Obama 08?

[dixieflatline]

Saw my first Obama '08 bumper sticker on a car today. I happened to park next to it and talked to the guy for a few minutes. He said he made it himself in photoshop and is selling them trying to Obama to run for president in '08. There have been numerous stories around the news recently about him potentially running. I think he would be an interesting test case.

Pros: Seems to be a middle of the road kind of guy, very strong speaker, good fundraiser, religious, well educated.

Cons: Currently a senator and other threads have mentioned the probelms with that, not really tested in his senate race, black (I hate to say it but even today I think this would be a negative), funny name (again this shouldn't be a factor but it definitely was something he has had to overcome).

I actually think VP might be the next step for him. He certainly would be a VP that would help move the needle for the presidential candidate. Anyway, any thoughts?

[Anthony]

excellent public speaker, but i'm not ready for a black president.

VP, maybe.

still, i love the way he talks. makes GWB look even more incompetent with the ease he has onstage in front of a podium. is he a Republican or Democrat?

[st.cronin]

He could be a formidable candidate, but he's awfully young and inexperienced for such a big step so soon.

[Abe Sargent]

To be fair, Barack has been doing a few things as Senator that are casuing people to question his competance. I remember him passing a bill or an amendment a few months ago that was his that the Senate needed to emergency change because of some issues with it.

[timmynausea]

I'd vote for him.

I think the better question might be who would be better than Obama for the Dems in '08? I have a hard time coming up with anyone.

[Ksyrup]

Cons: Currently a senator and other threads have mentioned the probelms with that, not really tested in his senate race, black (I hate to say it but even today I think this would be a negative), funny name (again this shouldn't be a factor but it definitely was something he has had to overcome).

As ridiculous as it sounds, I bet the fact that his name is so close to Osama would be a factor.

[thesloppy]

Regardless of how the American public actually feels, I think the current Democratic party is so hell bent on trying to please everybody, with a platform based on being as bland as possible, that a black man on their ticket wouldn't even be considered an option.

[rkmsuf]

As ridiculous as it sounds, I bet the fact that his name is so close to Osama would be a factor.

doesn't make it right but it's a huge factor

[Honolulu_Blue]

To be fair, Barack has been doing a few things as Senator that are casuing people to question his competance. I remember him passing a bill or an amendment a few months ago that was his that the Senate needed to emergency change because of some issues with it.

Based on the result of the last two Presidential elections, competance is not something the majority of American voters look for in a president. So, I wouldn't worry too much about that.

[st.cronin]

I'd vote for him.

I think the better question might be who would be better than Obama for the Dems in '08? I have a hard time coming up with anyone.

Joe Lieberman. Oh, shit...

[Neuqua]

As ridiculous as it sounds, I bet the fact that his name is so close to Osama would be a factor.

Sadly, I think you are right.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Regardless of how the American public actually feels, I think the current Democratic party is so hell bent on trying to please everybody, with a platform based on being as bland as possible, that a black man on their ticket wouldn't even be considered an option.

And yet Hillary Clinton is? Because that's what I'm hearing...

[MrBigglesworth]

Joe Lieberman. Oh, shit...
Or Zell Miller! Or Strom Thurmond!

[Abe Sargent]

Based on the result of the last two Presidential elections, competance is not something the majority of American voters look for in a president. So, I wouldn't worry too much about that.

It's something I care about. By the way, the amendment that he proposed and was passed was to Immigrant legislation in May.

I can't remember the specifics but if memory hoplds correct, it ended up essentially giving foreign workers in America cheaper hourly wages than domestic workers. This was ostinably designed to protect domestic worker salaries but ended up giving companies reasons to hire foreign workers in America. That's what I remember, but the details are fuzzy.

-Anxiety

[st.cronin]

Or Zell Miller! Or Strom Thurmond!

Well, he's about to win the Senate seat in Connecticut, a fairly liberal state, AFTER being kicked out of the party. I think that indicates that those who were opposed to his nomination are outside the mainstream, not Lieberman himself.

[rkmsuf]

It's something I care about. By the way, the amendment that he proposed and was passed was to Immigrant legislation in May.

I can't remember the specifics but if memory hoplds correct, it ended up essentially giving foreign workers in America cheaper hourly wages than domestic workers. This was ostinably designed to protect domestic worker salaries but ended up giving companies reasons to hire foreign workers in America. That's what I remember, but the details are fuzzy.

-Anxiety

did he come out and say "my bad" after?

[MrBigglesworth]

I'm not a huge fan of Obama yet. He keeps giving speeches like, 'We need leadership on this', 'We need leadership on that'...well, you're a United States Senator that has a throng of media writing down your every word whenever you speak! Provide some leadership! But instead he just seems to be keeping from taking a stand which would make him vulnerable. Not exactly a profile in courage.

[larrymcg421]

excellent public speaker, but i'm not ready for a black president.

Care to explain that?

[MrBigglesworth]

Well, he's about to win the Senate seat in Connecticut, a fairly liberal state, AFTER being kicked out of the party. I think that indicates that those who were opposed to his nomination are outside the mainstream, not Lieberman himself.
A majority of his support comes from Republicans. I heard Glenn Beck on the radio today say he was going to vote for him, and Sean Hannity and O'Reilly have endorsed him. So why would the Democrats want him in office? What would be the point of even holding the office if it was a Republican in sheep's clothing there anyway? It's like saying that the Dems should nominate McCain.

[st.cronin]

It's like saying that the Dems should nominate McCain.

Hell, I'd register as a Democrat again if they nominated him.

[MrBigglesworth]

Hell, I'd register as a Democrat again if they nominated him.
Exactly, and if the GOP were fiscally responsible and socially libertarian I would register as a Republican. But none of that is going to happen, which is why you aren't registered as a Dem and I'm not registered as a Rep.

[SackAttack]

Care to explain that?

He's an intellectually-challenged race-baiter.

I mean, this is the same guy who goes bananas over the idea of having a midget at his draft party. Do you honestly expect better than that from him?

[lordscarlet]

I wouldn't be surprised to see a big Al Gore push. But who I'd really like to see on the Democratic ticket is Mark Warner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Warner) (former Governor of Virginia).

[John Galt]

Care to explain that?

It does say something (I'm not sure what) that no one really blinked an eye when HA posted that. I think if it had been anyone else, the response would have been swift. With HA, notsomuch.

[lordscarlet]

It does say something (I'm not sure what) that no one really blinked an eye when HA posted that. I think if it had been anyone else, the response would have been swift. With HA, notsomuch.

It's better not to give such comments a response. That's what "they" want.

[st.cronin]

I wouldn't be surprised to see a big Al Gore push. But who I'd really like to see on the Democratic ticket is Mark Warner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Warner) (former Governor of Virginia).

Honestly, I expect Al Gore to actually be the Democratic nominee in '08.

[MrBigglesworth]

It does say something (I'm not sure what) that no one really blinked an eye when HA posted that. I think if it had been anyone else, the response would have been swift. With HA, notsomuch.
I think it's a prevalent thought throughout much of the country. It's obviously the definition of racism, but at least HA doesn't hide what he thinks.

[st.cronin]

It does say something (I'm not sure what) that no one really blinked an eye when HA posted that. I think if it had been anyone else, the response would have been swift. With HA, notsomuch.

Posts like that, though, are why HA should really be banned.

[lordscarlet]

Honestly, I expect Al Gore to actually be the Democratic nominee in '08.

He won once, he can do it again. ;)

[MrBigglesworth]

I wouldn't be surprised to see a big Al Gore push. But who I'd really like to see on the Democratic ticket is Mark Warner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Warner) (former Governor of Virginia).
I'd vote for Gore in a second if he ran. I don't know much about Warner, but heard good things. Governors are usually good because they don't have the long voting records to distort like Senators do, but they are usually weak on foreign policy, and this will more than likely be a big foreign policy election.

[larrymcg421]

I think for better or worse (probably worse), Hilary pretty much has the nomination locked up if she runs. I don't see how anyone else can really beat her, except if Gore runs, and a Gore-Clinton primary would be extremely bloody and very bad for the Democratic party.

[ISiddiqui]

Btw, since when was Liebermann "KICKED out" of the Democratic party? He lost the primary. That doesn't mean they take away his Democrat card or something. When he wins (and he will), he'll probably simply rejoin the Democrats. He knows that the Party has to back their nominee. Some Dems are still backing Libermann.

[lordscarlet]

I think for better or worse (probably worse), Hilary pretty much has the nomination locked up if she runs. I don't see how anyone else can really beat her, except if Gore runs, and a Gore-Clinton primary would be extremely bloody and very bad for the Democratic party.

I think the Dems would really like to see Hilary on the ticket, but ultimately that will only happen if she's listed under VP. It's still too early for a woman President. I see a black President before a woman (unless someone like Condoleeza sneaks in under both criteria). I only see a black or woman President winning if they are Republican, and the voters will see that. It'll be the whole "Vote against the Republicans" situation where people vote who they think is more likely to win against the Republican candidate. A Republican woman or black candidate is more likely, IMO, to get Democrat votes, than vice versa.

[vex]

If Clinton runs, it will be a landslide for the Republicans.

[John Galt]

I'd vote for Gore in a second if he ran. I don't know much about Warner, but heard good things. Governors are usually good because they don't have the long voting records to distort like Senators do, but they are usually weak on foreign policy, and this will more than likely be a big foreign policy election.

IMO, Warner is no good. He acts and seems like a politician. There is a swarminess to the man. And I think while the democrats view him as a Southerner (who could carry the South), everyone south of Virginia knows Virginia is not in the South.

