Looks like the right's getting its rage machine ready to throw tomatoes at Hillary. Unfortunately with her in the race, it's going to be an uphill battle for practically everyone else.
I gotta be honest, I keep seeing "Clark" mentioned as a possible, and apparently popular democrat candidate, but unless you refrence Wesly(sp) Clark and his failed bid for presidency, I'm not sure who your talking about.
And if it is him, I gotta say...electing an ex-military commander when America is in an unpopular war and people aren't generally happy with what the military is doing? Thats more than shooting yourself in the foot, thats like shooting yourself in the head just for good measure.
Wes was dead in the water when he started running, nice guy, probly real smart too, electable? hardly.
So, is it him or somebody else?
EDIT: oh, and since I brough my mother and her bad voting principles into play already, I would like to bring her center stage again. Since she stated that two candidates who are very different would make a perfect ticket for the Dems, notably, Obama and Hillary(black+female, on the same ticket! OMG WTF?), which reminds me of how the republicans won the election...yes, cheating....no, but shoving their differences and saying the same thing.
I gotta say, I liked McCain and Gulliani until the '04 election, they were all different, and more centrist republicans than the rest, but then suddenly they were all "4 more years" like everyone else. And I seriously don't like people who sell out that easy. McCain didnt even like Bush at first, now he does, WTF? Same with Arnold, though his more direct way of lawmaking here in Cali makes me overlook his "4 more years" chanting at the Repubs convention.
"The difference between MTG and science is that one has people dressed up in silly clothes, using words you can't understand and doing potentially quite dangerous stuff while the other has people dressed up in silly clothes, using words you can't understand and doing potentially quite dangerous stuff while playing cards."
My Decks: WAnglesW WUBRGThe BroodGRBUW WUGAllymillGUW
I gotta be honest, I keep seeing "Clark" mentioned as a possible, and apparently popular democrat candidate, but unless you refrence Wesly(sp) Clark and his failed bid for presidency, I'm not sure who your talking about.
I am and have been since the beginning. As are experts.
And if it is him, I gotta say...electing an ex-military commander when America is in an unpopular war and people aren't generally happy with what the military is doing? Thats more than shooting yourself in the foot, thats like shooting yourself in the head just for good measure.
Yep, because it's the soldiers fault we're losing in Iraq or that we're in Iraq in the first place. *roll*
The greatest duty of the POTUS is being commander in chief of the armed forces, and in 2008 said CiC will be inheriting a war. Electing someone with military command experience is not "shooting yourself in the foot", it's electing experience. Clark already served, essentially, a miniturized version of the presidency for 3 years as SACEUR and commanded us through the Kosovo War very skillfully, quickly, with support, and successfully.
Wes was dead in the water when he started running, nice guy, probly real smart too, electable? hardly.
Actually he wasn't. He got a huge ground swell of popularity early on. His mistakes were:
A. Coming in too late (something he's already said he won't do this time)
B. Skipped Iowa because Dean was the presumptive favorite there, so when Dean and Gephardt fell short there Kerry and Edwards were the other "big" candidates who sopped up their support. Clark has already said he won't do this.
C. Didn't have experience talking to the press, giving more soundbite answers (got him into the "Clark campaigns at light speed" style headlines). One presidential candidacy under his belt is plenty to learn that, and he's shown it in his 2006 midterm work.
Since she stated that two candidates who are very different would make a perfect ticket for the Dems, notably, Obama and Hillary(black+female, on the same ticket! OMG WTF?), which reminds me of how the republicans won the election...yes, cheating....no, but shoving their differences and saying the same thing.
I dunno how the Republican ticket is similar to that, but ok... I doubt you'll see Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton. They both know that, however minor an effect, their uniqueness will be at least a slight drag on them in the general. I'm betting either one chooses a more standard white guy as VP if they get the nomination (Edwards, Clark, Dodd, Vilsack, all possible)
EDIT -
Basically, the field looks so divers, that I doubt any of the Dems got a real chance. In the end I expect people rather vote for the traditional white elderly man, like McCain orGulliani, than for the groudbreaking option.
