|
dingus
Dec 16, 2006, 7:13 AM
Post #1 of 17
(619 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17347
|
Clinton/Obama vs Powell/McCain (in that order)
for the title
Would blow the doors off all glass ceiling, ethnic what have you's and really give us Americans a chance at some middler of the road politics.
Whaddaya think?
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Dec 16, 2006, 9:45 AM
Post #2 of 17
(611 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
I think that in another 4 years, Obama would be a viable (even strong) candidate. As it is now, he's a junior Senator from a midwestern state who has never held a chief administrative role ever before, in any capacity.
In 2012, depending on where he stands on various issues, I could vote for the guy. But not in 08. Just too new at national politics.
I also can't seem to reconcile Hillary Clinton with "Middle of the road policies", but if you think so, then that's what matters.
(This post was edited by reno on Dec 16, 2006, 12:33 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
warthog
Dec 16, 2006, 9:48 AM
Post #3 of 17
(610 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 28, 2005
Posts: 78
|
Yeah, count on the Democrats to run the only candidates who could lose to a Republican.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Dec 16, 2006, 10:55 AM
Post #4 of 17
(605 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 18043
|
dingus wrote: Clinton/Obama vs Powell/McCain (in that order) for the title Would blow the doors off all glass ceiling, ethnic what have you's and really give us Americans a chance at some middler of the road politics. Whaddaya think? DMT
Interesting. For practical reasons, I don't think we'll ever see those particular match ups--i.e., Powell won't run and McCain will not settle for the #2 spot. For philosophical reasons, I don't care for Hillary--she's no "middle roader" as you put it.
Here's what I would like to see.
Gore/Richardson vs Giuliani/?????
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Dec 16, 2006, 11:50 AM
Post #5 of 17
(598 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
warthog wrote: Yeah, count on the Democrats to run the only candidates who could lose to a Republican.
Exactly right. I wonder if the strategy sessions for the DNC ever have the following line:
"So, the current version of the GOP is the most corrupt, vile, radical organization since McCarthyism ran amok. Who do we have that's worse? That's our pick."
Why the Dems can't beat the Repubs is just beyond me. It shouldn't be THAT hard.
|
|
|
|
|
coopershawk
Dec 17, 2006, 6:03 AM
Post #6 of 17
(580 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 23, 2004
Posts: 210
|
oh, they'll find a way to botch it, or at least run candidates who'll polarize parts of the voting community, rather than unifying it. It shouldn't be that hard, but it will be.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Dec 17, 2006, 6:51 AM
Post #7 of 17
(579 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
New DNC slogan?
"Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory, One Election at a Time."
Said it before, will say it again: Each party runs on the premise that the other party is worse; ironically both parties are doing a good job of proving the other correct.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Dec 17, 2006, 10:17 AM
Post #8 of 17
(568 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 18043
|
reno wrote: warthog wrote: Yeah, count on the Democrats to run the only candidates who could lose to a Republican. Exactly right. I wonder if the strategy sessions for the DNC ever have the following line: "So, the current version of the GOP is the most corrupt, vile, radical organization since McCarthyism ran amok. Who do we have that's worse? That's our pick." Why the Dems can't beat the Repubs is just beyond me. It shouldn't be THAT hard.
reno,
I truly think the problem is with how the candidates are currently selected. The primary system sucks and rarely results in the best candidate being the party's nominee. The primary system also makes the nominating convention a total joke--since we already know who the candidate will be before the thing is ever held.
I'd love to go back to the good-old days of chosing the party candidates in voting held on the convention floor, without those casting the votes being obligated to vote for any particular candidate before they even get to the convention hall. I think the current system has eliminated some of the vital "back room" politics that used to go on at the conventions where, among other things, electability of each candidate was probably considered.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Dec 17, 2006, 10:24 AM
Post #9 of 17
(563 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
curt wrote: reno, I truly think the problem is with how the candidates are currently selected. The primary system sucks and rarely results in the best candidate being the party's nominee. The primary system also makes the nominating convention a total joke--since we already know who the candidate will be before the thing is ever held. I'd love to go back to the good-old days of chosing the party candidates in voting held on the convention floor, without those casting the votes being obligated to vote for any particular candidate before they even get to the convention hall. I think the current system has eliminated some of the vital "back room" politics that used to go on at the conventions where, among other things, electability of each candidate was probably considered.
Curt:
I think your statement above has a lot of merit, but I also think that a fundamental shift in the stance of each party has also led to some damage.
After all, John Kerry was viewed as having a high level of "electability" and Bill Clinton was not. :)
Each party is moving to either end, in a vain attempt to balance the OTHER party's move to the end. On one hand, you have the GOP reaching out to the fundy Christians by picking uber-religious folks like President Bush, and the other hand has Representative Pelosi with her radical left-wing views. Bush thinks he has to be far right to balance out the far left. Pelosi believes she has to be far left to balance out the far right. 