I'm a fan of Tom Vilsack. Based on my time in Iowa, I think he is a good public speaker with genuineness about him. He represents what Gephardt wants to be. I also think a midwest democrat stands a much better chance than a coastal democrat. His personal history is also fascinating and could appeal to a lot of people (abandoned orphan raised by Roman Catholic parents in PA). He was also the first democrat governor from Iowa in 30 years.

Unfortunately, Vilsack doesn't have the war chest of someone like Hilary, so I don't think he stands a chance. But I think he would be a solid democrat candidate who would win the general election if he could get past the primary.

[st.cronin]

For those of you liked Bill Clinton, you're going to LOVE Bill Richardson, governor of New Mexico.

[Abe Sargent]

Honestly, I expect Al Gore to actually be the Democratic nominee in '08.

Because Democrats never learn from their mistakes?

[MrBigglesworth]

Everyone seems to love Richardson, and I've heard good things about Vilsack too. I think there are a lot of decent Dem prospects for '08, even Edwards.

I think the Dems would really like to see Hilary on the ticket, but ultimately that will only happen if she's listed under VP. It's still too early for a woman President. I see a black President before a woman (unless someone like Condoleeza sneaks in under both criteria). I only see a black or woman President winning if they are Republican, and the voters will see that. It'll be the whole "Vote against the Republicans" situation where people vote who they think is more likely to win against the Republican candidate. A Republican woman or black candidate is more likely, IMO, to get Democrat votes, than vice versa.

This probably isn't the right thread for this, but how bad of a job is Rice doing as SecState? Between the whole Isreal/Lebanon thing, the North Korea thing, the Iran thing, the continuing deterioration of relations with our allies, etc. Combined with the fact that she was NSA director during 9/11, she doesn't have much of a resume. I guess poor policies though influence her work a lot though.

[st.cronin]

This probably isn't the right thread for this, but how bad of a job is Rice doing as SecState?

lololololololololololololololololololololol

[st.cronin]

Because Democrats never learn from their mistakes?

Well, actually I'm not sure about this, but I think he has a similiar stature in the party that McCain has with some independents - that there are Democrats who would make it their life's work to get him nominated.

I don't think there is anything like that with Hillary or anybody else. I think he inspires more passion in that party than anybody.

[John Galt]

Well, actually I'm not sure about this, but I think he has a similiar stature in the party that McCain has with some independents - that there are Democrats who would make it their life's work to get him nominated.

I don't think there is anything like that with Hillary or anybody else. I think he inspires more passion in that party than anybody.

:confused:

[John Galt]

One other thing in Vilsack's favor - he is the current chair of the DLC. These are the past chairs of the DLC:

President Bill Clinton
Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana
Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut
Rep. Dave McCurdy of Oklahoma
Sen. John Breaux of Louisiana
Sen. Sam Nunn of Georgia
Sen. Charles Robb of Virginia
Former House Democratic Leader Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri

That's a good group of people to be associated with if you want to be viewed as a moderate candidate (and the DLC is pretty much as moderate democrat as you get in terms of perception).

[Blade6119]

As a conservative republican who supports bush, ill admit Obama is third on my list of people id vote for. Only powell and mccain are higher. And thats saying something, as im generally very conservative.

On the other hand, lieberman and clinton are on the very bottom of my list.

[st.cronin]

One other thing in Vilsack's favor - he is the current chair of the DLC. These are the past chairs of the DLC:

President Bill Clinton
Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana
Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut
Rep. Dave McCurdy of Oklahoma
Sen. John Breaux of Louisiana
Sen. Sam Nunn of Georgia
Sen. Charles Robb of Virginia
Former House Democratic Leader Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri

That's a good group of people to be associated with if you want to be viewed as a moderate candidate (and the DLC is pretty much as moderate democrat as you get in terms of perception).


That's a pretty good list. I miss Sam Nunn.

[Izulde]

I agree if Hillary wins the nomination, the Republicans get a free pass to another four years.

A McCain-Obama presidental election race would be a moderates' dream and it's my biggest fantasy.

[larrymcg421]

I think Hillary inspires more passion than any of the other Dem candidates, certainly more than Gore. And I don't think it will be a landslide like everyone thinks. A Clinton/Richardson ticket would be pretty strong. Remember, after the 1994 congressional elections nobody thought Clinton had a chance of getting re-elected. He was as divisive then as Hillary is now. Also, people were laughing when Hillary decided to run in NY. People have counted out the Clintons in the past and it has always been a mistake.

McCain has had nothing but good press for the last 6 years, but when the campaign starts and he's the frontrunner, they will come after him. He's no longer the glory boy. His involvement in past scandals will come to light. His flip flopping on Jerry Falwell and Bob Jones university will be spotlighted. McCain's image as this maverick independent will be tarnished, especially as he continues to placate the right wing fundamentalists. You thought the Swift Boat Veterans were bad? Wait until you see what the Clintons do to McCain.

[Ksyrup]

I think, sadly (though not necessarily with regard to Gore), that we've come to the point where it will be virtually impossible for a losing Presidential candidate to run again. The "he's a loser" mentality will not allow it to happen. Gore came as close to winning as any loser has, and he still wasn't a part of the action 4 years later. Kerry came close, too, and although he hasn't ruled himself out, I think pretty much everyone else has. I have no doubt that the Republicans saw Clinton easily winning in 1996, so they threw a bone to Dole as a lifetime achievement award that doubled as a "don't taint a legit candidate down the road" nominee.

Just the way it is these days.

[larrymcg421]

I don't quite see it that way. Dole wasn't a "throw the bone" nominee. He had the most money and organization. Candidates starting getting ready in 1994, when a Clinton victory was anything BUT assured. If anyone wanted to challenge him, they certainly could have. But I don't know who would have had a legitimate shot in 1996. The next biggest name (other than Powell, who said no) was probably Jack Kemp, and he ended up with the VP slot.

2004 had nothing to do with Gore previously losing. It was his nomination to take. If he had run, the field would have cleared for him and those that stayed in would have got steamrolled.

A better example would have been 1992, where the top Dems (Cuomo, Gephardt, Gore) stayed away because Bush Sr. seemed a certainty. Clinton was the best of the leftovers (no matter how good of a campaigner he is, he would not have beat Cuomo in 92), and still ended up winning the election.

[Ksyrup]

I don't know a single Republican who really thought 1996 was up for grabs. Dole got the nomination because he was the senior member of the old Republican guard, and it had nothing to do with his chances to win. Not to say there was another Republican that could have done better, but they didn't "waste" a candidate on a losing campaign.

[bulletsponge]

am i the only one whos underwhelmed with all the names being put foward?

[larrymcg421]

Clinton's approval ratings were in the 40's in 94 and 95. After the huge victory in the 94 midterms, why would they not think they had a chance? It wasn't until 1996 (when everyone had already decided to run or not) that Clinton's ratings begin to rise and his election seemed inevitable.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

If Obama runs he will blow everyone out of the water (primaries and general election). His inexperience, race, name will all be relative non-factors. That sort of thing gets talked up a lot early one, but once you're into it personality is the key factor. In 2000 Bush was supposed to have these sorts of problems (inexperience, dark history, etc.), but no one cared. In 2004 Kerry was supposed to be great because of his ideal background (experienced Senator, decorated veteran, etc), and it didn't help him at all. Attention to those sorts of details is overanalyzing things. It really just boils down to who do you like. And people will like Obama. A lot. He's very smart, very eloquent, comes off incredibly well on TV. He conveys his convictions and beliefs effectively, but never in a way that makes people who disagree with him defensive. He's a statesman and he connects well with people (not a common combination). He is an ideal politician (and would probably be a good president). And I think the timing is good for him. If a dem wins he might not have another chance until 2016, at which point he's probably past his freshness date.

[John Galt]

Obama is too young. He may be stale by 2016, but he is really young and inexperienced now. It is also pretty well known that he has a couple small, but notable skeletons in his closet that are hard to overcome at a young age (whereas Bush overcame them by being older and born-again).

[sachmo71]

If I were in the Democratic Party "brain trust", I think I would try to find the safest candidate possible. I don't think they can afford to give away another election like the last one.

[larrymcg421]

If I were in the Democratic Party "brain trust", I think I would try to find the safest candidate possible. I don't think they can afford to give away another election like the last one.

Huh? Going by this strategy is exactly how we ended up with Kerry.

[sachmo71]

Huh? Going by this strategy is exactly how we ended up with Kerry.

A war protester was the safest candidate in the middle of two wars? I guess my definition of safe is skewed.

[Blade6119]

A war protester was the safest candidate in the middle of two wars? I guess my definition of safe is skewed.

Kerry was the very conservative choice. In fact, he was far less against the war then most other canidates it seemed to me. I felt kerry was the safe choice, and thats why you lost.

[Grammaticus]

Based on the result of the last two Presidential elections, competance is not something the majority of American voters look for in a president. So, I wouldn't worry too much about that.


I'm sure you meant last FOUR elections. Then I would guess you would go even further back than that. :)

[sachmo71]

Kerry was the very conservative choice. In fact, he was far less against the war then most other canidates it seemed to me. I felt kerry was the safe choice, and thats why you lost.

huh. guess they were wrong.

[larrymcg421]

A war protester was the safest candidate in the middle of two wars? I guess my definition of safe is skewed.

A war protester who voted for the latest war and had the most experience of any candidate? Versus a first term senator, a random General with no political experience, the outspoken governor of Vermont, the House Minority Leader that nobody liked, Dennis Kucinich, and Al Sharpton. Yes he was the safest candidate. And during the primary his whole campaign was based on the fact that he was the most electable candidate.

