Looking forward to 2008
 

Although last night's election isn't quite done just yet, I'm going on the hunch that Bush well keep the presidency.

So, what's going to happen in 2008? What needs to happen?

We won't have the "Anybody but Bush" people. I think that's what killed the Democrats. It's hard to win an election on an "Anyone but the Other Guy" stance. It needs to be "We love our candidate!" It just wasn't that way for Kerry. The Democrats need to really use these next 4 years and find/groom somebody for 2008. Will that be Hillary Clinton? Maybe. Will that be a smart move? Maybe, maybe not. I don't know if this country is ready yet to elect a woman president.

Looking at that Red/Blue map, it seems pretty clear to me. The Democrats need to head South. Kerry tried that with picking Edwards as his running mate, but it didn't quite work out. Apparently Edwards didn't even stand a chance of getting back his own senate seat. The Dems need to find a Southerner with that drawl to attract the voters in southern Ohio, Virginia, the Carolinas, and Florida, among other states.

I think we also need to have election reform. We can't have so many different counties in so many different states voting in different ways. Some using old school pencil and paper, some using punch cards, some using electronic touch screens, others still using lever systems. It needs to be the same, universally across the entire country. What system should be used? Whatever is the most effective. Of course they all have their flaws, but wouldn't it be better for everyone to use the same system?

+note+ I am still not conceding this race.

I don't think we need a southerner, we need a populist centrist.

IF Kerry ends up losing Ohio, we need someone who can project this image. That person most likely comes out of the MidWest, Howard Dean has that image and, I believe would have pulled off the election. Unfortunately most democrats who had the opportunity to vote in the primary disagreed and went with what was perceived as the safe choice and known factor.
I'd like to see him run again, if Bush pulls out the election, and Barack Obama should mull it over, depending on how his freshman Senate career is going.

Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin, or Missouri + Dean (Plus POSSIBLY the SWern states of New Mexico Arizona, or Nevada). That is where our candidate should come from.

I have always said....if Zell Miller ran for president I would consider voting democratic.

No way I'd vote for Hilary, Id write myself in before I'd vote for her, maybe the Libs can get it together enuff next time to have someone run that actually might have a chance of winning.

I also believe that they should change it where absentee ballots have to have ARRIVED at wherever they have to by BY election day.

I dont see why they cant figure someway to to electronic voting online

I think Obama would be awsome. From all the speeches I've seen him give I've been really impressed with him.

Rumor is that Jeb is next in line.

Obama is really impressive.

But - Is America ready for a Black president?


And Jeb? Good God. Hell, in 2008 I'll be in Canada trying to figure out their goofy election system

how is our electin system goofy Ave? We always know who won our elections, and the PM is actually voted into office.lol

Hell, ours is a cake walk compared to what's going on in the US right now... But you are more than welcome to c'mon up and enjoy our bagged milk!

If Zell Miller ran for President, Cobb would have won the NorthEast and Western Coast, and the Republican won everything else. Well, Dems MAY have won Georgia, but that's literally it.

Bill Richardson/ New Mexico
Howard Dean/ Vermont
Tom Vilsack/ Ohio
Barack Obama/ Illinois

That is my personal shortlist for the next election (Without a Kerry Incumbency)

I think Barack has a great shot at it, honestly. His elloquence is enough to get people to look past his color, he doesn't run campaigns on his color either. We would not win any southern states, hell the margin would go greater towards the Republicans, if Obama was the candidate, than ever before. But we would carry all of our base states and easily route the midwest. I really believe that.
Arizona, New Mex, Nevada, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin and Missouri. We'd win them all, and that's the election. We'd probrably even take Forida with it's high hispanic population who would identify with him.

My only point was that there WAS at least one person that could run that would make me switch my party vote. I wouldnt vote for Dean...I dont know any of the others on your list....I'd have to check them out :)

...Offset by so many Moderate and Liberal democrats who could never bring themselves to vote for someone like Zell.
Richardson and Vilsack are the Governors of their states.

