Is it too early for a WTF unofficial Democratic Presidential poll?

I'll do the Republican poll since I'm the only one who'll more than likely be voting on that side...

1 vote for Rudy G.

If I was gonna vote Republican, I'd vote Rudy G all the way.
Ya gotta love a guy that will wear a dress to get cheap laughs.
I mean, I wear a dress, people stare(even though I think I have good taste, and NEVER clash). Rudy wears a dress, he brings the house down.

Is it too early for a WTF unofficial Democratic Presidential poll?

I'll do the Republican poll since I'm the only one who'll more than likely be voting on that side...

1 vote for Rudy G.
Create a separate thread for this. I think Franken deserves his own thread.

Is this a poll of who you want to be President who's running, who you want to be Pres who's not decided, who's gonna be the Presidential nominee for the parties, who's gonna win, etc?

For Democratic candidates, I like Bill Richardson, but I doubt he makes it in. If Hillary made it in, even if she won, she'd set the party back 10 years. I don't think Obama's relative inexperience will be held against him if he shows he can get the right people surrounding him (which is what good Presidents do, among other things) because he's generally made the right calls (which isn't the case for John Edwards, co-sponsor of the Iraq war resolution).

For Republican candidates, I'm having a hard time envisioning any of the big candidates making it through a Republican primary, not without the social conservatives putting up a third party candidate. A pro-choice, pro-gun, pro-gay military-hating wife-cheater like Giuliani has too many negatives. I could see someone like Huckabee or Brownback pulling an upset.

I thought Glennn was the pollmeister. Thought it might be mildly interesting to see who the board wants for a Dem candidate even though its early.

I love the primary season.

edit...how do you bold or highlight worthwhile paragraphs?




WASHINGTON — The battle to be the 2008 Democratic candidate for president went negative Wednesday, as leading contenders Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama got into a virtual shouting match.

With more than a year and a half remaining before the next presidential election, the campaigns exchanged heated words after Clinton suggested Obama return funds to Hollywood bigwig David Geffen, who insulted Clinton in a newspaper article.

"We aren’t going to get in the middle of a disagreement between the Clintons and someone who was once one of their biggest supporters. It is ironic that the Clintons had no problem with David Geffen when was raising them $18 million and sleeping at their invitation in the Lincoln bedroom," Obama campaign communications director Robert Gibbs said in a statement that was e-mailed to the news media.

Geffen, a former "Friend of Bill," co-hosted — with Hollywood heavyweights Steven Spielberg and Jeffrey Katzenberg — a star-studded, $1.3 million fundraiser for Obama on Tuesday night in Beverly Hills.

Among the 300 contributors who forked over $2,300 each were George Clooney, Barbra Streisand, Jennifer Aniston, Ben Stiller, Eddie Murphy and Morgan Freeman. Also in attendance were Dixie Chick Natalie Maines and director Ron Howard.

Hillary Clinton Denies That Her Campaign Traded Money for Endorsement From Black Leader History-Making Presidency Would Highlight Both Clintons Minnesota Congressman Ellison Endorses Barack Obama for President Sen. Barack Obama Pulls In $1.3 Million at Hollywood Fundraiser Geffen became a former FOB in 2001 after Bill Clinton refused to pardon Leonard Peltier, a Chippewa Indian convicted of killing two FBI agents in a 1977 shootout on South Dakota's Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. Geffen, who believes Peltier was framed and falsely convicted, suggested he was more deserving of a pardon than fugitive financier Marc Rich, whom Clinton excused just before leaving office.

Clinton acknowledged in 2001 that he and Geffen were no longer buddies, saying Geffen would barely take his phone calls. Geffen's consultant on the Peltier matter was Andy Spahn, who had an active role in Tuesday night's Obama rally.

Geffen is apparently still holding a grudge against the Clintons. In remarks to New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd that appeared in Wednesday's edition, the music producer suggested that the Clintons have had their day and it's time for new blood in the White House.

“Not since the Vietnam War has there been this level of disappointment in the behavior of America throughout the world, and I don’t think that another incredibly polarizing figure, no matter how smart she is and no matter how ambitious she is — and God knows, is there anybody more ambitious than Hillary Clinton? — can bring the country together," he was quoted as saying.

“Obama is inspirational, and he’s not from the Bush royal family or the Clinton royal family,” Geffen added.

Geffen was particularly bitter about Sen. Clinton's position on Iraq. “It’s not a very big thing to say, ‘I made a mistake’ on the war, and typical of Hillary Clinton that she can’t.... She’s so advised by so many smart advisers who are covering every base. I think that America was better served when the candidates were chosen in smoke-filled rooms.”

While Clinton has her own Hollywood fundraiser next month — and even co-host Spielberg has not made an endorsement for Obama or anyone else yet — Clinton Communications Director Howard Wolfson issued his own statement Wednesday calling on Obama to disavow his top money man.

"While Senator Obama was denouncing slash and burn politics yesterday, his campaign's finance chair was viciously and personally attacking Senator Clinton and her husband. If Senator Obama is indeed sincere about his repeated claims to change the tone of our politics, he should immediately denounce these remarks, remove Mr. Geffen from his campaign and return his money," Wolfson said.

"While Democrats should engage in a vigorous debate on the issues, there is no place in our party or our politics for the kind of personal insults made by Senator Obama's principal fundraiser," Wolfson added.

Later in the day, Geffen sent a retort to the Clinton camp.

"Despite reports to the contrary, I am not the campaign finance chair and have no formal role in the Obama campaign, nor will I, other than to continue to offer my strongest possible personal support for his candidacy," he said. "My comments, which were quoted accurately by Maureen Dowd, reflect solely my personal beliefs regarding the Clintons. Thank You."

Obama, who is not about to give up such a prolific money earner, turned the criticism around on Clinton and rebuked her for accepting the support of South Carolina state Sen. Robert Ford.

Ford, an African-American, earlier this month said he was supporting Clinton because America would never elect a black president and Obama would only bring down the party in state and local races in 2008.

"We'd lose the House and the Senate and the governors and everything. I'm a gambling man. I love Obama, but I'm not going to kill myself," Ford said.

Obama said on Wednesday: "It is also ironic that Senator Clinton lavished praise on Monday and is fully willing to accept today the support of South Carolina State Sen. Robert Ford, who said if Barack Obama were to win the nomination, he would drag down the rest of the Democratic Party because ’he's black.’"

I love the primary season.

edit...how do you bold or highlight worthwhile paragraphs?

986 posts and you dont know how to bold?

its text

(no dots obviously)

986 posts and you dont know how to bold?

its text

(no dots obviously)

Hell yea I know how. I was just seeing if anyone would bite?

I love the Clintons, and don't consider Chelsea (on a good day) to even be borderline. I'd hit it.
But, it's time to turn this thing over to some new blood.
Hellllloooo Obama!

Calling Uncle Mxy!
Hey, whether or not you are a democrat, lemme ax ya dis:
What does a potentially vitriolic battle between Hillary and Obama do to the Democratic party?
If it gets particularly contentious, do you see a potential split between white liberals and blacks afterward?
I see this as a dangerous point for the Dems. It looks like Hillary is returning to Clinton Roots as a candidate who will take the gloves off and stop at nothing to get elected. If she comes at Obama hard, a guy who seems to be about as good and untainted a candidate as you can muster, it could have lingering effects.
As I said before, love the Clintons, but please, just go off into the sunset now, folks.

This quote from Sir Charles Barkley expresses my party allegiances best:

"The Republicans are full of it. The Democrats are a little less full of it."

I don't think it'll get stupidly contentious, because if they come across too jerky in the process, this gives room for another candidate (e.g. Edwards, Richardson) to ascend. Heck, if Gore threw his hat in, Hillary and Obama won't last. They have to find ways to attack each other that don't have their fingerprints on them. Talking a little bitch-smack and buck-smack now means almost nada a year from now, as long as there's no serious floppage in the process.