Eh. McCain has hurt himself big-time with his major support for the surge (you'll note McCain's name wasn't mentioned but Joe Lieberman was in the president's address, didn't want to risk hurting the heir apparent) and Giuliani's personal life is so yucky that that would hurt (even without anyone going negative) a lot more than skin color or gender. I think Romney is probably the best road for the Republicans to take, but the least likely to happen. His main problem (which he's already working on) will be walking back all the liberal things he's done as Governor, but who knows.
I am and have been since the beginning. As are experts.
While it's nice to know what experts think, I'm willing to bet that most voters don't listen to them, and there aren't enough experts to swing an election. So what the experts think is really moot.
Yep, because it's the soldiers fault we're losing in Iraq or that we're in Iraq in the first place. *roll*
hey look, you can troll and put words in people's mouths. Good for you. I didn't say that and you know it.
The greatest duty of the POTUS is being commander in chief of the armed forces, and in 2008 said CiC will be inheriting a war. Electing someone with military command experience is not "shooting yourself in the foot", it's electing experience. Clark already served, essentially, a miniturized version of the presidency for 3 years as SACEUR and commanded us through the Kosovo War very skillfully, quickly, with support, and successfully.
Yes, I know what Clark has done, and I know what the president's job is. But that is not the ONLY job of the president. Just because it's a bigger responsibility does not mean the president can ignore or lack experiance in other aspects. The President has many generals to lead his armies, THOSE are the people who should be making the tactical decisions. While it is good to have a president with military background, It's NOT, IMO, the most important part of the president.
Actually he wasn't. He got a huge ground swell of popularity early on. His mistakes were:
A. Coming in too late (something he's already said he won't do this time)
B. Skipped Iowa because Dean was the presumptive favorite there, so when Dean and Gephardt fell short there Kerry and Edwards were the other "big" candidates who sopped up their support. Clark has already said he won't do this.
C. Didn't have experience talking to the press, giving more soundbite answers (got him into the "Clark campaigns at light speed" style headlines). One presidential candidacy under his belt is plenty to learn that, and he's shown it in his 2006 midterm work.
and the democrats can't risk making those mistakes again.
I dunno how the Republican ticket is similar to that, but ok... I doubt you'll see Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton. They both know that, however minor an effect, their uniqueness will be at least a slight drag on them in the general. I'm betting either one chooses a more standard white guy as VP if they get the nomination (Edwards, Clark, Dodd, Vilsack, all possible)
I doubt you actually read my paragraph, but perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I was saying that the Republican's won by getting along, by agreeing to espouse certian things and sticking together, solidarity. The democrats failed partly because they were always arguing over what to support, and then when Kerry picked Edwards it was too different, Edwards and Kerry had espoused different ideals. Just like Obama and Hillary do and if on the same ticket(hypotheticly), they would be too different to truly work.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The difference between MTG and science is that one has people dressed up in silly clothes, using words you can't understand and doing potentially quite dangerous stuff while the other has people dressed up in silly clothes, using words you can't understand and doing potentially quite dangerous stuff while playing cards."
My Decks: WAnglesW WUBRGThe BroodGRBUW WUGAllymillGUW
I have a feeling the Republicans will be hated out after Bush leaves.
What are some of your thoughts... do any of you think the Republicans are gonna be hated on after Bush leaves? Or will the Republican candidates show they are not like their predecessor?
I'm not really a political person but this presidential race is going to an interesting one. At least for the Democrats. You have Clinton and Obama as the juggernauts and I have high hopes for Edwards. My mom thinks the US is ready for a black president but I'm skeptical. There are simply too many negative stereotypes and just plain wrong notions about blacks folks in this country. Truthfully neither Clinton or Obama has wowed me yet but its still early. Though I'm a Democrat I'd vote for McCain. He's the only Republican that doesn't disappoint me. This election I'm actually going to research the issues and watch the debates and maybe even volunteer for the Democrats. The last election was my first one and I was too busy with school to really pay attention to politics.
