So Hillary Clinton has announced that she’s forming an exploratory committee to look into running for president.
I have several problems with this:
First of all, when she ran for Senator, she swore it wasn’t to position herself for a presidential run, but rather because she loved New York and wanted to serve its citizens. If she’d been in that position through, say, 2012, I might be convinced she saw the gig as something other than a means to an end. As it is, I feel as if she were here for the minimum amount of time necessary to establish some political cred. That’s a touch too manipulative for me.
Second, she’s come across to me as too mealy-mouthed and–there’s that word again–manipulative on various issues. Even her announcement about running isn’t firm and positive: She’s announced that she’s sticking her toe in the water. Say you’re in, say you’re out, but make a decision. It makes me think of Mr. Miyagi telling Daniel something like, “You karate yes, fine. You karate no, fine. You karate maybe, you get squished like grape.”
Third, I don’t think she’s electable. I just don’t. I don’t think she’ll play anywhere outside of large metropolitan areas, and even in some of those. I’m not sure Barack Obama is, either. I don’t think he’s got enough experience and, frankly, I still think there’s sizable pockets of this country that don’t put a black man in office (hëll, I grew up in the 1960s where assassination was the order of the day, so I’m worried some white supremacist is going to pop a cap in his head.)
As crazy as it sounds, I’d almost rather see Al Gore take another run at it. Hëll, Richard Nixon came back from a loss, and that wasn’t even an election where he won the majority of the popular vote. Unlike everyone else in the field, he’s got a six year track record of being actively involved in something other than trying to get office and stay in office. He’s been sounding the alert about serious problems this planet faces while the administration had its ears covered saying “la la la, I’m not listening.” What’s wrong with electing a man who has demonstrably been ahead of the curve on one of the gravest problems these next generations will face?
PAD
• 
It seems like almost everyone is doing the “exploratory comitee” thing. I wonder why so many politicians think that’s a big step that needs announcing now.
I agree that Gore would be the best of the likely Democratic candidates but he has said he isn’t running and given the amount of money that this next election will involve–and whatever number you or I come up with will almost certainly be laughably less than the final horrific total–anyone who doesn’t throw their hat in the ring soon will have zero chance.
Your points on Hillary are well taken but I don’t think any of it matters. It’s hard to see how she loses the nomination. She can raise unbelievable amounts of money and her husband can raise even more. Even the sudden rise of Obama may play out perfectly for her–he will get whatever money and support that would have gone to a more effective rival like Edwards.
Kerry will run because it’s the sort of thing only an absolutely political tone deaf person would even contemplate.
As for her electability…isn’t that the reason so many Democrats gave last time for abandoning Dean and taking on Kerry? Hey, THAT worked out! It’s amazing how well some “unelectables” turn out to be. I remember Ralph nader back in 1979 or so speaking at my college, gleefully looking forward to the nomination of “unelectable” Ronald Reagan.
Whatever her drawbacks… and she has many (is there a less charismatic legit candidate out there?) nobody should underestimate her. She’s smarter than Bill ever was and she can fight. If Barak Obama keeps up the momentum he’s going to to see just how dirty politics can get (there’s already talk of a whisper campaign from the Clinton camp about his background).
Plus, it all comes down to–who do the Republicans throw against her? If they delude themselves into thinking that ANYONE can beat Hillary they will lose spectacularly.
Last year, or the year before, my dad (who is a staunch republican) told me that he believed it would be an Clinton/Obama ticket and that they would would easily win. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if that turned out to be the case, or if the Pres/Vice Pres roles were switched and it turned out to be an Obama/Clinton ticket.
Well, it’d certainly unite the Republicans like little else will, that’s for sure.
But the thing is, I’m not certain she has a choice to not form an exploratory committee. We’ve already had several people put committees together and then say “nope, not feasible” – but these days, if you are a contender in any form, it seems like you have to take that step before you’re saying you’re taking any other step.
Personally, I hope she doesn’t. I’m not convinced she would be a good president, and of the options right now, I quite like Edwards.