That's good. It reminds me of an old music axiom from WAAAY back (in "Creem Magazine"): "The Rolling Stones battled the Beatles in a parking lot and Led Zeppelin won".

I voted for Bill the first time around. But Hill is NO Bill. She doesn't have that charisma that Billy boy did or does.

Another thing Geffen said was "all poloticians lie, but the Clintons do it with such ease that its troubling.

On the Republican side...McCain was pretty blunt on Bush's aproach to Global Warming.

This is what I like about the primary season... The 2 parties individual firing lines are formed in a circle, iykwim.

barak's a god damn rock star. the polls lie. he's gonna win with 60% of the vote. book it!

hilary is yesterday's garbage, and she'll never get past voting for iraq. she wont get too dirty. everyone knows politics is dirty, but its hard for a man to get to the point that they cross the line. hillary is a bitch until proven otherwise in many people's eyes. her getting feisty isnt going to help that. plus, obama is very astute at dancing around mud and making the opponent look bad.

In a country that counts the ONE "catholic" president as it's only progressive step towards electing "minority" candidates, I'm banking that it will be at least 20 years before America has the guts to elect a woman or an African American.
When the so called "Islamofascist" countries have even beat you to the punch in electing women, you have alot of ground to cover.
Hell, even in Mexico they have elected a Mexican to be president. We can't say that.

the polls say 95 %(or so) of americans claim they would vote for an african-american. 93 % for woman. funny enough, something like 53% think most americans wouldnt vote for a black man.

i think barak will be more than fine. just wait till he lines up against whatever corpse the GOP sends out in a debate. its gonna be kennedy vs. nixon all over again. mccains like 150 years old. how can he possibly relate to anyone? all those percieved weaknesses, including his race, are going to actually play in barak's favor. just wait.

(unless he gets shot)

I voted for Bill the first time around. But Hill is NO Bill. She doesn't have that charisma that Billy boy did or does.
To me, it's not just about charisma but diplomacy (and as Nixon shows us, they're not the same thing). Hillary's never had strong diplomacy skills, and was getting us into little diplomatic incidents even toward the end of her being First Lady. Sure, she brings a great diplomat to the table in Billly-boy, but no way are we get eight more years of Bill Clinton at the helm with Hillary as a rubber-stamp, content to screen interns for any signs of big hair.


On the Republican side...McCain was pretty blunt on Bush's aproach to Global Warming.
Yeah, but he's flip-flopped a ton in order to try (unsuccessfully) and get the good graces of the religious right among others. He's planted his feet firmly in Iraq. He's old, and doesn't look well. He is clearly trying to sublimate populist instincts that made him worth voting for in the 2000 primary. Check out:

ioy90nF2anI

"SUBLIMATE"?
Geez Moxie, this isn't the Harvard Forum!

Tom Vilsack (former Gov. of Iowa, Dem) just dropped out of the race.

Not that anyone noticed that he had entered, or anything.

This Obama Hill dust up, and more importantly Hills reaction to it, verified to many the negatives that show up in her polls. She should have shut the fuck up.

Good piece on McCain, unfortunately for the voting public, you could prolly make one of those tapes about most politicians. If McCain runs, I'm hoping a Dem emerges that will govern from the middle. I doubt that will happen though. It does happen from time to time in history. I respect McCain for his service to the country and what he went through in captivity, but that doesn't mean he should be our Prez by any stretch.

Still Rudy for me and I'd prolly vote for Romney if he was the candidate.

Damn Nutsack drops out before the race even started. Bad Hammy?

Romney doesn't make it through a Republican primary any more than Giuliani does. If the social conservatives don't turn up in primary season because all their choices suck in their view, stick a fork in -any- Republican presidential hopes. Social conservatives will either rally around some divisive alternative candidate or simply stay home. Romney's the wrong religion, pure and simple, and his flip-flopping to suddenly embrace social conservatives rings as false as McCain's. (As an aside, I've always been amazed at the willingness of the state of Utah to embrace Republicans even when most of them are far more anti-Mormon than the Democrats would be. It's like seeing religious, socially conservative blacks vote for Klansmen.)

I don't think the religious right has as much of a strangle hold on the republican party as the left thinks. But then again, I feel the far left has a strangle hold on the Dems. I hope I'm wrong. So we'll see.

by far left I mean the peeps who want to dismantle our military, etc. Obama is one of the few that doesn't have to answer for a vote on the Iraq war. The far left blogs hammer the others, especially those who have not said how wrong their vote was.

What do it mean to "govern from the middle"?
I think both parties should, and do, have an ideology, and they should campaign and govern based on that.
People make choices, take stands, and make decisions. There has always been disagreement, fighting, arguing, whatever. I don't see why that's a bad thing.
There isn't any "middle"--this country is, at heart, liberal. We have liberal programs, lieberal thought processes, and that is our core. We should stick to it.
Conservatism is an elitist idea: The few haves amassing and keeping their power and money, and separating themselves from the rest of the people. they subvert the democratic process to their advantage, and engage in class warfare, demonizing every sector of society and setting them against each other to divert their attention from real issues.
The mainstream right wing media has had hold on the press, keeping us fighting each other instead of paying attention to the hack job that the Conservative movement has perpetrated on this country since 2000.

What do it mean to "govern from the middle"?
I think both parties should, and do, have an ideology, and they should campaign and govern based on that.
People make choices, take stands, and make decisions. There has always been disagreement, fighting, arguing, whatever. I don't see why that's a bad thing.
There isn't any "middle"--this country is, at heart, liberal. We have liberal programs, lieberal thought processes, and that is our core. We should stick to it.
Conservatism is an elitist idea: The few haves amassing and keeping their power and money, and separating themselves from the rest of the people. they subvert the democratic process to their advantage, and engage in class warfare, demonizing every sector of society and setting them against each other to divert their attention from real issues.
The mainstream right wing media has had hold on the press, keeping us fighting each other instead of paying attention to the hack job that the Conservative movement has perpetrated on this country since 2000.

Do you feel better?

I have felt great since Nov 7, 2006.

I don't think the religious right has as much of a strangle hold on the republican party as the left thinks.
Tell that to the 22% of the country in 2004 whose most important issue in voting for President was "moral values", who broke overwhelmingly for Bush (especially the white ones, the black ones being sort of a counterbalance to the far left). White Church attendance is tied to Bush voters more strongly than age, gender, economics, etc.


But then again, I feel the far left has a strangle hold on the Dems. I hope I'm wrong. So we'll see.

by far left I mean the peeps who want to dismantle our military, etc. Obama is one of the few that doesn't have to answer for a vote on the Iraq war.
The "dismantle our military" crowd is pretty small. Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader rank below "none of the above" in most polls. Whether or not it's true, a lot of folks perceive Nader as the far left spoiler. I think "etc." would need more "far left" examples.


The far left blogs hammer the others, especially those who have not said how wrong their vote was.
Much of the religious right aren't active in the blogosphere. Much of the far left is. It's largely an age thing. Your largest demographic of religious right voters are the AARP crowd who aren't generally digging deep into computers even when they own them.

Let's not forget Kucinich in our presidential polls:

http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m7/irishkorean/denniscthu24.jpg

From the party that has been lecturing us on patriotism and "family values" for the last twelve yers now:
82% of Republican voters in a recent poll over whether or not they would vote for Rudy G, and if marital history was a consideration to them said "NO!"
Well, I DO recall the hero of the Republican Revolution of 1994, Newt(ered) Gingrich delivering divorce papers to his ill wife while she was in the hospital, so, so much for family values, the "sanctity" of marriage, and let's have a Hip Hip Hooray for Hypocrisy!!!
Oh, I really DO hope there is a bible thumping black male republican married to a white woman out there who would have the guts to run for President!
The entire Dixie Nation just might have a cerebral hemmorage.