I think Colin Powell would make a great President. He is well respected by foreign countries and the american people.

Go BUSH!

or.....Zell could switch parties and go republican, that wouldnt surprise me a bit

2008! Already?!

*runs screaming from the room*

If Vilsack ran, I would probably vote for him, he's a great governor! But, you have your Iowas/Ohios mixed up :crazy:

Why is there so much antipathy towards Hillary Clinton?

From a foreigner's perspective, she comes across as being an excellent candidate.

Mr Mephisto

I think we need an attitude shift across the country. Let's look at what we've voted for. For this thread I'm assuming Bush won because that's the way it's looking right now.

-Gay marriage bans in states all over the country. We've voted to restrict freedoms. Gay people are now officially the segregated society. We think we've advanced so much in the tolerance department because we no longer call black people niggers, but really all we've done is shift our vitriolic hate over to another group of people.

-We now officially approve of the war in Iraq, which means we like the idea of invading a county that hasn't done anything to us, just for the pure sake of starting a war.

-We believe the rich should get tax breaks while the poor and middle class are bled dry by the government.

-We believe that if people are going to break a law, we should simply get rid of the law (Bush: "We can't tax rich people because they'll just get out of it.")

-We believe having a liar in the whitehouse is OK, as long as he doesn't lie about sex.

-We believe it's a good idea to keep a president who changes his story every five minutes on why he's invading a county. (WMD's. Oh, no WMDs but he's connected to terrorism. Oh, he's not connected to terrorism, but he's a really mean old man!)



In short, we've turned away from the founding prinicpals that once made this nation great.

I've said for the past 4 years that I'm not ashamed to be an American because 1) we didn't put our leader there and 2) even if we did we had no clue he'd commit the atrocities he did.

Now that he appears to be about to be officially elected, I AM ashamed to be an American.

I like her, I think she would make a fine president, but unfortuantly I don't think the rest of the country feels that way.

I live in New York, and she's done a great job as a senator.

It's pretty clear what's wrong, the Democrats to not appeal to a broad part of America. That big swath of red on the US election results map that runs from the south, through the midwest and all the way till it reaches the left coast is what's wrong. The dems seem to have forgotten that the rest of the country counts as much as the northeast and the west coast. They need to start appealing to the common people in the rest of the country. Their positions on a large number of topics indicate they don't give a damn about the south, midwest and west.

They can win when they get their ultra-liberal subjets off the table and move closer to the center: the center being defined as middle america.

Shakran just for the record.....Myself and many other Bush voters I know, unfortunately not enuff, voted NO on the marriage ban

See, the media have poisoned minds AGAIN! The huge swath of red across the middle of the country WAS very intimidating, but if almost the whole country was red, then how come the vote ended up 50/50? POPULATION. That's why. That huge swath of red is mostly desert. The North East and California seem to be all that Kerry had, and yet he almost got it.

People need to intelligently process what they see.

One thing's for sure: change is inevitable...inev-inevitable...THINGS ARE INEVITABLY GOING TO CHANGE!

You Americans are OOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWNED!

Gee, thanks for that analysis, aberkok. :rolleyes:

We know all about POPULATION. But we also know that just getting the the majority of the most populated states WASN'T ENOUGH. Something else has to be done.

And thansks for the 13 year old hacker Owned screaming :rolleyes:

It is? How do you figure that?

2008? 2008?!?

Here I thought I'd get a brief reprieve from all of the hyperbole and diatribe of the past year. Here it is...the day after the election, and already here we go again.

*glares mock menacingly at Averett*
C'mere...

:o

Bad move? :lol:

I suspect this is what the Democratic party leadership thinks also. If they go liberal they can pick up the west coast and northeast, and maybe the manufacturing pocket in the great lakes.

Unfortunatly, that turns off the rest of America, and the rest of America is a very large place. Flyover country likes the northeast and the west coast, but the values in those two places are not the same as ours. (A lesson the rest of the world could learn as well.)

As a Democrat, looking at that map embarasses me.

