Edwards is reportedly dropping out of the race. That leaves me wondering who the hëll I’m going to vote for in the Democratic primary. I feel as if Clinton has too much baggage and Obama is too inexperienced, particularly if it means going up against an old hand like McCain.
Actually, a McCain/Obama race would be eerily similar to the final season of “West Wing,” which depicted a seasoned Republican with some centrist and even liberal views (Alan Alda’s Arnie Vinnick) going up against a younger, less experienced but naively idealistic Congressman who was distinctly a non-WASP (Jimmy Smits’ Matt Santos). In that showdown, Santos won…except that wasn’t the original scenario. Originally, and more realistically, Vinnick was going to win. But the death of Leo McGarry (paralleling the real life passing of actor John Spencer) prompted the producers to change the intended outcome because the felt it would be just too much tragedy and loss to dump on both Santos and his campaign manager, Josh (Bradley Whitford).
Obama, of course, won’t have that scenario available to him. Which means that if is Obama/McCain, and all things remain equal, the West Wing scenario dictates that McCain will win.
PAD
• 
I was speaking to someone about this yesterday… I was speculating how Edwards would be a good choice for the second spot on the ticket if he did drop out of the race. I can’t see Hillary accepting the second slot.
It becomes a very appealing ticket in that case Obama/Edwards.
On the Republican side, I figured Rudy screwed the pooch and would ultimately come out and support McCain. Mainly at the price of the AG slot (something I in fact heard later on WNYC).
The second slot on the Republican side would be the question. Given the antagonism between McCain and Romney I can’t see them on a ticket together. I was thinking then it might be a question of Huckabee who appeals to the Christian right. Then it occurred to me if they’re smart and McCain is at the top of the ticket, they’ll offer the two spot to Colin Powell.
Edwards should throw his support behind Obama and join his ticket. Hopefully, after 8 years as vice-president, the nation will accept him for 8 years as president. Wow, just think—16 straight years of Democratic occupation of the White House without needing a single Clinton.
… well, unless she somehow becomes Edwards’ v-p.
Well, at least in this context, Obama’s inexperience is meaningful.
With respect to Edwards and Clinton, Obama’s inxperience is just not that meaningful, given that the difference on the national scene is a couple years and the difference in state levels is more in OBAMA’s favor with respect to Clinton.
Yep, bummed that Edwards is dropping out, has always been a top choice of mine but I’ve never understood this notion that Obama is not expeirence enough to be president. I would actually wager that that’s one of his biggist assets, set him apart from the others if he has to be compared in that way.
In this instance, I hope that life will once again imitate art (even if the art’s purpose was changed at the last second) because I really don’t want John “There’s Going to be LOTS More Wars” McCain as my next President.
That stated, I am ecstatic that January 20, 2009 is fast approaching. Enjoy the corporate convention circuit George!
In a Senator v Senator matchup, I expect both to pick governors as their VPs. A significant proportion of voters don’t feel Senate experience is the same as executive experience. Of course, if neither does, that factor is erased.
Which governor is the question.
I think if McCain won….I’d seriously think about moving to Canada! Seriously. I just do NOT want another “George W. Bush” in the White House and McCain is ALOT like Bush. Especially in his politics. He likes the Iraq War. Nuff said’.
I’m actually rooting for Obama. He seems much more likable then any of the other candiates (well ok Edwards seem likeable, but he sounds like he’s out). And I think his inexperiance is a GOOD thing. I mean, look at Bush & Cheney. Between them, they had ALOT of experiance..and what did they do??????? Seriously..what did they did they do? Other then the War I mean…
Obama, I think, would bring a fresh prespective and he, at the very least, sounds like he can TALK, which Bush can’t do. lol.
Now Hillary, I don’t know. I mean, if she is the one for the Democrats, I’ll vote for her, but I think I’d rather vote for Obama. I seriously think that the best thing for Hillary & Obama would be for them to put their differences aside and team-up. Wow. Wouldn’t that be an amazing ticket? Obama/Clinton? Clinton/Obama? Would be very intersting for sure.
Of course, I think Obama/Edwards or Clinton/Edwards might be interesting too. Though maybe not as interesting as Obama/Clinton. lol.
Anyway, I hope things turn out well this election. I hope we get a President who knows what he or she is doing. lol.
Also hope the War ends soon.