Anyone remember when the social issues weren't divided so clearly between Republicans and Democrats? In the 70s, Bush Sr. was pro-choice, almost a Rockefeller Republican (except he hated Rockefeller) while Gore was pro-life. We had both Moral Majority and Ruth Carter Stapleton. Oh well...

It seems like there are 3 big Democratic contenders and 3 big Republican contenders.

Democrats:
Hillary Clinton - the fact that she's running at all proves she hasn't listened to anyone in the last 6 years. No one wants her to run for President. She can't win for two reasons: her last name is Clinton and her first name is Hillary. And let me add a third one: even the Democrats don't like her.
Barack Obama - I like him so far but he is going to be destroyed. A young, optimistic black guy running for President against a Republican is like a five-year-old getting in a wrestling match with the Predator. He has no idea what they are going to put him through. But he's like the Little Engine That Could, you still want him to come through.
John Edwards - Of all of them he seems the most likely one to come out on top. He's a little more experienced than Obama, and he's making the right noises about being wrong on the Iraq authorization. He is from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party as of right now, seems to genuinely give a shit about poor people, and he's as pretty as a little girl.

Bill Richardson is just not well known enough at this point, although that could change.

Republicans:
Mitt Romney - It's funny that a guy who says all the right things as a Republican can still also not have a chance in hell because he's a Mormon, of all things. Plus, he used to be fairly laid-back about gay rights, which of course makes him The Antichrist.
Rudy Giuliani - Oh man this guy is just a walking disaster. He'll do something enormously stupid to screw up his campaign, I promise - and he's already been divorced twice, is a shitty father, married his cousin, had an affair while in the Mayor's office, and he makes enemies faster than anyone else alive. Plus he's been 100% pro-gay-rights and pro-abortion-rights up to this point. If we see him suddenly cuddling up with the religious conservatives, it will crown him King Hypocrite.
John McCain - Another guy hated by the Republicans as well as the Democrats. I think he knows he can't win at this point. The Republican view is that he hasn't made nice with all of the hardcore right-wing groups, so screw him. The Democratic view is that he has made nice with a few of the hardcore right-wing groups, so screw him. He is a pretty moderate guy trying to paint himself as a conservative to win the Republican nomination, and it's obviously not working. But the most important issue with this guy seems to be that he freaks out if you piss him off. He gets angry and starts yelling at people and comes to them 10 minutes later and apologizes. It makes him seem like some unstable old kook, which he probably is. Did I say old? He's actually older than Reagan was when he ran for President, and that should scare the piss out of anyone.

So I guess my conclusion is this: if the Democrats don't do something incredibly stupid and nominate Hillary Clinton as their candidate, they own the 2008 presidential election. Maybe even if they do nominate Hillary. The Republican candidates are just so shitty.

At roughly the same point 4 years back, the leading Democratic candidates for the presidency were Hillary, Liebermann, and Gephardt, with Kerry, Edwards, and Dean in the backseat. A lot can change, and most certainly will change.

Odds On: Who will win the 2008 Presidential Election?

Hillary Clinton
2/1

Barack Obama
9/2

Rudy Giuliani
17/4

Fred Thompson
6/1

Mitt Romney
9/1

Mike Bloomberg
15/1

John Edwards
14/1

Al Gore
11/1

John McCain
16/1

Bill Richardson
40/1

Mike Huckabee
55/1

Chris Dodd
60/1

Ron Paul
55/1

Chuck Hagel
90/1

Dennis Kucinich
90/1

Wayne Allyn Root
100/1

Duncan Hunter
100/1

Ralph Nader
125/1

Jonathan "The Impaler" Sharkey
700/1

Stephen Colbert
800/1

Vermin Supreme
800/1

Lawrence Connor
800/1

Don Cordell
800/1

Jackson Kirk Grimes
900/1

Field
50/1

Alan Keyes announced that he's going to take another (3rd) try at the Republican nomination.

Yes, that would be the same Alan Keyes that Obama beat by 43% in the Senate race in Illinois a few years back.

And would this be the same Alan Keyes who got along great with his lesbian daughter until the press found out about her, and then he through her out of the house? Great man.

I think it's going to be Obama, but I would prefer John Edwards, especially now that he's stopped giving a fuck and become so entertainingly blunt and straightforward.

Edwards lost me when he was touting the poor thing while building a 100K ?square foot house next to the trailer park.

I can't point to all the points that I saw as hypocrisy, but imo, he's a hypocrite.

How should one demonstrably give a fuck about the poor?

Relative to the top 1%, it could be argured that the rest are poor simply because the rich are so much richer than everyone else.

Edwards lost me when he was touting the poor thing while building a 100K ?square foot house next to the trailer park.

I can't point to all the points that I saw as hypocrisy, but imo, he's a hypocrite.

Well, not to be a dick, but that's not actually what hypocrisy means, you know.

Thanks Time Magazine: (http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1657558,00.html)


Another challenge is that much of the attention he's gotten recently has been the unflattering kind, stories that question his sincerity and assail his image as a fighter for the little guy by focusing on his pricey haircuts, huge house and hedge-fund job. These viral attacks, spreading from the Drudge Report and other blogs to newspapers everywhere, make a dumb argument. They assume that someone who's wealthy can't be a sincere advocate for poor and working people. By that logic, the healthy can't speak on behalf of the sick, or whites on behalf of people of color. But in politics, of course, dumb arguments can hurt you, which is why some Edwards aides urged him not to build such a big house. Their effort failed because the Edwardses—having battled cancer and lost a son, Wade, in an automobile accident 11 years ago, when he was 16—wanted to enjoy the luxuries they could afford. "We live our lives," says Elizabeth. "We're not pretending to be anything we're not. People have said, Don't do this or that. How would it look? But I honestly don't know how much time I've got. So we're going to live our lives."

Here's what would truly be hypocritical: if Edwards spoke out on behalf of the disadvantaged while pushing policies that benefit the rich. This he does not do. He favors boosting the capital-gains tax rate for families earning over $250,000 and closing the loophole that allows fund managers—like those at Fortress Investment Group, where he earned almost $500,000 in 2006—to get taxed at just 15%. "He wants to take money away from the people who paid him," says deputy campaign manager Jonathan Prince. "That's not hypocrisy. That's sincerity."

Does Edwards spending money on relatively-poorer people to provide services for him constitute hypocrisy? Should he unconditionally give all his money away and live as a poor person (e.g. Gandhi) to show real commitment, or would that just be a counterproductive handout? What's the good thing to do, and are there multiple good things?

I think the reasonable people can and do differ on what the right thing to do regarding the poor is, and hypocrisy is relative to that. This argument from Time:


Here's what would truly be hypocritical: if Edwards spoke out on behalf of the disadvantaged while pushing policies that benefit the rich.

is junk. It assumes you can't help the poor and the rich.

Maybe, but that's not the point of using that phrase. The point they're trying to make is that true hypocrisy would involve talking a lot of game about poor people but doing nothing at all to propose helping them.

And, iirc, he invested heavily into the company that foreclosed on poor peeps homes in New Orleans. He did divest after it hit the news. Thats my recollection anyway, and no it was not from FoxNews.

I heard a rumor that Gulianni outfitted the NYFD with lowsy equipment (similar to the crap we pulled in Iraq) before/during 9/11. Any truth to that?

And, iirc, he invested heavily into the company that foreclosed on poor peeps homes in New Orleans. He did divest after it hit the news. Thats my recollection anyway, and no it was not from FoxNews.

Anyone who's got a diverse 401k or money market account is almost certainly invested in one of those sub-prime lenders. Countrywide is a part of a fund that my own 401k uses, but I had to look that up to find out for sure.