The blue states of the 2000 election have nearly 65% of the population of the US, and nearly 70% of the GDP. While "desert" might an over statement "Desert, Corn, and cotton fields" might not be totally innacurate.

i have no idea about 2008.

because i think the absolute worst of bush, and because i think that his re-election, if it happens--which appears likely, to my horror---will unleash the most right tendencies that the first term had kept in check to some extent---i find it difficult to imagine what level of damage bush will be able to do.
damage in the supreme court.
damage economically
damage politically
damage in terms of foreign policy.


but i do feel slipping away that slight degree of hope for the states that i had maintained for years.
and that is far more difficult to process that i would have imagined, had i allowed myself to imagine it.

it is like watching someone you love set themselves on fire
and you are unable to do anything but watch.
and while that person is burning, you ask yourself "what about next time"?

In four years we can expect Jeb Bush to take over the presidency and inherit an even more commanding position in the House and Senate. By 2016 you can damn well expect his son Prescott Bush to make a run, scoring big with his Latin genes. They're seriously talking about a Chief Justice Thomas, seriously. We've basically just seen the end of abortion, embrionic stem-cell research, and any hope of gay marriage in America.

It's pretty much doom and gloom for American progressives. You can say the Democrats should have picked a more rural-friendly candidate, but remember that Kerry was largely picked by Iowa. For the last two weeks Kerry has been out hunting and wearing his carhardtt jacket. I guess voters found that side of him disingenuous. It's sad that rural Americans seem unable to cast such a discerning eye on Bush and the Republicans.

I sincerely appreciate this remark and wish more Democrats felt this way.

Kerry is out of touch with the heartland, which has consistently rejected what it perceives as an intellectual snobbery in the North East and a sea of crime, immorality and new-age chicanary in LA-LA land (California) in the west. If Hillary is picked in 2008, I predict the same result for the same reasons.

No, the Dems need to field someone who can be a centrist and attract those of us who voted not for Bush, but against Kerry.

Unfortunately, such a candidate is unlikely to be popular with the two controlling groups of the Democratic party mentioned above.

Holy shit, I forgot about the supreme court. This country is sooooo fucked. I wanna leave. Oh my god. When i read that it felt like my dad died or something. OMG. So bad so bad bad bad bad.

Perhaps we need to concede that America is not the country that we have thought it is. The real story isn't in the state electoral maps - it is in the county electoral maps. This country IS sharply divided between the parties, and it has to do with whether one lives in a rural area or an urban one even more than which coast one lives on, how rich or poor one is, or even whether one is a midwesterner northeasterner or southerner. It may be time to admit that this country is less urban than we think, and that there is more political power in the extra urban areas than we have assumed. The party that understands this and knows what to make of the suburban and exurban demographic shift is the one that will be effective in 2008.

It seems somehow ironic that most people living in rural communities have neighbors that all look like them (ie they're all white) and that they're so sheltered from the world. The term "sheltered lives" comes to mind. People in the city seem to be so affected by economic faliure, seeing homeless people sleeping under newspapers on a bench doesn't happen in Hicksville, Mississippi.

uber:

personally, i think the analytic question might end up involving as much suburban as rural america.
and in that, it may well turn out that people had, if anything, underestimated the power of television in shaping views of the world in both spaces.
maybe. the last might be too simple.

i keep thinking of robert musil's "man without qualities" which is about the hapsburg empire slipping into fiasco while the population dances in its habitual circles, unable and unwilling to look.

Florida-Ohio-Louisiana-Georgia these are all states with a fairly high population density:
http://www.census.gov/geo/www/mapGal...s/2k_night.jpg
I think Bush voters tend to identify as rural even when they might not be.

Wow.. you've never been to a small town have you? Maybe up north in those rural places but down south whites tend NOT to be the majority. And we do have the downtrodden too, but due to (for the most part) a better sense of community people will band together to help those in need. That's my experience coming from a small town to a big city, people in the city dont give a shit about each other as opposed to everyone knowing and saying hi to everyone else.

