2008 Democratic Primary Speculation - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

politicophile · 08-13-2006, 05:36 PM

Here is my first attempt in some time to inject new blood into Tilted Politics.

The 2008 political season is still so far away that all predictions must be taken with an unusually large grain of salt. Nonetheless, I find it interesting to predict the political future to the greatest extent possible. Here are what I believe are the big unknowns that will shape the race, as well as my predicted answers:

DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY:

1. The major question here is, of course, who will be the "Anti-Hillary?" Everybody knows who the perceived frontrunner is (Hillary) and everyone knows that the primary will ultimately develop into a two-horse race between the pro-Hillary faction and the anti-Hillary faction. Michael Moore recently had some choice words for Hillary about how she should expect to be thrown under the bus like Lieberman was, so it appears that the progressives will be searching for another candidate. Because so few Senators voted against the Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Iraq, most of them are not viable alternatives for the progressive movement. I predict they will reach out to a popular Democratic governor who is not dogged by early support for the invasion of Iraq. My money is on Mark Warner, governor of the red state of Virginia. The folks at http://www.draftmarkwarner.com/ seem to think he has the stuff.

2. If the anti-Hillary wins, will he (yes, I said "he") be able to walk the narrow line between red-state winner and peace advocate? In order to get through the primary, anti-Hillary is going to need to vocally criticize Hillary's pro-war stances. That's the only way that the Democratic base is going to be pursuaded to throw away this opportunity to elect a woman President. Problems will emerge, however, when the general election rolls around and Republicans start filling red-state television sets with anti-war comments from the primary season. Shades of 1972? Maybe.

3. Will the Democratic base worry about a woman's electability when considering Hillary? We must face the unfortunate reality that there are some voters who would oppose Hillary's candidacy simply on the grounds that she is female. While I hope this group is small, the possibility that Hillary's sex could guarantee a Republican victory in 2008 will be on the minds of some Democratic primary voters. At the end of the day, I predict Hillary's gender will be viewed by most Democrats as a net plus and she will actually garner more votes because she is female.

Anything I missed?

host · 08-13-2006, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

Here is my first attempt in some time to inject new blood into Tilted Politics.

The 2008 political season is still so far away that all predictions must be taken with an unusually large grain of salt. Nonetheless, I find it interesting to predict the political future to the greatest extent possible. Here are what I believe are the big unknowns that will shape the race, as well as my predicted answers:

DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY:

1. The major question here is, of course, who will be the "Anti-Hillary?" Everybody knows who the perceived frontrunner is (Hillary) and everyone knows that the primary will ultimately develop into a two-horse race between the pro-Hillary faction and the anti-Hillary faction. Michael Moore recently had some choice words for Hillary about how she should expect to be thrown under the bus like Lieberman was, so it appears that the progressives will be searching for another candidate. Because so few Senators voted against the Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Iraq, most of them are not viable alternatives for the progressive movement. I predict they will reach out to a popular Democratic governor who is not dogged by early support for the invasion of Iraq......

.......Anything I missed?

Yeah....I think that you missed the idea that "anti-war" is a republican label/talkingpoint.

Quote:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/ope..._political.htm
The Rovian Political Ploy and Why It Will No Longer Oppress America
By Anthony Wade
August 13, 2006

....The plan is pretty clear for the Rovian machine. Paint anyone who does not support the war efforts as cowards, who are weak on security, and cut and runners. I understand why Rove would play such a card, no matter how ridiculous it may be. First of all, it has already worked for so many years, why abandon it and secondly, it is the only card the GOP has left to play. America this time will be smarter however. Making them empty their liquids on line for flights will not be enough this time around. Here is the dirty little truth the GOP hopes you forget this November...

Iraq had nothing to do with 911, terrorism, or al Qaeda. No matter how many plots are foiled, it does not justify the Iraq War and America knows it. Don't think for a second that this foiled plot will be the end of it for the GOP. There may be another Osama tape released just in time to help GOP candidates, like he did in 2004 to help Bush. There may be more chatter and elevated terror alerts, timed to bump positive democratic stories from the front pages. Unfortunately, there may be another "event" designed to catalyze the American people into such a fearful state that they run to the polls to vote republican. What Karl Rove has not figured out yet is that America is on to them. If there is another foiled plot, they will be able to see through the façade and understand how the political whores are using it for their gain. If they see chatter and elevated terror alerts, they will also look to see what stories the media machine are trying to bury. God forbid, if there is another event, the American people will realize that it only validates that the Republican Party cannot protect them anyway.

We have heard the buzz words and the focus group tested phrases. We understand that there is no rise of Nazism and that the only fascist developments are in this country where corporations have taken over the governing of the people. We know that democrats do not want to "cut and run", but rather we want to end a debacle, save as many lives as possible and allow the entire world to help in the rebuilding of Iraq, a country we have destroyed. We understand that it makes more sense to listen to a man like John Murtha, who has more experience defending this country then this entire chickenhawk administration combined. We will not allow the swift-boating of anyone, anymore. The media can shove Mel Gibson-gate down our throats for weeks, as they did Natalie Holloway and Michael Jackson before him, and it will not matter. Call me a foolish optimist but I am starting to believe that the mind of the oppressed has awoken to the truth and a new day is dawning over our democracy...........

To win support from democrats, a potential candidate, candidate, or a politician serving in the U.S. senate and not up for re-election is compatible with the sentiment of mainstream voters in the US , if he or she simply says what Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), did and says......

(Polls show current US mainstream sentiment:

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

http://www.pollingreport.com/terror.htm#USA )

Quote:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...ack=crosspromo
"Swift Boat" Veterans Set Sights on Rep. Murtha
The Iraq war looms over another race, as the group that helped defeat John Kerry targets the antiwar lawmaker.
By Noam N. Levey, Times Staff Writer
August 13, 2006

JOHNSTOWN, Pa. — Two years after a cadre of veterans helped sink the presidential campaign of Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), they have found a new target in the old steel country of southwestern Pennsylvania: Democratic Rep. John P. Murtha.

In a fight that organizers say will feature rallies, TV ads and an aggressive Internet campaign, these activists are promising to make Murtha pay for his criticism of the Iraq war.

"I will do my best to 'Swift boat' John Murtha," retired Navy Capt. Larry Bailey said at a recent news conference here, invoking the 2004 campaign against Kerry that took its name from Vietnam War-era Navy vessels.

Few believe that Murtha, a Vietnam veteran who has represented his district since 1974, is in much danger of being driven from office......

......Unlike Lieberman, whose support for the war cost him Democratic voters, Murtha confronts a challenge sparked by his repeated calls for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

Long among the most hawkish Democrats in Congress, the once media-shy Murtha has become a standard bearer for the party's antiwar wing since airing his criticism of the Bush administration's commitment in Iraq. And on street corners and town squares of this Rust Belt district, a small but committed corps of volunteers has joined Bailey, a North Carolina resident, in trying to make sure Murtha's constituents remember it — and vote against him in November.

Murtha has brushed aside the attacks.

"It's ludicrous," he said in an interview with the Los Angeles Times last week. "What they are trying to do is distract from the [Iraq] issue…. There is no one who supports the military more than me."

Murtha's allies, led by a veterans group based in Richmond, Va., held a counter-rally in Johnstown that largely overshadowed Bailey's news conference. The pro-Murtha event featured former Sen. Max Cleland (D-Ga.), who lost three limbs while serving in Vietnam.

The battle over Murtha's opposition to the Iraq war is unfolding in a place where support for the military has been an article of faith at least since the Civil War. The communities that form Murtha's district were among the first to send volunteers for the Union war effort — a distinction proudly noted on a memorial in Johnstown's town square.

Today, 15.3% of the district's residents are veterans, slightly above the national average of 12.6%, according to the Almanac of American Politics.

And when a Pennsylvania National Guard battalion stationed outside Johnstown returned in June from a yearlong deployment in Iraq's Anbar province, some 1,000 well-wishers turned out to show their support, according to a unit spokesman.

For years, Murtha has been the embodiment of that spirit, many locals say.

The democratic party has been trying to find it's way during the rapid, dramatic decline of it's former base.....organized labor. It is an inclusive party, as the fact that Harry Reid, who voted for the resolution, in fall, 2002 to authorize the use of force. if it became necessary, in Iraq, is senate minority leader, and the Senate campaign of "right to life" democratic candidate, Bob Casey, who leads against republican Rick Santorum in that PA race, clearly shows.......