I heard a rumor that Gulianni outfitted the NYFD with lowsy equipment (similar to the crap we pulled in Iraq) before/during 9/11. Any truth to that?

I know there were some heated words between him and the firefighters' union on this topic but I don't know the realness of it all.

Maybe, but that's not the point of using that phrase. The point they're trying to make is that true hypocrisy would involve talking a lot of game about poor people but doing nothing at all to propose helping them.
That's not hypocritical, though. "doing nothing at all to propose" implies that some sort of proposal is "action" rather than lip service. It's the contrast between words and deeds that defines hypocrisy. A hypocrite says he believes one thing, but does something contrary. To judge someone as hypocritical about the poor, you start from their stated beliefs on how to deal with the poor", then compare their actions conflict to their stated beliefs.

It's a fine point, to be sure.

The reason I care is because I don't see a lot of big-picture coherent thought and dialogue over "what to do for the poor", because the problem is so large and full of rat's nests. People get trapped in arguments about population control vs. 'all men are created equal', 'teach a man to fish' vs. 'give him fish', who's lazy and who's disenfranchised, etc. The bigger picture, the "what does it mean to be good human beings toward one another" part gets lost.

My $.02, FWIW (less and less all the time if I believe the exchange rates).

From what I've read, Hills health care doesn't look too bad. Quite a bit different than her previous attempt as first lady.

I never thought I'd say this but if we do have a dem as prez, my order has changed to ...

Hill
BO

I'm still with Rudy on the Republican side. I don't know enough about Thompson, Romney would prolly be ok.

I do think its many of you will be disappointed if Dem does take office and the troops aren't brought home immediately.

Tahoe, I think I'm just tired of some wishy-washy bullshit from Democrats. Take a stand for once, you know what I'm saying? Either say "yeah, the war should go on for as long as it takes" or say "this is nonsense and we start drawing down now." Let me know where you're coming from, speak on what you really think, with frankness and honesty.

I should say that I am a pacifist. A lot of people find that distasteful. Whatever. I'm against war in principle, so when I'm given a choice, I have to choose not to participate in it or contribute to it.

^Obama and Edwards have pretty much taken a stand on all the big issues. They follow their convictions and I can't see them flip flopping around.

I guess that's one thing I can say about Obama - I don't necessarily agree with him on some things, but at least I can trust that the guy is going to be straightforward with me about where he's coming from. That's a step in the right direction.

Swam...I get wishy-washy on the war thing too. I might be making excuses here but how in the hell am I supposed to know for sure whats going on over there? I don't get inside intel and don't have time to sift through all the speeches to tell who is telling the truth and who isn't. There is so much politics going on with this war too. O'Reilley is on this lil thing where if a Republican tries to gain political ground using the war, he points it out and same on the Dem side. Its too big of an issue to play politics with.

The one point that I am pretty sure of, is that we can NOT just leave that country(bypassing the "should we have went there in the first place" thing). And lots of Arab countries don't want us too, imo. I don't think Hill or BO will pull out of there once they get into office.

Can't we just lay down a new rule that says what you think about the war doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with which party you belong to? I think this would help everyone, but most especially, the Republicans. They are so harsh on people they perceive as being disloyal.

We need lawmakers to be free to speak without having to be bound to party platforms. We need some ideas for what to do about Iraq, and we need them yesterday. Joe Biden may be a crazy old creep, but at least he's got the idea of breaking Iraq up into 3 countries. That's at least some kind of plan.

It seems to me like what we need is a plan that doesn't have dependencies built into it. We need a plan that isn't too painful, we can get most of Congress to agree on it, and doesn't have any "if"s in it. It would say something like "from January through June, we spend X amount of dollars on Y project and mobilize troops with objective Z. Then we decrease our troop levels by 8%." Everyone is tired of going back to the goddamn drawing board and coming up with a new plan or a new general in charge every time something goes wrong. No more of that shit. We stick to a static game plan and stop changing the objectives. It's up to the Iraqis to adapt to new conditions, not the US government. And if they fail? Not our problem. We tried to help.

Speaking of redrawing the borders of Iraq, here's an interesting map I found that was produced by some military think-tank that shows what would happen if the borders of the Middle East were really set according to true political and ethnic boundaries.

The way it is now:
http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x147/dspiewak/afj.peters_map_before.jpg

The way it would be if it made any sense:
http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x147/dspiewak/afj.peters_map_after.jpg

Can't we just lay down a new rule that says what you think about the war doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with which party you belong to? I think this would help everyone, but most especially, the Republicans. They are so harsh on people they perceive as being disloyal.


I hate it that if you bash Bush and tell people we shouldn't even be in Iraq, that they say you aren't supporting the troops. BS. I support them, just not the idiots sending them there. I support Rod Maranelli, even if a dumbass GM gives him crap players to work with.

I'm sure %99 of Americans support the troops. There is just a large segment that doesn't allow their feelings about the troops to cloud their judgment of the war as a whole.

I hate it that if you bash Bush and tell people we shouldn't even be in Iraq, that they say you aren't supporting the troops. BS. I support them, just not the idiots sending them there. I support Rod Maranelli, even if a dumbass GM gives him crap players to work with.

I'm sure %99 of Americans support the troops. There is just a large segment that doesn't allow their feelings about the troops to cloud their judgment of the war as a whole.

That's exactly it. When you say you don't want the US in Iraq, a few people actually seem to be arguing that you're insufficiently emotional about US military strength. Bringing up "supporting the troops" or "9/11" seems to be a way of people to persuade you to be as irrationally emotional as they are.

But the point I was mainly trying to make is that if you're a Republican in Congress, there's a lot of pressure on you to vote the way the President wants you to vote. A few people are starting to push back now, but the Republican electoral machine is vindictive, and unless it's a tidal wave of opinion, some congressmen are going to be punished for speaking their minds.

And I feel the Dem candidates are just leading peeps along like they are going to get all the kids home for votes, when they're not.

They are both playing politics with this war. I will say that the Dems say 'end this war' more than I hear the Republcans say 'you aren't a patriot'.

Yeah, it's kind of the Democratic turn to exploit the Iraq situation. The Republicans aren't really going to get anywhere with the whole patriotism thing. It's not 2003 anymore.

Politicians love a war, it gives them enormous power and control. Republicans and Democrats. Once they are faced with being the beneficiary of all that power, are they really going to have the guts to shut it down? Honestly, I really do believe that the current aim of the war in Iraq is to keep the US at war in the Middle East forever. It satisfies so many important constituencies -

* Jewish Zionists and Christian fundamentalists are always up for a Middle East war. Zionists because they see anything Arab as a threat to their existence, and Christian fundamentalists because they're hoping that a good old-fashioned Armageddon is exactly the invitation Jesus has been patiently waiting for.
* The oil industry is waiting with bated breath for that "oil profit-sharing" bill to get passed in Iraq, because it requires the outsourcing of a great deal of their oil production at a handsome profit
* "Service companies" that specialize in providing military support - most of them are operated by former government and military executives
* Defense equipment contractors - ditto
* Pro-US factions within the Middle East, such as the Kurds
* I'm sure India would love nothing more than for the US to continue its pressure on Pakistan
* The Saudi royal family, who deliberately mismanage the country so that their subjects will never be strong enough or educated enough to displace them
* Old-fashioned American right-wing chauvinists who get erections thinking about American military adventures abroad
* Russia is more than happy to have an excuse to tell the US "I told you so" with regard to Chechnya and Afghanistan
* China loves to see the US go into debt, because our debt makes them money

All in all, as far as politicians are concerned, the war in Iraq is a roller-skating accident, but slowly they're wising up to the fact that it's the kind of roller-skating accident where someone got chocolate in their peanut butter.

_qSd70jkrQg

This is great news if true.

Kind of the reverse "Nader effect".


