Yeah, but did it count?
== D&R ==
Neither Clinton or Obama may rank particularly high if there was a referendum on whether either person should be the President. But this election isn’t a referendum on an individual, it’s a choice between a Democratic candidate and a Republican candidate.
It’s a fact that every major Republican candidate supports the Iraq war. Four years after voters chose Bush and allowed him to continue a war that has only grown increasingly unpopular, are you really so certain that most Americans are going to think, “That Hillary Clinton/Barak Obama is so awful that I’d rather have the Republican candidate carry on the war that I hate for another four years rather than vote for THAT Democrat!!!” In fact, I just saw a poll today (sorry, can’t link to temporary file) that has Generic Democrat beating Generic Republican 47%-29%. That doesn’t mean a specific Democrat is going to have a cakewalk, but it does mean that so far 2008 is a favorable environment for Democrats.
Mind you, I’m not a particularly big supporter of either Clinton or Obama at this point, but news of their election loss is very premature.
I’m not exactly a seasoned electoral observer - 2008 will be my third Presidential election as a voter - but I think it’s clear that voters ultimately choose a candidate based on their sense of who he or she is, not their stance on the issues. Unlike 2000 and 2004, the Democrats do have at least one candidate who can connect with people that way.
Well, I disagree with you about Rudy, but you forgot Fred Thompson. I think it’s more than 50/50 that he’ll run, and he would make a very good GOP candidate. Very, very good. With the Dems in control of both houses of Congress, I think that gives a strong GOP candidate an edge over a Democrat. People seem to like divided government. I know I do.
In terms of sheer entertainment he’d be the best president we’ve had in a quarter century (GWB’s antics got old quick.) He actually talks about ideas. Whatever you feel about Clinton’s policies he put on the aw-shucks demeanour moreso than I enjoy in people.
Again, not that I like Gingrinch’s ideas or anything just sayin’
Right. If you listen to the pundits, no candidate this time is actually electable. But someone is going to win. Some unelectable person will be elected.
A solid, intelligent Republican would be welcome. I’ve been pretty solidly Democratic these past few years, but primarily because the Republicans in power since 2000 are batshit crazy. If a Republican can convince me he’s not batshit crazy, and Obama doesn’t make it through the primaries, I think I’d be satisfied with another Republican in the White House.
**
Yes, I watched him speak at the Convention, he’s a very good orator. I’m not knocking his skills or position.
**
I don’t blame people for being excited about him, he’s charismatic as all get out, he’s still black though, and that’ll be enough to kill the deal.
As far as Clinton goes, outside of Democratic strongholds she couldn’t be elected dogcatcher.
Problem is even if the Republicans screw up and put up a candidate who’s not batshit crazy, he would still be doing the bidding of the batshit crazy Republicans who bankrolled him, if he made it to the Oval Office.
There was an episode of Stargate SG-1 that focused on a newly elected President dealing with the performance review of the Stargate project and the SG-1 team, whose existence he had no clue about until being elected. His VP wanted direct control over the project, and at one point told the Pres that it was his campaign contributions that won him the Presidency, so he’d better play ball. The Pres very calmly told him that while that may be true, he was the President now and didn’t have to be beholden to such things. The Pres listened to all the evidence presented to him by his advisors and put some real thought into the decision he eventually made.
Alas. It was only fiction. 
One can dream, though.
Sorry for the hijack
That’s it, end of chat?
We’ll elect a dry drunk fratboy like Shrub but refuse to elect a black man, no matter how charismatic he is?
Then the US really does suck.
Science fiction, yet! 
Joke from the '80s, when Jesse Jackson was taken seriously by some few:
Jesse Jackson arrives at the Pearly Gates.
ST. PETER: So, what did you accomplish during your time on Earth?
JACKSON: I was the first African-American ever elected president of the United States!
ST. PETER: Really?! Wow! When did that happen?!
JACKSON: About ten minutes ago.
My favorite Jackson:
He opined that had he been seen by reporters walking on water, the headline would be “Jesse Can’t Swim!”
I’m just wondering about that famous Bush “charisma.” When he ran for Governor, I thought he was just a half-bright ex fratboy.
Since then, his mental processes have deteriorated to a frightening degree.
Yeah, the Bush/DeLay/Frist crowd don’t do anything me. I’d vote for Clinton or Obama over Romney. I don’t trust that guy, the way he’s switched positions so “conveniently”. I’m having second thoughts about McCain, but I’d probably vote for him over Clinton or Obama. I don’t know enough about Rudy or Thompson to say what I’d do. Of course, there’s no telling what will happen between now and then that might change things. Still, I wish the Dems were running another serious candidate or two that could actually get elected. I wish Feingold were running-- not that he’s particularly electable, but I like him.
While I don’t agree with “irrelevent”, it is true that my OP is just one guy’s opinion. On top of that, it’s the opinion of a guy who is by no means a political pro. But I do think that there is a sizable group of people that also hold this opinion. (Which doesn’t make it any more “right” although I suspect some of those people know quite a bit about politics).
