Not signed in (Sign In)
This discussion has been inactive for longer than 5 days, and doesn't want to be resurrected.
  1.  (67.1)
    Clinton/Richardson win decisively over Guliani and either Thompson or Huckabee.
  2.  (67.2)
    zachary--my wife's grandmother, who is eighty-summa-humma years old, a hardcore Rosie-The-Riveter-style proto-feminist, and so tickled that a woman is running for president that she'd vote for Hillary even if she sprouted devil horns and shot fire and death metal out her nostrils on live TV.

    We actually ordered a "Hillary 2008" button for her. From the internet. We love grandma.
  3.  (67.3)
    "Kucinich. Or everyone in general, what is it that makes him an unattractive candidate?"

    From my perspective, he's not an electable candidate. He's got no clout -- he's a congressman, and he was mayor of Cleveland for about ten minutes in the 1970s, which is not the same thing as, say, being mayor of New York City. He is a bad public speaker. And, most importantly of all in terms of electability, his face looks like a used bag.

    Also? Yes, hot wife. Yes, both of them are cool with hot wife being a foot taller than he is. Everyone else? That's prime political comedy.
      CommentAuthorAlan Tyson
    • CommentTimeDec 5th 2007 edited
    she'd vote for Hillary even if she sprouted devil horns and shot fire and death metal out her nostrils on live TV.

    Hell, I'd reconsider my vote. If we're gonna have a demon from hell in office (most candidates) at least Hillary would be open about it. Also, I'd just want to see someone shoot death metal out of their nostrils.

    I'm glad to see Obama is ahead in the Iowa polls for the Democrats, but as a guy who grew up in Iowa I'm pretty ashamed that Huckabee is doing so well. Yeah we've got a lot of Christian conservatives here, but most of them are German, so I was hoping they'd be PRACTICAL Christian conservatives. Evidently not. And that thing about the rapist pardoning scares me - I'm going to be sure to tell my voting-age friends about that.

    And ditto to much of what Warren just said. Supporting Kucinich at this point would just be taking votes away from someone who might be able to do something with them.
  4.  (67.5)
    @John Smith:

    I'm not sure I would want someone who seems to crave power like Bloomberg does in the office. But, on the other hand, they all crave the power, so I guess the only difference would be that he might not be kowtowing to a party structure. Although I have a feeling that would change if he ran. . . .

    I find it hard to call it. It is going to be close, which is stupid. After eight years of horrifying mismanagement and abuse of power, why people do not defenestrate the Republicans is beyond me. While the Dems are timid and disheveled, they would have to try really hard to fuck things up any more. My fear is not that they would do more damage, but that they would solidify some of the measures taken by the Bush gang and continue us farther down that noisome path.
    • CommentAuthorDocJuris
    • CommentTimeDec 5th 2007
    Somehow it feels to me that it's inevitable that Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. She's too damn conservative for me, and it its the same old message from her that I heard from Kerry and and Gore. Obama at least sounds fresh and I like a couple of his policy points which I have heard.

    I can't see myself giving a vote to any of the Republican monkeys. I just can't.
    • CommentAuthorshansen
    • CommentTimeDec 5th 2007
    Can I ask the democrats here why you are not supporting Kucinich. Or everyone in general, what is it that makes him an unattractive candidate?

    He's not electable, and even if I agreed with his gun control policies he would have a gridlocked congress regardless of whatever party controlled the floor. Which would mean our economy would continue to falter against every other first/second world country out there. Additionally his take on national security is idealistic at best and while I agree that it's useful to , you know, foster good will to my country(and stopping ineffectual/illegal interrogation techniques that date back to Dynasty era China) there are certain intelligence gathering apparatuses he's already said he'd scrap.

    Anyways, back to unelectable: He can't make himself seem sane compared to men on the other side of the aisle who would like to go back to the good old days of stoning heretics. His handling of a bad question from Tim Russert (the UFO deal) pretty much illustrated that. He could've said "I saw an object that I didn't recognize, it could've been an experimental plane, a piece of debris or my eyes playing tricks on me", instead he said "Yes, I saw it". So yes, a stupid question but it was answered by a man who can win a district the size of my thumb, not an entire country. Especially one as Schizophrenic as ours.

  5.  (67.8)
    For the Dem's I'm going to say Edwards/Richardson.

    Edwards, because I think the party isn't going to want to risk losing to prove a point by giving the nod to a women or a black man. Richardson, because he is perhaps the most qualified man ever to run for President, which means he'd be a perfect VP.

    For the Republican's I have to go with Romney/Gingrich. Mitt just looks too much like the President from a a TV show. As for Newt, he's seen what Dick's done with the second in command and knows how much power the second-in-command can have with the right empty shirt ahead of him.

    Either way this country is fucked.
    • CommentAuthorkmcleod
    • CommentTimeDec 6th 2007
    Qualifications have little do do with who becomes an American president. Edwards/Richardson is a ticket made for politics that are based on rational thought and tempered judgment.
  6.  (67.10)
    As much as Edwards is Richardson's only chance for a VP slot, it won't happen, because Edwards is not going to want Richardson's experience overshadowing his own. You don't pick a VP candidate that makes the Presidential candidate look like a lightweight. Plus, Edwards and Bayh are jogging buddies, so The Man From Indiana rears his head there, too. You can't escape him.

    If Iowa goes willy-nilly with their crazy "second choice" rules and the race gets flipped upside down like it did for John Kerry, and we end up with Joe Biden or Chris Dodd or some other, older white man, then you might see Richardson getting some opportunity. But none of this is that likely.
  7.  (67.11)
    "You don't pick a VP candidate that makes the Presidential candidate look like a lightweight."

