OT (Politics): Who will be the Democratic Presidential Nominee in 2008? [Archive]

View Full Version : OT (Politics): Who will be the Democratic Presidential Nominee in 2008?

flere-imsaho

03-13-2006, 09:52 AM

The New York Times had a big article (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/magazine/312bwarner.html?ei=5070&en=26000c1450100c41&ex=1142398800&pagewanted=print) on Marc Warner this weekend, a lot of which talked about how the Democratic establishment is falling into line behind Hillary Clinton already, which I think it a big mistake.

But it got me to thinking, so let's play some early speculation:

Who WILL (not should) be the Democratic Presidential Nominee in 2008?

(Poll to follow)

Kodos

03-13-2006, 09:58 AM

I personally like her, but I'd rather see Edwards run. Or even Obama.

vtbub

03-13-2006, 10:11 AM

She is not the best choice.

JPhillips

03-13-2006, 10:13 AM

I like Warner, but Hillary will be hard to beat in the primaries. If she can take almost all the Black vote, which seems likely, nobody else has much of a chance.

stevew

03-13-2006, 10:15 AM

I'll vote Bayh, i think the Dems will try to push that whole midwest values spiel, and he seems like a guy that would fit their demographics well. Match him with some lefty VP canidate, and their ticket is pretty appealing. Out of the group that I'd like to see win. probably Warner would be my favorite. He's gonna have to spend a crapload of cash to get his name out there if he wants to have a chance at winning.

Honolulu_Blue

03-13-2006, 10:28 AM

Hillary Clinton would be a horrible nomination. I think she's a polarizing figure. I think she'll get people who would normally wouldn't just because they don't like her. Given the current state of U.S. politics almost any presidential election will be ugly and polarized, but I think Hillary would further energize conservatives. Hell, as pathetic as it sounds, I
imagine there would be a not unsiginificant (double negative BABY!) number of people who would get out to vote just to vote against a woman, Hillary not withstanding. Hillary is a polarizing force. It will
not end well.

I kind of like the idea of Gore coming back. People could have sympathy for him because they feel like he was robbed in 2000. From the sound of it he's a bit more personable. I can't say for sure, because I haven't followed him all that closely.

Crapshoot

03-13-2006, 10:33 AM

Butter

03-13-2006, 10:35 AM

I would get wholeheartedly behind Evan Bayh. I've liked him ever since the beginning of his political career. But I have a hard time believing he could get the nomination.

I think Clinton, Edwards, or Gore would be most likely. Obama needs to wait another election or two before giving it a go.

Kodos

03-13-2006, 11:10 AM

I've always liked Gore. He's a bright guy, if a little wooden. But would the democrats really be willing to give him another chance after losing against a lightweight like Bush?

MalcPow

03-13-2006, 11:18 AM

I think it's pretty much going to be Clinton, and I also think that people should not underestimate her ability to win a fight and the expectation factor. In a presidential campaign, with that much visibility, people are going to see she's not the maniacal baby-eating character she's been portrayed to be. People have had a lot of fun doing to her (myself included) what the left does to Dick Cheney (constantly snarling and angry oooh), but she is not that bad and is actually pretty personable. Depending on the right's nominee I would not be surprised to see her win convincingly, and I think she's at about 80% to be the nominee.

st.cronin

03-13-2006, 11:20 AM

No Dick Gephardt? He's a Dem I'd think about voting for.

GrantDawg

03-13-2006, 11:22 AM

Hillary gets the nom, but does not win. The Dems could win with the right canidate, but Hillary guarentees a loss.

kcchief19

03-13-2006, 01:31 PM

Hillary Clinton would be a horrible nomination. I think she's a polarizing figure.
The thing is, Hillary is almost equally galvanizing among Democrats as she is polarizing with Republicans. I disagree with the contention that she would spur more Republican voters to vote; the Republic Party has done a good enough job getting out its base through wedge issues like abortion and gay marriage. The Democrats need a candidate who can get out voters who stayed at home in '00 and '04 because Gore and Kerry didn't exactly rally the wagons. Add to that the overpowering fundraising advantage she would have, and it would be an interesting race. If Hillary runs, I don't see how she doesn't get the nomination.

The '08 election is going to be unique. Not since 1952 has the race not included an incumbent president or vice president -- I think conventional wisdom suggests no matter what illusions VP Cheney may harbor, he has no shot at the Republican nomination.

