[QUOTE=RedFury]
Well, beyond 'luc’s rather salient point (had he finished his Term/s I doubt he’d be such an icon now.), that is exactly why I said José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero is a better comparison for a host of reasons which I only began to list. I’ll just add one more item now: they’re basically contemporaries as well, which makes the comparison that much more apt. Think of it in terms of choosing between sports’ greats now and then. Can’t be done.
Might want to click on that link and come to your own conclusions.
[/QUOTE]
I browsed the article. I don’t know if the comparisons are apt, primarily because we’re comparing a parliamentary system to the executive that we have in the US. Arm-twisting and compromise is how things get done. It also didn’t say how he was able to push these policies into action. My understanding of parliamentary system is that the prime minister is the leader of the party with the majority of seats in the ruling house… here, of course, you could be a Dem president with a GOP majority in both houses of Congress. And even if the houses are balanced, there’s still a great deal of politicking involved to make things happen.
One of my presidential heroes is LBJ. Vietnam nonwithstanding, he was able to push an unprecedented program of social policy through Congress at a time that very few politicians possessed the ability to do so. His reputation as a hard-nosed SOB who could cajole, beg, or threaten virtually any Congressman is the greatest legacy of his presidency. If not for the morass that was Vietnam, I think he would be regarded as one of our greatest presidents, up there with FDR.
[QUOTE=MoodIndigo1]
You may be mistaken on that point. Remember with what grace and fortitude she acted during the Bill/Monica debacle?
[/quote]
I don’t remember the exact details, but according to George Stephanopoulos’ memoir of his White House days, she could be quite the angry tantrum-thrower behind the scenes.
[QUOTE=MoodIndigo1]
Kennedy was all that, and he brought the world closer to nuclear warfare than any other president.
[/QUOTE]
Ahem, some of us tend to think that it was Nikita Khrushchev’s attempt to install and aim nuclear weapons at us from 90 miles offshore that created the threat of nuclear war, and that Kennedy was quite skilled both in the way he reacted strongly for public consumption and diplomatically behind the scenes to allow Khruschev a way out while still saving face.
[QUOTE=NurseCarmen]
No way would Obama select HRC as VP if the choice were possible. Even Richardson would be dicey I think. Pity that it be, I think that he would need a white southern male to fill out the ticket to push him over the hump in the south.
does anyone happen to know of any white southern males who recently have come in second in the Iowa caucus?
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I was initially thinking an Edwards/Obama ticket would be the most viable, but, who knows, maybe it’ll be Obama/Edwards in the end? I can only hope, although either is perfectly fine with me.
[QUOTE=RedFury]
… what I think is a better comparison, Spain’s own Zapatero, a.k.a “Bambi” who beyond his mild manners and youth has yet to lose an election at any level…
[/QUOTE]
True in some sense, but let’s not forget that the March 11th bombing was a what actually made him win. No bomb and Aznar would’ve won.
[QUOTE=Marley23]
Seven years, not eight, but she seems to be campaigning more on her eight years in the White House than on her Senate experience. Maybe I’m following this from too great a distance and have that wrong.
I can’t speak for BobLibDem, but a lot of people consider experience as a governor more valuable in this context. But nobody has a huge amount of experience among the major candidates - Richardson, Huckabee, Romney, and Giuliani are the only ones with any executive experience, I think.
[/QUOTE]
Governors seem to have better luck getting elected, no Senator since JFK has. If we’re looking at resumes, Richardson wins hands down. You see where that is getting him. Obama has more experience in the legislative area and in state government. I think he brings more perspective to the table than Hillary.
Yes, but have any of them carried a single state in a previous VP run?
I also am an independent, and I have been in love with Obama’s centrist, pragmatic nature and eloquence of speech since the day I learned he existed. Everything about him seems right to me. I have not been this excited about a political candidate since… ever.
I’ve got nothing against Hillary other than a vague sense of distrust. I liked Bill, and I like him even more now that he’s getting his hands dirty with global warming and AIDS work. He gave a very good speech at my college graduation… and made some joke about his wife getting the presidency while a big, white advertising banner flew over the stadium that read: VOTE FOR LOVE NOT HILLARY AND ABORTION!!! (yes, really.) So I can promise you my feelings about Hillary are not based on her association with Bill, and I don’t dislike her enough to not vote for her if I have to come election time.
[QUOTE=NurseCarmen]
No way would Obama select HRC as VP if the choice were possible. Even Richardson would be dicey I think. Pity that it be, I think that he would need a white southern male to fill out the ticket to push him over the hump in the south.
does anyone happen to know of any white southern males who recently have come in second in the Iowa caucus?
[/QUOTE]
I don’t buy this. I don’t see any proof Edwards did anything to help Kerry last time. I don’t see how he would help Obama or Clinton this time.
[QUOTE=Paul in Saudi]
I would like to know how she takes this. I doubt she has the stength of character required to handle a setback with grace.
[/QUOTE]
Her concession speech was a model of grace and stength of character.