Quote:

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...l/15266956.htm
Posted on Sun, Aug. 13, 2006

PARTISANSHIP, NOT WAR STANCE, HURT LIEBERMAN
By Noam Scheiber

........Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the minority leader, may be one of the most successful politicians of the new era. He initially supported the war in Iraq, but today he's viewed as one of the more reliable anti-Bush votes in Congress.

Perhaps more important, Reid is one of the more effective Democrats when it comes to denouncing and disrupting the Republican agenda. He routinely outfoxes his Republican counterpart, Sen. Bill Frist of Tennessee, as when he frustrated Republican efforts to tie a rollback of the estate tax to a bill raising the minimum wage. The rank and file revere him for it. According to a poll last year, roughly three-quarters of liberals who had formed an opinion of Reid had a favorable impression of him.

There's no doubt this new arrangement has a lot to recommend it. A party should stand for more than the sum of its interest groups. Anyone who doesn't think so needs only review, say, the 1984 presidential campaign, in which opponents successfully attacked Walter F. Mondale as a captive of big labor.

But the old interest-group system had at least one key advantage. In principle, it was capable of producing winning candidates in every part of the country, because it gave Democrats more ideological or partisan room on more issues.

Lieberman, it should be pointed out, probably abused this flexibility. But over the years many Democrats, among them Rust Belt politicians like Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, used it to remain viable in districts that were more conservative than the party's liberal wing.

The counter-Bushies typically respond that they're pragmatic enough to know when pressuring fellow Democrats helps the party and when it hurts. And to their credit, they've taken it easy on moderate Democratic senators from red states, including Bill Nelson of Florida and Ben Nelson of Nebraska. As a general rule, they try to favor the most liberal candidate who can win a race, not the most liberal candidate, period.

But the rising influence of the counter-Bushies raises two big problems. First, their judgment may be flawed when it comes to questions of electability. After all, many believed that Howard Dean -- a man who imploded during his first test, the Iowa caucuses -- could win a presidential election.

Second, the demise of the old interest-group model makes it tough for Democrats who don't share the counter-Bushies' liberalism to enter politics, since the structure that traditionally supported them may no longer exist. For example, even though today the counter-Bushies generally support the Senate campaign of Bob Casey, the Pennsylvania state treasurer and son of a former Democratic governor, the socially conservative Casey dynasty was built with strong support from organized labor.

Likewise, Reid may be pretty close to an ideal political tactician for the age of the counter-Bushies. But as a young politician in Nevada, he was known more for his opposition to abortion rights, to the equal rights amendment and to some restrictions on gun control than he was for his anti-Republican salvos.

Without a socially moderate constituency like organized labor having pull within the party, it's unlikely that he would have ever been elected to the Senate -- and unlikely that future Harry Reids will be able to win the lower offices that prepare them for federal races. That's a shame, because while Democrats may feel that they no longer have any use for Lieberman, they need all the Harry Reids they can get. Interest-group liberalism is a lousy way to run a party. But it may be better than the alternatives.

Democrats, despite being locked out of all legislative deliberation in the house of rep., for the last 12 years, and unable to introduce any bills or to receive permission to hold any hearings, were slow to learn that the fierce partisanship practiced on the other side of the aisle, must be met, "head on".

There is no "litmus test" that democrats must pass. The congresspersons who voted in late 2002 for the authorization for use of force in Iraq, despite the administrations frequent claims, did not have access to the depth and breadth of the intelligence info that Bush, as POTUS, had access to, especially in the category of dissenting and varying views, not contained in the rushed, 2002 pre-vote NIE, an "intelligence esitmate", reportedly completed in 2 weeks, that normally is compiled over 2 years.... My post at this link provides much support for this, as well as support for the premise that Bush made regime change in Iraq his top priority, 9 months before 9/11:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...4&postcount=94

In the <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=2103921&postcount=1">Huh? </a> thread on this forum, my OP also shows examples of what the republicans are trying to frame the November election into being about, and here is democratic primary loser, Joe Lieberman, voicing that false issue:

Quote:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...57&postcount=1
Independent Lieberman kicks off revamped campaign in Waterbury
Associated Press
Published August 10 2006

......... "I'm worried that too many people, both in politics and out, don't appreciate the seriousness of the threat to American security and the evil of the enemy that faces us - more evil or as evil as Nazism and probably more dangerous that the Soviet Communists we fought during the long Cold War," Lieberman said.

"If we just pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England. It will strengthen them and they will strike again."..........

An accurate way to describe democrats is not "anti-war". Like the majority of Americans polled, democrats are against what I've described and documented, here:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...57&postcount=1 and here: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...03&postcount=9

Anyone who wants to run a winning campaign for the 2008 democratic nomination for POTUS, need only to state (and believe) that the invasion and continued occupation of Iraq by US troops is a mistake and a senseless waste of money and manpower that necessitates the withdrawal if US troops, ASAP, first to desert bases already constructed, to discourage incursions by military forces of Iran, and then out of Iraq to the extent that withdrawal can be accomplished without leaving Iraq defenseless against invasion of troops from Turkey or from Iran.

Many democrats in congress have refused to shift even to the above described position. Politicians are followers, and the polls show that democratic offiiceholders need to catch up to where John Murtha has moved to on this issue.

The latest "terror plot" in Britain, is made up of homegrown and Pakistani participants. US airlines were weakened economically by the 9-11 attacks, and then bankrupted by continued low bookings and escalating fuel costs.
Polls show that Americans have caught on to the apalling and expensive mismanagement of the response to the 9/11 attacks by the Bush administration. Democrats recognize that the 9/11 attacks, the Katrina crisis, and the first "red terror alert", all took place in, or just after the month of August. If a democrat is elected to the POTUS in 2008, you can be sure that the president or the vp will spend august in Washington.....every year.....and that, if the airlines survive this latest secuirty alert, money wasted in non-productive detours like Iraq has been, will be spent trying to eliminate security breaches in airport passenger screening.....improvements such as funding for chemical liquid and gel screening equipment....needed for ten years now, but not funded into development and production, passenger screening methods that are consistant and address practical risk potential, and policies that address the root causes of suucide attacks, as well as more emphasis on properly categorizing and seperating criminal from political attacks. Democrats understand that the real threat is that the government will run out of money and the citizenry will experience the loss of most of their rights if this "war" continues to be fought with no regard for the cost, loss of constitutional rights, and a focus on correcly identifying what the greatest terror threats are, and where they originate. A big challenge will be dealing with an inevitable change in leadership in Pakistan.

Bill O'Rights · 08-14-2006, 05:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

Will the Democratic base worry about a woman's electability when considering Hillary?

There's the real question, isn't it? Perhaps (I hope) this country is ready to accept a woman president. I'm just not sure that the country is ready to accept Hillary as that woman president. The first woman president. Can the Democratic party afford to experiment with that right now?

The Democrats need to be very careful here, regarding who they offer up to the public in 2008. In my opinion, they got cocky in 2004 when they nominated John Kerrey. The seemed to think that anyone was going to be able to wad Bush up like like piece of junk mail and toss him in the recycling pile. Well, we see what happened there. Are they going to be so quick to make that mistake again?

The_Jazz · 08-14-2006, 05:50 AM

I've been staying out of Politics recently because of some of the rhetoric, but I can't resist this one, especially since it lets me put on my "history hat" again. I think that there are two interesting points here that are being overlooked - 1) a sitting senator hasn't been elected to the Presidency since 1960 when Kennedy just beat out Nixon. That's 48 years, and lots of senators have run since then. It seems to me that the Democrats should look elsewhere, like the various governors' mansions around the country. That's #2 - the 4 of the last 5 (W, Clinton, Reagan, Carter) have come directly from a state government into the national government. The sole exception is George HW Bush, who's interesting because he was the first Vice President elected in his own right in at least 60 years (at the time). It's pretty obvious that Cheney won't run, so that puts the obvious choices in either the Senate or a governor's mansion. Sorry, but I can't imagine a Congressman getting out of the primary since I don't think that's ever happened.

The Senators have been jockying for position for a year or so now, and I think we're all familiar with who the players are there. Here's my short list of who I personally expect to see step up as national players in the next 6 months or so.

