

i prefer hillary over edwards in the current middle east-korea mess 'cause i have no doubt she has the ability to negotiate global rough waters, pick the right people, etc. the clintons have a shitload of respect across the world (bill is a freakin' rock star outside of our own borders), yet are hardnosed enough to play the game as moderate realists.

edwards, on the other hand, has a nice personality, but he doesn't cut it for me -- not enough experience or depth of understanding of issues beyond a narrow band of regional concerns. same with obama. both would make more sense as vps, where they could gain the necessary experience to be groomed to move up.

edited to add---i'm not so sure the governor formula will rule in a climate where iraq is the biggest voter worry.

[rocketman70]

Clinton/Obama 2008!!!!!!!!!


-That's all I got to say. They're not as polarizing as you may think. It's a ticket to be reckoned with.

And I don't think it necessarily has to be a Southern Democrat that can win it back. We'll see.


As for John McCain, I CAN'T EFFIN' STAND HIM!!!!

[akip]

Clinton/Obama 2008!!!!!!!!!


-That's all I got to say. They're not as polarizing as you may think. It's a ticket to be reckoned with.

And I don't think it necessarily has to be a Southern Democrat that can win it back. We'll see.


As for John McCain, I CAN'T EFFIN' STAND HIM!!!!

yay, rocketman! i'm with you.

hillary knows that she made mistakes. she's reaching out to people across the divide and not in a superficial way. she is not about surface. that conservative christian guy kuo (who wrote the book saying that the white house used christians) said (forget which tv program) that he used to despise her, but once he met her, he really, really liked and respected her. she has that effect in person----she comes across as very warm and takes what the other person says very seriously. i'm hoping if she campaigns around the country that she can change opinion in a grassroots way. after all, she only has to get 50.01% of the vote.

[Unrequited]

Hillary is a carpetbagging fake. She's also closer to a liberal Republican (just like Bubba) than a conservative Democrat, IMO. I don't trust her at all.

[ThomasC]

edwards, on the other hand, has a nice personality, but he doesn't cut it for me -- not enough experience or depth of understanding of issues beyond a narrow band of regional concerns. same with obama. both would make more sense as vps, where they could gain the necessary experience to be groomed to move up.
My aunt and uncle live in North Carolina and Edwards is the last person they would vote for in a Democratic primary. I can't remember exactly why, but it was something to do with his record as a lawyer.

[Unrequited]

My aunt and uncle live in North Carolina and Edwards is the last person they would vote for in a Democratic primary. I can't remember exactly why, but it was something to do with his being a lawyer.

Fixed that for you.

[akip]

Hillary is a carpetbagging fake. She's also closer to a liberal Republican (just like Bubba) than a conservative Democrat, IMO. I don't trust her at all.

i totally disagree. she's just smart enough to see the world in shades of grey, to see it as it truly is, which is in a state of rapid change with no turning back, and to try to understand the opposition. she's also smart enough to know that getting out of iraq is not a simple matter---that it has to be done right, or the whole region could blow.

this is one election where i refuse to vote on the basis of popularity contests. gotta have somebody competent this time or we're in big fucking trouble. i really don't want some nice, idealistic person who can't fight their way out of a paper bag.

[fedsmack]

Hillary is disqualified for being President because of the size of her ankles .... errrr ... Although, she certainly is better than the evil freaking bastard currently sitting in the White House.

[akip]

Hillary is disqualified for being President because of the size of her ankles .... errrr ... Although, she certainly is better than the evil freaking bastard currently sitting in the White House.

if you think her ankles are big, you should see the size of her head. like a full moon.

[the_birds]

I am just going to say this without sounding racist, but No matter how liberal WE are, the U.S. is just not going to elect a Woman, anything but Christian, Gay (not in the closet) or a Black president. I am not white, but I just don't see it happening.

Not until all of our parents croak, or get too old to vote, will someone who is a Non-- White, Christian, Straight Male be elected.