DF2506
I’ve been itching for a McCain/Obama matchup since The West Wing went off the air, for precisely the same reason — I still have the sense that both Obama and McCain, like Vinick and Santos, are decent people, despite their differences in policy and philosophy. But I think Obama has advantages Santos never did…
Being originally from North Carolina (and not a fan of Edwards at all — in person, he exudes the slimy-lawyer vibe), I still don’t understand how he didn’t get tagged with the same “naive and inexperienced” label as Obama.
So, um, who in real-life fits is the equivalent of Aaron Sorkin? I guess if someone in the campaigns is caught with hallucinogenic mushrooms we’ll know.
df2506: I just do NOT want another “George W. Bush” in the White House and McCain is ALOT like Bush.
Luigi Novi: I’m not happy that he supported Bush for as long as he did, but this may have been to secure his party’s nomination for this election. Given how awful a president Bush has been, anyone, Republican or Democrat, would be better, and McCain certainly is different from Bush in a lot of resassuring ways: He actually served in Vietnam, he’s doesn’t come across as an intellectual lightweight, and would likely not use his religion as driving force in policy-making.
[WARNING: Obama supporter ahead]
One core issue is that “experience” is what got us into this mess to begin with. There is a point about judgment that should be rightly made, as well, and does go beyond Iraq.
What he does have, is a lack of fear. He’s not afraid of the GOP machine; I hear a lot of folks auguring that they’ll “smear” him, but that’s just talk. When the crap came down before SC, we saw how the chips fell, and that was all about how the voters want a positive campaign this year. McCain’s another great example of that same trend, in case you doubt.
Moreover, what struck me what I first started doing candidate research, months before Iowa, was how thoughtful — in the full sense of the term, “full of thought” — his stated and written opinions were. He wasn’t afraid to listen, or to take into account, all opinions. He’s not a demagogue, yet clearly has a solid progressive voting record. to determine this, I took pains to read, not just listen, to his speeches, and although I understand the meme about him being “all hope, no meat”, it’s simply untrue, and has been for some time. This article is a great, recent example of how he’s taken what, to some, is a liability, and turned it into a strength. The recent endorsement of 80 Gitmo lawyers for Obama shows another example of his “quiet strength” in the US Senate, how he’s more focused on “getting things done” than more flashy, showy actions:
“When we were walking the halls of the Capitol trying to win over enough Senators to beat back the Administration’s bill, Senator Obama made his key staffers and even his offices available to help us,” they wrote. “Senator Obama worked with us to count the votes, and he personally lobbied colleagues who worried about the political ramifications of voting to preserve habeas corpus for the men held at Guantanamo. He has understood that our strength as a nation stems from our commitment to our core values, and that we are strong enough to protect both our security and those values. Senator Obama demonstrated real leadership then and since, continuing to raise Guantanamo and habeas corpus in his speeches and in the debates.”So yes, the experience question is relevant, and yet Obama does not lack in this area, in comparison to Clinton.
[WARNING: Obama supporter ahead]
One core issue is that “experience” is what got us into this mess to begin with. There is a point about judgment that should be rightly made, as well, and does go beyond Iraq.
What he does have, is a lack of fear. He’s not afraid of the GOP machine; I hear a lot of folks auguring that they’ll “smear” him, but that’s just talk. When the crap came down before SC, we saw how the chips fell, and that was all about how the voters want a positive campaign this year. McCain’s another great example of that same trend, in case you doubt.
Moreover, what struck me what I first started doing candidate research, months before Iowa, was how thoughtful — in the full sense of the term, “full of thought” — his stated and written opinions were. He wasn’t afraid to listen, or to take into account, all opinions. He’s not a demagogue, yet clearly has a solid progressive voting record. to determine this, I took pains to read, not just listen, to his speeches, and although I understand the meme about him being “all hope, no meat”, it’s simply untrue, and has been for some time. This article is a great, recent example of how he’s taken what, to some, is a liability, and turned it into a strength. The recent endorsement of 80 Gitmo lawyers for Obama shows another example of his “quiet strength” in the US Senate, how he’s more focused on “getting things done” than more flashy, showy actions:
“When we were walking the halls of the Capitol trying to win over enough Senators to beat back the Administration’s bill, Senator Obama made his key staffers and even his offices available to help us,” they wrote. “Senator Obama worked with us to count the votes, and he personally lobbied colleagues who worried about the political ramifications of voting to preserve habeas corpus for the men held at Guantanamo. He has understood that our strength as a nation stems from our commitment to our core values, and that we are strong enough to protect both our security and those values. Senator Obama demonstrated real leadership then and since, continuing to raise Guantanamo and habeas corpus in his speeches and in the debates.”So yes, the experience question is relevant, and yet Obama does not lack in this area, in comparison to Clinton.