I still think that given the modern political landscape, the only Democrat who would win would have to be southern or midwestern. Bayh seems like a perfect choice, but he is such an unknown to so many voters that I don't know if he can pull it off. The benefit he has is that unless the Republican nominee is McCain, Guiliani or Frist (I give Condi a snowball's chance), the opponent will be equally unknown.

Raiders Army

03-13-2006, 01:38 PM

If Hillary ran, I would register and vote so that she wouldn't get elected. Too bad Dubai can't fund her campaign, but maybe they can channel the funds through Bill.

Honolulu_Blue

03-13-2006, 01:40 PM

If Hillary ran, I would register and vote so that she wouldn't get elected. Too bad Dubai can't fund her campaign, but maybe they can channel the funds through Bill.

See what I mean?

I think RA would have lots of company in this regard. I just don't see too many people counter-acting this, you know, claiming "If Hillary ran, I would register and vote just so she could be elected."

Subby

03-13-2006, 01:44 PM

Northeastern liberals are usually money for the dems - I don't see why you guys have a problem with Hillary running.

Raiders Army

03-13-2006, 01:48 PM

Honolulu_Blue

03-13-2006, 01:49 PM

Just trying to support your theories. :)

It's greatly appreciated. Keep it up. :)

Bee

03-13-2006, 01:50 PM

Swaggs

03-13-2006, 01:58 PM

I think the democrats need to stop running senators--it is too easy to criticize, distort, and pick apart a senator's voting records with all of the pork attached to votes.

My top choice would be Wes Clark. I think he is a man of high character that would be unifying and strong on foreign policy. Guys like Richardson, Warner, and Vilsack are probably capable of winning, if they can raise enough money. Richardson is an ideal candidate, in that he has experience as a governor, has experience working in the Clinton White House, is Hispanic, and represents a swing state/region, but he has a couple of negatives. He is not a very good-looking man (will look terrible on TV) and he has a George O'Leary-like lie on his resume (for years, he stated that he had been drafted by a MLB team and it was recently revealed that he was not).

BishopMVP

03-13-2006, 02:00 PM

Yup - I think Hillary will ensure the Republicans are funded through the next millenium. Warner seems like the dream candidate -a popular, southern governer, but it seems hard to stop the Hillary train.Agreed. Phil Bredesen of Tennessee is another governor that should get a hard look if Democrats care about getting elected. But have fun with that Hillary trainwreck.

2008: Just when you thought with Bush gone its safe to go back in the political waters, along comes an even more polarizing figure.

st.cronin

03-13-2006, 02:01 PM

Wes Clark would be a formidable choice. I think anybody else on that list would be a disaster.

BishopMVP

03-13-2006, 02:02 PM

My top choice would be Wes Clark. I think he is a man of high character that would be unifying and strong on foreign policy.Everyone I've ever heard with personal experiences around Clark describe him either as the most arrogant man ever or a f*ing nutjob. Did his best to start WW3 with Russia in Kosovo.

Bee

03-13-2006, 02:05 PM

Wes Clark would be a formidable choice. I think anybody else on that list would be a disaster.

I think Clark would have the best chance to win, but I think Edwards and Warner would have an outside shot depending on who the Republicans nominated. Otherwise, anyone else I think would be guaranteed losers.

Solecismic

03-13-2006, 02:05 PM

I've listened to Joe Biden talk a few times. I think he'd be an excellent choice. I'd definitely support his candidacy.

If Hillary gets the nomination, I'm voting Republican no matter who they put up. Unless it's Pat Robertson or some equally racist idiot.

There's something just evil about Hillary, and I can't quite place it. I suspect many middle-roaders feel the same way. And there's no question she'll raise money for the Republicans like no one past or present.

Knowing the Democrat leadership, though, they'll support her all the way. I think they like pissing people off more than they like winning elections.

I heard Clark speak during the last round of primaries here in NH. Very unimpressive. I don't think he can win.

Bee

03-13-2006, 02:14 PM

Young Drachma

03-13-2006, 02:17 PM

I don't think that Guiliani would contend on the GOP side and because there is no consensus candidate on the right, the Dems are going to get behind Hilary in the same way that people got behind Bush and even though he was polarizing, it didn't seem to make a different since he beat Kerry when it came down to it.