[Unrequited]

I am just going to say this without sounding racist, but No matter how liberal WE are, the U.S. is just not going to elect a Woman, anything but Christian, Gay (not in the closet) or a Black president. I am not white, but I just don't see it happening.

Not until all of our parents croak, or get too old to vote, will someone who is a Non-- White, Christian, Straight Male be elected.

You're not being racist, just realistic. I don't think it will ever change as I'm watching my friends slowly turn in to their parents.

[fedsmack]

if you think her ankles are big, you should see the size of her head. like a full moon. True, but nothing compares to the size of her prosthetic penis.....

[Daddy]

Let's have Hillary v Laura Bush for president.

Seriously, it seems odd that the spouse of an ex-president would run for that office herself, but I think Hillary is the best choice in 08.

[akip]

True, but nothing compares to the size of her prosthetic penis.....

but her balls are the biggest yet...bigger'n edwards, for sure. ;)

it's gonna take giant balls to stand up against to the attack machine. no matter who runs, it's gonna get ugly as hell again. gore and kerry both crumbled...

[slopechz]

Let's have Hillary v Laura Bush for president.

Seriously, it seems odd that the spouse of an ex-president would run for that office herself, but I think Hillary is the best choice in 08.
Probably the only way your going to get a female President at that rate this country is going.

[purdueman_in]

Probably the only way your going to get a female President at that rate this country is going.

Sadly, that is the only way we'd get a female president. I'd like to think otherwise, but there are too many misogynistic people out there...

[akip]

Sadly, that is the only way we'd get a female president. I'd like to think otherwise, but there are too many misogynistic people out there...

yeah, but if a bunch of em stay home 'cause the repub nominee isn't fanatical enough, we've got a shot. ;)

[slopechz]

yeah, but if a bunch of em stay home 'cause the repub nominee isn't fanatical enough, we've got a shot. ;)
You keep holding onto that raft. ;)

[mikeatthemadfro]

Gore already won 1 election and hillary is acceptable for now as a VP...

THAT is the winning ticket...period.

[BigSugar]

I just want a candidate named "Nads" so that i can cheer "GO NADS!!!"

seriously. that would be sweet.

[akip]

You keep holding onto that raft. ;)

don't discount hillary. she's a fighter. :p

[juggles]

Clinton/Obama 2008!!!!!!!!!

They're not as polarizing as you may think.

I'd like to nominate this as the worst campaign slogan in the history of democracy.

[akip]

Sadly, that is the only way we'd get a female president. I'd like to think otherwise, but there are too many misogynistic people out there...

the answer is here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HhPHCT-Kes)

[drougan]

the answer is here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HhPHCT-Kes)


Good stuff :D

[markalot]

Gore already won 1 election and hillary is acceptable for now as a VP...

THAT is the winning ticket...period.


My god democrats are stupid. First Hillary now Gore? What the hell, bring Kerry back!

How about you find a decent experience candidate, preferrably a governor, and win an election by a big enough margin that there's no chance of a second review off the field.

I'm simply astounded that people still believe the media bunk that this country is split 50/50. It's only split 50/50 if both candidates suck. Gore sucked, Kerry sucked, Hillary would suck. Obama might not suck but it's too early for him to run.

Find someone better.

[akip]

My god democrats are stupid. First Hillary now Gore? What the hell, bring Kerry back!

How about you find a decent experience candidate, preferrably a governor, and win an election by a big enough margin that there's no chance of a second review off the field.

I'm simply astounded that people still believe the media bunk that this country is split 50/50. It's only split 50/50 if both candidates suck. Gore sucked, Kerry sucked, Hillary would suck. Obama might not suck but it's too early for him to run.