Christian Conservatives consider 3rd-party run

By RACHEL ZOLL, AP Religion Writer
1 hour, 9 minutes ago

Some of the nation's most politically influential conservative Christians, alarmed by the prospect of a Republican presidential nominee who supports abortion rights, are considering backing a third-party candidate.

More than 40 Christian conservatives attended a meeting Saturday in Salt Lake City to discuss the possibility, and planned more gatherings on how they should move forward, according to Richard A. Viguerie, the direct-mail expert and longtime conservative activist.

Other participants in the meeting included James Dobson, founder of the Focus on the Family evangelical ministry in Colorado Springs, Colo., and, according to Viguerie, Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council, a conservative policy group in Washington.

However, Dobson spoke out against the idea of a third party even if "both Democratic and Republican nominees are known to be entirely unsupportive of the sanctity of human life, the institution of marriage and other aspects of the pro-moral agenda," according to Gary Schneeberger, a spokesman for Focus on the Family Action.

A spokesman for Perkins did not respond to requests for comment Monday.

Viguerie would not give specifics of the proposal or reveal additional names of participants, but said President Bush "would not have been elected in '04 without the people in that room."

"There is such a jaundiced feelings about any promises or commitments from any Republican leaders," he said in a phone interview. "You could almost cut the anger and the frustration with a knife in that room it's so strong. Because they don't know what else to do, they're talking third party."

A spokesman for the Republican National Committee did not respond to a request for comment.

The participants were in Salt Lake City for a separate meeting of the secretive Council for National Policy, a group of conservative business, religious and political leaders that was co-founded years ago by Tim LaHaye, author of the "Left Behind" series of books. Vice President Dick Cheney flew into the city Friday to address the group, according to The Salt Lake Tribune.

Christian conservatives, who hold considerable sway in the Republican Party, have been deeply unhappy about the field of GOP presidential candidates.

Dobson has said he wouldn't support Rudy Giuliani, calling the former New York mayor an "unapologetic supporter of abortion on demand." Dobson has also rejected former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson as wrong on social issues, and wouldn't back John McCain because of the Arizona senator's opposition to a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

Viguerie said conservatives "are still open" to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, but said, "we haven't seen anything that guarantees that we will hold to the positions that he's articulating." Romney has been questioned about his record on gay rights.

However, the proposal to consider a third-party candidate comes from anger that the Republicans whom Christians have helped elect for decades have failed to act on policy issues important to evangelicals on abortion, marriage and school prayer.

"Conservatives have been treated like a mistress as long as any of us can remember," Viguerie said. "They'll have lots of private meetings with us, tell us how much they appreciate it and how much they value us, but if you see me on the street please don't speak with me."

A third-party run would be a long shot, requiring millions of dollars and challenges to ballot access. Such a bid could prove disastrous for the GOP by splitting the vote.

That dude has two headphone jacks on his walkman!

Any significant third party activity (on any side) will likely mean a plurality for the ultimate winner. Joy.

I'm strongly in favor of the Christian Dominion nutbags getting their own party, and if possible, their own planet.

And put the Moveon.org crowd on the same planet.

I consider myself a democrat, but I attend a church who pushes the same politcal agenda as all these right wing moral voters, and it really annoys me. I can never see where an issue such as abortion or gay rights could mean more to me than economic issues or foreign policy. It's almost like if President Bush was able to be elected for another term, they would try and vote for him just for the 2 Supreme court nominations he made.

This year will be a very interesting vote from that standpoint, as the republican usually gets the Nascar/biblebelieving/screwgaypeople vote. With the most bible thumping candidate being Hilary, will they vote for her or just prove my theory all along that they are republicans trying to get people to vote for a candidate based on one issue.

Careful Tahoe, bringing up the whole "moveon.org" meme betrays who you get your information from. To people on the left, moveon.org is an ineffective, pisswater dull ad agency. They're no more extremists than the damn Rotary Club.

Extremists look like this. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WA_xXWSXyFI) I mean, moveon.org isn't even as strident as Adbusters, (http://www.adbusters.org) and those guys just put out a magazine. This is just as goofy as that "Daily Kos is a hate site" meme.

And for reference, Daily Kos is a site where you can donate to Democratic candidates and share pictures of your cats. Honestly. It's dull as shit.

I was all for MoveOn's initial purpose, to push to have Clinton censured so we could all just "move on". At the time, there were actual terrorist things going on, and Clinton's efforts to react to them drew the "oh, you're just trying to distract us from Monica" reaction from many Repubs and pundits. Ever wonder how things might've gone down if Clinton had time to keep his eye on that ball at that time?

One thing's for sure - if a Democrat wins in 2008, they sure as hell need to at least suggest Bill for the State Department. His foreign policy game was top-notch. I still am amazed every time someone tells that story about how Bill schooled Ehud Barak and Yassir Arafat on the geography of Greater Jerusalem during the Camp David talks in 2000. He knew more about the neighborhoods of Jerusalem than they did.

Well if Hillary does win the WH, it'll be the first women in the oval office in a Clinton administration that is 'behind' the desk and not 'underneath' it.

Just saw a report where she raised 27 million dollars over the last quarter? Holy shit. Just yesterday everyone was putting Obama on the pedestal cuz of his 19m.

The Democratic race is over.

The race is over.


Fixed.

Prolly, but still not sure about that.

Just saw a report where she raised 27 million dollars over the last quarter? Holy shit. Just yesterday everyone was putting Obama on the pedestal cuz of his 19m.

The Democratic race is over.
Nah. Given how she pissed money away in her Senatorial re-election race (stupid amount of spending against an opponent who was never a threat), my sense is that Obama will get more bang for his buck than Hillary. Still, Hillary does appear to have a long penis.

Obama, Edwards and Richardson pull out of Michigans primary cuz Mich peeps set the date too early.

Republican Presidential Nomination

RCP Average: Giuliani +10.7%
Giuliani
30.2%
Thompson
19.5%
McCain
13.0%
Romney
11.2%

Democratic Presidential Nomination

RCP Average: Clinton +25.6%
Clinton
48.2%
Obama
22.6%
Edwards
11.6%
Richardson
3.4%

President Bush Job Approval

RCP Average: Spread -27.8%
Approve
34.0%
Disapprove
61.8%

Congressional Job Approval

RCP Average: Spread -43.6%
Approve
24.6%
Disapprove
68.2%

The peeps who responded about Job Approval prolly had about the same amount of disgust as Tommy LaSorda did when asked about Kingman.

"What do i think of his performance?

refer to the Meltdown thread in Other Sports forum, if you are wondering wtf I'm talking about.

I was just wondering what some of you thought of Ron Paul. I've been watching some of his clips and he raises some good points.

Ron Paul is a racist. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/15/124912/740)

wow..........okay, thanks

DailyKos. I don't believe shit they post. They post things that are posted somewhere else as 'reported', or get things off blogs and call it news. They quoted some white supremicist douche bag for chrissakes.

If you are serious about Paul, don't let DK sway you one way or the other about him or any other candidate.

I don't believe things posted at WTFDetoit.com. They are like, linked or something. Yuck.

If I don't talk to the candidate directly I give no credence to their statements. As of now I am voting for John Engler who I once watched wash his hands after using the pisser in the Amway Grand Plaza. Responsible leader.

If you link to something credible, fine, but these posers are laughable.

I'm sorry, I can't see your eyes as you talk. You could be a blogger.

Not a problem

If you link to something credible, fine, but these posers are laughable.

The things people say should be examined on their merits. Not based on whether or not you think they are a bunch of jokers. The dumbest, lamest, most dishonest goofs in the world can still be right about something.

I weep for us because of the candidates that are assembled.

Can we not have one decent person run for office.

I dont remember who said and I am too lazy to go back and read it, but I also am amazed by the assholes on both sides that let abortion, gay marriage and shit like that be their #1 cause for concern and it is not the economy, healthcare and foreign policy as the #1 problem.