I truly hope that Hillary does not win the Democratic nomination - as the 'lead candidate' in the same way Howard Dean was in 2003-04, she is currently recieving the most massive amount of conservative hatred. Placing a liberal, female Democrat in the Oval Office will not help heal over the partisan divide within the United States (a divide that must be reconciled before we risk secessions or civil war again), but only exacerbate it further - with the other half of the populace being outraged this time.
I doubt Obama has enough experience with politics to effectively run a country. He seems similar to John F. Kennedy as a candidate at this point - young, handsome, 'the first' (Catholic President in Kennedy's case, black President in Obama's) and capable of winning over crowds, but his lack of political experience could surely do him in.
A more moderate Republican would not be out of the question if said Republican A) isn't a bible-thumping, evangelical war-hawk and B) doesn't appoint the exact same cabinet for four more years.
With all that said, I refuse to endorse any candidate who will not substantially alter US environmental policy. As the world's greatest power, it is up to us to change the Earth for the better. Denying the existence of global warming and having some of the worst environmental regulations in the developed world doesn't help in that regard.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to R&Doom at Ye Olde Sig and Avatar Shoppe for the banner.
With all that said, I refuse to endorse any candidate who will not substantially alter US environmental policy. As the world's greatest power, it is up to us to change the Earth for the better. Denying the existence of global warming and having some of the worst environmental regulations in the developed world doesn't help in that regard.
For the record, there are few who actually deny global warming. The pro-business folks just deny that human activity has significantly promoted the global warming that's happening, and deny that changes in human activity could stop it from continuing.
Also, do you seriously believe the polarization of Republicans and Democrats could lead to another civil war? I'm sorry dude, that's bonkers..
While it's nice to know what experts think, I'm willing to bet that most voters don't listen to them, and there aren't enough experts to swing an election. So what the experts think is really moot.
I didn't say the experts say he can win because they don't. Most polls show him at 3-5% tops. My point was your apparent mystification at who this "Clark" person was is silly because his name is always listed when discussing potential Democratic candidates.
hey look, you can troll and put words in people's mouths. Good for you. I didn't say that and you know it.
Your exact words were:
And if it is him, I gotta say...electing an ex-military commander when America is in an unpopular war and people aren't generally happy with what the military is doing? Thats more than shooting yourself in the foot, thats like shooting yourself in the head just for good measure.
That electing a military leader was a bad idea because people aren't happy with what the military is doing. That's crazy as:
A. What I said in response THE FIRST TIME, experience matters since we're electing him to replace Mr. No-idea-what-he's-doing-let's-all-listen-to-Wolfowitz.
B. NO ONE (barring some crazy guy I saw Bill O'Reilly interview once in pursuit of that "fair and balanced coverage" FOX provides) has a problem with what the military is doing (outside things like Haditha), so I dunno what you're talking about. An image as a soldier doesn't make people go Soldier -> Iraq -> Iraq Bad -> Soldier bad. It makes them go Soldier -> Willing to sacrifice for nation -> Oooooooooooooooooh. Especially in areas and amongst groups many Democrats have a tough time cracking.
Yes, I know what Clark has done, and I know what the president's job is. But that is not the ONLY job of the president. Just because it's a bigger responsibility does not mean the president can ignore or lack experiance in other aspects. The President has many generals to lead his armies, THOSE are the people who should be making the tactical decisions. While it is good to have a president with military background, It's NOT, IMO, the most important part of the president.
A. Military commander in chief. Clark has this down pat.
B. Suggesting a national budget. Clark has a masters in economics on a Rhodes scholarship to Oxford, and then went to the National War College where his many projects included writing a federal budget. Oh, and he proposed a budget last time that saved trillions of dollars over a decade.
C. Foreign relations. Wait, didn't Clark lead an international coalition of 19 nations through a complex war basically on their front steps quite well? And didn't he establish a far greater number of connections and relationships in the upper echelons of government than some random American governor or Senator likely has?
and the democrats can't risk making those mistakes again.
So maybe run someone who's already made them? (Not to mention skipping Iowa wasn't a party-effecting mistake, just a personal one) Clinton is divisive, Obama is young and while good in front of white audiences now things will only get uglier nationally. Edwards is a solid choice, I love Richardson more and more as I read about him, and everyone else is second tier at or below Clark's level.
