You know, I agree with you that all the candidates some off as bland, at least to me, but on the other hand, Bush isn’t exactly Mister Charisma, either (I’m thinking JFK or Reagan). I’m thinking something else is going on besides the Democratic candidate being less charismatic than the Republican candidate.
Are you saying that the Democratic candidate hasn’t been charismatic enough to overcome whatever quality either Bush or the Republican campaign had?
Gore and Kerry developed reputations for being uncharismatic and standoffish, and I think that did them a lot of damage. It helped convince undecided voters that they were lying, calculating politicians. Maybe voters in 2008 won’t care as much about the “beer test,” but I think both parties would do well to nominate a leader and not someone who comes across as a prepackaged product of partisanship.
I wish I could have channeled Gerald Ford instead of Spiro Agnew there, but I don’t know how to write like Ford.
Pretty much. I don’t think it’s the “blandness” that’s killing us; I think our candidates just aren’t personable. W is as far from charisma as you can get, and he couldn’t lead lemmings off a cliff, but people identified with him at least. Politics is perception, and people perceived W as someone they could “have a beer with.” That’s turned out to be a really lousy way to choose a president, IMO, but the vast majority of voters won’t vote for a candidate that can’t stir their empathy at least a little. Evan Bayh is only bland compared to Clinton and Obama. But Clinton can’t sell herself well enough to carry the swing states, much as I love her. “So she’s polarizing, so what?” Well, most people have had enough of polarizing politics the past six years to last a lifetime. It’s exhausting and just about everyone wants it over.
The Post’s handicapper seems to think Bayh would do well as a VP candidate to Warner should he decide to re-enter the race later.
Edwards: Does anyone agree with McCain’s assessment of one and done? If you don’t get the nom your first time, you’re not going to get it? Edwards seems to be headed for the path of perennial “also ran.”
He could and did.
If McCain said that, he obviously doesn’t agree with himself.
That wasn’t leadership. Greed and a calculated grab for power? You bet. Hardly leadership.
Well, it wasn’t exactly a compliment. All I’m saying is lemmings were present, they went over a cliff, and Bush was involved.
As I’ve said in other threads, Bayh is the ideal Democratic candidate-- on paper. I’d say it’s more a lack of fire and passion than blandness. He just seems to lack that spark that’s needed to really connect with people. The Dems need a guy with the background and politics of Bayh and the charisma of Obama.
Sorry, the Iowa governor’s name just makes me think of the ladies and Hermione Gingold in “The Music Man” saying "Chaucer! Rabelais! Villl-sack!"
i keep hearing about biden.
perhaps i’m not remembering correctly, didn’t he get bounced out of primaries over plagerism?
He withdrew from the 1988 Democratic primaries because he plagiarized a speech originally given by a British MP, and apparently other speeches in the past.
Which may be meaningless, since the Limbaugh-fired hatred of both Clintons has been around since 1992, before her husband won, & they won both times. (Of course, Perot was spoiling both times, so maybe not).
I think HRC would do a decent job, & I might decide that I prefer her to McCain or Giuliani in the general; but I believe in strict term limits for elected monarch, so I would prefer not being forced to vote for her.
I would prefer Obama taking some time off to practice being an executive (& see if he likes it) before taking on “the hardest job in the world.” Maybe work in someone else’s cabinet or head an NGO. And I’m disturbed that those calling for him to run are kind of moderate-to-right establishment types. He is mightily charismatic, but I foresee the GOP saying nothing until he has the nomination sewn up, when someone will try to paint him as Mr. Black Rage in the general.
I really like Howard Dean, but apparently the nation was poisoned against him.
I worry that Edward’s expertise is pretty thin.
Hmm…
I think a lot of people are assuming that the nation will go for a libertarian-social-conservative GOP, based on the '80’s & Perotified '90’s, so they see the Dems as intrinsically handicapped. I disagree. The popular and electoral votes really were almost too close to call in 2000, & still pretty close in 2004. The country has shifted, & we’re in Jon Tester’s America more than Ross Perot’s now. I think whomever the Dems put up has a presumptive advantage.
Somehow, I think you’d say the same if the Democratic candidates were JFK, Franklin Roosevelt and George Washington - even though the Democrats also have some obvious momentum these days. I know I won’t be voting Republican in 2008, but I think both parties appear to have strong fields.
Hmmm, that conjures up so many Republicans, you’re going to have to be more specific…
Two thoughts - one is that I doubt Al Gore will run unless drafted. After last time, I wouldn’t quite blame him. Right now I don’t see him in the race.
As for my second thought, the country has gotten tired of conservatism - after Republicans having had serious influence for 12 years and running the show for the last six with not much to show for it as of last Nov., I think citing Democrats who tend to be more conservative as having the edge may well be betting on a losing horse. Especially if the Dems can stick it out and make some headway or at least fan some winds of change in Washington. Two years from now someone more in the mold of Feingold or Boxer could wind up siting in the WH if liberalism is demonstrated as not being such a dirty word.