[WARNING: Obama supporter ahead]
One core issue is that “experience” is what got us into this mess to begin with. There is a point about judgment that should be rightly made, as well, and does go beyond Iraq.
What he does have, is a lack of fear. He’s not afraid of the GOP machine; I hear a lot of folks auguring that they’ll “smear” him, but that’s just talk. When the crap came down before SC, we saw how the chips fell, and that was all about how the voters want a positive campaign this year. McCain’s another great example of that same trend, in case you doubt.
Moreover, what struck me what I first started doing candidate research, months before Iowa, was how thoughtful — in the full sense of the term, “full of thought” — his stated and written opinions were. He wasn’t afraid to listen, or to take into account, all opinions. He’s not a demagogue, yet clearly has a solid progressive voting record. to determine this, I took pains to read, not just listen, to his speeches, and although I understand the meme about him being “all hope, no meat”, it’s simply untrue, and has been for some time. This article is a great, recent example of how he’s taken what, to some, is a liability, and turned it into a strength. The recent endorsement of 80 Gitmo lawyers for Obama shows another example of his “quiet strength” in the US Senate, how he’s more focused on “getting things done” than more flashy, showy actions:
“When we were walking the halls of the Capitol trying to win over enough Senators to beat back the Administration’s bill, Senator Obama made his key staffers and even his offices available to help us,” they wrote. “Senator Obama worked with us to count the votes, and he personally lobbied colleagues who worried about the political ramifications of voting to preserve habeas corpus for the men held at Guantanamo. He has understood that our strength as a nation stems from our commitment to our core values, and that we are strong enough to protect both our security and those values. Senator Obama demonstrated real leadership then and since, continuing to raise Guantanamo and habeas corpus in his speeches and in the debates.”So yes, the experience question is relevant, and yet Obama does not lack in this area, in comparison to Clinton.
[WARNING: Obama supporter ahead]
One core issue is that “experience” is what got us into this mess to begin with. There is a point about judgment that should be rightly made, as well, and does go beyond Iraq.
What he does have, is a lack of fear. He’s not afraid of the GOP machine; I hear a lot of folks auguring that they’ll “smear” him, but that’s just talk. When the crap came down before SC, we saw how the chips fell, and that was all about how the voters want a positive campaign this year. McCain’s another great example of that same trend, in case you doubt.
Moreover, what struck me what I first started doing candidate research, months before Iowa, was how thoughtful — in the full sense of the term, “full of thought” — his stated and written opinions were. He wasn’t afraid to listen, or to take into account, all opinions. He’s not a demagogue, yet clearly has a solid progressive voting record. to determine this, I took pains to read, not just listen, to his speeches, and although I understand the meme about him being “all hope, no meat”, it’s simply untrue, and has been for some time. This article is a great, recent example of how he’s taken what, to some, is a liability, and turned it into a strength. The recent endorsement of 80 Gitmo lawyers for Obama shows another example of his “quiet strength” in the US Senate, how he’s more focused on “getting things done” than more flashy, showy actions:
“When we were walking the halls of the Capitol trying to win over enough Senators to beat back the Administration’s bill, Senator Obama made his key staffers and even his offices available to help us,” they wrote. “Senator Obama worked with us to count the votes, and he personally lobbied colleagues who worried about the political ramifications of voting to preserve habeas corpus for the men held at Guantanamo. He has understood that our strength as a nation stems from our commitment to our core values, and that we are strong enough to protect both our security and those values. Senator Obama demonstrated real leadership then and since, continuing to raise Guantanamo and habeas corpus in his speeches and in the debates.”So yes, the experience question is relevant, and yet Obama does not lack in this area, in comparison to Clinton.
[WARNING: Obama supporter ahead]
One core issue is that “experience” is what got us into this mess to begin with. There is a point about judgment that should be rightly made, as well, and does go beyond Iraq.