It's true what you say Seaver, let's avoid the sweeping generalizations like that.

rukkyg,

I think it goes both ways though. I live in NYC, which is admittedly quite a stronghold for the democrats (at least in presidential politics). What struck about the election cycle is that my neighbors didn't just want Kerry to win - they were unable to conceive of a scenario in which Kerry would not win. So, just as people in non-urban America live in a sheltered country, so do those in urban America. People in the city are certainly waking up this morning to find out that there ARE opinions outside of NY that count, and they matter more than we have given them credit for. The challenge will be to see that whether or not you agree with them, a 3.5 million vote majority in the popular count is the voice of America and then use that to formulate a strategy. Self-righteous indignation and looking down one's nose at poor, sheltered white people (talking about my neighbors, not you) won't further an understanding of the electorate that will capture more votes. Looking at the maps shows where the democrats can go looking for new votes (where they aren't currently getting them), and it leads me to believe that the character of this countries electorate is at least to some degree misperceived.

Exactly why over the past 24 hours I've changed my perspective. I no longer support this country in any way, shape, or form.

Anything and everything that happens to us from now till 2008, we deserve. It's what we get for allowing people to let this happen. You'd figure people would learn from history, but (cliche cliche), history is bound to repeat itself.

For a near 50/50 outcome that this election had, you'd think there would be a bit more fairness within representation elsewhere (Supreme Court, Senate, etc..), but this isn't the case.

This country is sad.

Locobot,

I don't want to hijack the discussion by belaboring a point, but I'd just point out that the difference is more stark when you look at counties. Truly, FL and OH have reasonably high population densities as states, but that population density is centered on cities. When you look at electoral maps of counties, you see a huge swath of red for Bush in FL with areas around Miami going for Kerry. Ohio looks similar, with the exception of Cincinatti, which went to Bush. Even in NY, a county map shows that the entire state goes republican with the exceptions of NYC, Buffalo and Rochester. If you were to laugh and say "what else is there in NY?" (not that you are or will say that) then you would be reinforcing my point - that there is a lot more to a state than its cities, which is why most of America's landmass is republican territory while our elections are still decided by margins of less than 5%.

Roachboy - I think you are right on in saying that we may be allowing ourselves to paint an unrealistic picture of the electorate based on media exposure. I also agree that the future belongs to the party that can decipher the suburban and exurban (suburb-of-suburbs, like Northern VA) populations, which are increasingly large in terms of population.

Here is what I have to say right now to all of you who are whining.

Please leave the country.

If you cannot take the loss like Americans (and Kerry just conceded), and work to make changes like it is supposed to work, and instead will be whining, then please leave.

We don't want you here. For the sake of leaving America to those who actually have a desire to live here, leave.

I say please stay and be part of the process and the ongoing solutions. The future is still being shaped.

Stompy, what are you referring to? There is not a decisive majority in the House, Senate of Supreme Court at this point. It seemed clear to me that there is a near balance of power, in that a 3.5 million vote popular majority for Bush did not translate into large gains in the House and Senate.

I hope that they do as well, because that is what this country is all about.

If, however, they are going to whine like some have above, then I hope they follow through.

thomas frank is on the radio right now---he wrote "what happened to kansas?" and is arguing that if progressives are going to understand this farce that is unfolding around us as we sit here typing---his argument is that people need to take right media strategies seriously as an analytic probelm in themselves--because what explains this election, it seems, more than any other single factor, is the success of those strategies. from which follows an understanding of the types of media these strategies employ. which then connects to features of american social geography.

i dont think looking at this the other way round will help anything because you end up imputing alot of features to a population as if these populations carried these features around like balloons attached to their beltloops. there is a mediating system, one that is amenable to analysis, that has been amenable to analysis...

like gramsci said long ago, in a pre- or non-revolutionary situation, politics is a war of position. position is worked out across the modalities of cultural domination. the right is simply better at using this form of domination at this point.