That said, all this Obama talk is just too premature. But he has sounded more and more like a candidate to me, the more I hear him, which makes me think he wants to be someone's VP pick, though...I am one of those folks who believes America will never have a President or a Veep with a name that no one can pronounce correctly at least not in our lifetime.

I am more interested in seeing how this year's midterm elections play out.

Senator

03-13-2006, 02:18 PM

Bayh or Edwards would be a good choice. Democrats who show centrist leanings do well.

Hillary is the only one that makes me cringe at the thought of, as she would ruin us in so many ways. I think a woman President would be fine, but not this one. She has the same look in her eyes that Idi Amin had when he began eating his people.

st.cronin

03-13-2006, 02:18 PM

Swaggs, good analysis on Bill Richardson. He's pretty much openly campaigning for the nomination right now, and from what I can tell he's got about as good a chance as anybody other than Hillary. He's an extremely odd duck - I find him impossible to take seriously as a governor, and think he'd just be pathetic as a presidential candidate.

Young Drachma

03-13-2006, 02:19 PM

I think Clark would have the best chance to win, but I think Edwards and Warner would have an outside shot depending on who the Republicans nominated. Otherwise, anyone else I think would be guaranteed losers.

Yeah, I know some insiders from when I was working in Oregon who were big Edwards people. I could see that train getting steam again, though, I dunno how far he could get.

The real issue is money. Clinton is going to come out of the gate with so much cash -- like Bush in 2000 -- that it seems unlikely that anyone can catch up.

Toddzilla

03-13-2006, 02:22 PM

I've always liked Gore. He's a bright guy, if a little wooden. But would the democrats really be willing to give him another chance after losing against a lightweight like Bush?He didn't lose.

JPhillips

03-13-2006, 02:24 PM

I used to think Obama didn't have a chance i n08, but I wonder if he has to run in 08 before he gets too much of a record as a senator?

Tigercat

03-13-2006, 02:27 PM

I have a strange hunch about Obama. Not only do I think he is the best candidate on that list, I think he is the best opporitunity, even in 2008. I would like to think that parts of the party will eventually be smart enough to realize that.

I would really enjoy having a Obama vs McCain race, would be terrific to go into a voting booth with a great amount of respect for both candidates.

Tigercat

03-13-2006, 02:29 PM

Dola, W. Bush paved the way for "Experience" not being a good (enough) attack on a candidate in 08. And frankly, I don't think it really hurt Edwards as much as some think it did.

Young Drachma

03-13-2006, 02:31 PM

Dola, W. Bush paved the way for "Experience" not being a good (enough) attack on a candidate in 08. And frankly, I don't think it really hurt Edwards as much as some think it did.

I can agree with that. Kerry got the nod over the war record and folks thinking that would beat Bush, but it was a miscalculation. I think Edwards would've fared better in those debates against Bush, simply because of his youth. Kerry and his divisive wife and their monied background made it hard for people to relate to them.

Not that Edwards ain't rich...

Anyway...Obama.. I dunno. I just don't think America's ready for a black president. I'd be flabbergasted to see it. And yes, I think people vote that way. Not that he's not qualified and hearing him on CBS Meet the press knockoff on Sunday told me that he's got something special. And that he'd better do something with it sooner than later.

But...I just dunno if I really can believe we're there yet. Especially with Hillary stockpiling money like China has political prisoners.

SFL Cat

03-13-2006, 02:38 PM

I think it will be Hillary. Probably the worst candidate the Dems could select. Personally, I can't stand the carpet-bagging woman, and I'm not entirely sure why she is so popular with the Dems. She certainly has none of the charisma Bill had. You knew Bill was dirty, but at least he was a charmer. Hillary just comes across as dirty political whore. She's also got a ton of baggage (both old and new) that will certainly be dredged up during a campaign -- not the least of which is how she condemned the UAE port deal while her hubby was essentially an "unofficial" paid consultant trying to help get the deal done.

Solecismic

03-13-2006, 02:44 PM

I never really felt Biden would make a good candidate. He's too longwinded and seems to get himself in trouble with some controversial sound bites that could kill him during a national election. Of course, any candidate would have to refine their approach for a presidential election.

Somewhere along the line, "longwinded" became the approved political synonym for "thoughtful."

The public seems to prefer shallow soundbyte candidates like Edwards. Makes me sick every four years. We're in Iraq because all the truly gifted leaders are eliminated long before the elections begin.

