Yep. I would say that George Bush, along with Karl Rove, have single handedly (double handedly?) destroyed the Republican party even if they propped it up for 6 short years. All of this over the Iraq war, which, along with the Vietnam War, were the 2 worst policy decisions by American administrations in my lifetime. Notice anything similar about those decsions, by the way?
If the Democrats want to win for a few years and then be trashed, all they have to do is find a liberal evil genius like Rove and a divisive, wrong-headed presidential candidate like Bush.
That’s right. Putting down your average folk’ll get you nowhere.
You’ve got to win them over. In the age of TV, it’s done emotionally. I certainly hate that fact, but that’s the way it is. You need to break it down into something simple that Joseph P. Blow will respond to.
“You’re smart. You know what you want. Change. And we WILL change this nation”.
That statement is ridiculous. It doesn’t really say anything. But it’s the type of emo-babble the Dems need. Placate the masses.
And when I run for office in 10 years, I will deny I ever wrote that. I’ll blame the hate-mongers.
What makes you think the public aren’t ready for a black president, anyway? I think most people would have been ready for Colin Powell, and I think Barack Obama is just as electable.
You want vibrant and exciting? Obama is IT. But please tell me whom you had in mind. Does Evan Bayh make you break out in a cold sweat, or were you dreaming of Tom Vilsack or Joe Biden? Perhaps you meant Gore or Kerry redux?
A sense of humor wouldn’t do you any harm, you know.
This is the same contradiction. You’re saying the Democrats should lead, and here’s an easy place to lead… but they shouldn’t go there, they might not get elected! It doesn’t take any kind of leadership to take people where they’re already going. I’ll say this much: you definitely talk like a Democrat.
Colin Powell did not hold the highest office in the nation. He, along with Condi Rice, has certainly helped pave the way.
I believe this nation is ready for a black, or female vice-president, but not the top spot. I don’t know that, I only believe it. The time will come, soon.
Investing too much into it this time around is a mistake.
So in other words, “let somebody else lead.” This is one of my problems with today’s Democrats. I’m just not sure what they would fight for - there’s a time for political calculation, granted. But I recently interviewed a Congresswoman, and another reporter asked her about gay marriage. Her answer seemed to boil down to “I want the court system or the people to decide the issue so I don’t have to.” That’s very disappointing.
Marley, maybe I was too dry in my response, but I wasn’t offended in the least by the ‘asshole’ comment.
I am intrigued by Obama. He does have that ‘X’ factor. He’s just too new. A junior Senator, not much of a track record yet (yeah, JFK, blah blah blah). And, he’s black (god, I hate writing that… I FUCKING HATE IT), but that is a real issue. Give it another few years, and he could do it. I just don’t think this is the time.
But, I’m listening. My door is not closed. Convince me. You may actually change my mind.
How do you suggest that we will know when the time is? There’s really only one way we’ll know, and that is for a black (or a woman) to be nominated and to win. Sure, it’ll be a risk. No guts, no glory.
There are plenty of reasons I can think of why Clinton or Obama might not be a good presidential candidate. Race and gender are not amongst those reasons.
Put 'em on the ticket as a veep. Look, the theoretical time for women, blacks, and hispanics to hold power in this nation is now. L.A. has Villaraigosa. Great progress. But realistically, the presidency is a different animal.
I hope you guys realize that I am strongly for this progressive change. I just think it needs to be done in a way that will work.
Oh, and I’ve got tough skin. Opposition welcome.
There isn’t much in the way of logical argument, I think. Either you are convinced that Obama connects with voters, and thus could overcome the race issue, or you aren’t convinced. I voted for him in Illinois in 2004, and to some degree (although cloistered away on a college campus), I saw the way he excited people. I really think he could be President, and I really think this may be his moment. There are certainly knocks against him, inexperience being the big one. Up until about two weeks ago, I was saying he should wait, serve a few more terms and then run for Governor of Illinois. But even if he does that, there’s no guarantee that things will go well for him. This could be his moment, and maybe this is the time and place for him and the country.
I was very discouraged to see that Al Gore and John Kerry were both contemplating a run for President in '08. ARGH! For the love of all that is holy, if you cannot beat George W. Bush head to head, you can’t beat anybody! Do your party a favor and stay home.
With Kerry, I agree. Bush was weak in '04. If you couldn’t win then, you are not the guy.
Gore might be a different story. In '00, the public was a bit weary of the Clinton administration, and Bush was a bit of an unknown quantity who was extremely likeable. Even so, Gore won a majority of votes cast. Moreover, I don’t know if you’ve seen An Inconvenient Truth, but the Al Gore in that film comes across as more relaxed, more energetic and less wooden than the Gore we saw in '00. I can see the new, improved Gore doing well on the campaign trail.
I would feel good about Gore as a nominee. My other choices would be Obama or Edwards. Assuming no skeletons emerge from Obama’s closet, any of those three would have me feeling pretty good about Democratic chances.
One of the interesting things in considering possible Democratic nominees in 08 is that no clear Republican counterpart has emerged. Bush can’t run and Cheney says he doesn’t want it, so it’ll be a wide open field. There are a lot of people who want to be considered the heir apparent but none of them has separated himself from the crowd.
Personally, I think a Gore-Obama ticket would be pretty damn strong, but you can’t do the political calculus in a vacuum; it really depends on the competition. Right now, that’s a giant unknown, so this kind of predictive theorizing strikes me, frankly, as pretty empty.
But it was actually Kennedy who got us into Vietnam. Or Eisenhower, depending on how you cut it. Johnson did, however, take it to a new level.