:lol:

Nah, I'll stay. I'll have fun pointing and laughing when the next earth-shattering event happens with a big ol' "I told you so" to follow :)

Actually, Castor just conceded the Florida Senate race, so that makes a 54-44-1 balance in the Senate with the Republican leading in the Alaska race. The House is still close, though.

Ok, you do that then. I'll be waiting... :p

dj:
who the hell is this "we" you throw around?
what allows you to arrogate to yourself the right to define who is "american" and who is not?

if those of us who disagree with you politically were not just as much rooted in this godforsaken place as you are, then this whole farce would be easier to process.


thanks for thinking about the rest of us as people.
thanks for taking such delecate account of how difficult this place is for those who oppose your politics.
good job.


worse still is that i imagine this kind of discourse will get even more oppressive over the next four years.

i really look forward to it.

The "we" would be the people that are NOT bitching about the election.

Well, if the results turned out in a progressive manner, then maybe there wouldn't be any complaining.

Shit, a lot of states voted to decline rights to a certain group of people... might as well bring back slavery while we're at it, eh?

If a million people vote on a foolish idea, then the idea is still foolish. Just because the majority vote one way doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

I just hope people don't expect anything from me in return in terms of support in times of need, because ... like I said above, we'll get what we deserve.

Oh, why not. Is their another heir lined up after him?

Everyone is complaining about how this country is being run in a terrible way. This country is so sad! This country is going to fall. We're doomed! DOOMED!!!!!!

Wait, Bush just won the election by four million votes. This means that a <I>majority</I> of the US believes in what Bush is doing for the US. Just because ya don't agree with Republicans doesn't mean the country is doomed as many of you believe. It simply means those with a different political faction are gonna be running the country.

-Lasereth

Couldn't have said it better myself :thumbsup:

The people will pay for their foolishness. I have completely lost respect for the American people, most of them anyway.

As for the 2008 election, I heard that idiot Jeb is going to run against Hillary. Imagine that, Bush for another possible 12 years. The country wouldn't even make it that far. Well, All I can do now is hope for an impeachment somehow. Maybe it will take another war or two for people to open their eyes, although I seriously doubt it. I will say this though, if a large scale attack the magnitude of 9/11 or greater occurs within the next 4 years, don't be surprised.

Well said, and I completely agree.

You have to wonder how effective US Defense has become when NOT ONE terrorist attack of any sort has occurred, on American interests anywhere in the world, to influence this vote like happened to Spain. And I can't imagine its for a lack of effort on their part.

Happy happy, joy joy, happy happy, joy!

I am of course quite happy with everything, but now its time to get to work. Its time to cut out the government waste, its time to cut out the vote plantations, its time to stop using the government as a way to redistribute wealth for votes.

Its time to see if they have the balls to do it or not.

To be fair, I think an attack could happen under Kerry, or just about anyone.

Short of a complete police state, it'd be impossible (financially and physically) to make this country secure as it should.

I think we'll always be open to attacks like this.

Personally, I'm more concerned about civil liberties and progression of science/technology.

To the topic at hand, in 2008...

I have no idea where the Republicans go from here. McCain is gonna be fairly old, Powell doesn't seem to want it, Cheney - if he is not in cryogenic deep freeze by then - is unelectable, Arnie isn't allowed, I heard Jeb isn't interested.

The Dems - Obama will be on the ticket as Veep, they will pick a southern candidate for pres. A northerner cannot win just yet, it doesn't seem.

Yet... but believe me, it's being worked on.

Look at it! It's mostly rural areas

Flyguy your definition of desert and mine must be two different things

You won't wait long. Enjoy the draft.

I can see an obama and hillary for the Democrats and then a Mccain possible Rice VP.
I think it will be hard for the Republicans to win again at the next election. There will always be problems and after having 4 yrs in control of the Republicans i think it will be hard to have the majority in everything again

Assuming you meant Condy Rice VP - Hahaha no. Won't happen!

America just re-elected Bush and a lot just denied rights to a certain group of people, do you REALLY think those same people are gonna vote for a black woman?!

:lol:

Yes, the country does need to progress in that manner, but I don't think we're too concerned about progression anymore.