ISiddiqui

03-13-2006, 02:49 PM

Warner, I think, will pull it out. All the big money is on Hillary, true, but at this stage in the game, Phil Gramm was leading the money chase back in '95. It ain't over yet is all I'm saying.

Bee

03-13-2006, 02:52 PM

Somewhere along the line, "longwinded" became the approved political synonym for "thoughtful."

The public seems to prefer shallow soundbyte candidates like Edwards. Makes me sick every four years. We're in Iraq because all the truly gifted leaders are eliminated long before the elections begin.

I completely agree. I really don't like the way elections are decided today based on 30 second spots shown on FoxNews and CNN Headline News. Under these conditions, I think it really eliminates some candidates (from both sides) that would make very good presidents.

sabotai

03-13-2006, 03:00 PM

I used to think Obama didn't have a chance i n08, but I wonder if he has to run in 08 before he gets too much of a record as a senator?

I was wondering about this. After Kerry lost, I went and did some digging and found out that only 2 sitting senators have ever been elected to President (JFK and someone else), and really only a handful of other Presidents were senators at one point. The vast majority of Presidents were either Governors or came from the Military.

And with everyone coming out and yelling "He voted this many times against tax cuts", "He voted this many times for bigger government", "he voted this many times for higher spending" (with the amount of bills that go through the senate and the amount of different things in each bill, the numbers are extremely inflated and can be used in just any way possible, yet still technically correct)....I'm not sure a sitting senator can be elected to President anymore.

sabotai

03-13-2006, 03:01 PM

dola,

And if the Democrats want to complete their apparent plan to completly destroy their party, they'll nominate Hilary Clinton.

chinaski

03-13-2006, 03:09 PM

Im hoping for the Edwards/Feingold ticket.

flere-imsaho

03-13-2006, 03:31 PM

I don't think Hillary can win the nomination. She's extremely popular with certain segments of the Democratic Party, but I don't believe those segments are wide spread enough for her to win the nomination.

See, I think this is a big misconception. To win the nomination, a candidate needs the Democratic machine to get out their votes in the various primaries. Clinton has the support of much of the democratic establishment, who will be key in making this happen.

Plus, according to election law, she can roll any money she raises for her next Senate campaign straight into her Presidential campaign, while folks like Warner & Clark can't use their PAC money for their own campaign. Right now Clinton has $17 million in her warchest and some estimates show that she'll have upwards of $75 million available by the time the primary season starts.

I do think it will be Clinton who gets the nomination. Insider support + massive fundraising = nomination. And then she'll lose, unless the Republicans run someone completely and utterly useless.

Raiders Army

03-13-2006, 03:37 PM

This article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11726289 believes that Hillary will have $100 million by Fall 2007.

flere-imsaho

03-13-2006, 03:41 PM

JFK & Warren Harding are the only two senators do go directly to the White House, though I believe seven Presidents in all were senators (LBJ, for one).

Raven Hawk

03-13-2006, 04:24 PM

I think that you all underestimate the unifying power of Trout McFishy.

timmynausea

03-13-2006, 04:30 PM

Somewhere along the line, "longwinded" became the approved political synonym for "thoughtful."

The public seems to prefer shallow soundbyte candidates like Edwards. Makes me sick every four years. We're in Iraq because all the truly gifted leaders are eliminated long before the elections begin.

That is a great point.

No idea who the dem nominee will be, though. I really hope it's not Hillary.

flere-imsaho

03-13-2006, 04:46 PM

McFishy is clearly a contender here. :)

Abe Sargent

03-13-2006, 04:59 PM

I think the Democrats should try Russ Feingold. He's very liberal, so that makes their core happy. Happy core = campaign workers and dollars. He is also very respected by politicos, which shows he knows how to work the system. Even when bashing Bush's nominees, he was much more respectful, cordial, and logical than many of his fellow liberal senators. He's a liberal who makes sense. There are not a lot of those in this country, with its moderate, slightly right populace. The democrats would be foolish not to give him a hard look.

-Anxiety

Abe Sargent

03-13-2006, 05:01 PM

Dola -

Of course, personally, I thought Joe Lieberman should have been the democratic choice last time. He was the only candidate who could have beatnen Bush, in part because Bush had painted himself too conservative and not moderate enough, but Lieberman has a solid moderate record and rep. I think Joe could have grabbed the moderate vote fom Bush and won.