Not 1 good fucking candidate.

I voted for Clinton x 2. I thought he was the best candidate and I really dont care about the whole sex thing.

I wouldnt care about the whole cheating on your wife or being divorced for the Republicans if they didnt always constantly throw that shit in your face about having morals.

I throw up every time I look at the polls and see who is leading the race, because quite frankly they all suck.

In the end I will vote for Obama just because I dont know enough about him to be afraid of him yet.

Edwards

I saw a report where Michael Bloomberg may still run as an Independant. Get this, he has more money than all the other candidates combined.

I'm thinkin thats some real dough, right there.

Mitt Romney...


actually I don't give an F who the candidates will be, I'll probably just vote Republican...

Mitt Romney...
Mitt Romney's flip-flopped so much that he's everything you'd want, and everything you don't want, all in one candidate. He's the "say anything" candidate.


actually I don't give an F who the candidates will be, I'll probably just vote Republican...
Why, out of curiosity?

Mitt Romney's flip-flopped so much that he's everything you'd want, and everything you don't want, all in one candidate. He's the "say anything" candidate.


Why, out of curiosity?


Because the 2 main things I don't care for (abortion, gay marriage) are usually scolded by most Republicans...

Probably doesn't matter anyway, Michigan always votes for the Dems....

Doesn't help that Romney is Mormon, God knows how many wives he has/had.

Because the 2 main things I don't care for (abortion, gay marriage) are usually scolded by most Republicans...
That's not true with this crop of lead candidates.

McCain gets so confused he doesn't know what the fuck he said anymore, having said unscripted things that were pro-choice and pro-gay marriage, then back to the party line when reminded that he can't be a maverick Republican anymore.

Giuliani is pro-choice and pro-gay civil union.

Romney said he was to the left of Ted Kennedy on such matters then flipped.

The second-tier candidates who do have your position on abortion and gay marriage have other big issues.

Well, as long as Barack isn't in office, I'm fine.

Romney did flip to get elected in liberal Mass. Not saying its a good thing but he does NOT and will not support any abortion measures.

Romney did flip to get elected in liberal Mass. Not saying its a good thing but he does NOT and will not support any abortion measures.
Reagan supported pro-choice in California, but became pro-life. Bush Sr. was pro-choice when running against Reagan. McCain got soft-headed on the issue after 2000 (perhaps that swelling on his jaw is him trying to pull a Maxiell?). It's an ugly pattern.

I respect (though may not like or agree with) the politicians who do what they say they will do. That doesn't mean they can't evolve or shouldn't evolve in the face of new data. But, these 180 degree swings on big-time moral issues (or 360 degrees if you're Jason Kidd) tag them as opportunistic scum. And, I've said the same about Gore and his sudden swing away from pro-life, in case anyone thinks I pick on Republicans too terribly much. The only adults I've ever known who truly have some kind of radical epiphany on such matters are politicians and religious figures.

I remember a Michigan where some of the the biggest pro-choice people were Republicans (e.g. Milliken) and some of the biggest pro-lifers were Democrats (e.g. Kildee). <sigh>

I don't feel there is anything wrong with (lets take Romney as an example) who is running for office and says..."I am against abortion but the state polls show that you are in favor of gay marriage so I will support it."

Is there really anything wrong with that? I'm not saying that is what happened, but if the peeps believe him/her, is that considered flip flopping?

Watch out for youtube Hill

qggO5yY7RAo

I don't feel there is anything wrong with (lets take Romney as an example) who is running for office and says..."I am against abortion but the state polls show that you are in favor of gay marriage so I will support it."
I had to squint at this for a second, because it initially hurt my head.

Those two issues, abotion and gay marriage, aren't paired as conveniently. Overall, the country is pro-choice but not pro-gay marriage. California passed its "no gay marriage" bill to the tune of 61% in 2000, quite similar to Michigan passing its "no gay marriage" bill with 58% in 2004.


Is there really anything wrong with that? I'm not saying that is what happened, but if the peeps believe him/her, is that considered flip flopping?
In my book, I don't really give a fuck about how they feel. I care about what they do and being consistent with what they said they will do. Either they say they'll stick to the law of the land and won't attempt to change it once in office, or they will attempt to change it, and then they should describe how, with some functional detail, and do that if they're elected.

Using Romney as an example is problematic. Romney's taken at least two different mutex positions about abortion just in the past three months, never mind what he said back when he was running for office in Massachusetts:

- states rights, the right for states to decide on abortion
- federal constitutional amendment banning abortion

I didn't intend to get into the issues but tried to use one as an example and then I used a different one in the next sentence. My bad. Cut me a lil slack mxy I'm not a very good writer.

For the sake of argument, I could have used raising taxes, what to do with SS, etc. Again, pick any candidate...candidate X...


My point in the form of a question was 'is it ok for a candidate to say, "I want to raise taxes (using taxes as the example issue) but the country doesn't want taxes raised, so I'm not going to raise your taxes" is that ok? You said yes. Thats all I was getting at.

So if a candidate runs as Governor and his views fit the views of the peeps, let it be known. If the Gov moves on to the national stage, I wish they'd have the balls to say "I support X, but you dont want it so I'm will NOT support X. They always try to bullshit us like what they say is what they really believe.

I remember Carter Mondale, and Mondale just finished a speech and everyone was cheering and he turned to his partner on stage and said "If they only knew we were going to tax the hell out of them?

Tell the truth. Rudy didn't change, Obama hasn't, not that sure about Edwards, but who knows what the fuck Hillary really thinks.

As long as Obama is not in office, I'm satisfied.


Since this will be the first time I'll ever have the chance to vote for a President, I'll probably just stick w/ the Good Ol' Republicans..

Romney is my first choice

What's wrong with Obama?

What's wrong with Obama?


everything

People have been banned here for less.

I didn't intend to get into the issues but tried to use one as an example and then I used a different one in the next sentence. My bad. Cut me a lil slack mxy I'm not a very good writer.
NP.


My point in the form of a question was 'is it ok for a candidate to say, "I want to raise taxes (using taxes as the example issue) but the country doesn't want taxes raised, so I'm not going to raise your taxes" is that ok? You said yes. Thats all I was getting at.
It's ok to say that as long as they say it with clarity that goes beyond a slogan, and they actually do what they say they will do when in office. If they're going to change in mid-stream on important issues, they better have a darn good reason why, one that stands the test of time and doesn't come across as a jerky, pandering flip-flop.


So if a candidate runs as Governor and his views fit the views of the peeps, let it be known. If the Gov moves on to the national stage, I wish they'd have the balls to say "I support X, but you dont want it so I'm will NOT support X. They always try to bullshit us like what they say is what they really believe.
There are a lot of people who can't/don't distinguish personal beliefs from what they'd do while in office. The "moral values" voter, as one example, can't imagine someone who says they're pro-life personally, yet would be anything other than that in exercising their professional duties.

Nuance in general is a hard thing to convey, almost by definition. Lots of folks are all too happy to laugh at "I voted for the bill before I voted against it", 'It depends on your definition of the word 'is' is", etc. Our government doesn't do simple things and doesn't run in simple ways. Marginalizing the people who try to explain the mechanics, especially if they goof, is typical. It's telling that "U.S. Government" is typically a 12th grade class, that you could get through high school and probably college without having to read actual text of a non-Constitutional law or SC judgement.

you could get through high school and probably college without having to read actual text of a non-Constitutional law or SC judgement.

thank you black baby jesus for that

everything

http://www.troyguillorypoweru.com/images/Artwork-TearsofaBlackMan-2.jpg

After Hills screw up at the last debate (according to Dems too) her camp now says that, yes, they planted question from an Iowa student in a Iowa town meeting.

Most are saying that shit don't play too well in Iowa.