Bill Richardson - New Mexico - Hispanic, which is very attractive to the national party but may have woman problems which kept him out of Kerry's campaign.

Tom Vilsack - Iowa - interesting enough got his start in politics when someone murdered a friend of mine's father who was mayor of Mt. Pleasant, IA. Pretty popular among my Iowa friends.

Rod Blagojevich - Illinios - Has too many problems in IL to mount a real race, especially considering that his father-in-law, a huge power in the state, reportedly now hates him. Re-election as governor isn't by any means assured.

Mike Easley - North Carolina - probably has too many tobacco problems (read: ethics) for the national stage

Ed Rendell - Pennsylvania - if he wins re-election this year, he'll probably run. Either he or Richardson are probably the most electable. Rendell is a former mayor (Philadelphia) and prosecutor, so he's fairly immune from the accusations of being "soft".

Phil Bredesen - Tennesee - a long shot, but could run if he wins re-election this year.

Tim Kaine - Virginia - reportedly has long aspired to the White House, but probably doesn't have the national backing to make it, although he's really popular in VA. Doesn't have enough friends in the national party organization.

Joe Manchin - West Virginia - another dark horse to run, but got a lot of attention after the Sego mine disaster. If he was from a larger state, he might make a good running mate but most likely destined for a cabinet office if a Democrat wins in '08.

As I mentioned, these are just my personal thoughts and shouldn't be taken as any more than that. I might have missed a few (and probably did), but I know of at least 2 that have talked to the national party about running and started soliciting national help. Iowa will again be a very interesting place politically next year.

Since Hillary is a separat topic, I'll post my thoughts on her separately. She's too controversial a figure to run a national campaign. Her problem isn't her vagina (to be crass), although being a woman certainly doesn't help, but the fact that she's polarized people. There aren't that many people out there who are on the fence about her - you either love her or hate her. People that won't vote for her because she's a woman probably wouldn't vote for her because of her politics. She's the later day version of Strom Thurmond of the 50's since both had their grassroots support and little else.

Nominating Hillary is a terrifically bad idea for the Democrats, and I don't know if her running in this cycle is a good idea either. She should wait until 2012 or 2016 and start reaching out to other parts of the pary.

Ample · 08-14-2006, 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Nominating Hillary is a terrifically bad idea for the Democrats, and I don't know if her running in this cycle is a good idea either. She should wait until 2012 or 2016 and start reaching out to other parts of the party.

But why is it that a Senator hasn't been elected in the last 50 years? I was always under the impression that they have a long voting record that there opposition picks apart. Seem unless Hil get really popular and establish herself better that won't work.

Regardless of what I just wrote, I'm hoping that my Senator, Joe Biden gets the nod, but I know I’m just dreaming here.

The_Jazz · 08-14-2006, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ample

But why is it that a Senator hasn't been elected in the last 50 years? I was always under the impression that they have a long voting record that there opposition picks apart. Seem unless Hil get really popular and establish herself better that won't work.

Regardless of what I just wrote, I'm hoping that my Senator, Joe Biden gets the nod, but I know I’m just dreaming here.

I'll so far as to state that every single US Senator, bar none, harbors or harbored Presidential apirations. Regardless of whether they're electable or not, they all see it as the logical next step in a career. Senators generally are the second most powerful folks in DC, and they wield a lot of it.

Biden has the basics in place to get the nomination (so do about 20 others), but I don't know if he has the national power base to get there. We'll see.

roachboy · 08-14-2006, 07:55 AM

it seems a bit early in the game for speculations--but maybe that's because i dont watch television and so do not have the same sense that november is already underway and the post bush era already creeps forward.

i am most interested to see what happens in the midterms--i think that until they have unfolded that even the most basic elements of the political terrain for 2008 are not in place.

i am really unclear about the hillary clinton focus in the op---it does not seem to me to jibe with much outside conservativeland, where she has been something of an obsession for the past--what?--15 years?
i have no idea if she is even considering a run.
she seems yet another dlc moderate and i am not at all sure that the dlc is going to remain anything like a force within the democratic party.

rephrased as a question: why do you think hillary clinton is central to speculations about 2008 at this point?

samcol · 08-14-2006, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

rephrased as a question: why do you think hillary clinton is central to speculations about 2008 at this point?

I guess because that's what we are lead to believe by the media and talk radio. That's about all I can come up with. I really don't see her being a likely candidate considering she really hasn't done anything special. She needs a great speech, political move or something that sets her apart from just being Bill's wife imo. A limp wristed liberal just isn't going to be going head to head with neo-cons who pull no punches and expect to win (like John Kerry). Unless of course she joins them, which isn't entierely out of the realm possibilty considering Rupert Murdock has held a fund-raiser for her.

Quote:

Murdoch Unlikely to Back Hillary in 2008

Newsmax | July 23 2006

Will Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton get Rupert Murdoch's vote if she runs for president in 2008?

Don't count on it.

Appearing on "The Charlie Rose Show," the media mogul said that if the 2008 presidential contest came down to a choice between Clinton, D-.N.Y., and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., he would "probably support McCain. If it was happening today, I think so."

According to the Financial Times, Murdoch's comments came just days after he hosted a New York fund-raiser for her Senate re-election campaign.

Murdoch's media holdings include the New York Post and Fox News.

His surprising decision to host a fund-raiser for Clinton was seen as a warming of relations between the two and an indication that Clinton's attempt to soften her liberal reputation was working, at least on him, according to the Times.

But Murdoch, the chairman and chief executive of News Corp., insisted that the fund-raiser was based on her performance as a senator.

He called her "a very impressive, able woman" but said he remained uncertain of her political philosophy. "Has she suddenly become a moderate and a centrist in everything or is she the old Hillary Clinton? I don't know."

According to the Times, Murdoch has been a strong supporter of Tony Blair, the British prime minister; the decision by the Sun, one of his British newspapers, to back Blair in the 1997 general election is considered to have contributed to Blair's electoral success.

Asked if he was keeping the door open to giving similar support to Clinton in 2008, Murdoch said: "I'd be very surprised if I found myself doing that." But he said Mr McCain "would be a fine president".

"I like him very much. I think he's a great natural hero, and I think he's talking a lot of sense," Murdoch said.

host · 08-14-2006, 09:26 AM

I gotta agree, roachboy....Hillary is the Rove "dream candidate", and is the obsession of republican animosity. If the primary season began today, polls show that she would be the frontrunner, but IMO, she doesn't stand a chance, once competition emerges...

Quote:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...e1600694.shtml
Rupert Murdoch Loves Hillary Clinton
NEW YORK, May 9, 2006(CBS) To call them a political odd couple would be a rash understatement.

Conservative media mogul Rupert Murdoch will host a fundraiser for liberal New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, the Financial Times reports.

The mating ritual of the unlikely allies has been under way for months. Clinton set political tongues to wagging last month by attending a Washington party celebrating the 10th anniversary of Fox News, the cable news channel owned by Murdoch.

The Financial Times quoted one unnamed source as describing the Clinton-Murdoch connection in this way: "They have a respectful and cordial relationship. He has respect for the work she has done on behalf of New York. I wouldn't say it was illustrative of a close ongoing relationship. It is not like they are dining out together."

The fundraiser will take place in July, the newspaper said. Clinton is the frontrunner for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, though she has not indicated whether or not she will run.

Clinton has worked hard to take the edge off her reputation as a card-carrying liberal. She has has collaborated with congressional conservatives on some peices of legislation, called for a "common ground" on abortion and cut a political figure some on the left see as decidedly un-liberal.

Clinton, who made her debut in the Senate Armed Services Committee four years ago, has never voted against any major Iraq military spending legislation. She has also taken two high-profile trips to Iraq – journeys that may have helped to strengthen the credentials of a senator with no military background or experience.

Clinton, who says she’s "always been a praying person," has moved into the territory John Edwards had hoped to claim as the moderate Democrat who cares about the average American.