I personally can't stand Hillary-- I really don't see her as being electable for president- especially not in some areas of the country.

Barack Obama is a rising star, but I'd say 2012 -- he's still new - he did great at the convention - but this is his first time in the national spotlight, he needs time to develop and grow, and get on some really choice committees.

As for him being black? Eh - I don't think it would be an issue, he's Harvard educated, which would appeal to the Yankee contingent - and has his roots in the midwest... I think it'd be a huge mistake for anyone to play the race card --either for or against him... I'd like to see what he could do against a more worthy opponent - -I think Keyes was a real sacraficial lamb --

Odd how no one here has brought the most likely GOP candidate in 2008...Rudy.

I don't see Jeb Bush running in '08. Bill Owens is a rising star in the Republican party, although he is going through a divorce right now which would hurt his standing with social conservatives.

I happen to love Rudy... I think he did a helluva job cleaning up NYC - I remember the days when you couldn't walk thru Times Square at night, and Monday mornings the trek from the Port Authority to the East Side you'd be crunching over crack vials and used condoms -- It's a cleaner place.. Disneyfied maybe - -but cleaner and safer...

Anyhow...

I doubt he's survive the primaries, I get the feeling that there are a lot of skeletons in his closets... that would definitely come out - Dealing with foreign policy? He's always seemed to have a kick ass, my way or the highway attitude (not a bad thing really) but his prosecutorial attitude would not win him a lot of fans... I'm not sure he had a lot of "friends" -- pre 9/11.

Regarding the Republicans in '08.

1) Rudy Giuliani

2) Bill Owens (CO gov., already being groomed for the position--the divorce thing threw a wrench into it though)

3) Colin Powell - absolutely won't (via inside info)

4) I would love to see Mary Matalin make a run, but I doubt she would.

regarding Rice:

She is a very smart, strong, intelligent woman. Who cares what her color is? I am hard-right and I would vote for her as a veep. A lot of conservatives that I know are very impressed with her.

To be fair, there are those that would take issue with her color, but I think the above statements are grossly exaggerated and highly inaccurate.

Now that I'd pay money to see that... Just to see what James Carville would do on the Sunday morning news shows :D

i have absolutely no problem with having a person of any color in the White House. the thing that worries me is all the racial issues that will have to be tackled when a powerful black/hispanic/asian surfaces. the birthpains of shaking out all the hype and superflous political correctness will not be easy. after the nation is accustomed to the norm... i think we'll be better off.

barack obama is likeable... but he hasn't done anything yet. everyone's a rising star when you've got an engaging personality, no record to weigh you down, and a vanilla stance on all the major issues.

Agreed............It is likely Hillary will be considered first....and rightly so.

2008, Hillary Clinton will run in the primaries. Whether she'll win the primaries or not, I don't know. For some reason, I don't like her. She just doesn't seem like the kind of person I'd get along with.

I do think that stuff is gonna get messed up enough that we'll elect a Democrat, though. Republican control of all three branches of government doesn't seem good to me. I can see a lot of PATRIOT act type stuff being passed after Osama hits Texas. Or at least, I would think he would hit Texas if he was gonna hit somewhere. But that's off topic.

You know what.. You don't NEED to get along with the President!!!

I'm sick and tired of the people saying "That Kerry.. He just doesn't seem fun!" "Wow, I bet Bush is great to have a beer with!"

These people are hired by us to run our country, not to play Scrabble on a Friday night with us!

I don't think anyone really knows. Usually there is someone who rises up. From what I remember, nobody would have thought Bush jr. would be the nomination in 1996.

I don't think Hillary will get the Democrat nomination, because alot of them are probably going to start resenting the Clintons hijacking their party just for their own personal gain. I know alot of Democrats didn't appreciate the old Clinton team's handling of Kerry, and there was some conflicts.

As for Obama, the Republicans wouldn't have to mention his race. They just show his smiling face in their ads, and all those southern states stay red (plus probably some of those nice blue NE states).

