»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Looks Like Fun....
| The Alley |
|
Looks Like Fun.... |
|
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA 
|
Hillary's in - and she's in to win.  She claims one of her big points will be affordable health care. I vaguely remember hubby putting her in charge of that when he was president and she failed miserably....but who remembers that far back?The fun will begin as more people throw their hats in the ring. You think Democrats are rough on Bush? Just wait until you see how they will go after each other!!  24 will look like Leave it to Beaver... |
||
| © Copyright 2007 Michael Mack - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
It won't be pretty, that much is certain. I hope we have a few months ahead of us before those annoying political commercials start all over again. Hey, if we all send in letters to the networks, affiliates and sponsers of the programs that we like and threaten not to watch the shows or buy the products if they run political commercials, maybe they wouldn't run them! Ah well, I can dream, can't I? |
||
Mistletoe Angel 
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
With the exception of her family, relatives and loved ones, of course, I think Karl Rove is more excited about this announcement than most today because he KNOWS she's a front-runner, yet an incredibly vulnerable candidate and it would take just one real blow once the election season begins in earnest for her to make no recovery. I'ce said this for months and I'll say it again; I think Clinton will inevitably lose because the people who will vote for Clinton now are the same people who are going to vote for her in the primary. That's what I mean when I say she's polarizing. She may have a chunk of support now, but I highly doubt that she'll gain any additional support in the coming year, like Barack and Edwards are capable of doing. Why I believe that is virtually everyone has already made up their mind about her, and much of it is not very favorable. In one Newsweek poll conducted last November, 45% of respondents said that there was no chance they would vote for Hillary Clinton, while 33% said that there's a good chance. So the unfavorable group is much stronger than the favorable group, and the unfavorable group makes up nearly half the panel. Also, each poll reveals that virtually EVERYONE knows who Hillary is and already know whether they like her or not, with each poll result revealing no more than 5% "unsure" of what they think of her. Thus, she has barely any opportunity at all at re-inventing herself, and thus every move she makes to either the left or the right will be obvious to the voters. I believe most of the early hype for the 2008 presidential election season is pretty pointless and trivial. In fact, I understand Edmund Muskie was the formidable favorite for the Democratic nomination in 1972, but suddenly tanked after anti-Vietnam war furor swallowed Muskie whole due to not being lock-in-step with other anti-war Democrats, and was defeated in the Democratic primaries to George McGovern (who of course went on to lose against Richard Nixon) I believe Clinton now realizes exactly how strong the anti-war voice in not just the Democratic Party, but a growing part of the GOP has grown, and she is trying to avoid becoming the next Muskie, and THAT'S really why she went on that four-day trip to Iraq; she could pull a stunt and claim she saw all the instability there and decided there a surge in troops was the wrong move and that we should be pushing for a phased withdrawal, when less than a month ago in fact she voted FOR funding the surge. Besides the Muskie example, so many times historically the clear early favorite ended up being overshadowed by a challenger that came out of nowhere and was barely even recognized. Gary Hart was seen as the clear Democratic favorite for a long time before the Democratic primary in 1988, and then extramarital affair information destroyed his candidacy. Then Joseph Biden was seen as a favorite and he was sued for plagiarizing. Then Al Gore was seen as just as potentially strong as Michael Dukakis, and fell short. I think it's not too surprising why no Senator or Congressman/Congresswoman has been elected to the presidency in over forty years; voting record transparency has a way of defining those kind of candidates before they can define themselves, and especially in more polarizing election seasons such as the last several and what is bound to be another heavily polarizing one in 2008, I can imagine most are always looking for a less-political alternative, and I hear many calling for just that in 2008 rather than returning to the "Bush & Clinton" sitcom. If I were a Democratic strategist, I'd be looking to their success in the 2006 mid-term elections in terms of new governorships picked up in six states, including Colorado, Arkansas, Massachusetts, New York, Maryland and Ohio, and find some more experienced, seasoned candidates in Democratic governors that can bring a more moderate appeal to the bunch. Bill Richardson I understand is considering a bid for the White House, and Nevada is one primary state where he could do very well among Latino voters in particular. I think Kathleen Sebelius would also make an excellent Vice Presidential ticket, who is widely popular in the heavily Republican state of Kansas for governing as a centrist and winning over more moderate Republicans in the state who have actually switched parties in that the state's GOP is currently divided between the more socially moderate Republicans and the anti-evolution kind of Republicans in particular. Governors keep getting elected for a reason; they have far less to worry about in terms of their records being exposed to everyone. Despite that, however, I think Barack Obama may potentially have one of the best shots out of any senator to pull it off and go all the way to win the White House in forty years. * * As for the Republicans, I think it's arguably going to be an even more bitter contest in their party than among the Democrats. While the Democratic Party is approaching 2008 being virtually completely united against the war in Iraq (despite disagreeing on a specific alternative plan or exit strategy beyond phased withdrawal) the GOP has become divided on Iraq, where you have John McCain appearing now as the biggest hawk of the hopefuls, with Mitt Romney and Rudolph