What he does have, is a lack of fear. He’s not afraid of the GOP machine; I hear a lot of folks auguring that they’ll “smear” him, but that’s just talk. When the crap came down before SC, we saw how the chips fell, and that was all about how the voters want a positive campaign this year. McCain’s another great example of that same trend, in case you doubt.
Moreover, what struck me what I first started doing candidate research, months before Iowa, was how thoughtful — in the full sense of the term, “full of thought” — his stated and written opinions were. He wasn’t afraid to listen, or to take into account, all opinions. He’s not a demagogue, yet clearly has a solid progressive voting record. to determine this, I took pains to read, not just listen, to his speeches, and although I understand the meme about him being “all hope, no meat”, it’s simply untrue, and has been for some time. This article is a great, recent example of how he’s taken what, to some, is a liability, and turned it into a strength. The recent endorsement of 80 Gitmo lawyers for Obama shows another example of his “quiet strength” in the US Senate, how he’s more focused on “getting things done” than more flashy, showy actions:
“When we were walking the halls of the Capitol trying to win over enough Senators to beat back the Administration’s bill, Senator Obama made his key staffers and even his offices available to help us,” they wrote. “Senator Obama worked with us to count the votes, and he personally lobbied colleagues who worried about the political ramifications of voting to preserve habeas corpus for the men held at Guantanamo. He has understood that our strength as a nation stems from our commitment to our core values, and that we are strong enough to protect both our security and those values. Senator Obama demonstrated real leadership then and since, continuing to raise Guantanamo and habeas corpus in his speeches and in the debates.”So yes, the experience question is relevant, and yet Obama does not lack in this area, in comparison to Clinton.
Edwards has NOT DROPPED OUT, and is, in fact, announcing that he is NOT DROPPING OUT.
Ignore the MSM. They lie.
well, shoot. I just looked at his website, and he’s updated it. Oh, well.
I’m still voting for him.
I’m not crazy about the idea of 24-28 years (consecutive) of only two families in the White House. I’m not crazy about how Hillary often talks about how she’s done this before, during her husband’s presidency. I don’t like the righteous sense of entitlement I get from her.
Another blog put it well, I thought: Obama because he really does believe in change. Clinton is running because she wants to win.
I’ve also seen it reported that Obama has been floating the idea of Edwards as his Attorney General “out there.” No idea if there’s any validity to it, but interesting…
Ignore the Internets. They lie.
(Frankly, it has seemed for weeks now like Edwards was running for VP.)
So, who wins if its Hilary versus Mcain?
It becomes a very appealing ticket in that case Obama/Edwards.
I think Obama will try to allay doubts about his youth and inexperience by picking more of a Lloyd Bentson type. Joe Biden would be a possibility but I think Transdutch is right about a governor being a better pick. Bill Richardson? Might shore up the Latino base. Evan Bayh?
All this assumes that most of Edwards small group of supporters don’t go mostly for Hillary, which is how some polls have suggested they will end up. Much of his support has been from older and less educated voters, the opposite of Obama’s demographics. In that case Edwards dropping out has hurt Obama’s chances. Without a specific endorsement from Edwards I don’t see why Obama would owe him any favors.
McCain…I genuinely don’t know which way he goes but given his age the VP pick is an important one. Huckabee? No, God, please! Yeah, he may need to shore up the cranky conservative base but there has to be a better way to do it. Bill Frist? If he’s facing Obama…Bobby Jindal? (Skinheads around the country would hopefully jump off bridges once faced with that scenario). Colin Powell, as mister pj suggested? Or does he go for an attack dog type that would let him take the high road? (Gulliani).
I think if McCain won….I’d seriously think about moving to Canada!
And so it begins…seems like only a few years ago people were saying the same thing about Bush. Canada remains sparsely populated.
And I think his inexperiance is a GOOD thing.
All things being equal, would you take that stance when choosing a surgeon? Airline pilot? Babysitter? The guy who’s going to rewire your house???
Now arguing, as Mr Hill does, that Obama has more experience than he is generally given credit for, is perfectly valid.