The democrats failed partly because they were always arguing over what to support, and then when Kerry picked Edwards it was too different, Edwards and Kerry had espoused different ideals. Just like Obama and Hillary do and if on the same ticket(hypotheticly), they would be too different to truly work.
I agree they are too different to SELL, but I don't think it would actually effect their work. Hillary's problem, IMO, is she'd either be:
A. Top of the ticket, but with a rock star below her which always makes people question the order of the ticket
B. Bottom of the ticket, forced to be an advisor and not "The Decider" as with Billo.
Little comment on Bill Richardson running? From what I know of him, he looks like an excellent candidate.
I've heard a little bit about him. He's a fairly popular governor, but unfortunately he's got a low profile. You can't really vote for somebody you don't know about. Much like Edwards, though, he'd be a good vice presidential candidate. I'd sooner vote for Obama or Clark, but I'd take Richardson over Clinton.
I have a feeling the Republicans will be hated out after Bush leaves.
What are some of your thoughts... do any of you think the Republicans are gonna be hated on after Bush leaves? Or will the Republican candidates show they are not like their predecessor?
I think they'll show they aren't like their predecessor. Neither Giuliani nor McCain are neoconservatives, and both of them are "heroes" in the eyes of the American people, regardless of their political affiliation. Because of that, I believe they'll be able to see those guys for their faces and voices, rather than their recent actions in support of Bush or Republicans in general.
When someone says, "Yes, McCain may have survived a POW camp in Vietnam, but..." a lot of people stop listening after the comma. When someone says, "Sure, Giuliani may have pulled New York City through the trauma of 9/11, but..." a lot of people stop listening after the comma.
When someone says, "Yes, McCain may have survived a POW camp in Vietnam, but..." a lot of people stop listening after the comma. When someone says, "Sure, Giuliani may have pulled New York City through the trauma of 9/11, but..." a lot of people stop listening after the comma.
Giuliani has to get through the primaries, which I really doubt he will, and McCain is losing that maverick image day by day between the Military Commissions bill and the surge.
Giuliani has to get through the primaries, which I really doubt he will, and McCain is losing that maverick image day by day between the Military Commissions bill and the surge.
Will Giuliani struggle to win the primaries? I think he will. Is McCain losing his maverick image day by day? I think he is. But I think their "hero" images will give them both major success over those who run against them in the primaries, and will help either one win the Office.
Little comment on Bill Richardson running? From what I know of him, he looks like an excellent candidate.
Besides, put him and Obama together as a running pair, and you've got every minority vote in the country sewn up :p.
<-----Speaking from first hand experience, I have to say that hes an effective Governor; he gets things done when he says hes going to do them, and he does them in a timely effective manner. Hes very effectivley balanced our budget and brough alot of new revenue into the state (Branson's Space Port, the movie industry, etc....) and he made NM to first state in the US to have $400,000 life insurance for active national guardsmen. Everyone loves Income Tax cuts too.
Hes worked as Energy Secretary, and Ambassador to the UN; hes delegated with the North Koreans, and more recently, he traveled to Sudan to deal with the government there. Hes got a strong backing in foreign policy and energy, what I would consider our biggest problems at the moment.
The Wen Ho Lee scandal was alot of fun :rolleyes:, and is a black mark on his record, but if thats the extent of the skeletons in his closet, I would still vote for him.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Cochese »
Do threads in this forum ever not get hijacked by the magical invisible hand of the market guys?
Will Giuliani struggle to win the primaries? I think he will. Is McCain losing his maverick image day by day? I think he is. But I think their "hero" images will give them both major success over those who run against them in the primaries, and will help either one win the Office.
I agree the hero thing will be a help, I just disagree with you that people will hear "Giuliani, America's Mayor but," or "McCain, tortured for America but" and stop listening given the crap they've both done (McCain in selling himself to conservative primary voters, Giuliani in just being the "why the hell are you a Republican" enigma that he is along with a shady personal life)
I'm not exactly sharp when it comes to politics but I try to pick up things and hang on somewhat, but from what I've heard around, enlighten me. If Clinton runs for President, is it essentially an auto-lose because of the number of people who so passionately dislike her? I'm really getting that impression, but since it seems that a slight majority of Democrats favor her, she's going to be the one running. Am I incorrect or have I heard incorrectly anywhere here? Is there hope for Clinton at all?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Getting the last word does not mean that you win the argument.