Giuliani also backing Bush on the war, while Sam Brownback and Chuck Hagel in particular have come out as the more anti-war candidates in the fray. Add to that the party's divisions between the more moderate Republicans that are associated with "It's My Party Too" and the more hard-line conservative Republicans associated with Focus on the Family, the libertarian Republicans that don't favor warrantless wiretapping and presidential power grabs and Republicans who believe it's a small price to pay to protect this nation from terrorists, the Eisenhower Republicans who denounce this trend of pre-emptive strikes on nation after nation and a growing and increasingly looming military industrial complex with neoconservative Republicans who believe in the "long war" strategy of invading nation after nation for the purpose of spreading democracies across the world and hope they generate domino effects of sorts and influence their neighbors. I think the party is more divided than it appears to be, and a hint of that is reflected both in Arnold Schwarzenegger's amazing comeback in California as a moderate after appearing destined to fade into political obscurity after governing aggressively as a hard-line Republican in a strong Democratic state, and watching every one of his sponsored measures in the special election bomb, which translated into a re-election in 2006 and being one of few Republican incumbents last year to survive, and Charlie Crist being elected Governor of Florida, campaigning as a moderate Republican who favors civil unions and is pro-choice to an extent on the issues among some other things. I think McCain was originally perceived as the favorite in the GOP for 2008, but he has paid a big price for vocally advocating an increase in troops in Iraq, which puts him heavily in odds with the American populace right now, and with the Iraq war all but certainly likely to continue after Bush leaves office in January of 2009, McCain is not where he wants to be politically in a time where the public has become anti-war in tone. Giuliani is ranked #1 in most polls now, but I don't see him winning either as the anti-abortion crowd is going to cut him down and he'll be accused by many as being too liberal for the party. Mitt Romney has an excellent opportunity at reinventing himself given his current low name recognition, but the word "Massachusetts" alone is going to turn off a notable bunch of conservatives, and his past record can haunt him heavily in the primaries, where before he is known to have advocated gay marriage and was pro-choice. I happen to belive Chuck Hagel has high potential to become a runaway dark horse force to be reckoned with next year. Here you have a Republican who has a strong and consistent pro-life, pro-gun, pro-family record that will pacify the more conservative Republicans in the party, while satisfy moderates and independents who now heavily shape the anti-war majority in that Hagel has more credibility than any other Republican besides now-departed Lincoln Chafee on the issue of Iraq in that he has stood up opposing the war and its handling for years now, longer than even half the Democratic Party has, thus will have great credibility on the issue of Iraq in 2008 that other GOP candidates will be on the defensive on. 2008 will be quite an interesting year, that I'm sure we can all agree here. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I agree with a lot you say, Noah. The Republicans will have an interesting time choosing, also. Too many people distrust McCain and it would appear TJ will remain the front runner throughout. The others are simply unknowns to most Americans. If Hillary wins her party, the Republicans win the White House by default. Not A Hair Out of Place Edwards is not credible enough and Kerry and Gore are losers, no matter how much they try to re-invent themselves. Obama is, of course, the man to beat but it will all depend on voters' ability to excuse his lack of experience and go with the personality factor. Hey, that's how billy got in, a governor of a small state with some of the worst state statistics of the entire country....but he was likeable. When you look at people like Kennedy, Kerry, Gore, Boxer, Pelosi and Hillary, it's easy to understand why Democrats are starving for a likeable personality and will embrace him. Fasten you seat belts. We could be in for a bumpy ride |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
And then again, the question regarding Obama is that even if experience ultimately doesn't matter that much to the American populace, can he pull it off when his voting record is front and center with the American people. After all, Clinton's record was much more vague to the public in 1992 since he never served as a congressman or senator, and rather a governor of Arkansas. Though Obama may genuinely speak in a non-polarizing tone in public, once his record is exposed he can be depicted well as being another liberal Democratic stereotype, and some pundits will be keeping a close eye especially on his record regarding Bush's judicial nominees and Supreme Court selections such as John Roberts, who Obama opposed, and thinks like that. Also, they may point to his record on Iraq and suggest that he could be too anti-war, although I think unlike the former potential obstacle Obama may actually come out strong and credible on the Iraq issue and will challenged more in fact on foreign policy experience and whether he can be trusted as a strong commander-in-chief. These are the things I think Obama will ultimately have to explain in particular, but frankly, I think he's in a much healthier position than Clinton currently, and Kerry, Gore and Biden should simply dream on if they seriously think they have another shot at getting elected. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
24 will look like Leave it to Beaver...  |
||
Mysteria
since 2001-03-07
Posts 18328British Columbia, Canada |
