I think you guys are missing the main issue about 2008. It’s going to be a woman or a black man vs a white man. That is what it will boil down to, no matter what people say. It’s not about who’s huggable, or who has the best grasp on the issues or who seems more charismatic. This is America after all, the Republicans are going to have to screw up REAL bad, I would say even more than they are now, to elect a non white man to the presidency.
Watching George W. Bush lo this last seven years has torpedoed my assessment of the importance of “executive experience” in being a successful president. And I believe strongly that more time spent in public life does not make you a better person or a better politician, it just makes you more cynical and more beholden.
Anyone who can deride the Democrats for putting up greenhorns with no foreign policy experience in the current environment is kidding themselves. I would rather put up a rook with some sense of tact and basic cooperative intelligence than an experienced, seasoned, asshole douchebag.
You have to realize that just about 30% of the electorate is batshit crazy. The best example of this is the Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes race for Senate. They were both black, so race wasn’t an issue, Keyes was from out of state, so no hometown favorite vote, and Keyes was and still is, crazy as a shithouse rat. Keyes got 28% of the vote for senate. It’s really hard to look on this as being other than a vote for lunacy.
Once you get the batshit vote tied up, you only need to get around 30% of the remaining votes, and Bob’s your uncle.
That makes sense. I am kind of waiting for the other shoe to drop with Obama as well, but it’s too early. If there is a big story on Obama you might as well save it until he proves himself to be a real threat, or preferably when he’s been nominated.
No, he really isn’t.
Except that it could instead be viewed as “28% of voters will vote Republican no matter who they actually run.”
-Joe
Yeah- I have to imagine that the Keyes votes were straight-ticket pulls.
You’re joking, right? Both Gore and Kerry were intelligent and experienced candidates who would have made capable leaders. But both had the personality of wallpaper, which I’m convinced is the sole reason they lost to George W. Bush. Dole was incredibly experienced and also would have made a capable leader, but was wooden and unlikeable and lost to Clinton.
While I think we as a populace should treat elections as job interviews, not best friend auditions, the fact remains that a lot of voters vote primarily based on charisma, on soundbites, and on basic likeability.
I think this is the truth as opposed to bat shit crazy. I think there is around the same percentage or maybe slightly more that vote Dem no matter how bad their candidate is.
saoirse, thanks for the clarification. I feel similarly about Hillary. Not a fan, not my choice, but I can live with her as our next President and even take some satisfaction from the fact that we have come further as a country then many of our own citizens give us credit for.
Jim
I’m not sure if i’ve seen that particular article before, but i’ve read a bunch of similar stuff in the time that McCain has been at the forefront of national politics, and i’ve never really been convinced by the argument.
It has always seemed to me to be an argument from expediency, one that is focused more on winning the office itself than on sticking by principles which are, or should be, central to the Democrats and their constituency. Even excluding his hawkish foreign policy positions, i find many of his domestic and economic policies far to conservative. Running as Republican-lite has never appealed to me very much.
And when you constantly heard poll responses suggesting that the main reason that many people liked George Bush was because “he’s the sort of guy you feel like you could have a beer with,” it doesn’t say much for the importance of competence and political astuteness as criteria for election.
Right; there’s around 30% on either side that’s hardcore - it’s that middle 40% that everyone’s clamoring for. Right now, the Dems have a slight edge because the GOP’s been screwing up. But they have to have a candidate that’s both likeable and substantial, not either/or, and so far, I don’t see one that has a chance in the primaries. The GOP may have a slight edge there, what with Rudy’s popularity, but I’m just not sure whether folks can overlook the fact that not only is he a cousin-marrying, thrice-married philanderer, but also a ego-tripping claim jumper, but also has a last name that ends in a vowel that’s not a silent “e”.
Me, too. The guy is a solid conservative, of the social stripe, even if he’s not militant about it like some Republicans. He’s a lot less partisan than your average pol, which is why I think the press loves (loved?) him, but that doesn’t make him any less conservative. If I voted for McCain, it would be despite his social conservatism.
And, Shodan, that Halfrican American thing is just stupid, stupid, stupid. Why did you ruin an otherwise good post which race baiting crap like that???
Is it my imagination, or was Rudy considered to be really bad news prior to 9/11?
I was ready to step up for him and say that it was just a sarcastic idiot pundit term like Dubya, Shrub, Bubba, or Slick Willy. Then I thought maybe I should let Shodan clean up his own mess. The fact that he hasn’t yet speaks volumes.
Well, especially for me because I have had the same thoughts Shodan was trying to express: Hillary or Obama would probably make OK presidents, but are they really the best the Dems have to offer? Sure, we could do a lot worse than those two candidates (we are, in fact, doing a lot worse now!), but it’s just hard to believe that there aren’t much better leaders with proven track records somewhere in the Democratic party. I really wish Feingold was running. I may disagree with more of his policies than I do with Hillary’s, but I’d sooner vote for him than I’d vote for Hillary because I trust his judgement more.
I don’t think so. It is true that he had to clean up a bit of a mess in his personal life at that time.
The fact remains, though, that pre-Giuliani New York was a crime ridden mess, and post-Giuliani New York is cleaner and far more governable. And while this isn’t solely due to Giuliani, he was indispensable in making this process happen.
No other politician but him, for example, would have refused to meet with Al Sharpton when he was trying to poison the well again with a hyped-up racial controversy. That took leadership, of the sort lacking in both parties right now.
Actually those nasty racists at PBS, too, , not merely Rush. But feel free to scream if it makes you feel better.
Or maybe we can do
Obama’s so stupid, he flunked his urine test.
Obama’s so ugly, his mama had to tie a pork chop around his neck so the dog will play with him.
Obama’s smell so bad, every time he played in the sand box, the cat would bury him.
Regards,
Shodan
Wow, by that astounding logic WRAP is constantly calling people “nigger”!
-Joe
I’ve thought this as well.
I tend to vote for candidates with better ideas, but you also have to look at records. And I don’t think there is any question that there is a serious “stature gap” between the parties and their candidates. Look, for instance, at the top three contenders on each side, and tell me which ones have a more compelling personal story.
Leaving ideology aside, my list would be McCain, Giuliani, Romney, and Obama in that order, with Edwards and Clinton coming in at a distant last. I’d rank Obama higher in the future, but so much of his story is left to be told.
Because he’s stupid stupid stupid and race baiting is the best he’s got.
Jesus, why is anyone surprised at this behavior from one of the Dope’s resident vipers?
There’s a difference between calling yourself something (especially for the purposes of an NPR radio essay about your experience) and calling another person, a stranger, the same thing. What can I say? You’re stupid.