McCain's whole 'POW' bit didn't help him win the last primary he was involved in, and honestly, his reputation in general was alot better then. I honestly think that he pretty much shot his chances to hell by supporting the Military Commissions Act and then also supporting 'The Surge'.
Similarly, 9/11 was 5 years ago. In 2K4, Guiliani's involvement there might have carried him, but people in this country are very quick to forget anything positive you've accomplished, while remembering every negative bit. *Especially* when those negative bits fly in the face of your party's platforms.
I think Guiliani would still make a good VP choice for whomever wins the candidacy, but, I simply can't see either of these two winning it now.
As far as Hillary, I dunno really. Announcing her intent to enter the race exactly 2 years before the next Pres. will take office was a clever touch, though.
As far as Hillary, I dunno really. Announcing her intent to enter the race exactly 2 years before the next Pres. will take office was a clever touch, though.
Sorry, I'm dumb, explain? It'll give her time to let people warm to her?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Getting the last word does not mean that you win the argument.
I'm not exactly sharp when it comes to politics but I try to pick up things and hang on somewhat, but from what I've heard around, enlighten me. If Clinton runs for President, is it essentially an auto-lose because of the number of people who so passionately dislike her? I'm really getting that impression, but since it seems that a slight majority of Democrats favor her, she's going to be the one running. Am I incorrect or have I heard incorrectly anywhere here? Is there hope for Clinton at all?
Yeah, I think there is, albeit a small one. Last I checked, polls were indicating that 48% of the American population would never vote for her. That figure is much too high. However, I think that, if she gets in the race, she will be able to get herself out there in a way that will cut that number somewhat, if only by counterracting the right mouthpieces such as Fox News and indicate that she is, in fact, a good woman and at least somewhat moderate. I hope so, anyway.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from releasethedogs »
also listen to yodafan he knows whats hes talking about
Quote from Penumbra Leprechaun »
Yeah, Yodafan's pretty much a EDH pro.
Yodafan: Official pro of one of Magic’s most casual formats.
Yeah, I think there is, albeit a small one. Last I checked, polls were indicating that 48% of the American population would never vote for her. That figure is much too high. However, I think that, if she gets in the race, she will be able to get herself out there in a way that will cut that number somewhat
I strongly disagree that Hillary will be able to cut that number as the election gets closer. You have to understand that the 48% you refer to is before all the smear ads and dirty campaigning has even begun.
if only by counterracting the right mouthpieces such as Fox News and indicate that she is, in fact, a good woman and at least somewhat moderate. I hope so, anyway.
Haha, thanks for making me smile.
Hillary a moderate? You've got to be kidding. She fervently hopes she can portray herself as a moderate, but those who know better know she's liberal through and through. That is her greatest challenge - to come across as moderate (her husband was a master at it; that's why he was elected for 8 years) when in fact, she isn't. Her opponents (Dems in the primaries, GOP if she gets the Dem nomination) will do their best to show her "true" record.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Truth is my mission, and Logic and Reason are my weapons. - Rush Limbaugh
I strongly disagree that Hillary will be able to cut that number as the election gets closer. You have to understand that the 48% you refer to is before all the smear ads and dirty campaigning has even begun.
"Before they have even begun?" You're participating in them right now.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Hillary a moderate? You've got to be kidding. She fervently hopes she can portray herself as a moderate, but those who know better know she's liberal through and through. That is her greatest challenge - to come across as moderate (her husband was a master at it; that's why he was elected for 8 years) when in fact, she isn't. Her opponents (Dems in the primaries, GOP if she gets the Dem nomination) will do their best to show her "true" record.