I heard the news this morning,turned on the computer as I knew I would find you on this one Michael  I could have made a lot of money betting this would happen. Could she be a Commander and Chief? Well, she has a fantastic political mind "behind her," but if you are taking bets on hats, and winners, I am afraid I am still with Obama, but he may be "too green" for the current climate in the States.I found this article in the Seattle Times quite interesting, and just only hope you have the time down there to really think this one out, and get America someone who can bring back the "heart" I somehow feel is missing. If I am wrong I do apologize. Here's the article - and you are right Michael, 24 will be nothing compared to this coming election. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003535266_network22.html By the way, I know I am Canadian, and maybe not as aware of your politics as I should be. but I have to put my bet on the one I think will be the best President for us up here too. I really think this guy won't play it dirty. To a non-American like me, he represents the heart and soul of the people I love so much down there, and want them "whole" again. I think he could just do it! |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
I'd have to say my favorite candidate out of the early bunch, based on first impressions, with Mark Warner deciding he's not running, is Bill Richardson, who announced he's forming an exploratory committee yesterday. I've heard much about him and believe he has both political experience, having served seven terms in Congress, and has credibility in international affairs few can match in the field. He has been an ambassador to the United Nations, has visited many foreign countries on diplomatic aims, and also served as the U.S Secretary of Energy. I respect him especially for his recent dedication to the humanitarian crisis in Darfur, who this month went to Sudan and tried to broker a 60-day cease-fire with President al-Bashir and rebel group leaders. I respect Sam Brownback also for his dedication to Darfur and social issues here at home (still trying to schedule an interview with him about his hard work on the Darfur issue). I may not agree with him on many other issues, thus am unlikely to vote for him, but I am glad Brownback is running as though I may disagree with some of his staunch conservative positions as an independent, he is nonetheless a more genuine conservative candidate than many others out there. I think Richardson is that kind of candidate who would be great at improving our image in the eyes of the international community. Much of the world fortunately still loves America and much of our culture, but unfortunately from many polling trends I've seen come from abroad, the war in Iraq in particular has at best tainted and at worst fractured opinion of us on the world stage, even while many separate their opinions of the Bush Administration from that of America itself. I think Richardson is one of the more credible Democratic candidates out there in that he has much more experience than both Clinton and Obama, has dedicated himself to a versatile number of different tasks, has a strong reputation for reaching out across the aisle as a governor and appeals to independents and Republicans as well, and is the candidate I see most likely in the bunch to improve our international image. Of course, Richardson is far behind the rest of the candidates, and is a dark horse candidate. It'll take something miraculous for him to catch up with the rest. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Mysteria
since 2001-03-07
Posts 18328British Columbia, Canada |
Noah I will check into this man, and I think you are just about ready for a miracle - who knows? I am glad you guys post these discussions as it makes me learn more about politics at least. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Bill Richardson is by far the most 'qualified' candidate and would be the first Hispanic on the ticket if he makes it to the #1 or #2 position. So, here's a thought -- there could be the first African American, and first Hispanic American on the Democratic ticket in 08, or the first Woman to be nominated for the Presidency. The times they are a changin... Miracles do happen -- and politicians count on them -- they are the inevitible faux paus that strike front runners and knock them out of the race -- like the Dean scream, or jokes gone awry, or Gary Hart's extracurricular activities. There are also the dirty tricks -- like Rove's whisper campaign in Carolina that helped take out McCain. It's very early and there is time plenty for a come-behind campaign to take the top slot like Bill Clinton did in 92 -- nobody had even heard of him in October of 91 -- his miracle was the likeability factor -- which could well serve Obama and Edwards. I think as people get a look at Richardson they will begin to like him. Biden and Clinton both have reputations for anger and sourness which can hurt them both. Don't be surprised though -- if someone comes out of nowhere -- I'll be posting a thread on that possibility. The ABC News/Washington Post poll: Clinton 41% Obama 17% Edwards 11% Gore 10% Kerry 8% Biden 3% Richardson -- 1% |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
I saw Bill Richardson interviewed on "Hardball" today, and again was impressed by how he expressed himself and answering each question in a patient and concillatory tone. We're over a year away from the primaries, so I'm optimistic the public will be hungry to know more about the other candidates besides Clinton and Obama and the more people hear about candidates like Richardson, the more they'll take interest. In fact, I'm very optimistic about that. About 40% of Republicans voted to re-elect Richardson as governor of New Mexico in November, so I also think he knows how to govern to the center and could do a potentially good job facillitating bi-partisanship. I understand no candidate is perfect, of course, but I believe Richardson is the most qualified overall of the current crop. I'm not going to rush at this point and endorse any candidate until the primaries come around, but based on first impressions, I like Richardson the most out of the Democratic pool (I like Obama from what I hear as well, though I believe Richardson to be the much stronger candidate of the two overall), and out of the GOP pool Giuliani is the most appealing of the current group. I can tell you, however, at this point that Clinton, Kerry, Biden and Gore won't be getting my vote on the Democratic side, while McCain, Gingrich, Romney and Tancredo won't be getting my vote on the GOP side. Though I'm an Independent that leans Democratic, thus am much more likely to support a Democratic candidate currently, I do see a chance I'd vote for Rudy Giuliani if the Democratic candidate is weak. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
