Presidential Elections

[Run DMB]

I have faith in the American voters, so I believe they'll make the right choice and elect John McCain.

I'm sick and tired of the "is America ready for a woman president?" and "is America ready for a black president?" questions. The answer is YES. When Clinton/Obama loses to McCain in November, race/gender will have little to do with it. I'm not saying people don't have their prejudices - I just don't think they're going to make much of an impact. Most of the people who don't want a woman president or a black president are on the far right, and would never dream of casting a vote for a Democrat in the first place.

Let's look at the possible match-ups:

Hilldog vs. McCain - McCain wins because he's generally liked and Hillary is generally hated, and because she's perceived to be farther to the left than she really is

Obama vs. McCain - McCain wins because of experience and because he's ideologically closer to America's middle

And for the progressives desperate to see a woman or a minority become president... Condi Rice '16.

 

[King]

Edwards is out......so my second choice will be Romney and third choice will be McCain and if not him than Hillary.

 

[Run DMB]

Oxymoron alert!

Romney's national campaign manager, Beth Myers, hit back at McCain.

"Unfortunately, this is what Senator McCain's inside Washington ways look like: he cut a backroom deal with the tax-and-spend candidate he thought could best stop Governor Romney's campaign of conservative change," she said in a statement.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/02/romney_leads_on.html

Now that's what I call teamwork.

 

[emmer]

Just to say the discussion between rhizome and ShiftyPowers reminded of this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2234364,00.html

One small moment sticks in my mind: responding to a question in one of the debates, he said he would start to address the problem by calling the presidents of Mexico and Canada (the latter does not have a president). A trivial slip in itself, but there have been too many like it, as well as too much waffling. Of course, an inexperienced president can learn on the job, as the last two did. But look how disastrous that was in Bush's first term. And Bill Clinton's was not that hot either; witness the disgrace of inaction over Rwanda, not to mention dithering over Bosnia. In an increasingly dangerous world, with this new year ushered in by a nuclear-armed Pakistan trembling on the verge of anarchy, we can't afford that blunder-time any more.

The point about the Clintons is that they know the mistakes to avoid because they've already made most of them. They've learned the hard way. And let's be clear about this, in choosing Clinton, American voters would be choosing Clintons. In reality, this would be President Clintons, or Presidents Clinton. But that's another advantage.

 

[ShiftyPowers]

I would agree that a Clinton/Obama ticket would be fantastic both for the voters and the nation and would assure us at least a viable presidential candidate for 2012.....However, I have to refer you to a certain fella, who surrounded himself with some of the brightest minds of his time (politically speaking) and formulated a formidable foreign policy during one of the most trying and crucial times in American and why not, world history......Kennedy.

I believe Obama is more aware than myself or yourself of his obvious shortcomings in both experience and foreing policy, that is why I would expect him to surround himself only with those who can give him straight answers and would enhance both his knowledge and capacity in dealing with the many realities of this crazy world we live in.

Bay of Pigs.

Just sayin. And as far as I'm aware, JFK was a foreign policy wonk. He wrote his thesis at Harvard about Nazi appeasement, using primary sources from his father, who was, I believe, the Ambassador to Britain at the time. He was also a war hero in World War II.

 

[KingPaulV]

Bay of Pigs was one blunder compared to over 10 other rather remarkable succeses, and you are right JFK was not a foreign policy genious, his "brain Trust" was

 

[ShiftyPowers]

Not "wank", wonk. I thought JFK was uniquely interested in foreign policy. His father was an ambassador, he was a War Hero in WWII. I know he had many domestic goals, but he was definitely big on foreign policy as well.

 

[rhizome17]

Elect a republican and all I see is further slippage into the pit that has been getting deeper for the last 8 years. Iran will be the big winner in that one.

And emmer's post captures the sentiment I am trying to make - a leader shouldn't just be a facilitator gathering a brains trust around them - otherwise they risk ridicule about their own intellect and capabilities, and they should know basic facts about international politics. Sure it was just a slip of the tongue by Obama but the media whores pick up on that ****. Give the man a few years training on the ground, and that stuff will disappear. Clinton has been there before and after eight ****ty years it is best to go easy on the change.

And at least I will have more to disagree with in my cantankerous old age. Not as much as if the republicans rig the vote for the third time running, but still...

 

[::shinji::]

Not as much as if the republicans rig the vote for the third time running, but still...

What I've always found most disturbing about all that was the apathy shown by the general public towards it. I know there was opposition, but it seemed pretty short lived.