Refresh my memory... what exactly is her "true" record? I'm not saying that you don't have any evidence to back this claim up, but you need to show the facts. When it comes to women's rights, she is undoubtedly liberal, but she did vote for the war in Iraq, and I still believe that she thinks that it was the right thing to do, even though she doesn't like the administration's direction in doing so. And Bill was a moderate: he heightened the War on Drugs, cracked down on welfare cheats, and even signed a little bill called the "Defense of Marriage Act."
*sigh* Well I guess it will be a safer bet to root for Obama, but unless I'm mistaken I think Hillary has the majority of the support to be the Democrats running candidate.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Getting the last word does not mean that you win the argument.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
http://news.yahoo.com/fc/US/Presidential_Election_2008
This should be an interesting race, at least from the Democrats anyway.
And if it is him, I gotta say...electing an ex-military commander when America is in an unpopular war and people aren't generally happy with what the military is doing? Thats more than shooting yourself in the foot, thats like shooting yourself in the head just for good measure.
Wes was dead in the water when he started running, nice guy, probly real smart too, electable? hardly.
So, is it him or somebody else?
EDIT: oh, and since I brough my mother and her bad voting principles into play already, I would like to bring her center stage again. Since she stated that two candidates who are very different would make a perfect ticket for the Dems, notably, Obama and Hillary(black+female, on the same ticket! OMG WTF?), which reminds me of how the republicans won the election...yes, cheating....no, but shoving their differences and saying the same thing.
I gotta say, I liked McCain and Gulliani until the '04 election, they were all different, and more centrist republicans than the rest, but then suddenly they were all "4 more years" like everyone else. And I seriously don't like people who sell out that easy. McCain didnt even like Bush at first, now he does, WTF? Same with Arnold, though his more direct way of lawmaking here in Cali makes me overlook his "4 more years" chanting at the Repubs convention.
WAnglesW
WUBRGThe BroodGRBUW
WUGAllymillGUW
I am and have been since the beginning. As are experts.
Yep, because it's the soldiers fault we're losing in Iraq or that we're in Iraq in the first place. *roll*
The greatest duty of the POTUS is being commander in chief of the armed forces, and in 2008 said CiC will be inheriting a war. Electing someone with military command experience is not "shooting yourself in the foot", it's electing experience. Clark already served, essentially, a miniturized version of the presidency for 3 years as SACEUR and commanded us through the Kosovo War very skillfully, quickly, with support, and successfully.
Actually he wasn't. He got a huge ground swell of popularity early on. His mistakes were:
A. Coming in too late (something he's already said he won't do this time)
B. Skipped Iowa because Dean was the presumptive favorite there, so when Dean and Gephardt fell short there Kerry and Edwards were the other "big" candidates who sopped up their support. Clark has already said he won't do this.
C. Didn't have experience talking to the press, giving more soundbite answers (got him into the "Clark campaigns at light speed" style headlines). One presidential candidacy under his belt is plenty to learn that, and he's shown it in his 2006 midterm work.
I dunno how the Republican ticket is similar to that, but ok... I doubt you'll see Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton. They both know that, however minor an effect, their uniqueness will be at least a slight drag on them in the general. I'm betting either one chooses a more standard white guy as VP if they get the nomination (Edwards, Clark, Dodd, Vilsack, all possible)
EDIT -
Eh. McCain has hurt himself big-time with his major support for the surge (you'll note McCain's name wasn't mentioned but Joe Lieberman was in the president's address, didn't want to risk hurting the heir apparent) and Giuliani's personal life is so yucky that that would hurt (even without anyone going negative) a lot more than skin color or gender. I think Romney is probably the best road for the Republicans to take, but the least likely to happen. His main problem (which he's already working on) will be walking back all the liberal things he's done as Governor, but who knows.
While it's nice to know what experts think, I'm willing to bet that most voters don't listen to them, and there aren't enough experts to swing an election. So what the experts think is really moot.
hey look, you can troll and put words in people's mouths. Good for you. I didn't say that and you know it.
Yes, I know what Clark has done, and I know what the president's job is. But that is not the ONLY job of the president. Just because it's a bigger responsibility does not mean the president can ignore or lack experiance in other aspects. The President has many generals to lead his armies, THOSE are the people who should be making the tactical decisions. While it is good to have a president with military background, It's NOT, IMO, the most important part of the president.
and the democrats can't risk making those mistakes again.