Ultimately though, as much as I have come to admire Obama and would look forward to a McCain/Obama race…it’s obvious that the Clintons are going to do whatever it takes to win and my reading of the Democratic party is that there are more people who want payback than a fresh beginning. I’ve been astonished at how badly Hillary has run this campaign–she’s way smarter than this. But for all that, I’d still give her the edge. I expect the same thing will happen to Obama that happened to Dean; fear of losing the election will drive them to put the “more electable” Hillary in. Although I personally think that McCain will have a much tougher time with Obama than with Hillary. I think it’s 50/50 whether she can beat McCain, depending on how bad the economy is and how angry Obama voters are if it looks to them like she played dirty during the nomination.
What a great election! Rollercoasters don’t have this many twists.
1010 WINS (The preeminent New York City area all-news radio station) reported a short while ago that Giuliani and Edwards are or will be announcing today that they are dropping out.
Well, if Hilary picks Obama as her running mate, then I think they’d be a shoe-in barring some extenuating circumstance.
I doubt Edwards will drop out. If he sticks in there he will get more delegates, and with Hillary and Obama running close he may get a chance to become kingmaker and get himself a cozy cabinet position with the winner.
I doubt that he would be picked as a VP candidate either. I don’t think he would be a good candidate. He doesn’t come off well to many people, he gives the slimy lawyer vibe(not that I agree with that) and doesn’t have that great of a record being a one-term senator with no major legislation introduced. He has also flipped on some issues. The Dems would be smart to get someone to balance the ticket, and the perfect candidate would be Gov. Strickland in Ohio, my home state. He is Governor of a critical state, hugely supported in state by both sides, has good conservative cred in that he is a minister and has a high rating by the NRA, and is older and more experienced in government (this would be good for Obama). Of course, he says he wouldn’t accept V.P., but many say that.
McCain as a candidate intrigues me, and I did vote for him in the primary against Bush 8 years ago (yes I’m Republican, but not a Bushie), but he has sold his soul in the time since to get back here and I have problems with him. What’s worse, though, is when I look at the rest of the Republican candidates. Oy.
Here is the link to the 1010WINS story that quotes Edward’s announcement that is IS dropping out: http://www.1010wins.com/John-Edwards-to-Quit-Race/1565724
(Shìŧ. That should “he IS…”)
And so it begins…seems like only a few years ago people were saying the same thing about Bush. Canada remains sparsely populated.
That’s only because I’m still working on my final requirements for immigrating, thanks. :p
All things being equal, would you take that stance when choosing a surgeon? Airline pilot? Babysitter? The guy who’s going to rewire your house???
Precisely. And, I live in the NYS capital, and have had enough contact with both of the senators to actually think Clinton? Not so bad a choice. At least she/her staff have their head on straight when it comes to matters of health care – which is an admitted priority for me this election season.
Obama’s health care policy and plan makes me want to scream and run and hide in the bushes just about as badly as any Republican.
And as for why Edwards never had the inexperience thing thrown against him like Obama has – the answer is because Edwards never played up his inexperience as a good thing. Obama has, and people do react negatively to this, because the last thing anyone wants is for their surgeon to have never performed a procedure before.
While, as a country, we have embraced a lot of anti-intellectual sentiments, when it comes to certain fields, we want to flock to the people with the shiniest resumes, who went to the best schools, and have an impressive body of experience behind them. It’s natural human behaviour when it comes to Big Things. And while folks might not necessarily see the individual president as being a Big Deal, by now they have certainly learned that the influence the president has on who else populates the White House is indeed a Big Deal.
Final thing… while on the one hand, I can appreciate that people would rather examine each candidate before making the decision who they would vote for, I can’t really wrap my head around the notion of not supporting Democrats because they pick Clinton rather than Obama. McCain might have been that appealing 8 years ago, but since then he’s turned into a flipflopping Bush supporter and lost most of what made him such a unique Republican. And as for the rest of them – their record on things that Democrats supposedly see as very important is just dismal… so I can’t see someone logically saying “oh, I’m going to vote for TokenRepublican because I HATE Hilary.” Seems to me the idea should be to vote for the *party* that aligns itself with the views you want to infuse the governemtn (as is befitting of how the political system actually works). Who are the candidates most likely to advance to power, and how will those choices affect our lives?
I don’t recall if i’ve posted this here before, but i fear me that Obama’s Presicency, if elected, will be another Carter/Bush Major scenario – someone (like Carter) who, however nice a guy and intelligent and with Good Ideas who has no real ability to pull the Power Levers in DC, or like Bush who just doesn’t thrill people while in office … and, as their Presidencies did, lead to the other party getting a lock on the WHite House for two terms…
Well, you’re right there’s nothing logical about it…But many people vote, not according to logic, but to gut level feelings.