-Anxiety

st.cronin

03-13-2006, 05:23 PM

Abe Sargent

03-13-2006, 05:23 PM

uh, yeah, Feingold, the guy who has said we should not be spying on al-Qaeda. That'll play real well with independents.

Easily spun.

-Anxiety

BishopMVP

03-13-2006, 05:26 PM

I think the Democrats should try Russ Feingold. He's very liberal, so that makes their core happy. Happy core = campaign workers and dollars. He is also very respected by politicos, which shows he knows how to work the system.Look how many votes Feingold ends up on the short end of a 99-1 or similarly lopsided vote. While he may side with the voting base there, he clearly doesn't fit in with the fundraising base.

I think it's unfortunate because he seems like a good, principled man, but his unwillingness to compromise on certain issues - the Patriot Act comes to mind - effectively kill any presidential aspirations.

st.cronin

03-13-2006, 05:26 PM

Easily spun.

-Anxiety

spin away

chinaski

03-13-2006, 05:27 PM

Easily spun.

-Anxiety
...and completely fabricated. Feingold is against warrantless spying, eof.

Abe Sargent

03-13-2006, 05:29 PM

Look how many votes Feingold ends up on the short end of a 99-1 or similarly lopsided vote. While he may side with the voting base there, he clearly doesn't fit in with the fundraising base.

I think it's unfortunate because he seems like a good, principled man, but his unwillingness to compromise on certain issues - the Patriot Act comes to mind - effectively kill any presidential aspirations.

I think that's one of the things that is appealing to the people. I like it, and I'm a Republican.

-Anxiety

st.cronin

03-13-2006, 05:34 PM

chinaski

03-13-2006, 06:57 PM

BishopMVP

03-13-2006, 07:14 PM

I take it youre for letting any President of the US and his administration to evesdrop on anyone they want? Is it ok for the government to blindly record the calls of thousands of americans and then datamine what was said?I take it you've never heard of the Echelon program?

Suffice it to say with Feingold that his views on eavesdropping and civil liberties are well off from the average Americans.

st.cronin

03-13-2006, 07:22 PM

I don't know if Feingold carries a card, but the line that destroyed Dukakis ('card-carrying member of the ACLU) would work even better against Feingold.

I actually admire Feingold more than probably any other Senator: But he is NOT presidential material.

Glengoyne

03-13-2006, 07:29 PM

He didn't lose.

Moron

Sorry I couldn't resist.

I used to be a Gore supporter. I voted for him back in '88, and was hoping that he would run against Bush in '92. I was pretty ecstatic when Clinton selected him as VP.

I nearly voted for him in 2000. I was torn. I knew my vote wasn't going to matter much, being in CA, but he lost me down the stretch, especially in the debates. essentially I lost some respect for him when he started claiming responsibility for things like McCain-Feingold.

Then in the aftermath of Florida, the rhetoric he used just completely turned me off. He made me a Gore hater, and I had previously been a fan.

I really don't see how anyone can honestly come to the conclusion that Gore won the election or that it was stolen from him. I lump those that do in with the "blood for oil" folks...morons.

chinaski

03-13-2006, 07:36 PM

I take it you've never heard of the Echelon program?

Suffice it to say with Feingold that his views on eavesdropping and civil liberties are well off from the average Americans.
Id love it if Bush actually tried to use Echelon, that would mean hes actually going for some sort of transparency.

Raiders Army

03-13-2006, 07:49 PM

I used to be a Gore supporter. I voted for him back in '88, and was hoping that he would run against Bush in '92. I was pretty ecstatic when Clinton selected him as VP.
He's one of the most boring public speakers I have ever heard (I fell asleep and snored when he spoke at my college back in 1995) and his wife started the PMRC. That's two really big strikes in my book.

BishopMVP

03-13-2006, 08:14 PM

Gore's really gone off the deep end since he lost that 2000 election. I don't have them at hand, but I know I've seen some speeches of his that put him firmly in the Noam Chomsky/MoveOn camp. That kind of extremism is a surefire political loser.Id love it if Bush actually tried to use Echelon, that would mean hes actually going for some sort of transparency.He (or more precisely the NSA) is almost certainly using Echelon and other similar unnamed programs. But there is no need to announce that if no one is going to call him on it. I've kinda found the whole monitoring/FISA debate hilarious because I've had the impression for awhile now that the government is monitoring most calls and datamining them/keeping them for reference. Check out the EFF's recent lawsuit against AT&T regarding telephone recordings - if a single company can do that, imagine what the NSA has back there in West Virginia.