I doubt you actually read my paragraph, but perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I was saying that the Republican's won by getting along, by agreeing to espouse certian things and sticking together, solidarity. The democrats failed partly because they were always arguing over what to support, and then when Kerry picked Edwards it was too different, Edwards and Kerry had espoused different ideals. Just like Obama and Hillary do and if on the same ticket(hypotheticly), they would be too different to truly work.
WAnglesW
WUBRGThe BroodGRBUW
WUGAllymillGUW
What are some of your thoughts... do any of you think the Republicans are gonna be hated on after Bush leaves? Or will the Republican candidates show they are not like their predecessor?
-DShell
I doubt Obama has enough experience with politics to effectively run a country. He seems similar to John F. Kennedy as a candidate at this point - young, handsome, 'the first' (Catholic President in Kennedy's case, black President in Obama's) and capable of winning over crowds, but his lack of political experience could surely do him in.
A more moderate Republican would not be out of the question if said Republican A) isn't a bible-thumping, evangelical war-hawk and B) doesn't appoint the exact same cabinet for four more years.
With all that said, I refuse to endorse any candidate who will not substantially alter US environmental policy. As the world's greatest power, it is up to us to change the Earth for the better. Denying the existence of global warming and having some of the worst environmental regulations in the developed world doesn't help in that regard.
Thanks to R&Doom at Ye Olde Sig and Avatar Shoppe for the banner.
For the record, there are few who actually deny global warming. The pro-business folks just deny that human activity has significantly promoted the global warming that's happening, and deny that changes in human activity could stop it from continuing.
Also, do you seriously believe the polarization of Republicans and Democrats could lead to another civil war? I'm sorry dude, that's bonkers..
I didn't say the experts say he can win because they don't. Most polls show him at 3-5% tops. My point was your apparent mystification at who this "Clark" person was is silly because his name is always listed when discussing potential Democratic candidates.
Your exact words were:
That electing a military leader was a bad idea because people aren't happy with what the military is doing. That's crazy as:
A. What I said in response THE FIRST TIME, experience matters since we're electing him to replace Mr. No-idea-what-he's-doing-let's-all-listen-to-Wolfowitz.
B. NO ONE (barring some crazy guy I saw Bill O'Reilly interview once in pursuit of that "fair and balanced coverage" FOX provides) has a problem with what the military is doing (outside things like Haditha), so I dunno what you're talking about. An image as a soldier doesn't make people go Soldier -> Iraq -> Iraq Bad -> Soldier bad. It makes them go Soldier -> Willing to sacrifice for nation -> Oooooooooooooooooh. Especially in areas and amongst groups many Democrats have a tough time cracking.
A. Military commander in chief. Clark has this down pat.
B. Suggesting a national budget. Clark has a masters in economics on a Rhodes scholarship to Oxford, and then went to the National War College where his many projects included writing a federal budget. Oh, and he proposed a budget last time that saved trillions of dollars over a decade.
C. Foreign relations. Wait, didn't Clark lead an international coalition of 19 nations through a complex war basically on their front steps quite well? And didn't he establish a far greater number of connections and relationships in the upper echelons of government than some random American governor or Senator likely has?
So maybe run someone who's already made them? (Not to mention skipping Iowa wasn't a party-effecting mistake, just a personal one) Clinton is divisive, Obama is young and while good in front of white audiences now things will only get uglier nationally. Edwards is a solid choice, I love Richardson more and more as I read about him, and everyone else is second tier at or below Clark's level.
I agree they are too different to SELL, but I don't think it would actually effect their work. Hillary's problem, IMO, is she'd either be:
A. Top of the ticket, but with a rock star below her which always makes people question the order of the ticket
B. Bottom of the ticket, forced to be an advisor and not "The Decider" as with Billo.
I've heard a little bit about him. He's a fairly popular governor, but unfortunately he's got a low profile. You can't really vote for somebody you don't know about. Much like Edwards, though, he'd be a good vice presidential candidate. I'd sooner vote for Obama or Clark, but I'd take Richardson over Clinton.