And it assumes someone who’s a Democrat through and through. It ignores those who are identified as independent and the Republicas who have been less than enamored with the neo-con wing of the party. It is quite understandable that these folks would be repelled by Clinton.
Perhaps. On the other hand, Obama’s experience in the Illinois legislature shows he’s not unused to pulling levels. And Illinois is fairly well integrated in party politics…
(Too, there’s the likelihood of Clinton having the ability of pulling the power levels but not having the inclination, given her votes in the Senate).
I’m an Obama fan. I also think that he’s strategically a better candidate going into the general election than Hilary. He’s shown he can cross aisles and work with Republicans, whereas I can’t see Hilary getting the other side to work with her, and I CAN see her getting more Republicans out to vote against her than Obama would.
Now, that said, I think McCain may likely beat both of them. I was really hoping Romney would get the Republican nod because I don’t see him as electable with his flip-flopping. Unfortunately, I think the Republicans have also realized this. Like Obama, McCain can draw upon Independents, and this race is likely going to be decided by the Independents. He also has the rep of being able to work with the Democrats.
Neither Clinton or Obama are going to beat McCain on the experience issue, so the best bet there is to continue noting that experience isn’t everything – See Ðìçk Cheney.
Maybe it’ll come down to the different attitudes about Iraq. Cheney’s said he wouldn’t mind us being there for 100 years. (Shiver.)
What it comes down to for me is, will the new president work to reduce the powers of the presidency back to Constitutional levels? Will the obsessive need for secrecy and ášš-covering in all things prevail?
I can see either Obama or McCain respecting the checks and balances. I can’t see Clinton or Romney giving up even a little of the imperial power that Cheney & Co. have brought to the office.
I expect the same thing will happen to Obama that happened to Dean; fear of losing the election will drive them to put the “more electable” Hillary in.
And yet, I see a lot of Republicans itching for a Clinton/McCain match up, because they see it as a can’t lose. (They see Obama beating McCain.)
Personally, I’m leaning toward Obama, despite his lack of experience, because he is a breath of fresh air from most of the rest of the candidates.
Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton… not up for it. McCain already ran once 8 years ago, Edwards 4 years ago. Huckabee… no chance in hëll I’d vote for him. Romney, I haven’t followed enough to know a lot about, beyond the early slams about his being a Mormon.
I do find it laughable that people think experience is such a great thing. Again, we ended up with Bush as President. Yeah, it’s overrated, imo. And no, Obama won’t be performing brain surgery.
But, as others have stated, Obama really does come across as wanting to do it for the chance to really lead this country, unlike HRC, who just seems to want the power (like Bush).
Final thing… while on the one hand, I can appreciate that people would rather examine each candidate before making the decision who they would vote for, I can’t really wrap my head around the notion of not supporting Democrats because they pick Clinton rather than Obama.
Logically, yes…but if you believe, as some have stated, that the Clintons are overtly appealing to racism to diminish Obama, it is not illogical to punish that behavior even at the cost of an election. Similarly, if a conservative really believes that McCain is no better than a democrat on some essential (to them) issue, it might make sense to simply not support the Republican ticket, in the hope that next time they will choose more wisely.
If the leaders of the parties think that nothing they do will drive away the hardcore base they have absolutely no reason to not take them for granted.
Incidentally, I’m not so sure that the Clintons, Bill especially, have really been attacking Obama on race–it’s just that Bill has never been all that great at getting anyone other than himself elected and his frustration at not being in control of the campaign has led him to indulge on sulky outbursts. Nevertheless they should both tread carefully. They could win the battle and lose more than just the war. If Hillary antagonizes the most loyal segment of her party (and if McCain is smart enough to exploit that) it could be grim news indeed for the entire Democratic party. By any analysis this election should be a cakewalk for the Democratic party but it’s never impossible to snatch defeat from the jaws of certain victory.
and now, according to CNN, good old Ralph Nader is forming an exploratory committee to look into running AGAIN.
Ultimately though, as much as I have come to admire Obama and would look forward to a McCain/Obama race…it’s obvious that the Clintons are going to do whatever it takes to win and my reading of the Democratic party is that there are more people who want payback than a fresh beginning.