…however, I have heard quite a few Republicans voice the fear that a Clinton/Obama, in any form, ticket would be nigh unstoppable. I don’t think
Sigh. Ahem. Sorry, my cat decided I was done typing and clicked the trackpad for me. As I was saying, I don’t think that it’s the unstoppable ticket people fear – as I said, I think it might be more effective at uniting than McCain could ever be on his own.
NPR just reported Hillary is in.
I think carpetbagging the New York seat was a red-flag against Hillary from day one. George Bush was born and educated a yankee, and he was (is) sold as a Texan like Jesus is sold as white and English-speaking. At least he had a Texas home before he ran for governor.
I think we can kiss John McCain goodbye. From his behavior, it seems like he was counting on Bush staying the course, and early-campaigning by saying we need a surge. Then, not wanting McCain’s campaign to define his legacy, Bush started pitching for a surge. He might have enough support to put up a fight in the primaries, but the coining of the phrase “McCain Doctrine” has pretty much ended McCain’s presidential chances.
Unlke most of the announcements so far, they’ve been pretty low key with the “exploratory committees”.
Very few, if any, have been quoted as Hillary now has:
“I’m in and I’m in to win”
The fact that she’s not finishing out her second term shouldn’t be a surprise to anybody. Her political capital, right now, is probably as high as it’s going to get.
And even though I question whether I could vote for her, there are probably plenty of people who would just so they could get Bill anywhere back near the White House – and he could quickly become the most accomplished 1st-whatever in presidential history.
But a Clinton/Obama ticket? That could be unstoppable.
Actually, that brings up another point: Carter, Clinton, Gore. Three men who were president or vice-president, and they haven’t stopped working since leaving office.
Unlike Ford or Bush Sr. And, I suspect, Bush Jr will be the same as his father.
Clinton is going to have an uphill fight when it comes to voters who don’t already actively love or hate her (or actively hate the hate). People are looking for a change in one very specific regard… they’re looking for someone who wouldn’t have gotten us into this war. Clinton voted to get us in.
(Actually, to be absolutely correct, Clinton and all the other Senators who voted for it did something worse. They did not vote to get us into the war. They voted to abdicate their responsibility, and to vest the president with a power that the Constitution specifies belongs to the legislative branch. But the general public aren’t going to reflect on that level of irresponsibility, alas.)
At this point I see Hillary and Obama as two canadates that EVERYONE will talk about ad naseum but when the election comes, either one won’t ever come close to getting the votes. It’s like a much talked about but low selling comic. Or like Snakes on a Plane. As of now. Maybe in 4 or 8, but not right now. I don’t have a problem with voting for a strong women. Just not Hillary. She bothers me.
And Peter, you hit the nail on the head when you said you feel she’s been just a tad manipulative. I live in Rochester, NY so Hillary’s press is well covered here. How many times has she said running for President was something she wasn’t looking into or something she didn’t think about or something she wasn’t interested in? Everyone kind of rolled their eyes because everyone knew it wasn’t true. Like it was some inside joke that everyone was in on. I don’t think it’s funny.
Al Gore, Howard Dean, John Kerry. I would vote for either of these men.
But I’m pulling for John Edwards, maybe I’m right, maybe I’m wrong but there is something about him that makes me think that if he gets elected, things will be okay.
Barack Obama is not electable not just because he’s black, but also because of his name.
I think Hillary is electable and she probably will get the nomination, even though I don’t like her because of her Iraq war stance. People will vote for her because they’ll see it as a second Clinton presidency.
My choice for president would be Joe Biden. He’s the smartest of all the candidates, and after 8 years of Bush, brains is what we need. A good compromise choice would be John Edwards, as he’s a telegenic Southerner. I would have liked to have seen Russ Feingold run, as he’s been consistently right on the issues even when everyone else was going the other way.
Al Gore will not get my support, despite his valiant attempts at an Extreme Makeover. He should have beaten Bush in a landslide; it never should have even gotten into the Supreme Court’s hands. But because he was so inept, we were subjected to 8 years of this. If he couldn’t clobber Bush from a position of strength, he doesn’t deserve another chance now.