I like this NRA member, a lot....but no one has been elected president, after 1960, who wasn't born in, or resided in the south....including southern California. Gerald Ford served as president in that time span, but he was never elected. My bet is that both the democrat and the republican candidate in 2008 will be governors from the south. Brian Scweitzer would be the only exception that I can forecast as a possibility:

Quote:

Brian Schweitzers fiscal management credentials:
http://www.missoulanews.com/News/News.asp?no=5836

Quote:

http://www.charleston.net/assets/web...bDate=8/7/2006
No easy fixes for states - ENERGY
Coverage of National Governors Association meeting
Monday, August 07, 2006

....Regarding the environment, Sunday's committee heard National Mining Association Vice President James Roberts call for "integrating environmental and energy policy" in a presentation pushing a fledgling coal-to-liquid program to turn the mineral into diesel fuel. Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm and Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer, both Democrats, took turns blasting the Bush administration for not putting money into fuel-conversion equipment or setting minimum barrel prices for alternative fuels.....

The following has received no attention....and it is a signifigant development:

Quote:

http://www.greatfallstribune.com/app...608020305/1002
Baucus family grieves combat loss
By ALEX STRICKLAND
Tribune Staff Writer

A Wolf Creek Marine died Saturday during combat operations in Iraq, the Department of Defense announced Tuesday.

Cpl. Phillip E. Baucus, 28, was killed in Al Anbar province, Iraq, according to a Marine Corps spokeswoman.

Cpl. Baucus is the son of Wolf Creek ranchers John and Nina Baucus and the nephew of U.S. Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont.

Almost a year ago he wed Katharine Taylor at the historic Sieben Ranch, operated by his parents in the Wolf Creek area.

Details on the circumstances surrounding his death were not available Tuesday.

Cpl. Baucus served as a scout and team leader with the 3rd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, based in Twentynine Palms, Calif.

It was his second tour of duty in Iraq.

"Our family is devastated by the loss of Phillip," Sen. Baucus said in a statement Tuesday afternoon. "We loved him dearly and we'll miss him more than words can ever express.

"Phillip served with great honor and dignity," he said. "America owes him a debt of gratitude."........

........Cpl. Baucus enlisted in the Marine Corps on Sept. 13, 2002, and was deployed to Iraq for his second tour in March.

While in the Marines, he was awarded numerous decorations, including the Marine Corps Good Conduct Medal, the National Defense Service Medal and the Combat Action ribbon.

Politicians around the state and country issued statements of condolence to the Baucus family Tuesday.

Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., said, "There's one more Marine standing the eternal watch over Heaven tonight."

Jon Tester of Big Sandy, Burns' Democratic opponent in November, also expressed condolences on behalf of him and his wife.

"Sharla and I are deeply saddened by the news of the death of Phillip Baucus. The hearts of all Montanans go out to the Baucus family and we pray for them and for all the men and women of our armed forces in harm's way," Tester said in a statement.

Congressman Denny Rehberg, R-Mont., said he met Cpl. Baucus for the first time at the marina at Gates of the Mountains near Helena.

"He was a great young man and this is very sad news," he said. "Phillip paid the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our country and for that we should all be grateful."

Gov. Brian Schweitzer said he and his wife, Nancy, were praying for the Baucus family in their time of loss.

"Today a family lost a son and a husband," Schweitzer said. "Montana lost a hero."

He added that Cpl. Baucus' "sacrifices will be remembered by Montana and the country."

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Neb., interrupted debate on the defense spending bill when he took the Senate floor at 5:45 p.m. Eastern time to read a statement from Baucus' office announcing the death.

"Senator Baucus comes from a very close-knit family," Reid said before reading the statement. "He has one son and his nephew, Phillip, was like a son ... On behalf of the entire Senate, the entire Senate family, I express through the chair to our dear friend Max Baucus, our sympathy and condolences."

Reid added that Baucus had called "to indicate he wouldn't be here this week."

Baucus voted to authorize President Bush to go to war in Iraq in October 2002, as did Burns and Rehberg. In June, Baucus voted in support of a nonbinding resolution that called on President Bush to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of the year.

Burns voted against the resolution, which went down to defeat 60-39 largely along party lines.

Cpl. Baucus' death raises the total number of Montana soldiers, or those with strong Montana ties, killed in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan to 21.

Gannett News Service reporter Faith Bremner and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Originally published August 2, 2006

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Racicot

Joe Biden (D-MBNA)....has no chance....and IMO, rightly so:
http://allspinzone.blogspot.com/2005...explained.html
http://www.attytood.com/archives/001551.html

If Al Gore could win his home state, Tennessee, I'd predict he has a chance. The bad news there, is that the democrat running to replace Bill Frist in the senate, Congressman Harold Ford Jr.,is trailing his republican opponent, the mayor of Chatanooga, in a july poll, 49 to 37 percent, and also has this liability:

Quote:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006...20February.htm
..... Thirteen percent (13%) of Tennessee voters say they know family members or friends who will vote against Ford because of his race. Ford is black. Eighty-two percent (82%) say they don't know anybody with that attitude. Democrats (17%) are slightly more likely than Republicans (12%) to say they know someone in this category......

Ample · 08-14-2006, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Joe Biden (D-MBNA)....has no chance....and IMO, rightly so:
http://allspinzone.blogspot.com/2005...explained.html
http://www.attytood.com/archives/001551.html

I don't agree with 100% of everything that he does, but most stuff. MBNA which got bought my Bank of America this year was the biggest private employer in our state. I bet if you look at all the our government officials in Washington a lot of them have voted for bills that would benefits there home states larger employer. So go ahead and point fingers at Biden, but a lot of fingers needed to be pointed at others as well.

Far as Clinton, she won't get my vote. She is a true poll reader. I just get the vibe that she is totally fake, and positions herself not around her values, but what will get her elected. Which ever the wind blows she will head in that direction. That is really sad. Whats even sadder is it will probably work.

Seaver · 08-14-2006, 10:37 AM

Quote:

I gotta agree, roachboy....Hillary is the Rove "dream candidate"

I agree with both Host and Roachboy...

boatin · 08-14-2006, 12:31 PM

Why does the South have the lock on the presidency these days? Is it the prime voters who have moved south? That's the only thing I can think of, but maybe there are more reasons?

Wonder what happens as people start moving back north (and the to the NW!!!) to get out of the heat over the next decade... our first president from Seattle!

Elphaba · 08-14-2006, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

I agree with both Host and Roachboy...

I agree with Seaver

heh

As much as I would love to see a woman president, and I believe HC is competent, she brings too much old baggage to the table. As said before, people either love her or hate her and I don't see how a win can come from that. Worse yet, the old Billary hate machine would be back in action.

Let me give some more thought on potential candidates.

WELCOME BACK, ADAM!!!

Kadath · 08-15-2006, 05:02 AM

The Jazz -- I really don't think Rendell will run. He has said he's not interested, he's 62, and I think he's prefectly happy with the power he's got running PA. He does have a good everyman persona that could help appeal to the masses, but the Republicans I know in this state loathe him and I don't know if he would have a shot.

Paq · 08-15-2006, 12:43 PM

honestly, i woudl LOVE for hillary to be president...

just for revenge for 2 terms of bush....

honestly, i think she'd do a good job.

i just dont' think she'd get elected, nor do i think she has a chance in the primaries, for reasons stated previously.

As for whose gonna get the nod, i'd say it'll be a governor if they want to win and a senator if they want a bloodbath.

honestly, i'm hoping for a relatively unknown to enter billy clinton style.

Willravel · 08-15-2006, 01:56 PM

At this point, I think George Cloony is the only person who can really save the Democratic party. I wish I were kidding. As far as partison bickering and lying and making war and spending money, the Dems can't compete. Not even Leiberman can compete with the emperor/president in office, and he's practically switching sides. If the Dems take a strong anti-terrorist stance, they are grouped with Iraqi war supporters - and thus lose real Dem support, if they take a strong peace stance (dubbed "anti-war" by certian people), then they are hippies and don't care about the safty of the populace. The Republicans have done a good job with their plan. Like the Brain from pinky and the Brain. Because of all this, the only real option for a candidate would be the following:

1) Out of left field. No one in the political arena seems to be able to overcome the partison bickering that's been developing and worsening over the past 8-12 years. Dems need someone who can appear to be disconnected from current politics in such a way that they seem to know what they're doing, but they aren't connected with ignorance or partisonship. This also suggests that the person not appear to be easily controled.
2) Damn popular. Dems need someone who can out "down home" Bush or his replacement. Dems need lovable. Dems need adorable. Dems need Clinton-esque, but without the vulnerability of another scandal.
3) Tough as nails, when necessary. In order to directly compete with the good-old-boys-with-guns persona, there needs to be a tough guy (or gal) that can appear ferocious. They don't really need to back it up with any real experience, military or otherwise, but the illusion should be there. Think Steve McQueen in Bullitt.