True, but if payback means winning by choosing a “fresh beginning”, Obama still has real traction.
I’ve been astonished at how badly Hillary has run this campaign–she’s way smarter than this. But for all that, I’d still give her the edge. I expect the same thing will happen to Obama that happened to Dean; fear of losing the election will drive them to put the “more electable” Hillary in.
The way I’ve been reading things, Hillary really doesn’t have the “electable” aura about her. Especially now that McCain is looking like the GOP nominee, people are looking at the possibility of a McCain/Clinton match-up and find Hillary wanting.
What a great election! Rollercoasters don’t have this many twists.
Indeed. I barely miss television.
I don’t really understand the talk about “experience.” We’re not talking about someone applying for a job at McDonald’s, where previous experience at Wendy’s would actually make a difference. Governing, especially at such a high level, means that you’ll encounter situations every day that are unique to human history. What experience could possibly prepare anyone for that?
To me, experience in government means:
-that they’ve been there too long
-that they’ve likely been sleeping with a variety of the wrong people to stay there
-that they’ve had plenty of opportunity to screw something up
To me, a lack of experience is a bonus.
To me, a lack of experience is a bonus.
Can’t agree there, but I will say that experience certainly isn’t everything and may not even be the most important thing.
WOuldn’t bother me if something nasty and permanent – like a sudden inability tgo tell anything but the truth – happened to that lying sack of something nasty, Ralph Nader.
I have to feel a little bad for Ralph Nader. he was a liberal hero and everybody applauded when he said stuff like there wasn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the two parties.
The, when he actually acted on that belief, it turned out there was actually a considerable difference between the parties and those who had cheered him on now considered him an election spoiling heretic.
Moral of the story–just because people like to hear you talk the talk it doesn’t necessarily mean they really want you to walk the walk.
I wonder if the prospect of a McCain/Obama race…or a McCain/Hillary race for that matter…will discourage any third party candidates. All 3 are “alternative” in their own way.
“Moral of the story–just because people like to hear you talk the talk it doesn’t necessarily mean they really want you to walk the walk.”
Eh. I think the moral of that story was, “whoops.” I don’t think anything from what happened in Nader’s campaign can be applied to life in general, it was just an unfortunate set of events that added up to a bad result.
“Moral of the story–just because people like to hear you talk the talk it doesn’t necessarily mean they really want you to walk the walk.”
Well, either that or people should remember that support in one arena does not always transfer to another. I think that Nader is a fantastic advocate and has done some pretty good things as an advocate/occasional activist. I could just never imagine him as a very good POTUS. I mean, there are a lot of running backs that I think are awesome at what they do, but I wouldn’t want to see them try and be the quarterback in the big game.
Or, putting it another way, I would pay good money to have S. William Hinzman play a ghoul in my movie. I would not pay good money to have him write and direct it. And I think that after “FleshEater” came out, everyone else felt that way too.
I don’t think it will be Obama, I think it will be Clinton. The party machine is too much on her side. Witness the coverage of her “win” in Nevada. How was it her win when Obama got more delegates?
I think if McCain won….I’d seriously think about moving to Canada! Seriously. I just do NOT want another “George W. Bush” in the White House and McCain is ALOT like Bush. Especially in his politics. He likes the Iraq War. Nuff said’.
Hardly. McCain criticized the management of the war for quite some time. I think McCain and Clinton will be amazingly similar on foreign policy – both supported the war initially, criticized it when it became apparent it wasn’t going well, and both publicly admit that we will be there a long time.
McCain will give moderate Democrats a reason to vote for someone seen as a non-ideological Republican, a plus given Clinton’s high negatives. The real question is how much can McCain pull one of the other two bases of the Republican party. He’ll have the defense Republicans. A lot will depend on his VP pick, though. If he chooses someone to get one of the other two main Republican bases (the financial Republicans or the religious Republicans), he’s got a really good shot. Think Forbes/Bloomberg or Huckabee. If they stay home, though, Clinton may still pull out a victory.
I’m not sure a television series is the best war game scenario on which to base analysis of an upcoming election.
Then again, hey, who knows? Maybe TV has gotten THAT much better since I stopped watching.
Ted Kennedy’s endorsement was not casual for that reason. The only other single up-for-grabs endorsement with that much influence is Al Gore.