Find someone better.

it's equally...unthinking...to be selective while looking at why kerry and gore lost. they allowed the opposition to define them without fighting back effectively. the same thing could happen to edwards, obama, or any hypothetical "governor" out there who's so far undiscovered----unless you know how to campaign in the current 24-hr-news-cycle environment, you will LOSE, regardless of your significant accomplishments, your stellar biography, your noble beliefs. they will tear you apart.

i don't see anybody anywhere near "charming" (besides the flimsy edwards and the green obama) out in the field, on the periphery or anywhere else. if somebody with experience AND tv charisma AND amazing political talent miraculously emerges, all power to em. but at this point, it's a pipe dream.

[slopechz]

My god democrats are stupid.

Find someone better.
Hmmm, compared to the Republicans? They both look equally stupid to me. As a matter of fact the Republicans look worse right now. :rolleyes:

[markalot]

Hmmm, compared to the Republicans? They both look equally stupid to me. As a matter of fact the Republicans look worse right now. :rolleyes:

Yes they do, far worse, so what?

Why is it that if I call democrats stupid I must think republicans are smart? Why is it that democrats insist on a platform that's nothing more than 'better then them'?

The democratic party is full of a bunch of wimps, the republican party is full of a bunch of crooks.

And I don't believe a good candidate has to find a way to win in a 24 hour news cycle as if others can define him or her. A good candidate defines him or her self and the charges made by others simply bounce off. Stop believing what the media tells you.

[miami2112]

i'd have a hard time voting for clinton, although i like what i know of her stances.

i'm tired of the mini-monarchy of bush's and clinton's in the white house. time for a change.

[akip]

And I don't believe a good candidate has to find a way to win in a 24 hour news cycle as if others can define him or her. A good candidate defines him or her self and the charges made by others simply bounce off. Stop believing what the media tells you.

simply not true.

[drougan]

i'd have a hard time voting for clinton, although i like what i know of her stances.

i'm tired of the mini-monarchy of bush's and clinton's in the white house. time for a change.

Yeah..can you imagine historians 50-100 yrs from now discussing the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton Years? Its downright comical, especially seings how much vitriol can be inspired by saying one of those names in particular company.

[markalot]

simply not true.

That's kind of weak, don't you think?

So I decide to run for ____. Someone from the other side accuses me of x, y, and z. All charges are completely invalid. How is my image tarnished? I have to respond that the charges are invalid, furthermore I immediatly press charges for slander (if appropriate).

No difference from before, nothing has changed.

Look what blackwell is trying to do to strickland. How hard was it for strickland to make blackwell look like a fool?

If you're a good candidate this stuff comes easy, if your a bad candidate then you appear to be a victim. Kerry would have made a bad president because he was incapable of thinking on his feet. I'm not saying he wouldn't have been better than Bush, I'm simply syaing he was a bad candidate.

I'm confident that once someone decent steps forward for either party you'll see what I'm talking about.

[akip]

That's kind of weak, don't you think?

So I decide to run for ____. Someone from the other side accuses me of x, y, and z. All charges are completely invalid. How is my image tarnished? I have to respond that the charges are invalid, furthermore I immediatly press charges for slander (if appropriate).

No difference from before, nothing has changed.

Look what blackwell is trying to do to strickland. How hard was it for strickland to make blackwell look like a fool?

If you're a good candidate this stuff comes easy, if your a bad candidate then you appear to be a victim. Kerry would have made a bad president because he was incapable of thinking on his feet. I'm not saying he wouldn't have been better than Bush, I'm simply syaing he was a bad candidate.

I'm confident that once someone decent steps forward for either party you'll see what I'm talking about.

i was avoiding calling you naive.

read about the history of karl rove and how he wins. he has a long and successful track record of destroying personal character, often by targeting the opposing candidate's perceived strength. it's very dirty and it works.

the candidate has to respond, respond quickly and accurately. yes, it's a very fast paced game at which kerry was miserably unskilled. but kerry's not the only one who's been at the losing end of that strategy. look at what happened to max clelland, among many others.