King of New York

03-13-2006, 09:58 PM

The nominee will be Hillary. And Allen, McCain, or Giuliani would beat her handily. Hillary is a very intelligent woman and she has performed well enough as a senator, but she will be a terrible campaigner. She lacks any semblance of human warmth on the stump, she condescends, and her voice is like a rusty chainsaw. Her presence in the race will energize discouraged republicans. Mark Warner would be a much better candidate, but I think, in an odd way, he'll be hurt by the John Kerry experience, even though he and Kerry are very different. A lot of democrats threw their support behind Kerry right before the primary season not because they liked the guy or knew much about him, but because they deemed him electable thanks to his Vietnam service. Well, that thinking blew up on the democrats because Kerry's service turned into a liability. This time out, I think that democrats are going to shy away from the candidate who is most electable (Warner), and instead opt to go down with their guns blazing.

-Mojo Jojo-

03-14-2006, 10:18 AM

I like Feingold. I lived in his state, I think he's a good man. But he's way, way too fringe to ever be President. He's about like Noam Chomsky. And that is not a fabrication, chinaski: It's a direct quote which went something like "the President should not be using his powers to spy on al-Qaeda." And even if he could explain that, he's probably got the worst record in Congress, both in terms of votes and quotes, on security. He's said many different things which each of them by itself would alienate a huge segment of voters.

Living in his state it is unfortunate that you've apparently listened to so little of what he has had to say. In what regard does he resemble Noam Chomsky? I'm curious... His votes and statements on security? I've read some of Chomsky's articles, and Feingold has nothing in common with them. Here are some excerpts from his statement of Oct. 9, 2002, on his vote to deny authorization for the Iraq war (full text here (http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/02/10/2002A10531.html)):

Both in terms of the justifications for an invasion and in terms of the mission and the plan for the invasion, Mr. President, the Administration's arguments just don't add up. They don't add up to a coherent basis for a new major war in the middle of our current challenging fight against the terrorism of al Qaeda and related organizations. Therefore, I cannot support the resolution for the use of force before us.

...

Mr. President, I want to be clear about something. None of this is to say that I don't agree with the President on much of what he has said about the fight against terrorism and even what he has said about Iraq. I agree post-9/11, we face, as the President has said, a long and difficult fight against terrorism and we must be very patient and very vigilant and we must be ready to act and make some very serious sacrifices. And with regard to Iraq, I agree that Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the President argues. And I agree, I support the concept of regime change. Saddam Hussein is one of several despots from the international community -- whom the international community should condemn and isolate with the hope of new leadership in those nations. And, yes, I agree, if we do this Iraq invasion, I hope Saddam Hussein will actually be removed from power this time.

...

But, Mr. President, I am increasingly troubled by the seemingly shifting justifications for an invasion at this time. My colleagues, I'm not suggesting there has to be only one justification for such a dramatic action. But when the Administration moves back and forth from one argument to another, I think it undercuts the credibility of the case and the belief in its urgency. I believe that this practice of shifting justifications has much to do with the troubling phenomenon of many Americans questioning the Administration's motives in insisting on action at this particular time.

...

But the relentless attempt to link 9-11 and the issue of Iraq has been disappointing to me for months, culminating in the President's singularly unpersuasive attempt in Cincinnati to interweave 9-11 and Iraq, to make the American people believe that there are no important differences between the perpetrators of 9-11 and Iraq.

Mr. President, I believe it is dangerous for the world, and especially dangerous for us, to take the tragedy of 9-11 and the word "terrorism" and all their powerful emotion and then too easily apply them to many other situations -- situations that surely need our serious attention but are not necessarily, Mr. President, the same as individuals and organizations who have shown a willingness to fly planes into the World Trade Center and into the Pentagon.

...

Will this idea of invading Iraq at this time, on this case, on these merits, help or hurt cooperation in our fight against terrorism, against the known murderers of Americans who are known to be plotting more of the same?

Mr. President, I'm especially dismayed at the weak response to the potential drain on our military capability and resources in our fight against terrorism if we go forward with this invasion at this time. The Administration likes to quickly say, whenever asked whether we can do this and fight the war against terrorism, they just simply say, "we can do both." There's no proof, there's no real assurance of this. I find these answers glib, at best.