The only person I can think of that would fit that role is George Cloony. It's kinda sad.

pan6467 · 08-21-2006, 08:44 AM

What I can foresee as a big possibility is the moderates from both parties forming a third party.

A McCain/Lieberman ticket with support of moderate senators, Reps., Gov., and so on would almost be a landslide.

I don't see the GOP very strong and conversely I don't see the Dems as very strong. Both parties have sold out their bases and stances for the extremists. (The GOP to the Religious Right and big business/the ultra rich and the Dems. to the social police that have given us political correctness, gloom and doom, do as we say but not as we do).

I truly believe this country is middle of the road and as such moderates are becoming more and more a handsome choice, however, neither party likes moderates, the parties try to make them look weak and destroy them (ask Lieberman, ask Dewine and Voinivich).

It's like this year, it was almost like an agreement between the 2 parties, the Dems would give up Lieberman (whom maybe too powerful), and the GOP would give up Dewine (which I personally would find great as I have always loved Sherrod Brown).

But then again, maybe my scenario of a third party consisting of moderates, who truly want to do what is best for the country and not special interests is a fantasy that will never happen.

But if it ever could, and it ever were '08 is the time to do it.

host · 08-21-2006, 09:33 AM

The senate is not moderate, there are only six moderate senators:

Quote:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...28&postcount=1
http://www.progressivepunch.org/memb...zip=&x=40&y=10

Raveneye made this for us:

Quote:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...51&postcount=5
<img src="http://img234.echo.cx/img234/125/fff0gl.jpg">

House 2003 "liberal" vs. conservative voting quotient; the house is even more polarized than the senate:
http://www.adaction.org/2003housevr.htm

The 2008 election will end up being, to some extent, a referendum on Bush's 8 years, Democrats will smear McCain with the "stuff" similar to the information here:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...5&postcount=20
and, of course, this:
<img src="http://www.bluebus.org/bushmccain.jpg">

Ustwo · 08-21-2006, 11:10 AM

I can only hope that the most liberal candidate wins and that the Democrats continue to vilify Bush.

It is the recipe for Republican victory.

Edit:Side note McCain Lieberman would be fun together, and almost guranteed win though I personally have issues with both.

The_Jazz · 08-21-2006, 11:27 AM

As much as I would like it, a third party option that gets on all 50 ballots is very doubtful. The organization that it takes to pull that off (see Perot 1996) just isn't there, and there's no real talk about McCain in particular pulling out of the Republican primary. All the dirt that I'm hearing is that he really wants the party nomination and isn't ready to go off the reservation. I also doubt that we'll see Lieberman do anything on a national basis unless there's a start-up party that he falls in with.

Ustwo · 08-21-2006, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

As much as I would like it, a third party option that gets on all 50 ballots is very doubtful. The organization that it takes to pull that off (see Perot 1996) just isn't there, and there's no real talk about McCain in particular pulling out of the Republican primary. All the dirt that I'm hearing is that he really wants the party nomination and isn't ready to go off the reservation. I also doubt that we'll see Lieberman do anything on a national basis unless there's a start-up party that he falls in with.

Well Liberman could have run as a moderate/liberal Republican prior to his waffling in 2000 and 2004 trying to appease the left wing. So I think you are correct in that Liberman won't be running with McCain unless McCain jumps ship. Had Liberman stuck to his principles he would be in a far better possition now, though he may still well be a senator come the election.

The_Jazz · 08-21-2006, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Well Liberman could have run as a moderate/liberal Republican prior to his waffling in 2000 and 2004 trying to appease the left wing. So I think you are correct in that Liberman won't be running with McCain unless McCain jumps ship. Had Liberman stuck to his principles he would be in a far better possition now, though he may still well be a senator come the election.

Given that it's 2006, whatever waffling did in prior cycles is pretty much irrelevant when it comes to national politics, especially since his national career is now pretty much dead. He'll never get the backing of the national party to run for President, and anyone who picked him as a running mate would have real problems with the party organization as well - not to mention that Joe's not above sticking a knife in the back of his friends when it's convenient (see: Al Gore, Bill Clinton, John Kerry).

The rumor that I hear is that if Lieberman wins, he's going to try to rejoin the Democrats in some way. Since it's bascially a rift on the state level, it's possible. As far as his vote in the Senate goes, he was never a true loyalist, so I don't expect it will matter one way or the other.

And I'll be moderately surprised if he doesn't win re-election.

Ch'i · 08-21-2006, 01:18 PM

I have heard rumors of Condoleeza Rice being asked to run. If any of you have any insight into this I'd like to hear it. Personally, if she ever did get elected and by some miracle won, I would definately leave the country.

host · 08-21-2006, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I can only hope that the most liberal candidate wins and that the Democrats continue to vilify Bush.

It is the recipe for Republican victory.

Edit:Side note McCain Lieberman would be fun together, and almost guranteed win though I personally have issues with both.

Yeah, Ustwo, I am with you....you summed it up eloquently....it is a recipe!

I admire you for what it must take to make a post like the one you made above. It seems so similar to the post that you described making two years ago, as you posted a couple days ago on the "What happened to TFP?",
thread, over in "Members Playground":

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

While arguing about what should be posted and how on politics has nothing to do with the decline of TFP I'd like to point out that politics has never been a place for original thought.

Before the 2004 election, I posted I thought Bush would win, and what the democrat reaction would be. I was almost right on the money as it turned out. It was something original, no links, just my opinion based on my knowledge of politics. Rather than discussing it, or telling me I was wrong, I was called a troll, in fact one long time poster told me to get Karl Roves **** out of my mouth (thats a quote)......

....and I responded there with the post at this link:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...&postcount=204
.....pointing out that, even after you received a sincere, timely, and public apology from the member who offended you, you still were affected enough by that incident,two years later, to post the remarks above.

Now, let us review the federal spending for the last eleven years. Six years of democratic control of the presidency, with the republicans in charge of the house, and 4 yrs. and 11 months of total republican control/budget management:
<a href="http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm">08/18/2006 $8,500,932,047,599.16
<a href="http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm">09/28/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06</a>
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
It looks like the "Dems" ran an $833 billion deficit, during their 6 years, and the "repubs" have run up a $2,693 billion deficit, in 1-1/2 months less than a most recent, 5 year period.

Is that the "recipe for Republican victory", that you're describing, Ustwo?

Elphaba · 08-21-2006, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ch'i

I have heard rumors of Condoleeza Rice being asked to run. If any of you have any insight into this I'd like to hear it. Personally, if she ever did get elected and by some miracle won, I would definately leave the country.

Your rumors of speculation are correct, but so far she has denied any interest in running. I wonder if she doesn't have as much baggage on her shoulders as Hillary is carrying.

Willravel · 08-21-2006, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Yeah, Ustwo, I am with you

*shudders*

Ustwo · 08-21-2006, 09:48 PM

host please, address me no more, and keep wearing out my scroll button. I merely bid you a respectful good day. We have little common ground on which to argue because I share few of your assumptions. Hope to see you on the other boards some day, you will find there is more to life than your quest.

Aladdin Sane · 08-22-2006, 06:12 AM

Host, this is not your personal space for settling a personal score. How many times will you write the same damned story about Ustwo and in how many posts?
Take your pettiness elsewhere, please.

host · 08-22-2006, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aladdin Sane

How many times will you write the same damned story about Ustwo and in how many posts?
Take your pettiness elsewhere, please.

I responded to this post:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I can only hope that the most liberal candidate wins and that the Democrats continue to vilify Bush.

It is the recipe for Republican victory.......

I responded with the influence of this exchange yesterday, still on my mind:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2100561_5.html
Text of Bush's News Conference

The Associated Press
Monday, August 21, 2006; 1:17 PM

.....Q: A lot of the consequences you mentioned for pulling out seem like maybe they never would have been there if we hadn't gone in. How do you square all of that?

Bush: I square it because imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein, who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who had relations with Zarqawi.