[sachmo71]

A war protester who voted for the latest war and had the most experience of any candidate? Versus a first term senator, a random General with no political experience, the outspoken governor of Vermont, the House Minority Leader that nobody liked, Dennis Kucinich, and Al Sharpton. Yes he was the safest candidate. And during the primary his whole campaign was based on the fact that he was the most electable candidate.

i would have gone with the general.

[ISiddiqui]

I don't know a single Republican who really thought 1996 was up for grabs. Dole got the nomination because he was the senior member of the old Republican guard, and it had nothing to do with his chances to win. Not to say there was another Republican that could have done better, but they didn't "waste" a candidate on a losing campaign.

I'll ditto this. Dole was given the nod because it was "his turn". He was a loyal trooper and had ran for the VP job in 1974, lost in the primaries in 1980, lost in the primaries in 1988, and now they decided to give the old guy a chance at the big prize. Unfortunately Dole was doomed by the same thing that'd doom Gore 4 years later in that instead of being himself, he let his handlers try to shape him.

True in 1994, Clinton was vulnerable, but by late 1995 and early 1996, people realized Clinton was going to be very hard to beat... especially after he outmanuvered the Republican Congress on the government shutdown issue at the end of 1995.

[Buccaneer]

I'll ditto this. Dole was given the nod because it was "his turn". He was a loyal trooper and had ran for the VP job in 1974, lost in the primaries in 1980, lost in the primaries in 1988, and now they decided to give the old guy a chance at the big prize. Unfortunately Dole was doomed by the same thing that'd doom Gore 4 years later in that instead of being himself, he let his handlers try to shape him.

True in 1994, Clinton was vulnerable, but by late 1995 and early 1996, people realized Clinton was going to be very hard to beat... especially after he outmanuvered the Republican Congress on the government shutdown issue at the end of 1995.

That is very true and very obvious to any who had followed the 96 election at the time. Glad you remembered your history, Imran. You'd be surprised by all those thinking that they know politics but don't have a clue what went on before 2000.

[Buccaneer]

Care to explain that?

Dude, HA is a jerkoff. But this is about the 4th time I've seen you react in a similar manner. Rule #1 at FOFC is to have a thick skin.

[WVUFAN]

He won once, he can do it again. ;)

Ha. Ha. I know you're trying to be cute, but he DIDN'T win once. And thank god for that.

[sabotai]

i would have gone with the general.

I would have too.

[larrymcg421]

Dude, HA is a jerkoff. But this is about the 4th time I've seen you react in a similar manner. Rule #1 at FOFC is to have a thick skin.

Huh? I saw a racist comment asked for him to elaborate. I was genuinely interested in what he would say. I didn't know I had some reputation for flying off the handle and didn't think I had done so.

[larrymcg421]

I'll ditto this. Dole was given the nod because it was "his turn". He was a loyal trooper and had ran for the VP job in 1974, lost in the primaries in 1980, lost in the primaries in 1988, and now they decided to give the old guy a chance at the big prize. Unfortunately Dole was doomed by the same thing that'd doom Gore 4 years later in that instead of being himself, he let his handlers try to shape him.

True in 1994, Clinton was vulnerable, but by late 1995 and early 1996, people realized Clinton was going to be very hard to beat... especially after he outmanuvered the Republican Congress on the government shutdown issue at the end of 1995.

"By late 1995" everyone would have already decided whether to run or not. In 1994 and throughout 1995 the Republicans were very confident. And they thought their moral statesman war hero Bob Dole (who was everything that Clinton was not) could beat Clinton. If they weren't so confident they wouldn't have faced him down over the budget situation in late 1995. And even after that, a January 1996 poll had Dole up 49-48.

But apparently I don't know what went on before 2000.

[MrBigglesworth]

Ha. Ha. I know you're trying to be cute, but he DIDN'T win once. And thank god for that.
Why do you hate America?

[MrBigglesworth]

I supported McCain in the 2000 primary because I thought he was a moderate. But right now his foreign policy is MORE hawkish than Bush's, and that just makes me cringe.

[sachmo71]

dola foul

[MrBigglesworth]

dola foul
http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=50903

[lordscarlet]

Because Democrats never learn from their mistakes?

Because Gore got destroyed in the election? Or didn't win the popular vote? It's not like he's Dukakis. In the time since he lost I think he has gained more support and shown that he actually does have somewhat of a personality.

[Galaril]

How about the repubs? I haven't heard any real candidates thrown around except Rice. I she going to be the nom for the GOP?

[Grammaticus]

Because Gore got destroyed in the election? Or didn't win the popular vote? It's not like he's Dukakis. In the time since he lost I think he has gained more support and shown that he actually does have somewhat of a personality.

I think Gore looks worse post election. When he legally challenged the election, it made him look like a sore loser and someone you cannot trust.

Contrast that to the "above the battle" or "respectful to the election process" behavior that Nixon garnered by not challenging the 1960 election results. In 1960, it is largely believed that Mayor Dailey's machine in Chicago committed fraud, helping deliver Illinois to Kennedy, which at the time was the closest election in history.

Nixon felt the peoples faith in the election process was more important than the individual outcome. To call the process a fraud would do more damage. He returned in 1968 with an image of trust and respect. I don't believe Gore has that image outside of core democrats.

[Grammaticus]

How about the repubs? I haven't heard any real candidates thrown around except Rice. I she going to be the nom for the GOP?

To name a few:

Rudy Giuliani
Condoleezza Rice
John McCain
Newt Gingrich
Mitt Romney
Bill Frist
George Allen
George Pataki

I think Rudy can win the whole thing. It would be great to see the Rudy versus Hillary election we missed in the New York senate race.

[dawgfan]

I think Gore looks worse post election. When he legally challenged the election, it made him look like a sore loser and someone you cannot trust.

Contrast that to the "above the battle" or "respectful to the election process" behavior that Nixon garnered by not challenging the 1960 election results. In 1960, it is largely believed that Mayor Dailey's machine in Chicago committed fraud, helping deliver Illinois to Kennedy, which at the time was the closest election in history.

Nixon felt the peoples faith in the election process was more important than the individual outcome. To call the process a fraud would do more damage. He returned in 1968 with an image of trust and respect. I don't believe Gore has that image outside of core democrats.
Ironic, considering how much Nixon's actions in the White House ended up eroding the public's trust in elected officials, especially the office of the President.

[larrymcg421]

I think the Foley thing really damages Giuliani's chances. It's going to be hard to run as the morality party when right after the Foley scandal you nominate Giuliani whose mistress was living in the same house with his wife.

Gingrich, Allen, and Frist would be dreams for the Dems. Rice isn't going to run and would be a terrible candidate.

[Grammaticus]

Ironic, considering how much Nixon's actions in the White House ended up eroding the public's trust in elected officials, especially the office of the President.

I don't know if irony is absolute there. His actions in 1960 garnered the results he wanted in 1968. Then again, the entire decade of the 70's resulted in a loss of respect for the executive branch. Nixon is a very interesting study from a biographic view. If you study his life, I think you come away thinking he is a good guy. But, from a policy standpoint, not a favorite Republican.

[Grammaticus]

I think the Foley thing really damages Giuliani's chances. It's going to be hard to run as the morality party when right after the Foley scandal you nominate Giuliani whose mistress was living in the same house with his wife.

Gingrich, Allen, and Frist would be dreams for the Dems. Rice isn't going to run and would be a terrible candidate.

I don't see the marital issue form Guiliani being anything bundled with Foley. Foley is an individual and not linked to Guiliani in any way. His activity is nothing comparible to divorce and fidelity.

It would be hard for any democrat to demonize Guiliani having supported Clinton. It's a non issue for the future. Plus Guiliani would be a social moderate. I would guess the republicans will run on security. Despite the fact that no political party is acting right regarding border security, the republicans are viewed as more trustworthy on security.

[larrymcg421]

I don't know if irony is absolute there. His actions in 1960 garnered the results he wanted in 1968. Then again, the entire decade of the 70's resulted in a loss of respect for the executive branch. Nixon is a very interesting study from a biographic view. If you study his life, I think you come away thinking he is a good guy. But, from a policy standpoint, not a favorite Republican.

"But by God, they're exceptions. But Bob, generally speaking, you can't trust the bastards. They turn on us."

"The Jews are irreligious, atheistic, immoral bunch of bastards."

"The Mexicans are a different cup of tea. They have a heritage. At the present time they steal, they're dishonest, but they do have some concept of family life. They don't live like a bunch of dogs, which the Negroes do live like."

What a good guy!

[Blade6119]

"But by God, they're exceptions. But Bob, generally speaking, you can't trust the bastards. They turn on us."

"The Jews are irreligious, atheistic, immoral bunch of bastards."

"The Mexicans are a different cup of tea. They have a heritage. At the present time they steal, they're dishonest, but they do have some concept of family life. They don't live like a bunch of dogs, which the Negroes do live like."

What a good guy!
Can we all get back on topic...its not just you larry, but this thread is becoming less of a 08 canidates thread and more of a dem vs repub mud fight

[Anthony]

Care to explain that?

seems pretty straightforward, no explanation required.

[Galaxy]

I don't see Hillary winning (see hasn't done squat for our state). Also, Bill might be overshadowing. Her support for the war may be a sticking point. I pry she isn't elected. Socialized medicine, higher taxes-not for me.

I hope the long-shot rumors of Bloomberg running are true.

[Anthony]

Posts like that, though, are why HA should really be banned.


no, me wishing that you get AIDS or testicular cancer - that is what should get me banned.

expressing my opinion, is not. and what, exactly, is so bannable about "i'm not ready for a black president"? do you automatically deem something ban-worthy if you don't agree with someone? it's called having an opinion and expressing it, and it doesn't cost anything to do it so i hand out my opinions freely and frequently.

don't like my opinions then you have the option not to read them.

i really don't want anything bad to happen to you for a long time. rather, i want you to live out what has become an awful excuse for a life for the rest of your days, and know that one day you'll be on your death bed and actually believe the folly that you at one point made a difference in this world. please, live a long time.

