Strange Famous

Whatever the political stances, I cannot imagine that Hillary could be elected as president. Not because she is a woman, but because she is not likeable.

Obama is politically popularist and seems the most lightweight candidate... but eminently likeable and charismatic... and would certainly win the election

Its a funny system in the US.

In the UK, we vote for a party... who make all these tough decisions for you.

In the US the supporters of the party seem to be forced between choosing between their head and their heart every time.

In terms of political stance, I would say I would be closer to Hillary, but voting for her is the equivalent of voting for George Greghan to stand in front of you jeering "4 more years boys, 4 more years..." imo

Is it a good system that allows the people to actually decide the candidates?

I prefer the UK system myself, of the people having one choice... between the candidates presented to them.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Willravel

I wish that were the case, my friend. I really do. The fact is that not only do some people agree with her, but some people don't care. Some people will vote for her because they think she looks funny or because of the Lewinsky bullshit. Some people will vote for her because she's not black. A lot will vote for her simply because she lacks a y chromosome.

The thing is, these people have every right to create their own criteria in their decision making process. Either everyone can vote and you get idiots voting, or you don't let everyone vote and the president, servant and representative of the people, doesn't represent everyone. It's a bizarre catch-22, but there really isn't any way around it.

joshbaumgartner

I have to agree. Despite the problems that we encounter, I still would not want to see any reduction in the ability of the people to choose their own president. The public nature of the primaries are great because so often the 'anointed' candidate is rejected by the people and replaced by one deemed to represent that party all the better, and when they are not defeated, they often get a good dose of changes they need to make if they are to continue to get support.

Strange Famous

Yes... but what I was asking was not exactly that.

I wasnt saying dont give people the choice.

I was saying give people one choice, not the double selection process.

By all means, people should elect however they feel guided too... but I feel it should be one decision, and they should understand it as such... a choice made in two stages seems less likely to be well made.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Willravel

I misunderstood the direction of your first few sentences, sorry.

The US has primaries so that the parties have less control. If it were up to the parties, Hilary would be the Democratic presidential hopeful. A lot of Democrats would disagree with that decision, so they get the opportunity to choose the best representative for them. The Democratic party isn't just some officials and party members, it's the whole of the Democratic voter base. It's everyone registered to vote Democrat in the US.

To me that makes sense. Though it'd be nice to have a labor party over here... we've basically got tories already.

Strange Famous

The Labour Party ceased to be the Labour Party when they dropped clause 4.

The abandonment of Clause 4 was a betrayal, in principle and fact, of what they stood for and what they are. They arent really much different to the Democracts without it... its just the iron fist in the silk glove, against the iron fist in an iron glove.

I think the UK is better off for having a three party system though... the third party can fulfil the position of the moral opposition rather than practical opposition, and this is very worthwhile... to have a powerful group in the main parliament who can speak from conscience rather than the guidelines of the latest focus group.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

SecretMethod70

I dunno, I think Hillary is "likeable enough." (Bonus points to those who get the reference.)

Anyway, what will said.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Willravel

Context for the rest of my yankee brethren:

Clause 4:
"To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service."

Blair attempted to redefine this in 1993, suggesting that the wording above was outdated (bullshit, anyone?). When he was elected in 1994, he had the power to change it. It now reads:
"The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few. Where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe. And where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect."

It's far less socialist and more centrist, and quit frankly is a betrayal of what labour was supposed to be. Labor was supposed to be socialist. It's not, anymore.

SecretMethod70

As for third parties...that fits right into the biggest political change that I do think is necessary in the US: we need to count votes using a method that fulfills the Condorcet criterion.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Willravel

A fellow political scientist?! *giddy*

robot_parade

I have a couple of issues with your claim.

First, Hillary *is* the choice of the party leadership - check out the "Super Delegates":

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/05/6189/

The whole point of the super delegate system is to try to make sure that the plebians don't stray too far from the party line. Now, these delegates can change their vote, and they'll probably go with whoever wins the popular vote, but they could, possibly, sway almost any race. And right now, they choose Hillary. If they were the ones who got to pick, it would be Hillary.

Second, for most of us Plebes, we *don't* get to pick from more than two candidates. Unless we happen to live in an early primary state, the race will be won by the time it gets around to us. The only race that will matter is the actual election, and we'll get to choose between....Dem or Repub.