Imagine what the world would be like with him in power. The idea is to try to help change the Middle East.

Now look, part of the reason we went into Iraq was __ the main reason we went into Iraq, at the time, was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction.

But I also talked about the human suffering in Iraq. And I also saw the need to advance a freedom agenda. And so my answer to your question is that __ imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein was there, stirring up even more trouble in a part of the world that had so much resentment and so much hatred that people came and killed 3,000 of our citizens.

You know, I've heard this theory about, you know, everything was just fine until we arrived and __ you know, the stir-up-the-hornet's- nest theory. It just doesn't hold water, as far as I'm concerned.

The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East. They were ...

Q: What did Iraqi have to do with that?

Bush: What did Iraq have to do with what?

Q: The attacks upon the World Trade Center.

Bush: Nothing. Except for it's part of __ and nobody's ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a __ Iraq __ the lesson of September the 11th is: Take threats before they fully materialize, Ken......

Aladdin Sane, when I considered Bush's comments yesterday, and these on
Aug. 16:

Quote:

........"Leaving before we complete our mission would create a terrorist state in the heart of the Middle East, a country with huge oil reserves that the terrorist network would be willing to use to extract economic pain from those of us who believe in freedom," Bush said.............

and that federal deficit spending is going to be at least $2000 billion higher, between Oct., 1, 2001, and Sept. 30, 2007, than it was between Oct. 1, 1995, and Sept. 30, 2001, of which I posted supporting official data, in my
last post, I hope that you will consider that I responded to Ustwo, and now, to you, in a manner, and with content, that is consistent with what should be taking place on a politics forum......if everyone avoided posting "zingers", "one liners", and contentless "troll posts", we could dicuss politics.

mixedmedia · 08-23-2006, 09:52 AM

Not very good at predictions, but I LIKE Gen. Wesley Clark, Tom Vilsack and Mark Warner.

I am a great admirer of Hillary Clinton's but I don't think she could run a successful campaign considering the current political climate. If I lived in an ideal world where candidates were observed and summed up for their abilities and cognitive prowess, I would vote for her in a second without hesitation.

dc_dux · 09-03-2006, 07:49 PM

Its far too early for me to speculate on 2008. At least until after this year's mid-term elections where the outcome in both Congress and governor races will impact '08 election.

More and more Americans are becoming Independents and increasingly disenchanted with the rhetoric of the extremes of both parties. The candidate who can best relate to those Independents will fare well, assuming he/she can win the primary.

Having said I wont speculate, Mark Warner, a former Dem gov in a red state fits that mold and will impress more and more people as they get to know him.

trickyy · 04-26-2007, 11:33 AM

it's probably still too early be talking about the next president

but, the first debate (democrats) is already tonight on MSNBC, so perhaps you would like to weigh in on the campaign so far

from a certain perspective, i am hesitant to think a democrat should be president. it would probably be good for a while, but it seems like one-party rule never works well ... something that has become very very evident in recent history.

that said, none of the republicans really appeal to me, except ron paul who is probably not going to get far. mccain has lost all of his mojo, romney seems like a too much of a panderer. i saw huckabee speak and he dedicated a lot of time to abortion and gay marriage -- issues which don't matter to me. when tancredo talks about anything besides immigration, his ideas sound borderline insane. guliani ... still haven't heard him talk.

as for the democrats, i like barack because he answers questions intelligently. i had negative feelings toward edwards before seeing him speak, but he might not be too bad either. i am not a hillary supporter, someone asked her about No Child Left Behind and she simply stated that had not forumlated her position yet. i'm not sure about the other democrats, biden likes to hear himself talk and kucinich probably won't break out of the margins.

just one more note ... i think the candidates unwillingness to attend FOX debates is riduculous. if they are afraid of a TV channel it makes me wonder if they even deserve my vote. liberal blogs are behind this dumb idea.

Paq · 04-26-2007, 12:37 PM

just a quick thing. I don't think they should TOTALLY abandon fox news, but they are definitely going to keep them out of the early going of the running. Fox has a field day with insinuations and speculation and sometimes just outright lies at times...

and i swear, if the whole gay marriage thing pops up again, i'll freaking scream.

i'm hoping for a barack/hillary ticket just to watch some heads explode

as for the republicans..i agree with about everythign there. mccain just doesn't have 'it' anymore..and his complete cave in after the strong guy approach in 2000 just made him lose all credibility with me. I was actually in favor of him in the 2000 primaries. Bush put an end to that...in full fashion...

so now, to me, it's down to barack/hillary. rush limbaugh has called it for hillary, which just makes me think it'll go to barack...and i have not found a single female yet who would vote for hillary...that kinda shocked me.

Willravel · 04-26-2007, 12:39 PM

Tonight at 7:00 EST on MSNBC. Be there or be square. Here's to hoping that we actually get a clear indication of where everyone stands.

Here we go...

ASU2003 · 04-26-2007, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trickyy

Just one more note ... i think the candidate’s unwillingness to attend FOX debates is ridiculous. if they are afraid of a TV channel it makes me wonder if they even deserve my vote. liberal blogs are behind this dumb idea.

I agree. The main reason I disliked Bush in the election is because he wouldn't go on The Daily Show. If you are going to be President, you need to be strong enough to get your message out there, even to a hostile audience that disagrees with you. I won't vote for any democrat that doesn't do the O'reilly factor either for the same reason.

It's like if Martin Luther King Jr. had stayed in New York and Boston instead of traveling all over the South to get his message out. It was very risky and blacks who caused trouble were hated at the time in the south. But he took the risk and went there anyways.

Elphaba · 04-26-2007, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Tonight at 7:00 EST on MSNBC. Be there or be square. Here's to hoping that we actually get a clear indication of where everyone stands.

Here we go...

Crud. It was on at 4:00 here and I missed it. I'll catch it elsewhere.

What was your reaction, Will?

Willravel · 04-26-2007, 05:22 PM

Fantastic. I was VERY impressed with each speaker, and I've more been more convinced than ever that Kucinich is a Hobbit. It's funny because his wife, Elizabeth, looks like Galadriel (the elven queen).

I'm sure they'll be replaying it quite often, but I think each condidate made very strong points, and were united in their disdain for the Bush administration, which is something I always enjoy. It was clear that they had done their homework. Obama was very detailed and specific. Clinton was strong against the war. Biden cracked me up (go figure)! Bill Richardson really worked to distance himself from Gonzales and was very clear on gun control. Ken doll John Edwards gave us a down home country boy story about how he used to be poor that really took some steam out of haircutgate. Chris Dodd, who looks like Jor El, came out as clearly a man of the people. Gravel was a cannon who fired incredible little soundbites at the screen almost knocked me out of my chair AND he really put pressure on the other candidates.

Elphaba · 04-26-2007, 06:37 PM

I'm picking up bits and pieces, but Biden did manage a show stopper.

His campaign slogan should be "Say YES to Biden".

Willravel · 04-26-2007, 09:16 PM

I'm surprised there hasn't been more activity in here. It was a really interesting debate. It made Bush vs. Kerry look like crap (of course watching paint dry....never mind).

trickyy · 04-27-2007, 11:37 PM

i watched/listened to it on the msnbc website in pieces while i was doing some other things
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18296908/ -- "Watch the Debates"

it will be replayed on cspan too i think, and the Republicans take their turn next week

Gravel is indeed a wild one, it's good to have him there to shake it up. his interview w/ Chris Matthews is pretty funny too, check out Matthews' donkey laugh. Barack suddenly sprouted a Southern accent for his post-debate rally. Kucinich might be more successful if he didn't go out of his way to demonstrate how liberal he is (Barack's strategy), or just let his wife appear in his place. i thought Edwards "I admit my mistakes" was a decent line.

i still haven't felt the heat from Hillary, i thought she was average. i don't understand why she is leading most polls aside from name recognition.

the rest of the candidates were all decent. it was funny Biden raised his hand when there was reference to the frontrunners -- he's probably fighting hard for 5th place, hoping to double his 1% draw.

recent piece from the Onion

Quote:

Rhode Island Votes To Move 2008 Primary To Tomorrow

April 18, 2007 | Issue 43•16

PROVIDENCE, RI—The Rhode Island legislature has passed a law moving the state's presidential primary to tomorrow, forcing candidates from both parties to hastily revise their schedules and platforms.