[Craptacular]

To name a few:
...
Newt Gingrich
...


You're kidding, right??? Who is floating that idea?

Anyway, the local news has been reporting that ex-Wis Gov. and HHS Sec. Tommy Thompson is forming a PAC and exploring a run for President. Most people around here also think Russ Feingold will run.

[Anthony]

I agree if Hillary wins the nomination, the Republicans get a free pass to another four years.

A McCain-Obama presidental election race would be a moderates' dream and it's my biggest fantasy.


i agree with this. it's not my biggest fantasy (mine involves a drunk Jessica Alba and Britney Spears circa 1999), but i'm all for McCain as Pres.

the only thing i don't like about those two is they're both somewhat soft on immigration. i wouldn't be surprised if either of them made life very pleasant for illegal aliens, and that disturbs me. but, you gotta take the good with the bad so i can overlook that flaw either candidate.

[Anthony]

I hope the long-shot rumors of Bloomberg running are true.

if any Mayor from NYC is gonna run and have a chance, it'll be Rudy Guiliani. i don't know exactly what Bloomberg has done to make him a candidate.

and no one from NYC ever wins anyway.

[Galaxy]

if any Mayor from NYC is gonna run and have a chance, it'll be Rudy Guiliani. i don't know exactly what Bloomberg has done to make him a candidate.

and no one from NYC ever wins anyway.

Bloomberg has been rumored to run in the same mold as Perot of the 90's for the 2008 Presidency. However, how much of a shot he would have to win is something I'm not sure of.

Personally, I'm not much of a fan of Guiliani. Another candidate is Mass Governor Roomey.

[Grammaticus]

You're kidding, right??? Who is floating that idea?

Anyway, the local news has been reporting that ex-Wis Gov. and HHS Sec. Tommy Thompson is forming a PAC and exploring a run for President. Most people around here also think Russ Feingold will run.

MSNBC polls show those as the top candidates right now.

I didn't say you would like them, in fact if you are a democrat, you likely hate all of them. :)

[Galaxy]

I think the Foley thing really damages Giuliani's chances. It's going to be hard to run as the morality party when right after the Foley scandal you nominate Giuliani whose mistress was living in the same house with his wife.

Gingrich, Allen, and Frist would be dreams for the Dems. Rice isn't going to run and would be a terrible candidate.

Wait, his mistress lived in the same house as him and his wife?

[MrBigglesworth]

Wait, his mistress lived in the same house as him and his wife?
Guiliani's got skeletons. Hell, Bernie Kerik was his right hand man.

[MrBigglesworth]

Posts like that, though, are why HA should really be banned.
http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showpost.php?p=1188560&postcount=10

I don't see much difference between saying you wouldn't vote for someone based solely on their race, and saying you wouldn't vote for someone based solely on their religion. Sure, the latter implies the person has a certain set of morals, but there's no reason why that would need to impact their public policy decisions in such a way that would completely disqualify them from being President. Kerry is a catholic and had several public policy views against the teachings of the church, and Bush is born again yet feels he can torture at will.

[Glengoyne]

On Obama. He seems to have a lot of the requirements. But, didn't it take a sex scandal for him to finally win an actually contested election?

Was that inexperience? I don't know, but early on, in the Obama Ryan race, I seem to recall the biggest knock on him was that "he was a loser" well at least a losing record politically.

On McCain. I'd vote for him. On Lieberman. I'm hoping he greases the Dem candidate in the general. Well okay the Rep. as well. Oh I'd vote for him too.

On Gingrich, I actually think Newt would be a great president. He wasn't anywhere near the figure the Dems painted him to be. The contract with America was a great thing, and it wasn't just a tool to win elections. It was a principled movement, that placed so many controls on unethical campaigning behavior, that it took Delay, Hastert, and company several years to undo them all. Newt was demonized by the Dems, and that is why he can't win a general election. Too many people believe he was what they were told he was.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

He (Al Gore) won once, he can do it again. ;)

This reminds me of the St. Louis Cardinal fans who still insist that they won the 1985 World Series (Denkinger call). Get over it. It's been in the books for some time now.

[Subby]

Ha. Ha. I know you're trying to be cute, but he DIDN'T win once. And thank god for that.
Yeah thank god because america is really kicking ass now!

[Subby]

dola

The dems have got to stay OUT of the Northeast for their next candidate. I know that sounds simplistic, but I think anyone from the border states up the eastern seaboard is going to have zero chance of being elected.

Mark Warner is nice, but you can't elect a guy with no foreign policy experience when your country is in the middle of a war.

The dems really have next to nothing right now - not a single name tossed out in this thread has a realistic chance of winning an election. In fact, I think the only dem that could win right now would need to have the constitution amended to make that happen.

[JonInMiddleGA]

... this thread is becoming less of a 08 canidates thread and more of a dem vs repub mud fight

Seems rather appropriate doesn't it? I mean, that's what will determine the '08 candidates anyway, so how could it really be any different here?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Seems rather appropriate doesn't it? I mean, that's what will determine the '08 candidates anyway, so how could it really be any different here?

You know the political scene is in a bad state when you go to the poll trying to figure out who you should vote for that will cause the least damage.

[JonInMiddleGA]

You know the political scene is in a bad state when you go to the poll trying to figure out who you should vote for that will cause the least damage.

You'll certainly get no argument from me on that sentiment at this point.

But I will go you one worse: you know it's bad when you wonder if there's any candidate on the ballot for many offices that will even manage to avoid a string of unforgivable screw ups during their term.

That's what I'm down to probably 90% of the time right now. Even before I consider whether they'll get anything right, I look at how much stuff they're likely to get wrong.

[sachmo71]

http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=50903

i love that thread!

[lordscarlet]

Officials: Former Virginia governor will not run in '08
POSTED: 10:16 a.m. EDT, October 12, 2006

RICHMOND, Virginia (AP) -- Democrat Mark R. Warner, the former governor of Virginia, has decided not to run for president in 2008, Democratic officials said Thursday.

Warner, 51, scheduled a late morning news conference in Richmond to make the announcement, according to two Democratic officials who refused to be identified because they did not want to upstage Warner's announcement.

Since Warner left the governor's office in January, he has busily toured key states in the Democratic nomination process, particularly New Hampshire and Iowa. His political action committee, Alexandria-based Forward Together, has raised money for Warner's exploratory effort and for other Democratic candidates in this year's midterm elections.

The reason for Warner's announcement was not immediately known.

The centrist governor who had won in a Republican-leaning state was seen as a viable Democratic alternative to perceived front-runner Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York. Warner's decision still leaves a crowded field of potential Democratic candidates.

Warner was elected governor in 2001, defeating Republican Attorney General Mark Earley. The former state Democratic Party chairman, who made a fortune in the infancy of the cellular telephone industry, had never held elected public office.

After a difficult start with a Republican-controlled General Assembly, Warner in 2004 brokered a compromise between Democrats, moderate senators and 17 House Republicans to pass a budget-balancing $1.4 billion tax increase. The tax increase was widely regarded as the signature initiative of his four-tear term.

Warner then returned to private business. Virginia does not allow its governor to seek re-election.

[CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/12/warner.president.ap/index.html)]

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

The centrist governor who had won in a Republican-leaning state was seen as a viable Democratic alternative to perceived front-runner Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York. Warner's decision still leaves a crowded field of potential Democratic candidates.

I think I speak for most Republicans when I say if the democrats want to find a way to get me to vote for any Republican candidate, put Hillary Clinton up as the nominee. I'd vote for a Republican in a vegetative state before I'd put a checkmark next to Hillary's name.

***insert Democratic joke about Dubya being in a vegetative state***

[Toddzilla]

Warner then returned to private business. Virginia does not allow its governor to seek re-election.But he can run again, and he has said in the past he'd like to be governor again.

And holy shit, this is the first I've heard from Warner since Kaine's inaguration. Why in the world isn't he out campaigning for John Webb? Warner could tip the balance in a very tight race against Allen.

[Desnudo]

doesn't make it right but it's a huge factor

I was thinking the same thing. I can just imagine the inane conversations around it. He should change his name to Joe Montana.

[Desnudo]

no, me wishing that you get AIDS or testicular cancer - that is what should get me banned.

expressing my opinion, is not. and what, exactly, is so bannable about "i'm not ready for a black president"? do you automatically deem something ban-worthy if you don't agree with someone? it's called having an opinion and expressing it, and it doesn't cost anything to do it so i hand out my opinions freely and frequently.

don't like my opinions then you have the option not to read them.

i really don't want anything bad to happen to you for a long time. rather, i want you to live out what has become an awful excuse for a life for the rest of your days, and know that one day you'll be on your death bed and actually believe the folly that you at one point made a difference in this world. please, live a long time.

I actually agree with HA here. He didn't say anything racist and probably was saying what will be a big question for a lot of people if a black person is nominated for president. Lighten up, you should be glad someone is actually saying what they think on an issue people are rarely honest about.