[markalot]

i was avoiding calling you naive.

read about the history of karl rove and how he wins. he has a long and successful track record of destroying personal character, often by targeting the opposing candidate's perceived strength. it's very dirty and it works.

the candidate has to respond, respond quickly and accurately. yes, it's a very fast paced game at which kerry was miserably unskilled. but kerry's not the only one who's been at the losing end of that strategy. look at what happened to max clelland, among many others.

Like I said, if you're bad you look like a victim. Of course you think I'm naive because you believe you're correct. :) I've been hearing this doom and gloom for years, but somehow the dems are getting ready to win again. How is that possible? Good candidates with an appropriate message.

[akip]

Like I said, if you're bad you look like a victim. Of course you think I'm naive because you believe you're correct. :) I've been hearing this doom and gloom for years, but somehow the dems are getting ready to win again. How is that possible? Good candidates with an appropriate message.

a good candidate is only good if they are also a skilled politician. sure, it's not fair, but people are gullible. tv attack ads work extremely well, even if they're full of shit. people say they don't like them, but they prove over and over that they're swayed by them.

another example---look at what happened to mccain in south carolina. the slander didn't even have to be remotely true, just had to accurately hit a nerve. hell, look at every election in history. politics is an ugly business.

[markalot]

a good candidate is only good if they are also a skilled politician. sure, it's not fair, but people are gullible. tv attack ads work extremely well, even if they're full of shit. people say they don't like them, but they prove over and over that they're swayed by them.

another example---look at what happened to mccain in south carolina. the slander didn't even have to be remotely true, just had to accurately hit a nerve. hell, look at every election in history. politics is an ugly business.

And what about Dukakis (however you spell it) when Bush one ran? How about Carter over bumbling Ford? How about Nixon losing the first time?

Yep, you have to be a good politician, you have to manage your image, you have to think on your feet. Not suprisingly these same traits make a good president. Nagative campaigning only works if there are negatives, and when the negatives are wrong it backfires in a huge way UNLESS the candidate being slandered is not a good politician.

tv attack ads work extremely well, even if they're full of shit. people say they don't like them, but they prove over and over that they're swayed by them.

I totally disagree. Anyone can attack anyone else, but you need to show me an example of a candidate with strong support who is a quality individual and who suddenly loses because of a bogus negative claim before I would believe this.

Negative campaigns are a symptom of two shit candidates fighting each other.

[Shlep]

My aunt and uncle live in North Carolina and Edwards is the last person they would vote for in a Democratic primary. I can't remember exactly why, but it was something to do with his record as a lawyer.

John Edwards made himself rich as a civil trial lawyer doing personal injury cases, and is solidly pro-abortion. If I had to guess, I'd say that despite his gee-shucks, populist good ol' boy image and "my-daddy-worked-in-a-mill" bona fides, he comes across to many as a slick ambulance-chaser who favors killing babies.

Clinton/Obama 2008!!!!!!!!!


-That's all I got to say. They're not as polarizing as you may think. It's a ticket to be reckoned with.


I notice that shortly after this post, the_birds expresses his profound pessimism that neither a woman or a black man would have a snowballs' chance in Death Valley of getting elected Prez; though I'm not sure that I agree with him, I suspect that if it was time to "yay" or "nay" this duo for the nomination, cynically pragmatic Democrats would pass them over for someone less threatening and with nicer hair.

I personally don't think they'd stand a chance due to the reasons already stated: Hillary is too polarizing and too likely to rally the GOPs devoted partisan base, and Obama-- while certainly charasmatic and appealing-- isn't "tested."

[slopechz]

Why is it that if I call democrats stupid I must think republicans are smart? Why is it that democrats insist on a platform that's nothing more than 'better then them'?

The democratic party is full of a bunch of wimps, the republican party is full of a bunch of crooks.
Why not? You just did the same thing, albeit in a much more subtle fashion. The Republicans do the same thing, don't they? What platform are the Republicans running on this election cycle, besides the tired cut and run and the fear card? Talk about a lack of a platform. Bottom line is the two party system is fucked.

[akip]

And what about Dukakis (however you spell it) when Bush one ran? How about Carter over bumbling Ford? How about Nixon losing the first time?