There is a middle ground. Clinton found it. So did Bush Sr.
And the party that finds their way back to it first will win.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Dec 17, 2006, 11:33 AM
Post #10 of 17
(554 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 18043
|
reno,
I don't know anybody who thought Kerry was electable. In fact, he is a prime example of how the primary system failed the Dems. It's fairly well established that only a moderate Democrat who can carry the "swing" states can win the presidency--and a liberal Democrat from New England is pretty much the diametric opposite of that.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Dec 17, 2006, 3:31 PM
Post #11 of 17
(530 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 26, 2002
Posts: 13102
|
I wanna see Obama become president. The press will nickname him Obama Sin Laden.
|
|
|
|
|
imnotclever
Dec 18, 2006, 7:34 AM
Post #12 of 17
(509 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2003
Posts: 10000
|
Let's just avoid these surnames:
Clinton
Gore
Dole
Bush
I don't know why the press loves Obama so much. The night he was elected they were saying he'd be a potential presidential candidate.
But I do think you have a better chance the less well known you are. Govenors have a better shot than senators, because senators have national baggage while govenors are only locally known. So Obama might be better now than later, when people have formed opinions of him.
I know I have opinions of many senators already.
|
|
|
|
|
scrapedape
Dec 18, 2006, 12:27 PM
Post #13 of 17
(488 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 23, 2004
Posts: 2389
|
curt wrote: Interesting. For practical reasons, I don't think we'll ever see those particular match ups--i.e., Powell won't run and McCain will not settle for the #2 spot. For philosophical reasons, I don't care for Hillary--she's no "middle roader" as you put it. Here's what I would like to see. Gore/Richardson vs Giuliani/????? Curt
I like Richardson on the issues, and he seems like a smart guy. How is he in front of the camera?
I often hear the "extreme liberal" accusation leveled at Hillary Clinton, and I never understood why. As someone who is fairly immersed in "liberal" politics, I can tell you that she does not have that reputation among most liberals. That said, I've seen poll numbers on her that show vast numbers of people would never, ever vote for her. Regardless of whether I consider her "liberal" tag justified, it is clear that a too many voters do. For that reason alone I think she would be a poor choice.
On the Republican side, how about Chuck Hagel?
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Dec 18, 2006, 12:49 PM
Post #14 of 17
(484 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17347
|
scrapedape wrote: I often hear the "extreme liberal" accusation leveled at Hillary Clinton, and I never understood why.
Its what they've been instructed to say of course. The view certainly can't be supported by her voting record. No subsidence to the charge at all, more like
ELECT NOT HILLARY LEST YE ELECT A (GASP!) LIBERAL!!!!1111
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
scrapedape
Dec 18, 2006, 1:44 PM
Post #15 of 17
(475 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 23, 2004
Posts: 2389
|
dingus wrote: scrapedape wrote: I often hear the "extreme liberal" accusation leveled at Hillary Clinton, and I never understood why. Its what they've been instructed to say of course. The view certainly can't be supported by her voting record. No subsidence to the charge at all, more like ELECT NOT HILLARY LEST YE ELECT A (GASP!) LIBERAL!!!!1111 DMT
|
|
|
|
|
chazc
Dec 18, 2006, 2:56 PM
Post #16 of 17
(465 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 7, 2006
Posts: 16
|
Obama will never ammount to anything. When asked what he thought about the situation in Iraq he gave a supurfulous responce about how he loved being an American. If Hillary runs the Republicans will win in a landslide.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Dec 18, 2006, 6:46 PM
Post #17 of 17
(446 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 18043
|
dingus wrote: scrapedape wrote: I often hear the "extreme liberal" accusation leveled at Hillary Clinton, and I never understood why. Its what they've been instructed to say of course. The view certainly can't be supported by her voting record. No subsidence to the charge at all.... DMT
Subsidence, eh? Have I really sunk that low?
According to the Washington Times:
The Washington Times editorial page would like to add its two-cents' worth by reviewing Mrs. Clinton's first years in the Senate and comparing her voting record to the record of liberalism's unquestioned standard-bearer, Teddy Kennedy, who would be proud to say that he has never been mistaken for a "Northeastern centrist." What do you know? The unquestionably liberal voting records of these two Northeasterners are virtually indistinguishable.
The Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), the self-styled premier liberal organization that issues annual congressional voting ratings by tallying the votes cast on its 20 most important issues, has given Mrs. Clinton scores (ADA cleverly calls them "liberal quotients") of 95 percent for each of her first three years. Mr. Kennedy's ADA ratings have been 100 percent (2001 and 2002) and 95 percent (2003).
She sure sounds pretty liberal to me.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