[Anthony]

I actually agree with HA here. He didn't say anything racist and probably was saying what will be a big question for a lot of people if a black person is nominated for president. Lighten up, you should be glad someone is actually saying what they think on an issue people are rarely honest about.

i've posted a lot of things in the past that made even myself expect a certain boxing, but that was not one of them.

that's the thing with the internet - everyone has a rather quick knee-jerk reaction to posts like that, and are quick to label people "racist" or this or that because it's not PC to say those things. then, after they log off, they go to their local bar and saw worse things amongst similar minded people. that is the impression they'd like for you to see, and from behind the cloak of the internet people can portray themselves however they like - these days it's fashionable to portray oneself as open-minded and perfectly accepting of each and every race/culture. it's the "in thing" to do. this is the face many want others to see. you can take me at face-value. i don't go shouting racial slurs on the streets, if we're gonna engage in a debate where personal preference is an element (who we prefer to have as President, the types of people we'd like to see run this country, etc) then i'm gonna speak my mind.

i'm sure there's other here who feel the same way but would rather not comment. which is fine.

i will say this about Obama - the first time i saw him speak (i think it was on tv for a convention) - i was extremely impressed. it took Bill Clinton to make me appreciate just how bad Bush is at public speaking - look at Clinton on talk shows and the ease with which he speaks - then i see Obama and his style was very natural and i was really digging what he had to say. he's a very powerful speaker.

[lordscarlet]

But he can run again, and he has said in the past he'd like to be governor again.

And holy shit, this is the first I've heard from Warner since Kaine's inaguration. Why in the world isn't he out campaigning for John Webb? Warner could tip the balance in a very tight race against Allen.

As a native Virginian, I wouldn't be against that. Although, I would love to have him unseat Allen, because I hate Allen and Webb seems to be no better.

[rkmsuf]

I was thinking the same thing. I can just imagine the inane conversations around it. He should change his name to Joe Montana.

Gilbert Godfried

[Galaxy]

What are the chances of Roomey running (not looking for the re-election for Mass Governor)?

On Obama, has he done a lot of things in office?

[rkmsuf]

What are the chances of Roomey running (not looking for the re-election for Mass Governor)?

Do we need a president named "Mitt"?

[dixieflatline]

As ridiculous as it sounds, I bet the fact that his name is so close to Osama would be a factor.

A couple people have mentioned or commented on this. Even though I thought this got a lot of press back in 2004 maybe some missed it so I am going to throw it out there again. From the new yorker.

"Jan Schakowsky told me about a recent visit she had made to the White House with a congressional delegation. On her way out, she said, President Bush noticed her 'Obama' button. 'He jumped back, almost literally,' she said. 'And I knew what he was thinking. So I reassured him it was Obama, with a 'b.' And I explained who he was. The President said, 'Well, I don't know him.' So I just said, 'You will."

Actually, I had a friend who was working for the Obama campaign when it had just started out and he was in 3rd place in the polls for the primary. He was just starting to make up some ground and then this happened and he told me about it. Then a week later the new yorker reported on it and I was like, old news guys.

[Arles]

Canidates with broader appeal in a general election:

Dems - "heartland moderates" like Evan Bayh and Tom Vilsack
Reps - "maverick" John McCain or a fiscally responsible governor like Bill Owens

I think most "independents" would like a heartland democrat who has a strong record on foreign policy (Byah) or someone like Vilsack with a solid economic record. This would make sense as the two biggest areas republicans will pick on are war on terror and taxes/economic growth policies.

For republicans, I don't think indeps on the fence want a current "system republican". By that I mean someone like Frist. They want someone outside this administration that can bring a new view to the problems with a conservative feel. McCain makes sense because he's strong on foreign policy and immigration (although I think it's more credit that action here). Owens has had one of the more fiscally responsible states and is also strong on economic issues and immigration. He's weak on foreign policy, but that can be spun as a strength (ie, he won't just continue the same plan - but he won't pull out of Iraq either).

In the end, I think any combo of these four would be a nice election to take part in. They are all sensible people that have done well in areas they have focused on in the past. The biggest problem, though, is that none of the four stand much of a chance at winning their primaries once the idealogues with the passion and money come out to play.

[st.cronin]

I think McCain has a better chance of winning the primaries than people give him credit for. His national reputation is no worse than it was in '00, and perhaps better. I understand that the problems he ran into last time around are still there, but if he had played just a little bit better last time, he could have won the nomination. It's not like he was miles and miles away from winning.

The same goes for Al Gore in a general election if he seeks and wins the Democratic nomination.

[MrBigglesworth]

On Obama. He seems to have a lot of the requirements. But, didn't it take a sex scandal for him to finally win an actually contested election?

Was that inexperience? I don't know, but early on, in the Obama Ryan race, I seem to recall the biggest knock on him was that "he was a loser" well at least a losing record politically.

On McCain. I'd vote for him. On Lieberman. I'm hoping he greases the Dem candidate in the general. Well okay the Rep. as well. Oh I'd vote for him too.

On Gingrich, I actually think Newt would be a great president. He wasn't anywhere near the figure the Dems painted him to be. The contract with America was a great thing, and it wasn't just a tool to win elections. It was a principled movement, that placed so many controls on unethical campaigning behavior, that it took Delay, Hastert, and company several years to undo them all. Newt was demonized by the Dems, and that is why he can't win a general election. Too many people believe he was what they were told he was.
Gingrich spent the late '80s and early '90s complaining about Democratic ethics violations in the House, then was found guilty of ethical violations, then colluded to misrepresent them to the public. He turned the government's biggest priority into investigating a blow job, while all the while having an adulterous affair with a staffer more than 20 years younger than him. Naturally, the Dems attacked him hard, but there was definitely a basis for their attacks.

[MrBigglesworth]

Canidates with broader appeal in a general election:
I don't know that candidates need to have broader appeal. Bush won the last election by appealing to the extreme base. Maybe that only works for incumbents though.

[Galaxy]

I don't know that candidates need to have broader appeal. Bush won the last election by appealing to the extreme base. Maybe that only works for incumbents though.

I think Kerry lost it more than Bush won it.

[MrBigglesworth]

I think Kerry lost it more than Bush won it.
Bush and co. are very good campaigners. You mentioned previously that you thought Kerry lost because all he brought to the table was 'Not Bush'. Well, that was the Bush line that they were pushing. So you took to heart the Bush line over the Kerry line, meaning Bush's campaigning won you over.

And Kerry didn't have any self-destructing event like Dukakis in the tank, he was ahead in polls until the Bush campaign's swift boat tactic. That definitely wasn't countered well by Kerry, but it was still a good campaign move by Bush's people.

[Galaxy]

Bush and co. are very good campaigners. You mentioned previously that you thought Kerry lost because all he brought to the table was 'Not Bush'. Well, that was the Bush line that they were pushing. So you took to heart the Bush line over the Kerry line, meaning Bush's campaigning won you over.

And Kerry didn't have any self-destructing event like Dukakis in the tank, he was ahead in polls until the Bush campaign's swift boat tactic. That definitely wasn't countered well by Kerry, but it was still a good campaign move by Bush's people.

Way to twist my thoughts..

[MrBigglesworth]

Way to twist my thoughts..

How so??

Everyone buys into one campaign message or the other.

[Blade6119]

How so??

Everyone buys into one campaign message or the other.

I disagree heavily with the statements you made in response to galaxy's comment. I believe it was an issue of exactly the opposite. I dont think kerry put his neck on the line too much to distance himself from bush. On the war for instace, he didnt call for an immediate withdrawl(which i think would have won him the election). He said he wanted to commit even more troops so they could win it faster and therefore get out sooner.

Kerry wasnt the anti-bush, and i believe thats exactly why he lost. People wanted an anti-bush, the dems didnt offer one up.

[MrBigglesworth]

I disagree heavily with the statements you made in response to galaxy's comment. I believe it was an issue of exactly the opposite. I dont think kerry put his neck on the line too much to distance himself from bush. On the war for instace, he didnt call for an immediate withdrawl(which i think would have won him the election). He said he wanted to commit even more troops so they could win it faster and therefore get out sooner.

Kerry wasnt the anti-bush, and i believe thats exactly why he lost. People wanted an anti-bush, the dems didnt offer one up.
Wait, what is the opposite of what I was saying? You don't think the Bush team are good campaigners? In any close contest, it's a combination of one side winning and one side losing. The difference in the Presidency was only 100k votes in Ohio. Any number of things could have swung that. Bush ran a good campaign, and Kerry made some mistakes.

[Arles]

I don't know that candidates need to have broader appeal. Bush won the last election by appealing to the extreme base. Maybe that only works for incumbents though.
It works when you have one extreme (hard Texas conservative) versus another (Notheastern liberal with soft foreign policy). But I think *if* a broader appeal candidate made it through the primaries, they would fare pretty well in today's climate - esp for the party not in power.

In other words, I think a hard conservative (anti-gay marriage, pro tax cut, stay the course in Iraq, close the borders, anti-abortion,...) could beat a hard liberal. But, I think both could be bested by someone that could retain their party's base but poach about 10-15% of the "other side" who are not all that thrilled with their party. At that point, the only fear would be turnout (ie, how much would the conservative right come out for McCain or the liberal left for Evan Byah). So, this strategy works best if the opponent has an ideologue (ie, Byah vs. Frist or Hillary vs. McCain).

Still, if I were on the left and looking at a general election opponent of McCain, Rudy or even a darkhorse like Owens, I would much rather stick out someone like Byah or Vilsack than someone with a more liberal reputation like Gore or Hillary. The democrat's lone presidential victory in the past 25 years was a southern democrat who had a more moderate reputation.

[Buccaneer]

I don't know that candidates need to have broader appeal. Bush won the last election by appealing to the extreme base. Maybe that only works for incumbents though.

Typical worthless, ignorant shit from you. The "extreme" base makes up about 5%. The Dems have the same extremist percentage so they cancel out. That is, if you have a clue what makes up an "extremist" which I doubt you would even come close.

[Galaxy]

Typical worthless, ignorant shit from you. The "extreme" base makes up about 5%. The Dems have the same extremist percentage so they cancel out. That is, if you have a clue what makes up an "extremist" which I doubt you would even come close.