Yep, you have to be a good politician, you have to manage your image, you have to think on your feet. Not suprisingly these same traits make a good president. Nagative campaigning only works if there are negatives, and when the negatives are wrong it backfires in a huge way UNLESS the candidate being slandered is not a good politician.



I totally disagree. Anyone can attack anyone else, but you need to show me an example of a candidate with strong support who is a quality individual and who suddenly loses because of a bogus negative claim before I would believe this.

Negative campaigns are a symptom of two shit candidates fighting each other.


i think you are just being stubborn in your views of negative campaigning's ineffectiveness. history proves you wrong. i already gave you an example of a good candidate who was taken down by vicious, bogus attack ads---max clelland. mccain in the south carolina primary is another---dead in the water. your own example---dukakis, not a bad guy but a stiff politician easily taken down by lee atwater for bullshit that hit a nerve with voters.

never said that genuine credentials and qualities held no importance---they get you part of the way, but not all the way. all candidates have clay feet; no one is perfect. but who's left standing when the mud's been thrown is still in large part how they play the game. clinton---a slick philanderer, yes, but survived two campaigns 'cause he's a master politician. bush---a lightweight with an undistinguished, even checkered past, but survived two campaigns 'cause he's a skilled politician.

bottom line, massive scandals aside. you have to play the game well. as you stated above, "Yep, you have to be a good politician, you have to manage your image, you have to think on your feet. Not suprisingly these same traits make a good president. " we're in agreement here---i would add that those same skills are necessary to bring the public along with you so that you can steer the agenda. where i disagree is that you can't take down a good man with slander. you can IF they're too slow, don't have finely honed the political instincts to come back and kill the attack.

i think you might be saying that the good political instincts are part of the integrity of the candidate. i'd say they're somewhat separate---case in point: george bush. a much better politician than president.

[Buzzstein]

I don't think Hillary will make it. She does seem a bit fake to me...but pretty much all politicians seem that way to me. I'm quite disgruntled with both corporate/special-interest-group fueled parties though. That's why I'll probably be voting for a third-party candidate in the very Republican state of Kansas. My state will definitely go to the Republican candidate so I might as well vote my conscience. Stupid electoral college... I think Markalot is pretty much dead on when he says "the Democrats are wimps and the Republicans are crooks." I don't think anything in this country is going to change until we have some campaign finance reform. Let's get Jeb Bartlett back in office! I liked that guy. ;)

[AvatarOfVishnu]

As far as Dem Govs go, Bill Richardson certainly has the gravitas. Not sure he has the charisma though. Send him to charm school & have him drop a few dozen pounds, & we may have our next president!

[akip]

As far as Dem Govs go, Bill Richardson certainly has the gravitas. Not sure he has the charisma though. Send him to charm school & have him drop a few dozen pounds, & we may have our next president!

he's got the personality of a paper bag, alright. used to see him around santa fe and if you said, "good luck in the election, bill," he'd sort of stare at you like you just asked him how he liked the night sky on neptune.

[akip]

I don't think anything in this country is going to change until we have some campaign finance reform.

totally agree with this statement. we're locked in.

[juggles]

I don't think anything in this country is going to change until we have some campaign finance reform.

I'll be the first to agree that big money has warped the political process far beyond anything that could accurately be called a democracy. But I'm starting to think about it differently. Rather than work to restrict who can give money to who, are there ways in which we could make money matter less in campaigns? This is the idea behind public funding of campaigns (the box on you tax return, which I always check) but the politicians have been increasingly crafty about dodging it or they raise so much money they disregard it all together.

If, for example, every candidate who got his or her name on the ballot was allotted a certain amount of free airtime every week on TV and radio, a public service so they could get their message to the people, would they need to spend so much on advertising?

Perhaps this would be a disaster. I really don't know. But I'm wondering if we can shift the conversation to why is money so important in campaign and is there a way to make it less so.

