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

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Anxiety

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

-Anxiety

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

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

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

Easily spun.


-Anxiety

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Anxiety

I think the Democrats should try Russ Feingold. He's very liberal, so that makes their core happy. Happy core = campaign workers and dollars. He is also very respected by politicos, which shows he knows how to work the system.

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

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

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Anxiety

Easily spun.


-Anxiety

spin away

[chinaski]

Originally Posted by Anxiety

Easily spun.


-Anxiety

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

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

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

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

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

-Anxiety

[st.cronin]

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

[chinaski]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

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

Are you sure? This sounds a awful lot like what Scott McClellan was saying this morning in reference to Feingold...

McClellan: "I think it does raise the question, how do you fight and win the war on terrorism?" McClellan said. "And if Democrats want to argue that we shouldn't be listening to al Qaeda communications, it's their right and we welcome the debate. We are a nation at war."

If you can track down Feingold saying that, id really appreciate it. I honestly dont believe he would say something that stupid, i highly doubt theres any senator on either side of the aisle that would believe something so absurd. Hes repeatedly said that Bush should follow the law, not that Bush should not spy on Al Qaeda.

I take it youre for letting any President of the US and his administration to evesdrop on anyone they want? Is it ok for the government to blindly record the calls of thousands of americans and then datamine what was said?

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by chinaski

I take it youre for letting any President of the US and his administration to evesdrop on anyone they want? Is it ok for the government to blindly record the calls of thousands of americans and then datamine what was said?

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

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

[st.cronin]

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

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

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

He didn't lose.

Moron

Sorry I couldn't resist.

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

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

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

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

[chinaski]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

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

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

Id love it if Bush actually tried to use Echelon, that would mean hes actually going for some sort of transparency.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

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

He's one of the most boring public speakers I have ever heard (I fell asleep and snored when he spoke at my college back in 1995) and his wife started the PMRC. That's two really big strikes in my book.

[BishopMVP]

Gore's really gone off the deep end since he lost that 2000 election. I don't have them at hand, but I know I've seen some speeches of his that put him firmly in the Noam Chomsky/MoveOn camp. That kind of extremism is a surefire political loser.

Originally Posted by chinaski

Id love it if Bush actually tried to use Echelon, that would mean hes actually going for some sort of transparency.

He (or more precisely the NSA) is almost certainly using Echelon and other similar unnamed programs. But there is no need to announce that if no one is going to call him on it. I've kinda found the whole monitoring/FISA debate hilarious because I've had the impression for awhile now that the government is monitoring most calls and datamining them/keeping them for reference. Check out the EFF's recent lawsuit against AT&T regarding telephone recordings - if a single company can do that, imagine what the NSA has back there in West Virginia.

[King of New York]

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

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

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

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

Originally Posted by Russ Feingold

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

...

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

...

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

...

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

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

...

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

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

Sounds like you already have.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

See what I mean?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Barkeep49]

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

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

[flere-imsaho]

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

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

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

[GrantDawg]

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

[Barkeep49]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

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

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

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Barkeep49

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

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

[Butter]

Obama?

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Obama?

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