Which is what I don't get. Extreme bases don't win a Presidential election.

Kerry lost out on reaching those bases because, in my view, he didn't state any of his plans. It wasn't because Bush did better on reaching those people. He didn't have too. People already knew what he was about.

[st.cronin]

The idea that Kerry was ever a good candidate is quite laughable. Republicans were chuckling with glee when he won the nomination. Kerry was about as electable as Kucinic. That the election was as close as it was speaks to GOP incompetence, not the other way around.

Al Gore, had he sought the nomination, would have easily won. Dick Gephardt probably would have won.

As soon as Kerry became the presumptive nominee, the race was over.

[Glengoyne]

I don't think I can simply brush Kerry off as a non-entity in that race. He was miles better than say Howard Dean.

I'll pile on that I believe strongly that the Bush campaign fired up the religious base, and that made the difference in the election. I think that is revisionist democrat demogoguery. They want an excuse for why Kerry lost, that wasn't there fault. That excuse doesn't exist. Kerry lost this election because he did nothing to appeal to people were dis satisfied with Bush.

I went into the campaign thinking Kerry was a distinguished veteran that I respected. By the time the election rolled around that wasn't the case. He, and the DNC, piled on the priviledged son and AWOL from the air guard arguments. He attacked Bush's service to his country. Like it or not, the air guard is service to your country, and there's no proof that Bush was AWOL.

Kerry lost to a guy who got 52%(or somesuch) of the vote, when 54% of the voters disapproved of his actions. Kerry didn't have any appeal to those voters who were willing to vote Democrat, and wanted an alternative to Bush.

[Buccaneer]

I'll pile on that I believe strongly that the Bush campaign fired up the religious base, and that made the difference in the election. I think that is revisionist democrat demogoguery.

Yeah, esp. it was 60/40 among protestant voters (are those the extremists?) and only 56/44 in 2000. Catholics were basically split, I guess those anti-abortionist extremists weren't too decisive.

<TABLE id=epoll cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0><TBODY><TR bgColor=#ffffff><TD vAlign=bottom width=341>VOTE BY RELIGION</TD><TD class=LTBorder bgColor=#cc0000 colSpan=2><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=123 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width=36>http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn//ELECTION/2004/pages/results/exit.polls/images/table.sm.bush.jpg</TD><TD align=middle width=87>BUSH</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD><TD class=LTBorder>http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn//ELECTION/2004/pages/results/exit.polls/images/table.sm.kerry.jpg</TD><TD class=TBorder align=middle width=87 bgColor=#094b93>KERRY</TD><TD class=LTBorder>http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn//ELECTION/2004/pages/results/exit.polls/images/table.sm.nader.jpg</TD><TD class=TRBorder align=middle width=87 bgColor=#cc9900>NADER</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#ebebeb><TD class=LTRBorder align=middle bgColor=#dddddd>TOTAL
</TD><TD class=TRBorder align=middle colSpan=0>2004
</TD><TD class=TRBorder align=middle>2000
</TD><TD class=TRBorder align=middle colSpan=2>2004
</TD><TD class=TRBorder align=middle colSpan=2>2004
</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#999999><TD colSpan=7>http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/images/1.gif</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#ffffff><TD class=LTRBorder align=middle>Protestant (54%)
</TD><TD class=TRBorder align=middle colSpan=0>59%</TD><TD class=TRBorder align=middle>+3
</TD><TD class=TRBorder align=middle colSpan=2>40%</TD><TD class=TRBorder align=middle colSpan=2>0%</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#999999><TD colSpan=7>http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/images/1.gif</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#ffffff><TD class=LTRBorder align=middle>Catholic (27%)
</TD><TD class=TRBorder align=middle colSpan=0>52%</TD><TD class=TRBorder align=middle>+5
</TD><TD class=TRBorder align=middle colSpan=2>47%</TD><TD class=TRBorder align=middle colSpan=2>0%</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#999999><TD colSpan=7>http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/images/1.gif</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#ffffff><TD class=LTRBorder align=middle>Jewish (3%)
</TD><TD class=TRBorder align=middle colSpan=0>25%</TD><TD class=TRBorder align=middle>+6
</TD><TD class=TRBorder align=middle colSpan=2>74%</TD><TD class=TRBorder align=middle colSpan=2>*</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#999999><TD colSpan=7>http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/images/1.gif</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#ffffff><TD class=LTRBorder align=middle>Other (7%)
</TD><TD class=TRBorder align=middle colSpan=0>23%</TD><TD class=TRBorder align=middle>-5
</TD><TD class=TRBorder align=middle colSpan=2>74%</TD><TD class=TRBorder align=middle colSpan=2>1%</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#999999><TD colSpan=7>http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/images/1.gif</TD></TR><TR bgColor=#ffffff><TD class=LTRBorder align=middle>None (10%)
</TD><TD class=TRBorder align=middle colSpan=0>31%</TD><TD class=TRBorder align=middle>+1
</TD><TD class=TRBorder align=middle colSpan=2>67%</TD><TD class=TRBorder align=middle colSpan=2>1%</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Kerry got 21% of the Evangelical votes (which is smaller than some of the above categories), I guess those 21% are extremists too.

Hint: If you want to find extremists, go look up Earth First!, or John Birch Society, or Greenpeace, or Marxist Socialists, or hard-core Survivalists, or the Klan. Everyone else is so middle-of-the-road compared to them that it only takes an extremist to view that large groups would be considered extremists.

[Galaxy]

I don't think I can simply brush Kerry off as a non-entity in that race. He was miles better than say Howard Dean.

I'll pile on that I believe strongly that the Bush campaign fired up the religious base, and that made the difference in the election. I think that is revisionist democrat demogoguery. They want an excuse for why Kerry lost, that wasn't there fault. That excuse doesn't exist. Kerry lost this election because he did nothing to appeal to people were dis satisfied with Bush.

I went into the campaign thinking Kerry was a distinguished veteran that I respected. By the time the election rolled around that wasn't the case. He, and the DNC, piled on the priviledged son and AWOL from the air guard arguments. He attacked Bush's service to his country. Like it or not, the air guard is service to your country, and there's no proof that Bush was AWOL.

Kerry lost to a guy who got 52%(or somesuch) of the vote, when 54% of the voters disapproved of his actions. Kerry didn't have any appeal to those voters who were willing to vote Democrat, and wanted an alternative to Bush.

Just a little confused. Doesn't the religious base usually vote on the right wing? Did he get more religious people to come out to vote? Wouldn't that religious base usually vote for a right-wing candidate?

[Galaxy]

Wait, what is the opposite of what I was saying? You don't think the Bush team are good campaigners? In any close contest, it's a combination of one side winning and one side losing. The difference in the Presidency was only 100k votes in Ohio. Any number of things could have swung that. Bush ran a good campaign, and Kerry made some mistakes.

Of course Bush ran a better campaign. If Kerry had a better campaign stragety and was more focused on the issues, I think he would of been in much better shape. However, Kerry and the Democrats did a much crapper job than Bush doing a "spectular" job. It was up to Kerry to show us alternatives, not Bush. Bush was seeking re-election, already had an established platform going in with Iraq, taxes, ect.

I'm not sure what exactly your trying to show.

[Buccaneer]

Galaxy, what religious base? Take a look at the poll above. One could argue that the "Evangelical" voters would generally vote "right-wing" but they are a minority of religious voters. The only group you can accurately say this for would be the Mormon voters.

[Galaxy]

Galaxy, what religious base? Take a look at the poll above. One could argue that the "Evangelical" voters would generally vote "right-wing" but they are a minority of religious voters. The only group you can accurately say this for would be the Mormon voters.

True, I was just going off Glengoyge's post? For some reason, the graph didn't show up when I last clicked on the thread.

[MrBigglesworth]

Typical worthless, ignorant shit from you. The "extreme" base makes up about 5%. The Dems have the same extremist percentage so they cancel out. That is, if you have a clue what makes up an "extremist" which I doubt you would even come close.
This is a dumb semantic argument, because you are quibbling over what is 'extreme', when 'extreme' is a word that could mean different things to different people. It's like I said, 'The Eagles are a great team', and you come back with, 'Great?! You think they are better than the '72 Dolphins and the '86 Bears!? What worthless ignorant shit!' What a terrible argument, I expect better from you.

[MrBigglesworth]

I'll pile on that I believe strongly that the Bush campaign fired up the religious base, and that made the difference in the election. I think that is revisionist democrat demogoguery. They want an excuse for why Kerry lost, that wasn't there fault.
I'm going to assume that you meant you don't believe that the Bush campaign fired up the base and made a typo. How is it an excuse to say otherwise? Religious people are voters too, it's not different than saying he appealed to the middle. They are all valid strategies to win, not excuses. Look at the exit polling from 2000 and 2004:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.epolls.html
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

Conservatives went from 29% of the voters to 34% of the voters. Bush went from winning independants 47-45 to losing them 48-49. And plus, it's obvious that 2004 Bush was much more conservative than 2000 'compassionate conservative' Bush. He ran to the middle in 2000, then ran to the right in 2004.

I went into the campaign thinking Kerry was a distinguished veteran that I respected. By the time the election rolled around that wasn't the case. He, and the DNC, piled on the priviledged son and AWOL from the air guard arguments. He attacked Bush's service to his country. Like it or not, the air guard is service to your country, and there's no proof that Bush was AWOL.
What about Bush's attack on Kerry's service? Kerry attacked a lack of a record, while Bush attacked a distinguished service record. People at the GOP convention mocked his purple hearts by wearing purple band-aids. You're a Republican. It's ok to say that you liked Bush's policies so you voted for him again.