"I love Rhode Island, always have—especially the people," said Sen. John Edwards while being briefed on Rhode Island politics aboard a plane bound for Providence. "Just because it's a small state doesn't mean it's not important. Frankly, I've always believed Rhode Island, or the 'Ocean State,' as I prefer to call it, should be much bigger—an issue on which my opponents have remained curiously silent."

Former Gov. Mitt Romney announced his intention to release a 10-point plan addressing the issues that most deeply affect Rhode Islanders, as soon as he and his staff figure out what those issues are.

08-13-2006, 05:36 PM	#1 (permalink)
politicophile Addict	2008 Democratic Primary Speculation Here is my first attempt in some time to inject new blood into Tilted Politics. The 2008 political season is still so far away that all predictions must be taken with an unusually large grain of salt. Nonetheless, I find it interesting to predict the political future to the greatest extent possible. Here are what I believe are the big unknowns that will shape the race, as well as my predicted answers: DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY: 1. The major question here is, of course, who will be the "Anti-Hillary?" Everybody knows who the perceived frontrunner is (Hillary) and everyone knows that the primary will ultimately develop into a two-horse race between the pro-Hillary faction and the anti-Hillary faction. Michael Moore recently had some choice words for Hillary about how she should expect to be thrown under the bus like Lieberman was, so it appears that the progressives will be searching for another candidate. Because so few Senators voted against the Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Iraq, most of them are not viable alternatives for the progressive movement. I predict they will reach out to a popular Democratic governor who is not dogged by early support for the invasion of Iraq. My money is on Mark Warner, governor of the red state of Virginia. The folks at http://www.draftmarkwarner.com/ seem to think he has the stuff. 2. If the anti-Hillary wins, will he (yes, I said "he") be able to walk the narrow line between red-state winner and peace advocate? In order to get through the primary, anti-Hillary is going to need to vocally criticize Hillary's pro-war stances. That's the only way that the Democratic base is going to be pursuaded to throw away this opportunity to elect a woman President. Problems will emerge, however, when the general election rolls around and Republicans start filling red-state television sets with anti-war comments from the primary season. Shades of 1972? Maybe. 3. Will the Democratic base worry about a woman's electability when considering Hillary? We must face the unfortunate reality that there are some voters who would oppose Hillary's candidacy simply on the grounds that she is female. While I hope this group is small, the possibility that Hillary's sex could guarantee a Republican victory in 2008 will be on the minds of some Democratic primary voters. At the end of the day, I predict Hillary's gender will be viewed by most Democrats as a net plus and she will actually garner more votes because she is female. Anything I missed? __________________ The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

08-14-2006, 05:50 AM	#4 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	I've been staying out of Politics recently because of some of the rhetoric, but I can't resist this one, especially since it lets me put on my "history hat" again. I think that there are two interesting points here that are being overlooked - 1) a sitting senator hasn't been elected to the Presidency since 1960 when Kennedy just beat out Nixon. That's 48 years, and lots of senators have run since then. It seems to me that the Democrats should look elsewhere, like the various governors' mansions around the country. That's #2 - the 4 of the last 5 (W, Clinton, Reagan, Carter) have come directly from a state government into the national government. The sole exception is George HW Bush, who's interesting because he was the first Vice President elected in his own right in at least 60 years (at the time). It's pretty obvious that Cheney won't run, so that puts the obvious choices in either the Senate or a governor's mansion. Sorry, but I can't imagine a Congressman getting out of the primary since I don't think that's ever happened. The Senators have been jockying for position for a year or so now, and I think we're all familiar with who the players are there. Here's my short list of who I personally expect to see step up as national players in the next 6 months or so. Bill Richardson - New Mexico - Hispanic, which is very attractive to the national party but may have woman problems which kept him out of Kerry's campaign. Tom Vilsack - Iowa - interesting enough got his start in politics when someone murdered a friend of mine's father who was mayor of Mt. Pleasant, IA. Pretty popular among my Iowa friends. Rod Blagojevich - Illinios - Has too many problems in IL to mount a real race, especially considering that his father-in-law, a huge power in the state, reportedly now hates him. Re-election as governor isn't by any means assured. Mike Easley - North Carolina - probably has too many tobacco problems (read: ethics) for the national stage Ed Rendell - Pennsylvania - if he wins re-election this year, he'll probably run. Either he or Richardson are probably the most electable. Rendell is a former mayor (Philadelphia) and prosecutor, so he's fairly immune from the accusations of being "soft". Phil Bredesen - Tennesee - a long shot, but could run if he wins re-election this year. Tim Kaine - Virginia - reportedly has long aspired to the White House, but probably doesn't have the national backing to make it, although he's really popular in VA. Doesn't have enough friends in the national party organization. Joe Manchin - West Virginia - another dark horse to run, but got a lot of attention after the Sego mine disaster. If he was from a larger state, he might make a good running mate but most likely destined for a cabinet office if a Democrat wins in '08. As I mentioned, these are just my personal thoughts and shouldn't be taken as any more than that. I might have missed a few (and probably did), but I know of at least 2 that have talked to the national party about running and started soliciting national help. Iowa will again be a very interesting place politically next year. Since Hillary is a separat topic, I'll post my thoughts on her separately. She's too controversial a figure to run a national campaign. Her problem isn't her vagina (to be crass), although being a woman certainly doesn't help, but the fact that she's polarized people. There aren't that many people out there who are on the fence about her - you either love her or hate her. People that won't vote for her because she's a woman probably wouldn't vote for her because of her politics. She's the later day version of Strom Thurmond of the 50's since both had their grassroots support and little else. Nominating Hillary is a terrifically bad idea for the Democrats, and I don't know if her running in this cycle is a good idea either. She should wait until 2012 or 2016 and start reaching out to other parts of the pary. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo Last edited by The_Jazz; 08-14-2006 at 05:56 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

08-14-2006, 07:55 AM	#7 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	it seems a bit early in the game for speculations--but maybe that's because i dont watch television and so do not have the same sense that november is already underway and the post bush era already creeps forward. i am most interested to see what happens in the midterms--i think that until they have unfolded that even the most basic elements of the political terrain for 2008 are not in place. i am really unclear about the hillary clinton focus in the op---it does not seem to me to jibe with much outside conservativeland, where she has been something of an obsession for the past--what?--15 years? i have no idea if she is even considering a run. she seems yet another dlc moderate and i am not at all sure that the dlc is going to remain anything like a force within the democratic party. rephrased as a question: why do you think hillary clinton is central to speculations about 2008 at this point? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-15-2006, 05:02 AM	#14 (permalink)
Kadath Muffled Location: Camazotz	The Jazz -- I really don't think Rendell will run. He has said he's not interested, he's 62, and I think he's prefectly happy with the power he's got running PA. He does have a good everyman persona that could help appeal to the masses, but the Republicans I know in this state loathe him and I don't know if he would have a shot. __________________ it's quiet in here

08-15-2006, 12:43 PM	#15 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	honestly, i woudl LOVE for hillary to be president... just for revenge for 2 terms of bush.... honestly, i think she'd do a good job. i just dont' think she'd get elected, nor do i think she has a chance in the primaries, for reasons stated previously. As for whose gonna get the nod, i'd say it'll be a governor if they want to win and a senator if they want a bloodbath. honestly, i'm hoping for a relatively unknown to enter billy clinton style. __________________ Live. Chris

08-14-2006, 12:31 PM	#12 (permalink)
boatin Psycho	Why does the South have the lock on the presidency these days? Is it the prime voters who have moved south? That's the only thing I can think of, but maybe there are more reasons? Wonder what happens as people start moving back north (and the to the NW!!!) to get out of the heat over the next decade... our first president from Seattle!