The main problem with Hillary, is more than any other politician, she comes across as not caring about what America’s best interest is, but rather what Hillary’s best interest is.
Bill Mulligan posted:
Whatever her drawbacks… and she has many (is there a less charismatic legit candidate out there?) nobody should underestimate her. She’s smarter than Bill ever was and she can fight. If Barak Obama keeps up the momentum he’s going to to see just how dirty politics can get (there’s already talk of a whisper campaign from the Clinton camp about his background).
Um, before we go any further, this “talk of a whisper campaign” doesn’t seem to be anything other than a right-wing “campaign” against HILLARY. Currently, there’s a little “news” story running that Hillary’s responsible for spreading info mentioning Barack Obama’s attendance at a madrassa, yet the “news” was posted at a website connected to the Rev Sun Myung Moon (insightmag.org) which doesn’t actually mention any specifics or any real sources.
I find it BEYOND amazing that ANYONE connected with Hillary Rodham Clinton would be allowed to speak with any “reporter” that would have even the slightest of ties to the very people who HRC accused of being behind the attacks on Bill during his presidency.
Sorry, but this is just the first salvo from the Right-Wing Noise Machine seeking to shoot down both Hillary’s and Barack’s Presidential campaigns. For more details on this right-wing slam, see http://mediamatters.org/items/200701200003
Matt Adler –
Barack Obama is not electable not just because he’s black, but also because of his name.
Unfortunately, this is all too true.
I wonder how long it will be before Ted Kennedy’s comment will come up again where he mixed up Obama with bin Laden.
Or just look at some of the accusations in the senate race in Tennessee with Ford.
JosephW –
Um, before we go any further, this “talk of a whisper campaign” doesn’t seem to be anything other than a right-wing “campaign” against HILLARY.
Well, I’m not going to judge anything at this point, but bs coming from the right-wing already wouldn’t surprise me, NOR would it this did come from Hillary’s camp.
This is politics. Love and war and all that.
When this news was posting on another board I read, one response from a right-winger was about how the Dems keep going for “far left” nominations. Yet, it has yet to be explained to me how Gore and Kerry, or Hillary Clinton for that matter, are “far left”.
But then, for many, anything left of center means that the person is in the far left.
The main problem with Hillary, is more than any other politician, she comes across as not caring about what America’s best interest is, but rather what Hillary’s best interest is.
Wouldn’t you expect her to care more about Hillary’s best interest than any other politician does?
Can’t really disagree with the majority of you guys, save for the fellow who would refuse to vote for Gore again (personally I love the guy). I really don’t think Hillary is electable; in many ways she is the antithesis of her husband. Whereas Bill could play warm and homespun to an audience, Hillary comes across as cold and calculating.
Even her speaking voice seems all wrong: not only does she refuse to take a stand on many issues, she frequently needs to turn the volume down while she waffles away. And hëll, let’s not even start on what a lodestone she is to the right, who rank her below homosexuals and colon cancer.
Maybe she’ll listen to some of Bill’s old advisors: It’s the vacillation, stupid.
First of all, when she ran for Senator, she swore it wasn’t to position herself for a presidential run,
Actually, PAD – can you cite where she said this for her re-election campaign? The only thing I can find regarding this is for her initial 2000 run; all the media I can find (and admittedly I’ve not looked hard) suggests she refused to make such a promise for the re-election, and told voters that if it was a concern, they should factor it in to their decision on election day. (I didn’t move to New York til too late to get registered for the election, and was a bit busy freaking out about moving across the country for grad school, so admittedly payed less attention than I should have…)
Posted by: Kelly at January 20, 2007 04:59 PM
(…so admittedly payed less attention than I should have…)
Uhm, yeah. Kelly? The fact that you give a crap about making an informed vote puts you head and shoulders above a LOT of people. That you back that up by actually making a good-faith effort to ascertain the facts, rather than just accepting what people tell you at face value, puts you head and shoulders above even more people.