Third, I think part of the whole point of the primary system is to see how the candidates actually *do* in a campaign. A trial run, if you will. If the candidate fairs poorly in the primary, it's a pretty good indication that they would not have done well in the rest of the race. The primary system lets the party know that a given candidate doesn't play well with certain segments of the population, or can't take the strain of a campaign.

While I do think Hillary has electability problems, but I think the bigger problem is the *hate* that the right-wingers have for her. I'm not kidding. They'd of course rather have one of their own as president, but the idea of Hillary in office makes them froth at the mouth. Go read some right wing blogs, it's scary. Hillary as a candidate will probably help them whip the masses into a frenzy to go out and vote *against* her.

She does also have some likability issues, but she seems to have hit a magic formula with The Crying Incident. We'll see how that works out for her.

Strange Famous

You must admit though, that Hillary is the party choice within the present context "ie - it not being the final choice"

My contention is that when a decision is brken up into pieces, this damages the quality of the result. I believe:

The party should make one decision of who is the candidate - through the membership of the parliamentary party or a combination of.

The people then should have a straight, and clear, choice.

Of course there is an anti-Hillary mob, as there is an anti-Bush mob. These people dont decide the election, the middle ground do.

___

And Will, your summary of Clause 4 is exactly correct... dropping Clause 4 was symbolically dropping the commitment to collective ownership. It was a symbolic statement that the Labour party was no longer a socialist party. Michel's "Iron Law of Oligarchy" I suppose.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Willravel

See! You're not the only socialist lurking around these parts.

I was dismayed when I read about that a few years back. I was too young to appreciate the Labour party in it's glory days (in 1994 I was just a decade old). I suspect that the UK's little brother, the US, had too much influence. The reach-arounds between Bush and Blair were just the most recent symptom of that.

SecretMethod70

It's my degree

I'm a fan of the founding fathers' intention to minimize party control in Democracy, though I do think parties have their purpose of helping convey a candidate's general message. If it weren't so upsetting, I'd find it rather amusing that the Democratic party has the less democratic process of choosing a presidential candidate (superdelegates). That said, I also recognize that right now there is too much fluff in the campaigning of individuals. That's just as much a cultural problem as it is a political one though, what with our celebrity obsession and so forth.

As for the anti-Hillary mob, I think you underestimate the power of "getting out the vote." In a reasonably close election or in one where both sides are somewhat ambivalent, the independents definitely hold the most sway. But if one side can get their base fired up and the other one can't (which is what I think a Hillary candidacy would do, and also part of what happened in 2004), then the anti- voters can have significant power.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

djtestudo

Maybe I'm missing something, but it sounds to me that this is what we do.

The party as a whole chooses the candidate through the primary. Only the members of a party can vote in that primary, as technically they are separate; each party holds them at the same time (for the most part) for convenience.

How does it work in the UK? Are the elections for leaders (Prime Minister, etc.) public? I always assumed that it was more like how the Speaker of the House is elected in America; from within the congressional/party leadership.

__________________
"Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen."
--Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

robot_parade

I'm pretty sure independents can vote in the primary in most states. Could be wrong, though.

I disagree. I think democracy would be healthier with *more* candidates in the actual election, rather than having it be party-vs-party. In the US, if you vote for a 3rd party candidate, your vote is 'wasted'. Unfortunately, a strong third party candidate (like Ross Perot, before he imploded) can tilt the field towards the *least* popular candidate.

[ LEFT ---Cand. A--Cand. B.----------------|middle|------Cand. C-------------- RIGHT ]

Most voters would prefer either Candidate A or B over candidate C. But since candidate A and B split the 'left/liberal' vote, candidate C has a much better chance of winning.

In our (the USA's) voting system, the primaries let the 'left' (democratic) side and the right (republican) side pick their favorite candidate, then left can fight against right, and you don't have a 'split the vote' issue. There are other systems, like runoff elections, and "single transferable votes" that are supposed to fix this sort of problem. Our (again, in the US) system is a cobbled-together compromise that seems to work 'ok' (except for the last 7 years... ;-)). I would love to see something better come along, though.

Tophat665

It's not that Hillary is unelectable - I tend to think she is, and I hope to net have to find out for sure, but I could easily be surprised. No one has ever gone broke underestimating the <s>American</s> people.

The problem with Hillary is that, regardless of her qualifications, capabilities, ideas, and advisers, if elected she cannot rule.