And I have no idea where the Republicans go. Cheney will be put back in deep-freeze for the next time hippies need to be put in their places :), Powell (who seems like he could beat anyone at this point, even after the UN fiasco) doesn't seem to want it (and does anyone know if he's staying as Sec of State? I had heard he was leaving after the election), and McCain will be fairly old by then. Maybe Rudy, but his personal baggage might be alot to overcome, plus it might be hard to keep his name around, unless he can get some office quick.

It's Rudy and Hillary--the election that didn't happen in new york in '00. Hillary might pick Obama, but isn't she from Illinois anyway? and she can't have a chance unless its already in the bag. She is going to want a man from a midwest state Kerry didn't win. Rudy should pick Arnold (knowing he can't be president) and go for the landslide.

Edwards will not make it. Didn't win his the vice-presidency, didn't even win his state, didn't even improve on 2000 in his state, and his senate seat was lost to the rep.s this year. I don't see where his votes would come from. In his entire career, he seems to have won only one senate election and only one primary (his home state).

Looking at how much red is on the map, apparently, they do have this small minded mentality about the president having to be a "likeable" person.

Ok - Now I like Rudy... but....

1. He cheated on his wife, in Gracie Mansion, perhaps wiht his kids in the house, with a woman (he later married) - -That is not going to sit well with the - -for lack of a better term - -the middle of the country -- I don't think it'd stay red.

2. He's a New Yorker -- and a die hard Yankee fan... That would put a lot of people off...

3. He pissed off a lot of New Yorkers for what were perceived to be violations of their civil rights -- (Quality of Life crimes) again - won't sit well with a lot of people...

here, get this:

a priori, I am an American by birth.

Therefore, anway I take anything is an American way of taking it.

In so far as I lay claim to an identity based on nationality, nothing I do can detract from that identity, which is based on birthright, not actions.

Deal with that.

Hilary vs Guliani

(Edited and placed on http://www.ventanger.com)

Most democrats don't stand a chance in middle America. Plain and simple, most of them are either too stupid, or don't give a shit about issues other than moral issues such as Gay marriage or abortion. The only way I see a democrat winning big in the heartland is with a candidate that is willing to make a stand, voice his opinion, and be far more charismatic than his/her Republican counterpart.

No way. This kind of post is not going to work here.

Do it once, we deal with you. Do it again and you're out of here.

What you NEED and what you GET are two different things.

Hillary '08!!!!

Those who accept power with great reluctance, I think, are sometimes the best candidates. I plan on writing Colin Powell's name on the ballot in 2008, whether he agrees to run or not.

djtestudo, I'd be happy to leave the USA, but then I'd only be oppressed by our foreign policy. Hell, in the worst case scenario, I might even be "liberated" and get to watch my children die quickly by napalm, or slowly by depleted uranium poisoning, just because my president isn't friends with your president anymore.

Watching
 

I think we're all weary.

However I suggest you be wary too...

:)


Mr Mephisto

I am far too weary to be too wary.....but thanx for the correction....sleep is good sometimes

Heh... just pulling your chain

Mr M

No, this country's LIBERALS are sad. The fact that America doesn't support special privileges for gays, welfare for people who don't work, or the dishonest UN has just been demonstrated in a way that can't be ignored.

So when are you leaving for a country you like better?

Attacking opinion is expected........Attacking members is not

Since when did the ability to marry a partner of your choosing become a "special privilege"? Give me a break.

Funny. You're obviously intolerant of any views that differ from your own, and frankly this country doesn't need that kind of attitude. If someone disagrees with you, you want them to leave? What kind of bullshit is that?

People are upset in this election not because we lost (hell dude I predicted 3 months ago that we'd lose. Kerry just wasnt' likeable, and didn't appeal to hardly anyone). We're upset because we've just had a major wakeup call. Our fellow americans do not hold the values that we thought they held, and that they infact claim to hold.

They're intolerant of differences, they like warmongering, they think it's OK to destroy a country on a whim rather than for a good reason .. . need I go on?