08-15-2006, 01:56 PM	#16 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	At this point, I think George Cloony is the only person who can really save the Democratic party. I wish I were kidding. As far as partison bickering and lying and making war and spending money, the Dems can't compete. Not even Leiberman can compete with the emperor/president in office, and he's practically switching sides. If the Dems take a strong anti-terrorist stance, they are grouped with Iraqi war supporters - and thus lose real Dem support, if they take a strong peace stance (dubbed "anti-war" by certian people), then they are hippies and don't care about the safty of the populace. The Republicans have done a good job with their plan. Like the Brain from pinky and the Brain. Because of all this, the only real option for a candidate would be the following: 1) Out of left field. No one in the political arena seems to be able to overcome the partison bickering that's been developing and worsening over the past 8-12 years. Dems need someone who can appear to be disconnected from current politics in such a way that they seem to know what they're doing, but they aren't connected with ignorance or partisonship. This also suggests that the person not appear to be easily controled. 2) Damn popular. Dems need someone who can out "down home" Bush or his replacement. Dems need lovable. Dems need adorable. Dems need Clinton-esque, but without the vulnerability of another scandal. 3) Tough as nails, when necessary. In order to directly compete with the good-old-boys-with-guns persona, there needs to be a tough guy (or gal) that can appear ferocious. They don't really need to back it up with any real experience, military or otherwise, but the illusion should be there. Think Steve McQueen in Bullitt. The only person I can think of that would fit that role is George Cloony. It's kinda sad. Last edited by Willravel; 08-16-2006 at 02:32 PM..

08-21-2006, 08:44 AM	#17 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	What I can foresee as a big possibility is the moderates from both parties forming a third party. A McCain/Lieberman ticket with support of moderate senators, Reps., Gov., and so on would almost be a landslide. I don't see the GOP very strong and conversely I don't see the Dems as very strong. Both parties have sold out their bases and stances for the extremists. (The GOP to the Religious Right and big business/the ultra rich and the Dems. to the social police that have given us political correctness, gloom and doom, do as we say but not as we do). I truly believe this country is middle of the road and as such moderates are becoming more and more a handsome choice, however, neither party likes moderates, the parties try to make them look weak and destroy them (ask Lieberman, ask Dewine and Voinivich). It's like this year, it was almost like an agreement between the 2 parties, the Dems would give up Lieberman (whom maybe too powerful), and the GOP would give up Dewine (which I personally would find great as I have always loved Sherrod Brown). But then again, maybe my scenario of a third party consisting of moderates, who truly want to do what is best for the country and not special interests is a fantasy that will never happen. But if it ever could, and it ever were '08 is the time to do it. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

08-21-2006, 11:10 AM	#19 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	I can only hope that the most liberal candidate wins and that the Democrats continue to vilify Bush. It is the recipe for Republican victory. Edit:Side note McCain Lieberman would be fun together, and almost guranteed win though I personally have issues with both. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

08-21-2006, 11:27 AM	#20 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	As much as I would like it, a third party option that gets on all 50 ballots is very doubtful. The organization that it takes to pull that off (see Perot 1996) just isn't there, and there's no real talk about McCain in particular pulling out of the Republican primary. All the dirt that I'm hearing is that he really wants the party nomination and isn't ready to go off the reservation. I also doubt that we'll see Lieberman do anything on a national basis unless there's a start-up party that he falls in with. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

08-21-2006, 01:18 PM	#23 (permalink)
Ch'i Artist of Life	I have heard rumors of Condoleeza Rice being asked to run. If any of you have any insight into this I'd like to hear it. Personally, if she ever did get elected and by some miracle won, I would definately leave the country. Last edited by Ch'i; 08-21-2006 at 02:54 PM..

08-21-2006, 09:48 PM	#27 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	host please, address me no more, and keep wearing out my scroll button. I merely bid you a respectful good day. We have little common ground on which to argue because I share few of your assumptions. Hope to see you on the other boards some day, you will find there is more to life than your quest. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. Last edited by Ustwo; 08-21-2006 at 09:54 PM..

08-22-2006, 06:12 AM	#28 (permalink)
Aladdin Sane Degenerate Location: San Marvelous	Host, this is not your personal space for settling a personal score. How many times will you write the same damned story about Ustwo and in how many posts? Take your pettiness elsewhere, please. __________________ Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

08-23-2006, 09:52 AM	#30 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	Not very good at predictions, but I LIKE Gen. Wesley Clark, Tom Vilsack and Mark Warner. I am a great admirer of Hillary Clinton's but I don't think she could run a successful campaign considering the current political climate. If I lived in an ideal world where candidates were observed and summed up for their abilities and cognitive prowess, I would vote for her in a second without hesitation.

09-03-2006, 07:49 PM	#31 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Its far too early for me to speculate on 2008. At least until after this year's mid-term elections where the outcome in both Congress and governor races will impact '08 election. More and more Americans are becoming Independents and increasingly disenchanted with the rhetoric of the extremes of both parties. The candidate who can best relate to those Independents will fare well, assuming he/she can win the primary. Having said I wont speculate, Mark Warner, a former Dem gov in a red state fits that mold and will impress more and more people as they get to know him. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

04-26-2007, 11:33 AM	#32 (permalink)
trickyy ►	it's probably still too early be talking about the next president but, the first debate (democrats) is already tonight on MSNBC, so perhaps you would like to weigh in on the campaign so far from a certain perspective, i am hesitant to think a democrat should be president. it would probably be good for a while, but it seems like one-party rule never works well ... something that has become very very evident in recent history. that said, none of the republicans really appeal to me, except ron paul who is probably not going to get far. mccain has lost all of his mojo, romney seems like a too much of a panderer. i saw huckabee speak and he dedicated a lot of time to abortion and gay marriage -- issues which don't matter to me. when tancredo talks about anything besides immigration, his ideas sound borderline insane. guliani ... still haven't heard him talk. as for the democrats, i like barack because he answers questions intelligently. i had negative feelings toward edwards before seeing him speak, but he might not be too bad either. i am not a hillary supporter, someone asked her about No Child Left Behind and she simply stated that had not forumlated her position yet. i'm not sure about the other democrats, biden likes to hear himself talk and kucinich probably won't break out of the margins. just one more note ... i think the candidates unwillingness to attend FOX debates is riduculous. if they are afraid of a TV channel it makes me wonder if they even deserve my vote. liberal blogs are behind this dumb idea.

04-26-2007, 12:37 PM	#33 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	just a quick thing. I don't think they should TOTALLY abandon fox news, but they are definitely going to keep them out of the early going of the running. Fox has a field day with insinuations and speculation and sometimes just outright lies at times... and i swear, if the whole gay marriage thing pops up again, i'll freaking scream. i'm hoping for a barack/hillary ticket just to watch some heads explode as for the republicans..i agree with about everythign there. mccain just doesn't have 'it' anymore..and his complete cave in after the strong guy approach in 2000 just made him lose all credibility with me. I was actually in favor of him in the 2000 primaries. Bush put an end to that...in full fashion... so now, to me, it's down to barack/hillary. rush limbaugh has called it for hillary, which just makes me think it'll go to barack...and i have not found a single female yet who would vote for hillary...that kinda shocked me. __________________ Live. Chris

04-26-2007, 12:39 PM	#34 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Tonight at 7:00 EST on MSNBC. Be there or be square. Here's to hoping that we actually get a clear indication of where everyone stands. Here we go... Last edited by Willravel; 04-26-2007 at 03:01 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

04-26-2007, 05:22 PM	#37 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Fantastic. I was VERY impressed with each speaker, and I've more been more convinced than ever that Kucinich is a Hobbit. It's funny because his wife, Elizabeth, looks like Galadriel (the elven queen). I'm sure they'll be replaying it quite often, but I think each condidate made very strong points, and were united in their disdain for the Bush administration, which is something I always enjoy. It was clear that they had done their homework. Obama was very detailed and specific. Clinton was strong against the war. Biden cracked me up (go figure)! Bill Richardson really worked to distance himself from Gonzales and was very clear on gun control. Ken doll John Edwards gave us a down home country boy story about how he used to be poor that really took some steam out of haircutgate. Chris Dodd, who looks like Jor El, came out as clearly a man of the people. Gravel was a cannon who fired incredible little soundbites at the screen almost knocked me out of my chair AND he really put pressure on the other candidates. Last edited by Willravel; 04-26-2007 at 05:28 PM.. Reason: changed comment about Kucinich to past tense

04-26-2007, 06:37 PM	#38 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	I'm picking up bits and pieces, but Biden did manage a show stopper. His campaign slogan should be "Say YES to Biden". __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

04-26-2007, 09:16 PM	#39 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I'm surprised there hasn't been more activity in here. It was a really interesting debate. It made Bush vs. Kerry look like crap (of course watching paint dry....never mind).