I think they'll show they aren't like their predecessor. Neither Giuliani nor McCain are neoconservatives, and both of them are "heroes" in the eyes of the American people, regardless of their political affiliation. Because of that, I believe they'll be able to see those guys for their faces and voices, rather than their recent actions in support of Bush or Republicans in general.
When someone says, "Yes, McCain may have survived a POW camp in Vietnam, but..." a lot of people stop listening after the comma. When someone says, "Sure, Giuliani may have pulled New York City through the trauma of 9/11, but..." a lot of people stop listening after the comma.
Giuliani has to get through the primaries, which I really doubt he will, and McCain is losing that maverick image day by day between the Military Commissions bill and the surge.
Will Giuliani struggle to win the primaries? I think he will. Is McCain losing his maverick image day by day? I think he is. But I think their "hero" images will give them both major success over those who run against them in the primaries, and will help either one win the Office.
<-----Speaking from first hand experience, I have to say that hes an effective Governor; he gets things done when he says hes going to do them, and he does them in a timely effective manner. Hes very effectivley balanced our budget and brough alot of new revenue into the state (Branson's Space Port, the movie industry, etc....) and he made NM to first state in the US to have $400,000 life insurance for active national guardsmen. Everyone loves Income Tax cuts too.
Hes worked as Energy Secretary, and Ambassador to the UN; hes delegated with the North Koreans, and more recently, he traveled to Sudan to deal with the government there. Hes got a strong backing in foreign policy and energy, what I would consider our biggest problems at the moment.
The Wen Ho Lee scandal was alot of fun :rolleyes:, and is a black mark on his record, but if thats the extent of the skeletons in his closet, I would still vote for him.
I agree the hero thing will be a help, I just disagree with you that people will hear "Giuliani, America's Mayor but," or "McCain, tortured for America but" and stop listening given the crap they've both done (McCain in selling himself to conservative primary voters, Giuliani in just being the "why the hell are you a Republican" enigma that he is along with a shady personal life)
Similarly, 9/11 was 5 years ago. In 2K4, Guiliani's involvement there might have carried him, but people in this country are very quick to forget anything positive you've accomplished, while remembering every negative bit. *Especially* when those negative bits fly in the face of your party's platforms.
I think Guiliani would still make a good VP choice for whomever wins the candidacy, but, I simply can't see either of these two winning it now.
As far as Hillary, I dunno really. Announcing her intent to enter the race exactly 2 years before the next Pres. will take office was a clever touch, though.
Sorry, I'm dumb, explain? It'll give her time to let people warm to her?
Yeah, I think there is, albeit a small one. Last I checked, polls were indicating that 48% of the American population would never vote for her. That figure is much too high. However, I think that, if she gets in the race, she will be able to get herself out there in a way that will cut that number somewhat, if only by counterracting the right mouthpieces such as Fox News and indicate that she is, in fact, a good woman and at least somewhat moderate. I hope so, anyway.
Yodafan: Official pro of one of Magic’s most casual formats.
Haha, thanks for making me smile.
Hillary a moderate? You've got to be kidding. She fervently hopes she can portray herself as a moderate, but those who know better know she's liberal through and through. That is her greatest challenge - to come across as moderate (her husband was a master at it; that's why he was elected for 8 years) when in fact, she isn't. Her opponents (Dems in the primaries, GOP if she gets the Dem nomination) will do their best to show her "true" record.
Trade with me - over 130 refs!!
"Before they have even begun?" You're participating in them right now.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Trade with me - over 130 refs!!
Refresh my memory... what exactly is her "true" record? I'm not saying that you don't have any evidence to back this claim up, but you need to show the facts. When it comes to women's rights, she is undoubtedly liberal, but she did vote for the war in Iraq, and I still believe that she thinks that it was the right thing to do, even though she doesn't like the administration's direction in doing so. And Bill was a moderate: he heightened the War on Drugs, cracked down on welfare cheats, and even signed a little bill called the "Defense of Marriage Act."