...

Mr. President, we need an honest assessment of the commitment required of America. If the right way to address this threat is through internationally-supported military action in Iraq and Saddam Hussein's regime falls, we will need to take action to ensure stability in Iraq. This could be very costly and time consuming, could involve the occupation -- the occupation, Mr. President, of a Middle Eastern country. Now, this is not a small matter. The American occupation of a Middle Eastern country. Consider the regional implications of that scenario, the unrest in moderate states that calls for action against American interests, the difficulty of bringing stability to Iraq so we can extricate ourselves in the midst of regional turmoil. Mr. President, we need much more information about how we propose to proceed so that we can weigh the costs and benefits to our national security.

In Afghanistan, the government and President Hamid Karzai work under constant threat and instability plagues the country outside of Kabul. Many Afghan people are waiting for concrete indicators that they have a stake in this new Taliban-free future. The task is daunting. Mr. President, we've only just begun that task. What demands might be added in a post-Saddam Iraq?

I do believe that the American people are willing to bear high costs to pursue a policy that makes sense. But right now, after all of the briefings, all of the hearings, and all of the statements, as far as I can tell, the Administration apparently intends to wing it when it comes to the day after or, as others have suggested, the decade after. And I think, Mr. President, that makes no sense at all.

Fringe? I don't think so. Noam Chomsky? Hardly. Prescient? Absolutely.

Feingold is far more moderate than many people give him credit for. The reason he ends up on lopsided votes is not because he is "fringe" but because he has the integrity to stand by what he believes even when everyone else is rolling over. He is socially liberal, fiscally conservative, and possibly the strongest advocate for clean government in D.C. If what you're saying is that he has too much integrity to survive a presidential campaign, that is probably true. But I'd vote for him. And give him money. And probably go to work for his campaign.

GrantDawg

03-14-2006, 10:22 AM

But I'd vote for him. And give him money. And probably go to work for his campaign.

Sounds like you already have. :)

kcchief19

03-14-2006, 11:48 AM

See what I mean?

I think RA would have lots of company in this regard. I just don't see too many people counter-acting this, you know, claiming "If Hillary ran, I would register and vote just so she could be elected."
No offense to RA, but this is the classic "unlikely voter" that political scientist lament. This voter will not vote, or will not vote in sufficient numbers either way.

I don't disagree that Hillary is polarizing. Unforunately, in the current political landscape we have few if any polarizing figures. The only candidate that defies this logic is McCain -- if Kerry had convinced him to be his VP, I have no doubt Kerry would have won somewhat easily. The guy has broad-based support across moderates and independents.

In the current political landscape, you win elections by playing to your base -- by making the choir sing. The Democrats lost in 2000 and 2004 because their base didn't vote. Turn out was lower among lower incomes, blacks and unions. Those bases weren't energized by Gore or Kerry.

Let's face it, with Hillary you're not just getting Hillary -- you're getting Bill. And the Democratic base still loves the guy. Barring a candidacy of some like Romney, the Democrats will win the Northeast, New York, Illinois and the West Coast. All you have to do is count to 270. Hillary could win states she wouldn't even have to visit; just send Bill to New Mexico and Florida and he'll bag the states for her. Bill would win her Florida without her even having to show up. Bill might even be able to stir up enough black turnout for her that she could flip a southern state and force the Republicans to win somewhere else.

The putrid part of presidential politics today is that you win by playing to your base. Wooing moderates to your side is no longer enough, nor is a 50-state campaign feasible. You pick the states you can win and scare the hell out of your base voters to get them to show up.

I dare say that a presidential election in this country has ever been decided by people voting for someone because they hate the opponent so much. It just doesn't happen. Dislike creates apathy; it doesn't create action. You need to look no further than the Democrats to see that. Democrats hate Bush, but they are apathetic. Instead of rallying around their candidate in '04, they stayed home.

Glengoyne

03-14-2006, 12:05 PM

No offense to RA, but this is the classic "unlikely voter" that political scientist lament. This voter will not vote, or will not vote in sufficient numbers either way.

I don't disagree that Hillary is polarizing. Unforunately, in the current political landscape we have few if any polarizing figures. The only candidate that defies this logic is McCain -- if Kerry had convinced him to be his VP, I have no doubt Kerry would have won somewhat easily. The guy has broad-based support across moderates and independents.