First Obama demonstrated whites will vote for him first with the win in Iowa and close seconds in NH and NV. Now he’s expected to pick up the territories Jesse Jackson picked up when he ran in the 1988 primaries.
The virtue of John Edwards running is that his platform has framed the democratic primaries. Hillary has his healthcare platform, and Obama poured his resources into taking the change-agent position. Edwards consolidated into a more radical stance, which is why he had been able to hold 16%-20% of the democrats.
The problem with Obama is that it seems obvious he’s wrong about a single payer system not cutting the expense of healthcare. If Hillary led by hammering home her position on healthcare, I think she could clean up. But she won’t, so it ain’t gonna happen.
Hopefully, Edwards dropped out because he’s in talks with Obama about joining for a single ticket. It might ferry radical reform with the not-quite-as-radical candidate.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan
I have to feel a little bad for Ralph Nader. he was a liberal hero and everybody applauded when he said stuff like there wasn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the two parties.
Ralph Nader was a lying publicity-seeking weasel in the 60s when he did Ford’s hatchet job on the Corvair for them. (I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt an accept that he was just a stupid pubnlicity-hound rather than a knowing and willing accomplice in Ford’s schemes.)
He was a lying publicity-seeking weasel in the 70s when he signed off on an attempted hatchet job on the VW Beetle by one of his organisations in which they manipulated data and pretty much outright lied. (“Road & Track” documented the mendacity of that one.)
He was a publicity-seeking weasel when he conducted a Presidential “campaign” that *at most* could accomplish what it did – splitting the Democratic vote and assuring the election of a Republican.
I doubt that anyone who’s not as big a weasel as he is who actually seriously examines his career, lookiong at deeds and results, not words and rhetoric, would be terribly upset if he were struck by lightning tomorrow.
There’s a big difference between McCain supporting the war in Iraq and Bush supporting it. McCain has actual war time experience. He’s been there and risked his life to serve his country. When he sends men in to battle it will be with the full understanding of the sacrifices they will be making. To Bush, they may as well be little plastic army men. I don’t support the war but I’d feel a lot more comfortable if it were being run by McCain.
Anyway, all this talk of Democrat/Republican numbs my brain anyway. Vote third party if your really want to vote for what you believe in instead of trying to vote for the winner. As long as we continue to accept this two party system, we’re going to keep finding ourselves in situations like the last 7 years.
Or, putting it another way, I would pay good money to have S. William Hinzman play a ghoul in my movie. I would not pay good money to have him write and direct it. And I think that after “FleshEater” came out, everyone else felt that way too.
Now THERE’S an analogy I can totally grasp. You should be a teacher.
Note to self: never invite Mike Weber and Ralph Nader to same dinner party.
McCain is ALOT like Bush. Especially in his politics. He likes the Iraq War. Nuff said’.
Ok. Now that is funny! You obviously don’t understand either candidate. I haven’t laughed that hard in a while.
As a Republican, I don’t envy your choices. You may feel Bush is an idiot, but he was sincere and had integrity (as much as any politician has in today’s political world). The term “baggage” doesn’t do justice to what was true during the Clinton’s term. He was far more self serving and pandering and lacking in true vision (I am sure I am in the minority on this opinion).
If I was a Democrat, Obama is the only candidate I would even consider. He is as liberal as the day is long, and he is playing the game just as much as Clinton did back in the day. But I actually believe Obama means what he says and will not change his mind based on a poll tomorrow.
Since Romney is the only one who even comes close to getting me interested, I don’t think we have much of a chance. I do either Obama or Clinton can easily beat McCain, but I think Clinton would self destruct in the process and probably snatch defeat from the jaws of victory (as some Democrat said in some news story I read yesterday). I could be wrong, but I would prefer her getting the nomination since I think my side would stand a better chance.
Whenever I hear Romney’s name mentioned, I can only think of this story:
In addition to dehydration, fatigue and fright, Seamus was strapped on top of a car for 12 hours with limited or no bathroom breaks–a condition that was highlighted in the Boston Globe article. “A brown liquid was dripping down the back window, payback from an Irish setter who’d been riding on the roof in the wind for hours,” the article said. After his son noticed the liquid, Romney pulled the car over and hosed down Seamus at a gas station before putting him back into the crate on top of the car and continuing on with the drive.