Minor bump or more of a drop? She is deffinately still way ahead, but keep this up and she won't be.

I still like Edwards.

I wish he could make a surge, but he's fighting an uphill battle now.

Iowa is still 2 months away. I don't think anyone has won an election with her huge negative rating. Bush aprovals sucked and disaproval was high but that was job performance. He still didn't have her negatives.

The Dems I know are still concerned about getting behind her cuz of her negs. They aren't sure she can win it, no matter what the polls say.

But the thing is, she already has her negatives sown up. You don't get viewed more positively as a campaign continues, you get smeared, and all Hill has to do is pull the trigger at any time to sink an inflating opponent.

Her negative jumping off point is so high, I'm not sure her negs won't climb, if Edwards and BO keep hammering her and she stumbles here and there???

I saw this one poll where the number of undecided voters going into the booth was huge(27% or something). I thought most were decided going in. So take the 27 and almost half WON'T vote for you, and she won't get all the others(14%)so, its not a good thing.

But hey, she still is in the lead, so we'll see.

Maybe a few people haven't come to a conclusion about her, but if she adds another 4% of folks who haven't decided, I'd have to guess Obama and Rudy have 20% to give. I'm a "no way" in her column, and she's the only one I'd attach that to if asked (along with maybe McCain) because she's the only one I've paid any genuine attention to. Talk to me about Mike Huckabee long enough and I'm sure I'd refuse to support him as well.

I don't think anyone really "wants" to vote for Hillary Clinton. It's a lot less about what she supports than it is about who supports her. She's just a brand name that a lot of people can get behind. She represents Clinton™ brand politics, which is bland, insider consensus-building, just left of center. And the GOP will have her on her knees within a year and a half the exact same way they did her husband. If you plant a flag in the ground and say "Hey everyone, I'm all about consensus-building," the easiest way for your opponents to defeat you is by making you out to be a monster and refusing to even come to the table on even the tiniest bullshit.

If your brand of politics depends on agreement and compromise, your opponents can cripple you by doing gay shit like filibustering small appropriations bills for the US Geological Survey. The only recourse is to tighten your own party's ranks and buffalo the opposition, and suddenly everyone's saying "hey, I thought you were all about consensus building!"

Clinton sold himself as being the sensitive, agreeable, talk-to-everyone-before-I-make-a-decision kind of guy. The Republicans refused to play along (it would have been fantastic for the country if they did), and before too long he was frothing at the mouth and losing his ass in mid-term elections because suddenly he didn't appear to be the same guy he was before the elections. He was a genuinely nice guy, but they knew if they picked at him long enough, really got personal with him, Buffalo Bill would come out, and Buffalo Bill was the only Bill that ever got sound clips on the Limbaugh show. Right-wingers don't respond to consensus-building. They don't want what's best for the country. They want whatever makes them seem like winners, because there is nothing they hate more than a loser.

If Hillary wins, I guarantee you the same tactics are going to be tried all over again - first the "hurrr vince foster was murdered hurrrr" kind of rumors, then the absolute refusal to agree on everything from farm land regulation to school lunch promotional programs, and suddenly President Hillary has had it up to "here" and the Unpleasant Angry Hillary Face is plastered all over Fox News. Hillary: is she too shrill to be President?

If she's going to be able to get anything done at all, she had better have something more creative up her sleeve than this mealy centrist it-takes-a-village shit.

And the GOP will have her on her knees within a year and a half the exact same way they did her husband.
Well, not exactly. They took advantage of Bill Clinton's naivete, and relative lack of consensus going in the door. 57% of the people (including yours truly) didn't vote for Clinton in 1992, remember.

Barring a big 3rd party candidate (e.g. Bloomberg, the religious right), if she were elected, she'd get more of a % than Bill ever did. And, they can't take advantage of Hillary Clinton's past naivete, which did about all the damage it can do in the form of her demonization. Hillary has something much worse against her, though. She isn't half the politician that Bill is, despite being his #2 girl all these years. She doesn't have his diplomacy skills, power-wielding skills, or personal charm. Her ascendancy has been a well-choreographed novelty act.

She isn't half the politician that Bill is, despite being his #2 girl all these years. She doesn't have his diplomacy skills, power-wielding skills, or personal charm. Her ascendancy has been a well-choreographed novelty act.

So she's at #2 in the rankings now?

Who is his #1 girl? How about 3-10?

Wait, there's a separate thread for that, nevermind.

Good discussion guys, interesting reading.

CLINTON'S PLANTING STORY GROWS...The allegations that Hillary Clinton's campaign planted fake questions at public events has now grown into a major dispute in the Democratic race, drawing pointed attacks from the leading candidates.

On Monday afternoon, Barack Obama contrasted his freewheeling New Hampshire town halls to Clinton events that are "concocted by the candidate's staff." John Edwards said the practice reveals how Clinton is like George W. Bush, a message that hit home with Iowa voters in a blunt Des Moines Register headline "Edwards equates Clinton, Bush." Running a typical frontrunner strategy, the Clinton Campaign typically avoids singling out her rivals by name, but Edwards hit a nerve. The Clinton Campaign sent the attack right back at him, dispatching two spokespersons to accuse him of channeling Bush by dividing the country and attacking Democrats.
The traveling press corps initially missed the entire plant story, which was broken by college reporter Patrick Caldwell, but the press is digging into it now. The veteran AP scribe Mike Glover questioned Clinton about fake questions on Monday, the Washington Post's Shailagh Murray now says "the 'question' won't go away," and CNN's most viewed political video online is Clinton's "Planted question controversy." (For overall news videos, it still trails way behind "Sex offender decapitated.") And in the predictable rhythm of a media feeding frenzy, MSNBC has now dubbed this story "Plant-Gate."

But compared to the big issues, does any of this matter? Yes. This kind of critique, like lots of media criticism, reflects real concerns about our public discourse. As a "process" complaint, sure, it ranks lower than public policy. But how candidates relate to voters -- just like how they deal with the press or disclose information -- affects the electorate's ability to appraise them. To her credit, Clinton has personally promised that fake questions will "certainly not be tolerated." A source close to the campaign says she was surprised and outraged by the practice. But primary voters may not feel completely assured until they see her take more tough questions on the road.
NEWS UPDATE: Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff, one of the Grinnell students who asked a staged question from the Clinton Campaign, spoke to CNN today about the incident. In the interview, she explains how a Clinton operative showed her a list of "typed out questions" with one planned specifically for a college student. Gallo-Chasanoff told me on Saturday that the media attention had "just been an awful experience" and she wanted "nothing else to do with it." She added that she "officially hate[s] press people now, all kinds."

Zip as BO poll results rise, Edwards drop in Iowa. I think they are fighting for the same voter.

Just a general thought...Incumbent anything is going to be a target of voters. Congress' dismal aprovals, Bush is out anyway...blah blah blah.

TBS and UMXY...regarding Clinton Presidnc, he lost both houses in year 2 right? i think thats right, so he had to 'soften' his views, be more agreeable, etc. His presidnc would have looked differently, imo, if not for that.

TBS and UMXY...regarding Clinton Presidnc, he lost both houses in year 2 right? i think thats right, so he had to 'soften' his views, be more agreeable, etc. His presidnc would have looked differently, imo, if not for that.
There were major anti-incumbent vibes leading up to that. Perot won 19% of the vote (including mine) in 1992, and could've won more if he hadn't stopped campaigning near the end there. The Democrats lost seats in the House in 1992, too. With naive Clinton not having much of a mandate and fighting the entrenched House, the Republicans had a perfect stage for winning big in 1994.

PresiDNC -- cute.

New polling shows that, for the first time I remember, BO is ahead in Iowa. Hillary is 2nd.

Tight race - everyone wins in a tight race. More viable options.