I’ve always looked at Iowa as an event that weeds out the more hopeless. Maybe the winners will go on to snatch the prize, maybe not, but if you’re not in the top three, it’s time to say goodbye.
The OP expresses my sentiments while watching returns last night exactly. I can’t list out why exactly Clinton rubs me the wrong way. I wasn’t a huge fan of her husband’s presidency, and I don’t like the undercurrent in all her speeches about “wouldn’t it be great if things were like they were back in the 90s” where I feel she’s inferring “and my husband was President” rather than “the last time a Democrat was in the White House.”
I was inspired by Obama’s speech at the 2004 convention, and have been keeping up with his activities since (I only recently moved to Illinois).
If he were to be the nominee, I imagine he’d pick an older running mate with executive experience. I have no predictions about where the running mate would be from geographically. Frankly, I’m tired of this whole “we have to have a Southerner on the ticket” schtick. If people in the South won’t vote for a ticket because it doesn’t have a Southerner, that’s their problem.
[QUOTE=Ají de Gallina]
True in some sense, but let’s not forget that the March 11th bombing was a what actually made him win. No bomb and Aznar would’ve won.
Still, a more than apt comparison.
[/QUOTE]
Not to hijack the thread but:
1-Aznar wasn’t running. His party, the PP, was led by Rajoy, who’s going to lead them again come this March. Will be another close one, but I expect that ZP will pull it off again.
2-Debatable. Point of fact, the election was too close to call for either side prior to the attack. You’re welcomed to look for the polls if they are still on-line. However I can recall vividly that Cadena Ser had ZP ahead, while the conservative network, COPE, had Rajoy ahead. Both fell within the 3% m.o.e.
While you’re right in principle it is not that simple in practice. The “Congreso de Diputados” elects the “Presidente del Govierno”…but that doesn’t mean he automatically has a majority and free reign to govern --Aznar did in second period when he became a quasi-dictator, as did Felipe Gonzalez when the PSOE corrupted itself out of power – but as is the case now, a coalition with similarly-minded smaller regional parties.
Better for Democracy when it’s that way methinks and not unlike the American scenario you presented, just many more (small) parties involved in the system. A minefield to navigate through as I said earlier.
[QUOTE=AuntiePam]
That made me wonder. How hard should it be in a time of war to get medical care for a small percentage of the Guard? Shouldn’t that be a gimme? Why did it take three years? Is she difficult to work with? Were people opposing her because she was Hillary, and they didn’t want to give her any ammunition for her campaign?
[/QUOTE]
It shouldn’t be difficult, but it is, because Republicans persist in voting against anything about the war that Democrats come up with. (Cf. Webb’s bill mandating that troops get as much time at home as they spend overseas, which one of the Southern Republican Gentlemen derided as “putting our soldiers in greater harm”. I shit you not.) The wondrous thing is not that it took three years to pass, but that it happened at all, and I doubt the exact identity of the proponent had anything to do with it.
[QUOTE=Una Persson]
I’m a fiscal arch-conservative and social quasi-libertarian, who would still vote for Obama above all other Democratic or Republican candidates. My second choice would be…well…I’m not sure. Giuliani, maybe. Even though Obama is on the other side of the fence on several key issues (such as gun control) than I am, and even though he is playing the “God” card, I’d still vote for him. He’s not an “ideal” candidate, but I think he’s the best of a difficult field. And if someone like me would vote for Obama, think about what that says.
(Clinton is my second-to-last choice, just slightly ahead of Edwards. Blech.)
[/QUOTE]
Wow. That is exactly my position. The only word in that post I would change would be to delete the “quasi”.
The thing I like about Obama is not so much the specific conclusion that he reaches, but the process by which he comes to those conclusions. I may disagree with him on any given policy, but I think I can trust him to think things through and reach a reasoned conclusion. And not to make any big mistakes (like someone who is currently sitting in the WH).
With Hillary, I’m sure she’s plenty intelligent, but she just seems to want to be all things to all people. What principles does she actually stand for? I honestly couldn’t say.
[QUOTE=DoctorJ]
I’ve heard from several places that Virginia’s Mark Warner would almost certainly be Obama’s running mate. Seems like a good choice.
[/QUOTE]
Makes sense. I still wonder, though, why he didn’t run for president himself. And might whatever considerations kept him from running for president also keep him from accepting a VP slot?
[QUOTE=DoctorJ]
I’ve heard from several places that Virginia’s Mark Warner would almost certainly be Obama’s running mate. Seems like a good choice.
[/QUOTE]
How about Jim Web? That would be insane. Good insane. A young maverick, former Republican “tough guy”, both of whom are come to DC to shake some serious shit up!
Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. Risky as all hell, but I think we might be ready to throw off the establishment pols and go with the smart, tough, young set.
Jim Webb a “young” guy? He’ll be 62 come November.
Besides, selecting him as VP deprives the Democrats of a good Senator. Warner’s a better choice from that perspective, and he comes with the executive experience that Obama’s ticket may need.