For the record I personally don’t see a winning candidate that fills those shoes running in the race yet. Nor am I convinced that Gore is quite that candidate though he could be quite formidable if nominated. But otherwise, looking towards left of center Democrats may not be a trend at this time but its a point that I think merits more consideration as opposed to the conservative Dem meme floated by those who expound The Common Wisdom.
I dunno. He’s been awfully present for a guy who’s not running. And he’s riding the leading edge, with a video instead of a boring ol’ inspirational biography book. That his campaign video got released to theaters is a fluke but he’s in the race if it gets the Best Documentary Oscar, which it will. And he’s got some seriously hot daughters. As a parent I’ve forgiven Tipper for the music ratings; I know how narrow-minded a mom or dad can get but I still want to lock her in a room and play “Surfer Bird” by the Trashmen until her head explodes.
No argument here about him being present, but it seems like an unofficial testing of the waters. He appears to coy about it, hinting he’s available for the post but refusing to actively throw his hat into the ring. I think it’s a great strategy – if Dems really want him to run they will rally around him. Thus he immediately has an advantage over all other Democratic candidates if he sets the bar high enough. He knows then that he has the support and has a chance to do things differently this time surrounding himself with a more enthusiastic base. Also it looks like he is serving his country, not simply trying to thrust himself into power. Indeed it might even be the case.
If he isn’t drafted, he knows that he was not going to be the powerful candidate that many think he would be. If the Democratic party does not do it’s part to help vindicate him I think it would be a distasteful exercise for him to engage in and he still retains his status as as a powerful Democrat becoming more revered as years pass.
Also, Frank Zappa mentioned that when he was ill Tipper send him a very nice letter. He appeared to be touched by this despite the adversarial roles they had in the PMRC hearings. For a cynic like Zappa to publicly wax even a little bit sentimental speaks to Tipper’s character.
The rules, both written and unwritten, of the nomination process now, for both parties, seem to guarantee that the primaries will result in a nominee. No drafting - there hasn’t been one in generations, since the days when the conventions meant something. Somebody who wants to be President has to run, and to run they have to raise money and build organizations. Gore hasn’t visibly been doing so, but it isn’t too late.
Good point about the draft. The one thing that could be different is that we have a growing Internet. A draft would be far easier to achieve nowadays. The ramifications of how the Internet will change politics have not yet begun to manifest themselves as compared to what we’ll see even over the next decade.
Thus if Gore doesn’t want to step in without assurances, it may be possible for him to obtain them in a way he couldn’t even a couple of election cycles ago. I also think that the grassroots efforts of the '06 Democratic victory have been grossly underreported. That and the Internet may change how we run elections greatly over the next few years.
BTW, I was implying that the draft in this case could happen well before the convention. An unconventional draft, if you will.
Edwards gets more than half of his money from trial attorneys, a lot of it from the bad kind. His finance chairman for his 2004 campaign was Fred Baron (of Baron and Budd).
Fred Baron used to be a crusader protecting helpless Americans from ruthless companies (like Johns Manville) that knew that asbestos killed but didn’t tell anyone else (especially their own employees who handled raw asbestos and died pretty excruciating deaths), that was when Fred Baron was one of the good guys.
The bad companiesall went bankrupt but there were still some very sick people who were struggling with the disease who had not gotten justice. So Fred Baron help them sue manufacturers that didn’t know that asbestos was bad for you but included asbestos in their products and while it caused a few companies to go bankrupt (through no real fault of their own) it alleviated the suffering and hardship of many suffering victims of mesothelioma and asbestosis. Fred was still a good guy even though he was suing blameless companies because he had was representing real victims against companies that profited from the sale of asbestos, even if those companies didn’t know how bad it was for you. Many companies went bankrupt but liability insurance absorbed enough of the liability that most companies survived weaker but still operational.
The population of people with real asbestos disease started to get very thin so Fred Baron started filing lawsuits for people who weren’t sick but had been exposed to asbestos. He would park a trailer with a mobile x-ray machine in a parking lot and have the local unions line up for x-rays to see if anyone had any evidence of possible asbestos exposure, then he would get crooked doctors (Doctor Ray Harron for example) to attest that the x-rays showed signs of asbestosis (Mass screenings). Then, despite no physical impairment, Fred Baron would sue any company that had ever sold asbestos (pretty much every industrial manufacturing company in America) and drive them into bankruptcy.
At some point between bringing down Johns Manville and suing blameless manufacturers for non-existent injuries, he became a bad guy. Despite being a ridiculously wealthy man, Fred Baron decided that it was not enough, and he sued blameless companies for theoretical injuries.
These are the men who are financing more than half his campaign. These are the men to whom Edwards will owe his office. If you think Bush has been unduly influenced by big oil, brother, you ain’t seen nuthin yet.
If Edwards can get rid of his links to these sort of men or he is not worthy of holding elected office.