 

[Filipower]

^^ exactly my thoughts...maybe it means that it wasn't such a scandal after all, eh? i mean, if it was rigged, then they should have done all they could to get justice, plus if all the people who protested - even if it was for short while - had actually voted, maybe there wouldn't be any doubts..

 

[::shinji::]

well, I think the media is really good at changing the subject and distracting the public, complaints fall on deaf ears if there's no forum.

 

[Run DMB]

So is the Democratic electoral system retarded or what?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8353.html

Let me get this straight... the Dems shun "winner-take-all" primaries in order to give the underdog candidates a chance. But they also have "superdelegates" whose purpose is to "protect front-runners and make sure dark horses don’t run away with things." Who comes up with this sh*t, honestly?

 

[ShiftyPowers]

I'm not too sure about the Superdelegates, but only because there are so many of them. I guess it makes sense that SOMEONE has to break a tie if it's 48-47 after all the primaries. And it's not like they're nobodies who are randomly selected, they're all mostly elected officials.

Incidentally, Hilldogg just pumped $5M of her own money into her campaign. In response, the Obama campaign has raised $4M+ today and counting. By the way, that shatters Ron Paul's record breaking fund raising day back in November. Sorry Paultards.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/contribute_c/sincefeb5_email/graphic

 

[The Don't]

Mitt Romney's calling it a day.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7233537.stm

I can rest slightly easier knowing that a mormon won't be the most powerful man in the world.

 

[KingPaulV]

eh, wow, kind of a...controversial statement there, being that we are not supposed to be prejudiced or anything here....but anyway, I dont agree with his political ideology, that is why I am glad he is dropping out, hopefully McCain follows suit...hehe

 

[Run DMB]

Well, props to Mitt for not being a sore loser and dragging this thing out any longer than he had to. I wonder if Huckabee will drop out now as well. He might try to cut a VP deal with McCain.

 

[ShiftyPowers]

Huckabee won't drop out unless his finances are struggling. I get the feeling that he'll get a lot of money in the coming weeks from traditional conservatives desperate for one last gasp to knock out McCain. Huckster will win pretty much the entire South.

I just don't know man, the "social conservatives" aren't the mouthpiece of the party, they are just the faithful voters that allow the economic conservatives to have their way all the time. Huckabee isn't a traditional conservative just like McCain isn't; he believes in social programs and I'm pretty sure he does not believe in the Bush tax cuts. I don't think McCain can pick Huckabee for Veep. He needs to pick an economic conservative with social conservative credentials; someone like Bush was in 2000. Huckabee cares about the poor too much.

 

[Run DMB]

Huckabee won't drop out unless his finances are struggling. I get the feeling that he'll get a lot of money in the coming weeks from traditional conservatives desperate for one last gasp to knock out McCain. Huckster will win pretty much the entire South.

I just don't know man, the "social conservatives" aren't the mouthpiece of the party, they are just the faithful voters that allow the economic conservatives to have their way all the time. Huckabee isn't a traditional conservative just like McCain isn't; he believes in social programs and I'm pretty sure he does not believe in the Bush tax cuts. I don't think McCain can pick Huckabee for Veep. He needs to pick an economic conservative with social conservative credentials; someone like Bush was in 2000. Huckabee cares about the poor too much.

You made some excellent points there.

I think current Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty might be the perfect running mate for McCain, for a variety of reasons:

1. He's very young.
2. He has the credentials of a fiscal conservative (made a "no new taxes" pledge and kept it; turned a massive deficit into a surplus)
3. Tough on illegal immigration
4. Fairly conservative on the social issues
5. He loves McCain. He's co-chairman of his national campaign. McCain thinks highly of Pawlenty as well.
6. He's the governor of a possible swing state, especially with the Republican convention being here this year
7. He's well-liked by Christian conservatives, but doesn't wear his faith on his sleeve.
8. Chairman of the National Governors Association... has to count for something.

I'm afraid he'll pick someone like Newt Gingrich though, just to appease the hard-line conservatives.

 

[Integrity]

Lol well this country is officiall screwed. I bet this election was all planned; it seemed to turn out so perfect for the neo-con establishment for the remaining viable candidates to only have the pro-war candidates even thought 80% of the american people are against the war. Good luck with Juan McAtzlan!

 

[Bobby]

Lol well this country is officiall screwed. I bet this election was all planned; it seemed to turn out so perfect for the neo-con establishment for the remaining viable candidates to only have the pro-war candidates even thought 80% of the american people are against the war. Good luck with Juan McAtzlan!

Since when is Obama pro-war?