    Possible counterexamples: Kennedy and Johnson; Reagan and Bush (41); Bush (43) and Cheney.
  8.  (67.12)
    I think Romney just blew the Republican nomination.

    In the course of a speech aimed at reassuring Christian conservatives that he was Just Like Them Mitt felt obliged to pay lip-service to the idea that he found praiseworthy and admirable elements in all major religions.

    Including Islam.

    Now the specific example he gave "frequency of prayer" is pretty anodyne (what's next: praising Anton Le Vey's successors in the Church of Satan for their exquisitive penmanship), but I suspect he's alienated enough Jesus-shouters to lose Iowa.
  9.  (67.13)
    Kosmopolit: Your counterexamples are interesting, but I don't think are particularly analogous to an Edwards - Richardson scenario.

    Kennedy was forced to swallow Johnson and Johnson delivered the South...Richardson has neither the clout nor the electoral power to create this kind of scenario.

    Bush Sr. was more experienced in government than Reagan, but Reagan had been a Governor and Bush had not, which counts for a lot in Presidential politics. Senators and Representatives always appear weak on leadership in comparison to Governors, and this would hurt an Edwards/Richardson ticket, making it bottom-heavy on leadership.

    Likewise, Bush Jr. had been a governor and Cheney had only ever served other Presidents...and also chose himself as head of the Vice Presidential selection comittee, something Richardson is not going to be in a position to do.
  10.  (67.14)
    Analogies are never exact but while Richardson can't deliver anything like the votes Johnson could, he may be able to deliver New Mexico and one or more of the other inland south west states to the Democrats. That whole area has been progressively changing demographically to make it more winnable for the Democrats (more urbanisation and more Latinos essentially).

    If Edwards gets the nod over Clinton and Obama he may also feel the need to demonstrate that the Democratic Party is still interested in diversity and equal opportunity - like Kerry and Lieberman.
    • CommentAuthorunclesean
    • CommentTimeDec 6th 2007
    Dems: Clinton and Edwards
    GOP: Romney and ... someone ...

    I was involved in the local Democratic Party back in '02 and '03 (in my small and not influential in presidential politics state) and there were already mutterings of hopes and dreams of Clinton running in '08 at that time. Clinton's campaign for the nomination started when Bill took office in '92. I don't doubt that she'll secure the Dems nomination, and though she has more personality than the last two presidential candidates they picked she doesn't have the charisma to get people to actually vote for her (as opposed to casting a vote for her because she's a democrat or because they don't like the alternative). Also, she'll keep Bill tucked away out of fear that people will only be reminded of the whole blowjob debacle and wanting to appear to be an independent woman not reliant on her husband. They'll pick Edwards because of the Gay Marriage stuff (last I saw he was pretty clear about being only for marriage between men and women) as a misguided attempt to try to draw from the GOP's base, but instead alienating their own and effectively driving their supporters to vote for third party candidates. I think the Dems will gift wrap the '08 election for the GOP and it doesn't matter who the GOP have running. Enough of the electorate is so piss scared of gays, women and anyone not white or Christian that they'll vote for anyone they think will save them. The rest of the electorate will divide out with just enough on the GOP side to tip the scales in their favor again.

    Not that I think the Dems winning would make any kind of difference. Regardless of who wins we'll see more power collected in the Executive Branch; increased invasion of privacy; no solution to health care, poverty, or energy concerns genuinely explored; and no end to the fear-mongering.
  11.  (67.16)
    New Mexico has the potential to go Democratic even without Richardson on the ticket. Indiana, on the other hand, has over twice as many electoral votes and Bayh has the potential to turn it blue for the first time in 40 years.
  12.  (67.17)
    No way would we ever see Giuliani and Paul on the same ticket. Those two are farther apart ideologically than Giuliani is with any of the Democrats, and Paul doesn't play machiavellian power-games.

    I don't think the race card is going to stick to Paul. The newsletter rantings have been explained away as having been written by staffer who was terminated. And besides, being called a racist doesn't hurt in the Republican contest. It would hurt if he actually got nominated.

    The best thing going for Paul is his consistent and persistent opposition to the Iraq War, and the fact that all the other GOP candidates are still for it (and I don't see that changing, ever), and none of the Democrats except Kucinich are convincingly against it.

    That said, he won't win the nomination, and afterward will go back to winning re-election to Congress. What I don't know about is where all that crazed-cult energy now surrounding him will go.
    • CommentAuthorKosmopolit
    • CommentTimeDec 9th 2007 edited
    I just realised who I want to get the nominations: Obama and Huckabee.

    Battle of the funny names '08.
  13.  (67.19)
    Clinton vs. Giuliani after the conventions. No other Democrat has a chance in November 2008, and Giuliani has a better shot with Republicans during the convention than does McCain. I wouldn't want to guess who wins -- too many variables, and it depends upon who's the most hawkish after said conventions. Giuliani has the edge, but Clinton still has a damned good shot.
    • CommentAuthorOddcult
    • CommentTimeDec 9th 2007
    Apologies for what might be some stupid questions, but I haven't been following things too closely. However, it seems to me that Clinton/Obama would be a dream ticket for the Democrats.

    I'm wondering what's to stop this happening. Is the fact that they're campaigning against each other at this point too divisive in terms of them coming together to take the job. Obama's young enough to run next time around anyway, but if he struck a deal to take the VP job, this would put him in a better position next time, and also counter questions about his lack of experience.

    I'd actually prefer to see Obama take the top slot, but I don't think America is ready for either Clinton or Obama on their own. Together, they could almost certainly take it, though. Is this a fair assumption?

This discussion has been inactive for longer than 5 days, and doesn't want to be resurrected.