As for it being very early: you are correct about that, too. But it’s one thing to over-estimate the chances of a Dean, Kerry, Cuomo, or Gore, and quite another to over-estimate the chances of Hillary or Barrack. Sure-- the former were coroneted far too early, but with the possible exception of Dean, none of them had any of the “skeletons in the living room” (Get it? It means that the things that will lead to their undoing are not hidden away in a closet, but right out in the open. Cute, huh?) that Obama and Clinton have that are completely and obviously crippling even viewed from 2, 3 or 4 years out.
“No chance in hell” is an exaggeration. If I were to give my actual bookmaking odds (and again: I am not in a position to be seriously handicapping the election, it is just MHO) they would be about 100 to 1 for either candidate. Effectively, that’s “no chance in hell”.
It’s probably occurred to a few people that winning the presidential election is a fairly big deal in American politics. A party that has been out of the White House for 8 years is especially eager to win. I believe parties should strive to hang no albatrosses around their own necks that would put them in anything but the best possible position to win. Among other things, that means not nominating Dennis Kucinich or Trent Lott.
As sad as it may be, that also means not nominating a woman or a black until you are ABSOLUTELY SURE that the country is ready to elect a woman or a black, *and *that your party is positive that it has a particular woman or black that is thought of so highly that he/she can overcome the built-in disadvantage of being female or black.
You’ve probably heard of a minority or woman that said to get ahead in the workplace–to “break the glass ceiling”–they had to work a lot harder and have more skills then the white males they were competing with. Once again–sad, but true.
Looking up through the glass ceiling into the Oval Office one notices it’s just as transparent as any corporate glass ceiling-- but once one actually tries to break through it one discovers it’s 8 feet thick and bulletproof (maybe H-Bomb-proof is more accurate).
Hillary might be bullet-headed (I actually mean that in a good way, if that’s possible) but too many people detest her. Yet I know that as cynical as I am, I too would get caught up in the excitement and the hope of a Clinton run if she were to get nominated. I know that for all that I have said here, I would start to believe that it really was possible that she could do it. With each gaff of her opponent, with each debate that HRC won, and with each new poll showing the race neck-and-neck I might even begin to think it probable that she’d win the whole damn thing. The anticipation and glee in Democratic circles would grow palpable.
And then that fucking first Wednesday following the first Tuesday following the first Monday in November.
Fuck.
The instant 20-20 hindsight sets in nationwide: “What the HELL were we thinking?” Think about how much people say that in retrospect about Kerry. I still don’t really get this. He might not have been my personal choice for the nomination, but I believe that by no means was it a foregone conclusion that he would lose.
Like all Wednesday-morning quarterbacking it’s easy to say that now but who knew that that whole sleazy Swiftboating thing would actually gain traction? Who knew that ANYONE could lose to Bush after he had 4 years to prove his ineptness to the point that even many of his die-hard 2000 supporters didn’t want to vote for him?
If Kerry–a candidate easily more-electable (on paper) than Hillary–couldn’t beat George W. Bush, how the hell is Hillary going to beat a candidate who is more-electable (on paper and off) than Bush?
I have a new system.
I have stopped demanding cites for these sorts of claims.
I have decided that I am much happier having my party win the election and listen to baseless and unprovable accusations than having my party lose the election and level baseless and unprovable charges of cheating.
So that’s the new system, as far as I’m concerned. Sure the GOP cheated. Sure! Whatcha gonna do about it?
Yes, but that’s the thinking that led to the nomination of Kerry, TMWCEBFGWB*. Pick someone safe. Don’t pick the candidate you like the most, pick the candidate you think OTHER people would like the most. All we have to do is not nominate anyone with any skeletons and because he’s not George Bush we will win.
I am confident that Howard Dean would have crushed George Bush like an eggshell in the general election. Except Howard Dean was too “risky”. Gotta play it safe. Kerry is electable, so lets vote for him, and that proves he’s electable.
I’ve got a proposal for Democrats. Pick the person you would most want to see become president. Work for that person, advocate for that person, vote for that person. If that person loses the primary, then work, advocate and vote for the nominee. But don’t assume that your favorite candidate is unelectable (unless is Dennis Kucinich or some such) just because everyone says so.
*The Man Who Couldn’t Even Beat Fucking George W Bush
THAT is precisely my point. Thank you! This is no time for the Democrats to start getting all “In this country any boy or girl can grow up to be President!” on us. This is no time for: “We’re good enough, we’re smart enough, and goshdarnit, people like us!”
A presidential election is exponentially more important than any other election in the nation. It is also take-no-prisoners and dirty as fuck. PLEASE let’s not all be sighing that sweet Democratic whine after the next election, “(sigh) I knew it! What the hell were we thinking? Well, we’ll get 'em next time!”
Fucking Charlie-fucking-Brown trying to kick a football with the American voters starring as Lucy Van Pelt.
How about we finally say “I know it! What the hell are we thinking? We’ll get them this time!” BEFORE the election! What do y’all say we actually attempt to win this time?