There is a large group of wealthy people who hate her with a pathological fury who will exert every ounce of their considerable power to make sure that any Mrs. Clinton administration will be a miserable failure to make Bush look like George Washington (or at least Ronald Reagan - who was a lousy president but don't try telling them that).

They have been stockpiling political ammunition for the last 15 years. A second Clinton administration will come out of the gate like the first Clinton administration exited - under seige by people who think that the very greatest service they can do to their country is to make the administration a train wreck to prevent anything like it from ever happening again.

With that said, I think it would be amusing and infuriating to watch, and it would give her the opportunity to crush these people like the weasels they are (I'm talkin' to you, Scaife!), but I don' think she has the chops to do it (though she's probably better equipped for a no holds barred, salted earth campaign than Bill.)

On top of that, I am concerned that there will be some degree of this for any Democratic president, plus the economic and military Shitburger combo plate that the Bush Administration has served them and they're going to have to eat and smile.

And that last is why, if Clinton gets the nomination, I'll probably vote for McCain. It's not that he's better equipped than any of the Democrats, or that he would be more able to deal with the coming meltdown than any of the other Republicans. It's that I would expect him to be honest about it (which I would not expect from anyone else except Kucinich - fat chance of that happening), and his honesty would very likely doom the Republican party for the next 20 to 50 years.

__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

Ustwo

The beauty of the American system is that it keeps the fringe groups from getting power disproportionate to their numbers.

For all the whining, its worked petty well so far.

__________________
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.

roachboy

i dont know if hillary clinton is "electable" or not yet.
i'm not sure how anyone would: we collectively are moving through the charade of agency now at its first level (the primary ritual)...no-one knows quite what the opposing tickets will be and it seems to me that it is entirely possible that the question of electability is only to some extent a function of, say, the conservative fashioning of clinton as some socialist Devil, and mostly a function of what the choices look like.

if, say, some paleolithic ticket emerges from the right--anything featuring mccain, say, or--funnier still--huckabee--that clinton would be in quite good shape.

she would be far more vulnerable if the republicans were to nominate and actual moderate--romney.

but the same kind of drift to the right that was of a piece with construcint clinton as socialist devil may mean that the republican voting base is too conservative for romney.

what i think folk are banking on who oppose hillary clinton from the right is that the process of making her into a fictional socialist will make of her a wedge issue and that right identity politics will over-ride the catastrophe that has been the bush period in shaping votes.
personally, i think they're dreaming.

but really, this is entirely speculative.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Willravel

Well then, you're awesome.

They should nominate Nancy Reagan! Hil would be SOL.

MuadDib

Hillary's unelectability is a myth created by her opposition. Obama was considered unelectable at the beginning of this race. GW was considered unelectable all the way up until Sept-Oct in both 2000 & 2004. Bill Clinton was un-re-electable in 1996 and unelectable through Super Tuesday in 1992.

This is an election strategy used every four years that nonetheless no one seems to recall. While I've come to accept this as a political reality, I do expect more from serious political historians and political scientists. Rule number one in electoral politics is that there is nothing new under the sun. Remember what has worked and not worked in the past and why.

__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

yellowmac

"Anyone but Hillary" -- bumper sticker at the gym parking lot this morning

I don't think Hillary is unelectable. Plenty of the population support her, and I think she could probably win in November. Personally I'm not sure if I support her fully -- she's too much of a polarizing figure.

loquitur

I voted for Hillary for Senator. I'd have some difficulty voting for her for President. But of course, a lot would depend on who was running against her.

djtestudo

That's the issue, though.

How many of 1) Republicans that might be disaffected with the present administration and 2) conservative-leaning independents would be willing to vote for her?

__________________
"Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen."
--Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

SecretMethod70

She's definitely not unelectable, no question there - there are plenty of people who would support her for a variety of reasons. It's important not to underestimate the vitriol that others have to her though...I honestly think a Clinton candidacy is about the only thing that could truly mobilize the Republican base. Maybe it wouldn't be enough for them to win, maybe it would, but they'd certainly be mobilized.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

joshbaumgartner

Sometimes I wonder.

We often hear about can't miss candidates. They get so built up for so long that when it comes time for the actual election we are over the hype and frankly sick of being repeatedly told who we are going to vote for. The anointed candidate goes down in a hail of chads and the electorate goes against what they were told and does their own thing. Sometimes it is the smallest of things that serve as an excuse for this shift (Dean's scream for example).