In the current political landscape, you win elections by playing to your base -- by making the choir sing. The Democrats lost in 2000 and 2004 because their base didn't vote. Turn out was lower among lower incomes, blacks and unions. Those bases weren't energized by Gore or Kerry.

Let's face it, with Hillary you're not just getting Hillary -- you're getting Bill. And the Democratic base still loves the guy. Barring a candidacy of some like Romney, the Democrats will win the Northeast, New York, Illinois and the West Coast. All you have to do is count to 270. Hillary could win states she wouldn't even have to visit; just send Bill to New Mexico and Florida and he'll bag the states for her. Bill would win her Florida without her even having to show up. Bill might even be able to stir up enough black turnout for her that she could flip a southern state and force the Republicans to win somewhere else.

The putrid part of presidential politics today is that you win by playing to your base. Wooing moderates to your side is no longer enough, nor is a 50-state campaign feasible. You pick the states you can win and scare the hell out of your base voters to get them to show up.

I dare say that a presidential election in this country has ever been decided by people voting for someone because they hate the opponent so much. It just doesn't happen. Dislike creates apathy; it doesn't create action. You need to look no further than the Democrats to see that. Democrats hate Bush, but they are apathetic. Instead of rallying around their candidate in '04, they stayed home.

I really think this is wrong. I do think elections are won and lost because people are voting against their perceived greater evil. I wasn't a big Bush fan, but I damn sure voted for him, or rather against Kerry. I think elections are won by appealing to the middle..the moderates. Clinton won because he did appeal to moderates. I believe Kerry lost because he simply failed to do so.

Barkeep49

03-14-2006, 12:06 PM

I've given money to Wes Clark regularly ever since he announced his bid for President and have continued to do so now through his PAC. That said the real guy I'd like to run in 2008 is Al Gore. The parallels to Nixon are scary but at least he'd not likely get impeached.

That said whoever seems like they have the best chance of defeating Hillary will get my vote and money

flere-imsaho

03-14-2006, 12:19 PM

I'm not sure if dislike creates apathy. I think each election is different. Apathy, though, is certainly created by boring candidates, and both Kerry and Gore were certainly these, in spades.

Let's look at 2000. Gore fails to interest his party. Moderate democrats stay home. Some even vote for Bush. Machine democrats vote for Gore. Activist democrats vote for Nader. Gore loses. If Gore had been able to motivate more of the moderates or activists to his cause, he would have won.

2004. If Bill Clinton could have run in 2004, he wins in a landslide. But democrats run the anti-Clinton, a guy with no warmth, no humanity, a guy who seems to condescend with every word he speaks. Again, the machine votes for Kerry, but has more difficulty than before. Moderate democrats vote for Kerry with a bad taste in their mouth, but a good number (those who aren't sufficiently scared of Bush) just stay home. Activist democrats either vote for Kerry as an anti-Bush vote, or don't vote out of disgust. Furthermore, the activist wing of the Democratic party spends the entire election parrying Republican attacks on their candidate's confusing record, instead of getting people excited about the candidate.

GrantDawg

03-14-2006, 01:40 PM

I never thought I'd say it, but we need a Bill Clinton right now. This election looks as bleak as the last.

Barkeep49

03-14-2006, 02:09 PM

I never thought I'd say it, but we need a Bill Clinton right now. This election looks as bleak as the last.
Yeah but in 1990 most of us had never heard of Bill Clinton. It's quite possible there's one out there, we just don't know who he or she is yet.

GrantDawg

03-14-2006, 02:33 PM

Yeah but in 1990 most of us had never heard of Bill Clinton. It's quite possible there's one out there, we just don't know who he or she is yet.

Actually, wasn't this about the time the buzz around Clinton started? He was a keynote speaker at the '88 convention, and made a name for himself for being too long winded. But, he was the begining of the "New Democrats." He was exciting to the media because he was young, charismatic, and moderate. I'm not seeing anyone like that in this group. Edwards is the closest, but he's not Clinton.

Butter

03-14-2006, 02:36 PM

Obama?

GrantDawg

03-14-2006, 02:49 PM

Obama?

Possible. I think he has a shot, but I can't but think this may be too soon. Clinton had been in the governor's office twice by the time he ran, where Obama only has been a state Senator for several years and an US Senator for 2. I don't think that gives you the cred that being a governor does, even if your only govenor of a small, backward state.