[The_Deacon]

this may be my first post up in here, but I saw the title of the thread, and it made my laugh....I don't talk politics, so this may be my last.

[DaHood]

this may be my first post up in here, but I saw the title of the thread, and it made my laugh....I don't talk politics, so this may be my last.
Oooh! Another Deac sighting in CE/P. It's a sign of the End of Times!!! :p

[akip]

I
If, for example, every candidate who got his or her name on the ballot was allotted a certain amount of free airtime every week on TV and radio, a public service so they could get their message to the people, would they need to spend so much on advertising?

Perhaps this would be a disaster. I really don't know. But I'm wondering if we can shift the conversation to why is money so important in campaign and is there a way to make it less so.

tv advertising is the biggest campaign expenditure, 'cause tv is how most voters get their info about the candidates. so yeah, free tv space would diminish the big drive for money, which is also, btw, dominating how politicians spend their time as well as giving those with the deepest pocket contributors the edge.

[GoWest]

Interesting poll from CNN . . . against McCain, adding Rodham to Hillary's name gives here an 8 point swing vs. leaving Rodham off the question.

Full story. (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/20/poll.08/index.html)

Poll: Spare the 'Rodham,' spoil her election
POSTED: 6:47 p.m. EDT, October 20, 2006
(CNN) -- If presidential elections were held today, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton would likely have a comfortable edge over Sen. John McCain, but take away her maiden name and McCain has a better shot of landing in the Oval Office.

So say the results of a CNN poll released Friday by Opinion Research Corp., which asked 506 adult Americans whom they preferred among potential 2008 presidential candidates. The margin of error for the survey is plus or minus 4.5 percent.

Asked if they preferred Hillary Rodham Clinton to McCain, respondents gave the Democratic New York senator and former first lady a 51 percent to 44 percent advantage over the Republican Senator from Arizona. Remove "Rodham" and McCain had a 1 percentage point advantage, 48 percent to 47 percent.

The results fall within the sample's margin of error, so there is a "good chance, but not a statistical certainty" that Clinton's maiden name would help her in a matchup against McCain, said Keating Holland, CNN's polling director.

The results are consistent with earlier testing that indicated Clinton's favorability rose when her maiden name was included in the question, Holland said.

However, using "Rodham" seems to cut into Clinton's edge if her opponent is former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

Though Clinton has an advantage over Giuliani with or without her maiden name, using "Rodham" closes the gap. Asked if they prefer Hillary Clinton or Giuliani, Clinton has a 4 percentage point advantage, 50 percent to 46 percent.

Add "Rodham" to the equation and the former first lady's advantage over the Republican former mayor drops to 1 percentage point, 48 percent to 47 percent.

Holland notes that the results are moot for two reasons: The election is still 2 years off and no poll will accurately predict a race that far in advance; and Clinton has always appeared on the ballot using her middle name, and there is no sign that she intends to abandon it in future elections.

[Buzzstein]

That is ridiculous and hilarious.

[akip]

That is ridiculous and hilarious.

what's even more ridiculous and hilarious is, senate right wing crazies like brownback (YOUR man, buzz!) are actually starting to respect her. i'm reading that in multiple sources. wtf does THAT mean???

actually, she's become a consensus builder on certain issues. as a legislator behind the scenes, she's not a divisive figure.

[seafoamgreen]

what's even more ridiculous and hilarious is, senate right wing crazies like brownback (YOUR man, buzz!) are actually starting to respect her. i'm reading that in multiple sources. wtf does THAT mean???
.

that she's trying to turn herself into Margaret Thatcher. :p

[seafoamgreen]

did anyone else see Barack Obama on Meet the Press yesterday?

I'm vexed about him. On one hand, it seems like it's too soon (2 years in the senate, no executive experience, etc) and on the other, it would seem that if you have the hot hand, as he does right now, you might as well run. Who knows what things are going to look like in 6 to 10 years. VP maybe?

I guess it's all moot until we see how Harold Ford does in two weeks.