Kerry lost this election because he did nothing to appeal to people were dis satisfied with Bush...Kerry lost to a guy who got 52%(or somesuch) of the vote, when 54% of the voters disapproved of his actions. Kerry didn't have any appeal to those voters who were willing to vote Democrat, and wanted an alternative to Bush.
Those are incorrect numbers. Right before the election, Bush's favorability was 48-47 according to Fox, 53-44 according to Gallup, 48-42 NYT, 50-46 WSJ, and 53-42 WaPo. The election ended up 51/48. Kerry had more votes than Bush had unfavorability. I know, it's crazy today, with Bush mired in the mid to low thirties, to think that more than 50% of the people liked Bush's policies, but that was once the case. Bush won because he ran a good campaign, he appealed to his base, and people approved of his policies at the time.

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushFav.htm

[Galaxy]

I gotta ask, Biggs, what is your career?

[MrBigglesworth]

I gotta ask, Biggs, what is your career?

Why do you have to ask?

[Glengoyne]

I'm going to assume that you meant you don't believe that the Bush campaign fired up the base and made a typo. How is it an excuse to say otherwise? Religious people are voters too, it's not different than saying he appealed to the middle. They are all valid strategies to win, not excuses. Look at the exit polling from 2000 and 2004:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.epolls.html
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

Conservatives went from 29% of the voters to 34% of the voters. Bush went from winning independants 47-45 to losing them 48-49. And plus, it's obvious that 2004 Bush was much more conservative than 2000 'compassionate conservative' Bush. He ran to the middle in 2000, then ran to the right in 2004.


What about Bush's attack on Kerry's service? Kerry attacked a lack of a record, while Bush attacked a distinguished service record. People at the GOP convention mocked his purple hearts by wearing purple band-aids. You're a Republican. It's ok to say that you liked Bush's policies so you voted for him again.


Those are incorrect numbers. Right before the election, Bush's favorability was 48-47 according to Fox, 53-44 according to Gallup, 48-42 NYT, 50-46 WSJ, and 53-42 WaPo. The election ended up 51/48. Kerry had more votes than Bush had unfavorability. I know, it's crazy today, with Bush mired in the mid to low thirties, to think that more than 50% of the people liked Bush's policies, but that was once the case. Bush won because he ran a good campaign, he appealed to his base, and people approved of his policies at the time.

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushFav.htm

I believe it is revisionist to think that Bush won reelection because the Republicans orchestrated to have Gay Marriage issues placed on the ballot. That is essentially what the Rove as evil genius camp seem to expect people to believe. The idea that Bush won because of the incredible intollerance of the Right is what I'm addressing. You know I'm talking about all of the liberal bloggers and press talking about the stupid and biggoted people populating the red states. In my opinion Bush won because Kerry failed to appeal to enough of the political middle. That block of voters that secured the elections of both Regan and Clinton.

I do agree with the last bit about appealing to the base and people approving his policies. I really recalled there being polls election week indicating that 54% didn't approve of his policies, possibly I have that on its head and it was 46% approval. To me that indicated that the middle wasn't happy with Bush, but were less happy with Kerry. This pretty well described my situation. So I'm not disputing that Bush ran to the Right moreso than in 2000. My assertion is that Kerry didn't do enough to garner the votes of the political middle. Kerry had an audience that could have delivered him the election, but the middle didn't have enough of a reason to vote for him.

On Bush attacks on Kerry's service. He didn't. Plain and simple. He stayed out of that fray, and only offered praise of Kerry's service. Kerry and the DNC did lower themselves to that level.

On the purple hearts thing. I didn't read more than excerpts of the Swift Boat Vets stuff. I did thoroughly read Kerry's rebuttles. I found them particularly revealing. To set the frame of mind. I have always admired Kerry's service. I thought the three purple hearts was an amazing thing, and honestly respected the hell out of him for that sacrifice for his country. Then I read his accounts. Mortar attack...abrasion. OK, I'm imagining that shrapnel can give you quite an abrasion. Oh, no stitches required..okay, well I still imagine it was serious. Some other action...Abrasion. Hmm abrasion again. Still probably fairly serious..right? Oh, no stitches required again. Third action, a mine goes off and he is knocked against the bulkhead. He uses his injured arm to pull a man out of the water. His third purple heart is for a contusion. A bruise. So his tremendous sacrifice to his country amounted to two scrapes and a bruise.

All of the sudden my impression of his war service went from that of wounded hero, to someone who wanted out of combat duty and used relatively minor injuries to do just that. Those aren't the actions of the war hero I believed him to be. Those are the actions of a much more common man. He still deserves credit for service to his country, and even extra credit for leading men in active combat duties, but the manner in which he earned his purple hearts diminishes the respect he is otherwise due. In other words, taking shots at Kerry's purple hearts is somewhat defensible.

[st.cronin]

You know I'm talking about all of the liberal bloggers and press talking about the stupid and biggoted people populating the red states.

I forget who it was who recently was in Santa Fe pimping a book which attributed the Bush victory to a lack of coffee shops in places like Kansas.

[MrBigglesworth]

On the purple hearts thing. I didn't read more than excerpts of the Swift Boat Vets stuff. I did thoroughly read Kerry's rebuttles. I found them particularly revealing. To set the frame of mind. I have always admired Kerry's service. I thought the three purple hearts was an amazing thing, and honestly respected the hell out of him for that sacrifice for his country. Then I read his accounts. Mortar attack...abrasion. OK, I'm imagining that shrapnel can give you quite an abrasion. Oh, no stitches required..okay, well I still imagine it was serious. Some other action...Abrasion. Hmm abrasion again. Still probably fairly serious..right? Oh, no stitches required again. Third action, a mine goes off and he is knocked against the bulkhead. He uses his injured arm to pull a man out of the water. His third purple heart is for a contusion. A bruise. So his tremendous sacrifice to his country amounted to two scrapes and a bruise.

All of the sudden my impression of his war service went from that of wounded hero, to someone who wanted out of combat duty and used relatively minor injuries to do just that. Those aren't the actions of the war hero I believed him to be. Those are the actions of a much more common man. He still deserves credit for service to his country, and even extra credit for leading men in active combat duties, but the manner in which he earned his purple hearts diminishes the respect he is otherwise due. In other words, taking shots at Kerry's purple hearts is somewhat defensible.
Whether just having a silver and bronze star makes you a war hero, or getting seriously injured while obtaining a silver and bronze star makes you a hero, is a subjective matter of opinion I think. But to set the record straight, Kerry's third purple heart was for, according to the Navy's own casualty report, "shrapnel wounds in left buttocks and contusions on his right forearm when a mine detonated close aboard PCF-94." So it wasn't just a bruise. These injuries kept him off-duty for a couple of days. I'm sure that there were people injured a whole hell of a lot worse than Kerry was, but the point is that he was in combat enough to receive shrapnel three times, as well as to earn a Silver and Bronze star. Everything is fair game in politics, but the attacks on Kerry's service were mostly based on lies. Most of what the SBVT said was contradicted by Navy documents. On the other hand, the attacks on Bush were based on the lack of records.

On Bush attacks on Kerry's service. He didn't. Plain and simple. He stayed out of that fray, and only offered praise of Kerry's service. Kerry and the DNC did lower themselves to that level.
Bush had his unaccountable 527 groups and legions of right wing media members going around slinging mud for him. Rove campaigns are notorious for dirty tricks and mud slinging:

- push polling in SC against McCain calling his child was an illegitimate black child
- push polling in Texas against Richards with questions like: "Would you be more or less likely to vote for Governor Richards if you knew her staff is dominated by lesbians?"
- whisper campaign against judge Mark Kennedy in Alabama labelling him a pedophile
- bugged his own office and blamed it on Mark White in Texas

...and I'm sure you could go on. Calling Bush's campaign 'above the fray' is ludicrous. And the RNC: purple heart band-aids at the convention??

[Galaxy]

Why do you have to ask?

Just wonder.

[Glengoyne]

.... But to set the record straight, Kerry's third purple heart was for, according to the Navy's own casualty report, "shrapnel wounds in left buttocks and contusions on his right forearm when a mine detonated close aboard PCF-94." So it wasn't just a bruise. These injuries kept him off-duty for a couple of days. I'm sure that there were people injured a whole hell of a lot worse than Kerry was, but the point is that he was in combat enough to receive shrapnel three times, as well as to earn a Silver and Bronze star. ...


Bush had his unaccountable 527 groups and legions of right wing media members going around slinging mud for him. Rove campaigns are notorious for dirty tricks and mud slinging:

- push polling in SC against McCain calling his child was an illegitimate black child
- push polling in Texas against Richards with questions like: "Would you be more or less likely to vote for Governor Richards if you knew her staff is dominated by lesbians?"
- whisper campaign against judge Mark Kennedy in Alabama labelling him a pedophile
- bugged his own office and blamed it on Mark White in Texas

...and I'm sure you could go on. Calling Bush's campaign 'above the fray' is ludicrous. And the RNC: purple heart band-aids at the convention??

The groups attacking Kerry weren't affiliated with Bush, and he condemned them. That is above the fray.

The closest you can come to RNC sponsorship was that someone didn't stop the delegates at the convention from parading around with the purple bandaids. I think they should have. Then again, you have extremely partisan delegates at those conventions, and they are having fun. I know I found the purple hearts funny.

Also My understanding of the navy records was that his purple heart had ZERO, ZIP, NADA to do with the shrapnel in his buttocks. The reason, the shrapnel in his buttocks came from throwing his grenade into a rice bin, and not taking propercover. You do not get a purple heart for what amounted to self inflicted injuries. That account came from Kerry's rebuttal of the Swift Boat Vets accounts of him fleeing the scene of the mine incident.