New polling shows that, for the first time I remember, BO is ahead in Iowa. Hillary is 2nd.

WTF do you know about polling?

What does any Michigan fan know about polls?

What do you know about WTF polling?
Fixed, in light of Tahoe's poll setup troubles and voting for the Lakers.
:)

Tahoe, you forgot to display the results of the poll.

Sorry, had to :D

Iowans only


Who is most trustworthy?

BO 31%
John Edwards 20%
Hillary 15%
Bill Richardson 13%

Who has the best chance of getting elected Prez in 08?

Hillary 39%
BO 25%
Edwards 22%
Bill Richardson 2%

Gore stepped off, but should he have?

Gore can come back next time around and soundly beat ass. This time, he'd still have competition. He needs to stay out of it this time around so that people respect him forever.

barak leads in iowa among democrats certain to vote in the primary. right now iowa is do or die. if he wins iowa, new hamshire is just 5 days later and he could get them both.

im not even that much of a fan of his anymore, but boy would that be impressive if he won running a clean campaign.

fuck hilary "lobbyists speak for someone" clinton.

Odds On: Who will win the 2008 Presidential Election? Vote on who will win the 2008 Presidential election.

Hillary Clinton
5/2

Barack Obama
7/2

Rudy Giuliani
5/1

Fred Thompson
10/1

Mitt Romney
9/1

John Edwards
12/1

Al Gore
40/1

John McCain
6/1

Newt Gingrich
30/1

Bill Richardson
45/1

Tommy Thompson
100/1

Mike Huckabee
9/1

Sam Brownback
200/1

Ron Paul
8/1

Jim Gilmore
50/1

Joseph Biden
60/1

Chris Dodd
60/1

Mike Gravel
60/1

Chuck Hagel
100/1

Dennis Kucinich
70/1

Wayne Allyn Root
125/1

Duncan Hunter
120/1

Ralph Nader
150/1

Jonathan "The Impaler" Sharkey
700/1

Stephen Colbert
225/1

Vermin Supreme
800/1

Lawrence Connor
800/1

Don Cordell
800/1

Jackson Kirk Grimes
900/1

Tom Tancredo
80/1

Mike Bloomberg
75/1

Field
30/1

2 questions....

What are the odds for Dems/Reps being a prez?

And who will it be?

For me...

70/30 Dems

And its still 50/50 Hill BO, but put a knife to my throat and I'll say BO's mo continues and BO will be our next Prez.

I agree with Tahoe.

Seriously? Or are you just fuckin around?

2 questions....

What are the odds for Dems/Reps being a prez?

And who will it be?

For me...

70/30 Dems

And its still 50/50 Hill BO, but put a knife to my throat and I'll say BO's mo continues and BO will be our next Prez.
Being a fan of the Democrats is a lot like being a fan of the Lions. Whether they're a good team or a bad team, they will always find a way to fuck things up for themselves. There have been times where it seemed like the circumstances were so heavily in favor of a Democratic victory, but then some stupid bullshit gets pulled and the Democrats piss it away.

1980 - Carter runs for re-election, even knowing how unpopular he was. Why? I don't know. Maybe he just decided he wanted to be the king shit forever.

1984 - GOP runs Reagan for re-election, a dude with tons of personality and not much else. The Democrats run ... Walter Mondale. And a woman as his running mate.

1988 - Jeezus, do I even have to talk about the calamity that happened that year? The GOP picks the most sissified, effete, disconnected, privileged Ivy Leaguer they could come up with, and the Democrats respond with someone who looked like he was in a coma.

2000 and 2004 - With very serious elections on the line, the Democrats pick very strong candidates for both elections - Gore in 2000, Kerry in 2004. And somehow or another, neither of them managed to grow big enough balls to take down what was easily the dumbest candidate to run for president since Grant. They had plenty of opportunity. George Bush, the candidate of tort reform and personal responsibility, used the court system to sue his way into the Presidency after personally destroying his GOP opponents in the primaries. And then he used a "privately funded" issue PAC to personally destroy his 2004 opponent, a renowned war hero, who was apparently so surprised by the rough-and-tumble nature of presidential politics that he never found the balls to fight back.

Seriously? Or are you just fuckin around?
Seriously. I agree with your odds on the candidates and your odds on the Democrats winning.

And I agree with Big Swami, for the most part. By all rights, the Democrats should have this one in the bag, be the prohibitive favorites. But they're the disorganized party and have manage to pull defeat out of the jaws of victory time and time again.

The Gary Hart failures of the 1980s were sad.

Gore was never particularly strong to me. Both the big candidates in 2000 just weren't doing the job that they were best at doing. Gore's finally figured out his calling and is a journalist. Bush's first best destiny should've been as commissioner of baseball.

Bush's first best destiny should've been as commissioner of baseball.

He'd be too sympathetic to their drug problems, IMO

What I find amazing is how the Democrats other than Bill in 92 have never found a way to deal with mud being thrown at them. Dukakis was the card caring member of the ACLU (read communist part cerca 50's) who freed Willie Horton, Gore was arrogant enough to have said he actually invented and Kerry never deserved his Silver Star. It's as though they never see this coming and are in such a state of shock they and their teams of experts have no clue what to do.

Edit: talking about recent election I mean.

This election is kind of reminding me of 76. A relatively unknown Peanut farmer comes from relatively nowhere and wins. In large part, due to Nixon, but peeps were sick of all the corruption.

If the war is in peeps craw enough, this could be the same reaction. New blood, someone relatively unknown to America and DC takes over. Meaning BO

used relatively 3 times. :)

And...that is a good post by Swam.

McCain and HillBilly suck equally for giving speeches.

This election is kind of reminding me of 76. A relatively unknown Peanut farmer comes from relatively nowhere and wins. In large part, due to Nixon, but peeps were sick of all the corruption.
The difference is that Obama is a LOT more politically savvy and charismatic than Carter was. Carter got through the primaries the same way McCain did... winning pluralities in a crowded field, winning only by a little against a weak incumbent. What Obama is doing is something else!

The Dems voted on the blueprint to raise taxes on peeps making as little as $31k. Hill and BO included.

More good news for the Reps

It's a non-binding resolution, and doesn't mean squat. McCain flip-flopped in voting for it when he was against it years ago, and that doesn't mean anything. No one opposes the Bush tax cuts for the middle class, but a majority oppose for the wealthy.

I know it doesn't mean shit as far as the actual budget goes, thats why I said its a blueprint. But if they took the time to go there to vote on it, it does have some meaning coming into an election.

The economy is hurting and they want to take more money away from American taxpayers making 31k a year.

Thats multiples of fucking stupid to me.

You do understand that all they said was "no, we don't want to keep ALL the Bush tax cuts". That's all the vote was about. Let me re-spin this in some equally-meaningless dogmatic Democratic speak:

The economy is hurting, the budget is in the shitter, and they want to give tax cuts to the wealthiest American taxpayers making over 100k a year.

That's multiples of fucking stupid to me.

Yes, I understand that but thought I'd put in equally meanlingless Republican speak.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105994/Presidential-Candidates-Weaknesses-Depth.aspx

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105994/Presidential-Candidates-Weaknesses-Depth.aspx
Nice article.

Bottom Line

The responses give an interesting initial indication of the potential vulnerabilities of these candidates in the general election. There is a notable difference in the negative perceptions of the candidates held by those most opposed to each one becoming president. The most prevalent criticisms leveled against Obama and Clinton are all personal in nature: trustworthiness, likability, experience, and family connections. By contrast, the top criticisms of McCain are all more policy oriented: Iraq, associations with Bush, and being a Republican.

If a Republican wins this election, the Dems will definately have egg on their face.

Mxy spun this the last time I posted this and I'm sure I'll get it again, but its amazing that McCain is polling the way he is vs either Dem candidate.

The Dems should be winning this thing by at least double digits.