I wonder if this works in reverse. We've been told for so long now that Hillary is this polarizer, that she's the one we should love to hate, that to so many she is the anti-Christ, and that her candidacy will bring out the passions of those who hate her guts with torches and pitchforks. But when is it too much? When do we stop being afraid and switch to sympathizing with a candidate that has weathered a merciless assault? I think the results in New Hampshire indicated there might be something to this.

The Republican faithful will rail on her mercilessly. Democrats, regardless of the primary jockeying, should she win, will rally around her more strongly because of the attacks. The people in the middle--the ones who really decide the election--are going to be the ones that will go one way or the other, siding with the bully or the bullied, and much will depend on the conduct of both along the way.

ratbastid

I suspect this was Karl Rove's strategy when he declared a Clinton presidency "inevitable". Most people aren't aware that they're quoting the devil himself when they say that, but they are.

Tophat665

I know one who won't. Policy wise, she's OK, but truth wise she gives Shrub a run for his money. My problem is do we really need 20 years of the most cynical kind of spin-meisters running the country? Bill, then George, then Hillary? (Edwards falls into this too, BTW). The only thing worse, to my mind would be a religious nutcase like Huccabee or Romney (Mormanism is the Scientology of the 19th century. With all due respect to the several Mormons I have know, uniformly good people, I don't want a Scientologies or a wearing-Spock-Ears-to-work Trekkie as president either.) or a certified bloodthirsty autocratic maniac like Guiliani (who would also fall under the cynical spin-meister umbrella).

__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

ASU2003

the prolem is that it has prevented mostgroups fom getting any representation. There are very few Libermans who can win (a senator seat) as an independant.

In presidental politics it makes sense to have a run-off, but in the congres, there should be a system where you vote for the party that will represent you. I think if you had a ballot like this:
_ Republican
_ Democratic
_ Libertarian
_ Green
_ Constitution
_ Socialist
_ Anarcist
_ ...

You would see a differnt breakdown in the house seats than right now. The problem with that is you would see these political parties probably, and they would be one issue parties that would sell their votes on issues that they don't care about.

_ Evangelical
_ Jewish
_ Black
_ Latinio
_ White
_ Feminist
_ NRA
_ Vetrens

Although it is good having someone from your local area represent you, I feel that the states should have more power, and the local state representative and your two senators should be enough. And it is good that the people have some say as to who 'the party' picks, but there is very little chance that a majority of people in a certain area will elect a third party person (since most people feel their vote is 'wasted', or they really don't like the other candidate).

As for the OP, I feel that if Hillary did win, there is very little (outside of Iraq) that she could get done. At least with a Republican house/senate that is bound to happen, just like it did to Bush.

I think the right might play nice with Obama for a while, although I doubt he would get much done either.

Tophat665

And let's all thank the man Jesus for that, say thankee. Leiberman is a prick of the frist water. He is proof that the point that Ustwo made and you replied to is absolutely wrong. The inmates have taken over the asylum.

We spent a good deal of blood and treasure breaking away from England. Let's not import their parliament. Actually, while there is something to be said for proportional representation, that thing is that it will never, Never, NEVER be allowed to happen. There is far too much interest vested in the current system.

There is very little inside of Iraq she could get done either.

__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

loquitur

Guys, of course Hillary is electable. She's straight out of center-leftish central casting. In this country we tend not to nominate people who are not electable. Things tend to look very different when the field gets narrowed and the choices are sharper. People who tend Democratic and don't like whoever the Repubs put up will vote for her even if she would not have been their hypothetical first choice.

The big mistake the Democratic party made in 2004 was trying to "game" the electability issue. Kerry was dead in the water until Iowa, when people decided he had insurance against attacks from the right because he was a war hero. Big mistake. Kerry was an exceptionally unattractive candidate, thin-skinned, sanctimonious, and with all the charisma of a tree stump. I maintained back then that Edwards would have been a much more attractive candidate , and I still believe I was right.

People should vote for who they think will make the best President, not try to figure out who is "electable." We have "big tent" parties in this country so anyone who can convince one of the major parties that s/he should be nominated is more than likely electable. That doesn't mean s/he WILL win, but it does mean s/he will have a fair shot.

ASU2003

She would be able to pull out the troops. Whether that is a good idea or not is another debate.