[slopechz]

did anyone else see Barack Obama on Meet the Press yesterday?

I'm vexed about him. On one hand, it seems like it's too soon (2 years in the senate, no executive experience, etc) and on the other, it would seem that if you have the hot hand, as he does right now, you might as well run. Who knows what things are going to look like in 6 to 10 years. VP maybe?

I guess it's all moot until we see how Harold Ford does in two weeks.
I saw him on Olbermann Friday night. Very charismatic, but really had very little to say in terms of substance. I was a little disappointed. He sounds like your run of the mill politician to me. :eek:

[rocketman70]

I'd like to nominate this as the worst campaign slogan in the history of democracy.


I was just having some fun. Sheesh. :p


Actually, my actual thought that at this point, whomever runs under the Democratic ticket is getting my support/time/vote. I have my own personal faves, but in the end, I really don't care who it is.

[rocketman70]

did anyone else see Barack Obama on Meet the Press yesterday?

I'm vexed about him. On one hand, it seems like it's too soon (2 years in the senate, no executive experience, etc) and on the other, it would seem that if you have the hot hand, as he does right now, you might as well run. Who knows what things are going to look like in 6 to 10 years. VP maybe?

I guess it's all moot until we see how Harold Ford does in two weeks.


Well, I'm mixed on this. My man Obama is AWESOME. I just saw him at a local town meeting and he is so dynamic. First class. I'd throw all my support behind him. On the other hand, I'd kinda like the guy to serve his term as my senator first. Either way, I love the guy, he's been good for Illinois.

I saw him on Olbermann Friday night. Very charismatic, but really had very little to say in terms of substance. I was a little disappointed. He sounds like your run of the mill politician to me. :eek:

Eh, but aren't they all really? Anyway, I like the guy. See above.

[seafoamgreen]

I saw him on Olbermann Friday night. Very charismatic, but really had very little to say in terms of substance. I was a little disappointed. He sounds like your run of the mill politician to me. :eek:

yes and no. i honestly don't think he's been around long enough to have too much important to say, and if he is indeed planning on running, it would be to his advantage to say as little as possible.

I think the excitement around him hinges on something else, which was touched upon in the Meet the press interview. He talked about how every presidential election in the past twenty years has been an occasion to re-litigate the sixties, politically, socially, or culturally. What he represents is an oppurtunity to move away from that. It would seem then, that his run would mark a shift from the new deal/great society democrats to something past the New Democrat movement. Where exactly that falls i think will cause many in the party to be a little nervous, but may do a lot to capture the middle.

[markalot]

I honestly think he's too intelligent and too conservative to win a democratic primary. Liberals eat their own, so he has no chance.

That was a flippant remark, but one that I think holds some truth.

[seafoamgreen]

I honestly think he's too intelligent and too conservative to win a democratic primary. Liberals eat their own, so he has no chance.

That was a flippant remark, but one that I think holds some truth.

Which would lead me to ask, considering the shape the party is in right now, and that activists seem to actually want to win, that no might be the best time for him to run? McCain's looking weak right now, but i doubt he will in two years, and if i'm a democrat i'd be really worried about him.

And liberals do not eat their own. Leftists do, liberals just whine about it.

[rocketman70]

Which would lead me to ask, considering the shape the party is in right now, and that activists seem to actually want to win, that no might be the best time for him to run? McCain's looking weak right now, but i doubt he will in two years, and if i'm a democrat i'd be really worried about him.


I think you have a point there. I know the left wing of the party are hoping for a Feingold run. While I love the guy, I think he's too brazen and outspokenly liberal for the majority of the country to embrace. I think this time both wings of the Democratic Party will get their act together and unite behind someone treading the middle. I think Obama is the right choice. He's someone that the liberals and the conservatives might find (and do) appealing. It's just that are people going to wonder if he's had enough experience in the game yet?



And liberals do not eat their own. Leftists do, liberals just whine about it.

Ain't that the truth.