Considering you apparently only read the words "please leave" from my statement and neglected to read the rest anything you say will be pointless so go ahead if you want to.

Listen, as far as the nastiness and vitriol that has been a large part of this thread, you should be ashamed. Varying views and opinions are what make this country great and actually make us stronger. Dems do need to take a long look at their party and determine were they want to go. Reps need to realize that while they do have a pretty substantial victory, they do not truly have a sizable or stable mandate. They do control the House, Senate and Executive Branch and most likely will introduce a signifiacant Conservative bent into the Judicial Branch. However, this is a significant responsibilty, one they best not abuse.

As far as the ACTUAL TOPIC!

If his health holds up, McCain will run and will be a formidable opponent. Rudy has WAY too much baggage and I think he knows this. If he wants the White House, I think he needs some sort of official post, either elected or appointed. Bill Owens is a posibility, but I am not sure. Pataki is going to run, but I don't see him as being a player. Bill Frist is said to have his eye on 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., and by all accounts he is a tricky one. There is also rumor that Chuck Hagel is considering a run and I think he would be a good candidate. Jeb has said time and again he will not run. I think he has his eye on the Senate (pure speculation).

As far as the Dems, Hillary is an obvious choice. I think she is qualified, but it would be quite a battle. Richardson and Vilsack are strong contenders. Edwards has a surprisingly strong constituency within the party and particularly with the party money people. If he can find a way to keep his name in the public forum (maybe DNC Chair?) he may have a chance. Obama seems patient and is only 43(I think this is right) so he has many years to develop this. I personally would like to see Joe Biden or Bob Kerrey make a run. Also, while Dems generally don't like a loser, John Kerry may still run again. Many have said the Dems need a southerner, but who would that be?

If the stipulation about being born in America is overturned, look for a possible Schwartzenegger(sp?) run or as VP, but also look at a Jennifer Granholm run or possible V.P.

If he runs, I think McCain will take the nomination and likely the White House. I really can't say who the Dems will turn to, their are just too many questions to be answered before we know where the party is headed. Someone within the Democratic Party need to come through with a strong, clear vision if they want to succeed.

I wish George W had not won the election. I think politics in teh US and Canada are in the gutter as we speak.

I think Rudy would be a great president but i think he has got some baggage that would be exposed about his marriage and personal life.

I wouldn't mind seeing people who were claiming if Bush won they were leaving to get on out. I wouldn't mind waving to Paul Wolfe as he boards his plane after his comments. Although, i think if people want to argue politics that is thier rights and that is what makes America.

The problem here is that Democrats suck at politics, the game of it. You have to sell the candidate like a beer, most people recognize this at least unconsciously. If they had run Edwards as the primary and not the vice, it seems pretty clear they would have won. He's plausibly religious, southern, handsome and a much more naturally charismatic speaker. Why they allowed the Bob Dole/Michael Dukakis of the group to run is beyond comprehension. As for Hillary or Obama, we'll have to see how badly things turn out in the next four years. It would be great to get some diversity in office, but if it even looks CLOSE, pick a southern, handsome white man, period.
The president is just a figurehead for the party's objectives; the sooner the democrats realize this, the sooner they'll start winning some seats. As far as the campaigns themselves, go 100% negative. Slander the other guy like crazy, there has never been any proven backlash to this strategy. Even Daschle got taken out to this, the first time in ~50 years the minority leader got booted while in power.

Well, there's the conventional wisdom. Does anyone have anything new to say?

White, conservative, southern, handsome, unrepentantally negative...these are the qualities we need in a leader. Hell, who needs elections? Let's just make David Duke president for life.

Unwillingness to do what it takes to win makes one a poignant martyr, but gives them zero power to effect change. Within the context of politics, these aren't even considered lies, just business as usual. When the job interviewer asks you "Tell me your greatest flaw", he's not asking for a flaw, he's saying "Describe a strength as though it were a weakness". Honesty does not reward in either of those situations. Knowing how to play the game, and telling the people what they *really* want to hear, does.