And I don't like Liberman either, but he does represent the Jewish population. Which is more representation than many other groups have (besides white, male, religious and rich).

Hillary would need to get the middle independents if she were to win. And I would say that Barack has a better chance of swaying those voters than Hillary. If it were Hillary vs Bush, I would say she would win. But a McCain, Romney or maybe even Huckabee would be a tough match.

Tophat665

Able, yes, but there's no way she'll do it. The strategic genius of the Iraq invasion was to bungle it horribly until the last hour and then pass on to the next chump a strategy that has the appearance of working. So she either leaves us in and attempts to clean up the mess, or she pulls us out and creates a bigger mess. What do you do when a blonde throws a pin at you? Run like hell; she has a grenade in her mouth. That blonde is what Bush has made Iraq.

No he doesn't. He represents Israeli settlers and other ultra-zionist crazy people. He's every bit the fundamentalist lunatic that Huccabee or Pat Robertson is, only he's bought into Likud security dogma rather than literal interpretation of the Talmud. He represents the Jewish Population like Cynthia McKinney represents the Black middle class, which is to say as a parody thereof.

I think only McCain would present her any significant challenge. I sincerely doubt that presenting the People with documented evidence of the multitude of times he has exhibited the hypocrisy that is a job qualification for getting anything done in the legislature would disrupt the straight talk narrative he has built over the last 8 years. Comparing him to Hillary tarred with Bill's broad brush will likely turn people who ought to be more moderate than him in his favor. I just want the collapse to happen in such a way that the Republicans can be blamed for it, since they caused it.

__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

Ustwo

I can only hope that were Edwards to get the nomination, the press forgets who's side they are on and asks Edwards point blank why he made his legal fortune in such a manner which has cost women their lives to prevent a non-existent condition and if he feels any regrets knowing his lawsuits ended up causing harm and death to pregnant women.

__________________
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.

Elphaba

Oh, my. That deserves an explanation.

__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

robot_parade

I love this talking point. Because everyone knows about how the evil, nasty trial lawyers prey on innocent,defenseless companies for their own benefit. Life would be so much better if companies didn't have to be liable for their actions, or, at worst, if the damages were capped to make their cost/benefit analysis easier when it comes time to decide to fix a problem with their product or service that causes people harm.

I have no idea which particular lawsuit you're talking about, so I can't discuss it on it's merits. Maybe the jury made the wrong call. That's unfortunate, but it happens. However, it's a lawyers job to make his client's case as best he can. Edwards is apparently a very good lawyer. Unfortunately, sometimes a good lawyer can win a case that shouldn't be won, but that's the way life is.

Also, who's side is the press on? News reporting here in the US tends far more towards the right-wing point of view, despite what Rush says. Of course, that's not nearly as bad as how trivial and vapid it is. It would probably be better to have a biased media than an incompetent one. Right now we're stuck with both.

Elphaba

Robot, if I have failed to welcome you to Politics before, please allow me to do it now. Your above post brings fresh air into the room, and it is appreciated.

__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

ratbastid

never mind, ignore this

Ustwo

You mean you don't know the history of John Edwards as a lawyer, where he made his millions and what it did to the medical profession, and the number of increased c-sections despite you voting for him for vp in the last election?

This wasn't covered in truthout.org?

Oh my. I covered this before.

Edwards is a disgusting human being of the worst kind, I'd vote for Kusinich before I'd vote for him, without regret. I'd rather a left wing loon than a stereotypical shyster.

__________________
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.

host

Have you considered that the only place where the partisan garbage you are spouting is coming from is from ridiculously prejudiced and compromised sites like cnsnews, authored by exposed, unethical partisan shills, like this guy?

If requested, we can discuss Marc Morano's reputation, and the reputation, origin, and funding of CNSnews....IMO, it is as pathetic a source as worldnetdaily is.

Here is a balanced decription of Edward's litigation from a findlaw contritbutor, published on a mainstream news network website:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/07/27/se...rds/index.html

The attack the trial lawyers strategy is part of along term, republican party Op intended to defund democratic party candidates, by eliminating the revenue that it's traditional contributors have access to. The other large prong of this attack is to eliminated dues from union workers and unions themselves.

This is a class war, also intended to remove the right to initiate lawsuits by most of us....people who cannot pay a lawyer in advance to conduct a lawsuit.

You are manipulated Ustwo, more and more of us recognize it....