Oh and Rove has been accused of so many dirty tricks I have trouble keeping track of which ones are apocryphal.

[Galaxy]

He's on Larry King Live tonight and has Oprah's support.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Gleng, you truly are clueless to how the last election went and the type of campaigning that went on.

[flere-imsaho]

The biggest problem, though, is that none of the four stand much of a chance at winning their primaries once the idealogues with the passion and money come out to play.

It works when you have one extreme (hard Texas conservative) versus another (Notheastern liberal with soft foreign policy). But I think *if* a broader appeal candidate made it through the primaries, they would fare pretty well in today's climate - esp for the party not in power.

Two very sensible comments with which I wholeheartedly agree.

The groups attacking Kerry weren't affiliated with Bush, and he condemned them. That is above the fray.

If I remember correctly, Bush was asked specifically to condemn the Swift Boaters, and specifically didn't. Furthermore, tacit cooperation between 527 groups like the Swift Boaters and candidates is a fact of life in modern politics. You need to understand that. If not, then I don't want to hear you complain about MoveOn.org or dailykos being lackeys of various Democratic candidates.

The closest you can come to RNC sponsorship was that someone didn't stop the delegates at the convention from parading around with the purple bandaids. I think they should have. Then again, you have extremely partisan delegates at those conventions, and they are having fun. I know I found the purple hearts funny.

Earlier in the thread you chided Kerry for attacking Bush's service in the Air Guard. But you're OK with delegates at the RNC convention (which is televised, by the way) mocking another candidate's actual service in combat?

Oh and Rove has been accused of so many dirty tricks I have trouble keeping track of which ones are apocryphal.

If we stick just to those currently under investigation by the DOJ, there are still plenty to talk about.

[Galaxy]

It works when you have one extreme (hard Texas conservative) versus another (Notheastern liberal with soft foreign policy). But I think *if* a broader appeal candidate made it through the primaries, they would fare pretty well in today's climate - esp for the party not in power.

In other words, I think a hard conservative (anti-gay marriage, pro tax cut, stay the course in Iraq, close the borders, anti-abortion,...) could beat a hard liberal.

Agree.

[Galaxy]

Looks like Obama may look at a serious run in 2008.

[Joe]

meh. nobody with the middle name of Hussein has a chance.

[Glengoyne]

If I remember correctly, Bush was asked specifically to condemn the Swift Boaters, and specifically didn't. Furthermore, tacit cooperation between 527 groups like the Swift Boaters and candidates is a fact of life in modern politics. You need to understand that. If not, then I don't want to hear you complain about MoveOn.org or dailykos being lackeys of various Democratic candidates.

That isn't how I recall it. I believe he disparaged the ads, and the type of organization(527) that they came from. I have the same problem with the Swift Boaters that I have with MoveOn and company. The side of the aisle doesn't make a difference to me.



Earlier in the thread you chided Kerry for attacking Bush's service in the Air Guard. But you're OK with delegates at the RNC convention (which is televised, by the way) mocking another candidate's actual service in combat?


Actually I said that the RNC should have come down and put a stop to the band-aid thing. I also said that, specifically because I had taken the time to read Kerry's account of his purple hearts, I found the purple band-aids funny. I also consider the fact that there are extremely partisan supporters on the convention floor, and the fact that poking fun at the opposition is widespread in those circumstances. So I don't expect it is all that much more serious than anyone who was prancing around at the Democratic convention with a sign about Bush being Awol.

[flere-imsaho]

Regardless of how he got his purple hearts, he was still in combat, serving his country, and you're mocking it.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

That isn't how I recall it. I believe he disparaged the ads, and the type of organization(527) that they came from.

More accurately, he only did so after the ads were off the air for a week or so. He actually refused to do so while the ads were still running for 4 weeks and when he was encouraged to speak out against them (most notably by John McCain who asked Bush to condemn them). That frankly was very, very weak on his part (but par for the course in terms of campaign strategy). But you can keep defending him even though you say you personally dislike such ads. Selective memory I think they call it.

[Glengoyne]

More accurately, he only did so after the ads were off the air for a week or so. He actually refused to do so while the ads were still running for 4 weeks and when he was encouraged to speak out against them (most notably by John McCain who asked Bush to condemn them). That frankly was very, very weak on his part (but par for the course in terms of campaign strategy). But you can keep defending him even though you say you personally dislike such ads. Selective memory I think they call it.

I honestly don't think it was selective memory. I seem to recall him speaking out against all such ads throughout the time that they were being run. I recall pointing out even then, that Bush was condemning the Swift Boat ads while Kerry had been engaging on the AWOL story.


Flere,

I don't think I'm mocking him or his service. I said that I felt that someone at the Republican Convention should have addressed it. I think his service was exemplary. I just no longer consider him a war hero. I did say it was funny, and I'll stand by that without believing I'm mocking him. He and his actions aren't, or at least, shouldn't be off limits.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

As I said, your memory is selective. Bush was silent for at least 3 weeks after the ads started running (even though he was asked to condemn them). Then when he finally spoke on the issue, he still refused to condemn them specifically. Instead, he condemned 527 ads in general and that there was no place for them. He was then asked about the swift boat ads, and the stated "yes, and that ad too."

However, in the effort of accurate discourse here, I believe the record should be set straight.

[MrBigglesworth]

Let's go to the tape...

Aug 5 (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/05/kerry.veterans/index.html), the ads first start to air.

Aug 22 (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/22/bush.kerry.ads/), talks about how McCain is asking Bush to repudiate ads.

Aug 24 (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/23/bush.kerry/index.html) saying Bush has yet to condemn the ads even when specifically asked about him. In fact, he dances around it and just says that all 527s should be shut down (though the GOP always has a regular funding advantage, the Dems had an advantage in 527 funding, hence the GOP wanting to shut 527's down). Notice that McClellan says that there is no change in his stance.

Aug 29 (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/29/kerry.firstlady/): "President Bush has praised Kerry's war record but has refused to condemn the attacks in the group's ads."

Sept 1 (http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/08/31/dean.swiftboat.book/): "Bush seems happy to benefit from the swift boat attacks, even as he offers lukewarm praise of Kerry's war record, and a general critique of 527 organizations."

Sept 1 (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/30/gop.purple.hearts/), "Kerry has called on President Bush to denounce the swift boat veterans' ads. Bush has responded by calling for an end to all attack ads by independent groups but has not specifically criticized the anti-Kerry commercials."

I think the record speaks for itself.

http://taospage.com/post/bandaid_1.jpg
Above: the RNC, at their national convention, remaining above the fray.

[Ben E Lou]

As ridiculous as it sounds, I bet the fact that his name is so close to Osama would be a factor.

CNN Apologizes for Mistaken Headline
Confusing Obama With Osama? CNN Makes an On-Air Goof and Then an Apology


<script language="Javascript" type="text/javascript"> //<![CDATA[ if (sIFR != null && sIFR.replaceElement != null) { sIFR.replaceElement("h2.replace_feature","http://a.abcnews.com/flash/futura.swf","#000000", null, null, null, null, null, null, null); sIFR.replaceElement("h3.replace_feature","http://a.abcnews.com/flash/futurabold.swf","#999999", null, null, null, null, null, null, null); } //]]> </script> http://a.abcnews.com/images/Entertainment/NY11501022007_sp.jpegSen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. acknowledges the crowd at the state Democratic election celebration party in Manchester, N.H. in this Dec. 10, 2006 file photo. CNN apologized Tuesday Jan. 2, 2006 for mistakenly promoting a story on the search for Osama bin Laden with the headline "Where's Obama?" A spokesman for Obama said the apology was accepted. (AP Photo/Jim Cole, File)



NEW YORK Jan 2, 2007 (AP)— CNN apologized Tuesday for mistakenly promoting a story on the search for Osama bin Laden with the headline "Where's Obama?"

A spokesman for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama said the apology was accepted.
The blunder came Monday evening on Wolf Blitzer's news show "The Situation Room." Both Soledad O'Brien and Blitzer offered separate apologies during CNN's morning show Tuesday.

CNN called it a "bad typographical error" by its graphics department.
"We want to apologize for that bad typo," Blitzer said. "We also want to apologize personally to Sen. Barack Obama. I'm going to be making a call to him later this morning to offer my personal apology."
Tommy Vieto, Obama's press secretary, said he appreciated the bloggers and activists who brought the error to light so quickly and helped make sure it was corrected.

"Though I'd note that the `s' and `b' keys aren't all that close to each other, I assume it was just an unfortunate mistake, and don't think there was any truly malicious intent," Vieto said.

[sterlingice]

Where's Dutch? I don't see him all over the mainstream press for this "grievous" error?

SI

[Brillig]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/03/18/MNGHNONEPS1.DTL



It may be the most stunning and creative attack ad yet for a 2008 presidential candidate -- one experts say could represent a watershed moment in 21st century media and political advertising.
Yet the groundbreaking 74-second pitch for Democratic Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, which remixes the classic "1984" ad that introduced Apple computers to the world, is not on cable or network TV, but on the Internet. (To see the video, go to: www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h3G-lMZxjo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h3G-lMZxjo))

Seriously. This is "creative" and "groundbreaking"? I've seen better work on this board. :)

[Crapshoot]

Where's Dutch? I don't see him all over the mainstream press for this "grievous" error?

SI

Its Dutch. Anything short of Limbaugh is clearly some left-wing fantasy. :D

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Lame.

[Young Drachma]

I don't see how that's an Obama ad. Unless it's just anti-Hillary and so Obama by default.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

youtube actually also has an identical one, except with Obama on the big screen getting smashed, instead of Clinton. It's just people goofing around on youtube.