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if that turned out to be the case, or if the Pres/Vice Pres roles were switched and it turned out to be an Obama/Clinton ticket.
Hillary will take the VP role when Hëll freezes over.
As for a Clinton/Obama ticket…tempting, so tempting but 1- Hillary is not such a risk taker, in my opinion and B- that would be risky. Both are groundbreaking and you can only break so much ground before you start having trouble standing up.
Sorry, my cat decided I was done typing and clicked the trackpad for me.
You cat probably has as good a chance of predicting the outcome as anyone else here. Hëll, Bill Myers’ cat write me emails.
The fact that she’s not finishing out her second term shouldn’t be a surprise to anybody. Her political capital, right now, is probably as high as it’s going to get.
yeah and it isn’t as though she is breaking any promises. I don’t recall her ever saying that she would definitely finish out this term.
Now a tactical question: does she resign from the Senate to run, like Dole did or does she keep her senate seat as a backup plan (which always looks like someone who is not 100% confident of victory?).
Actually, that brings up another point: Carter, Clinton, Gore. Three men who were president or vice-president, and they haven’t stopped working since leaving office.
Yeah, well in Crater’s case it would be nice if he took a break. But it would be tough, so many Jews to libel, so little time.
Clinton is going to have an uphill fight when it comes to voters who don’t already actively love or hate her (or actively hate the hate). People are looking for a change in one very specific regard… they’re looking for someone who wouldn’t have gotten us into this war. Clinton voted to get us in.
And will they then vote for the Republican alternative? Hillary is already covering the bases here–she will (assuming things don’t radically improve in Iraq) completely flip on the war and attack it with the fervor of the converted, satisfying the base. Which will not take much–simply running on “I’ll fix the mistakes of the last 8 years” will cause most of the hardcore left to swoon. The extreme anti-war voters may hold her vote against but what are their options Write in Dennis Kucinech? Run Cindy Sheehan as a 3rd party candidate? Like Meg Tilley says in BODY SNATCHERS “Where you gonna go?”
Al Gore, Howard Dean, John Kerry. I would vote for either of these men.
But I’m pulling for John Edwards, maybe I’m right, maybe I’m wrong but there is something about him that makes me think that if he gets elected, things will be okay.
I think Dean took himself out of this way back when he took the Party position. Barring the WORLD WAR Z zombie outbreak and the formation of the Powell/Dean unity ticket, I think he’s out.
One factor against Edwards–he isn’t very popular here in North Carolina. I caution against nominating people who can’t win their own state.
My choice for president would be Joe Biden.
The press hates him. They will bring up his past mistakes at every opportunity and he will be the buffoon of the race. I kind of like him as well, though he is a bit too much in love with the sound of his own voice.
Um, before we go any further, this “talk of a whisper campaign” doesn’t seem to be anything other than a right-wing “campaign” against HILLARY.
Point taken…though if anyone in Hillary’s camp WERE to try such a stunt don’t you think a right wing paper would be EXACTLY the place they’d do it? At this point, I don’t know why the right wing would want to hurt Obama–at the very least he splits up a lot of money that might otherwise go to one Democrat.
That said, it’s wrong to put the blame on Hillary’s people based on anonymous sources.
The main problem with Hillary, is more than any other politician, she comes across as not caring about what America’s best interest is, but rather what Hillary’s best interest is.
There’s plenty of fault in Clinton to find but I don’t think there is or has been any politician who hasn’t felt that what is in America’s best interests and their own best interests was one and the same.
Other than the whisper campaign you yourself are engaging in, can you cite any fact that suggests Hillary has participated in, or benefitted from, dirty politics? Suggestions a competitor sired a black baby? Anything?
You have a habit of holding others to standards you feel free to disregard. What is the source of your dysfunction?
Sorry Mike, I thought I’d made it clear that my days of responding to you are over. Pitiful, yes, yes, whatever.
But I’ll gladly respond to any of the grownups here.
There’s at least one congressman who failed reelection after one term and went on to win the presidency. Maybe you’ve heard of him: Abraham Lincoln.
Uh, yeah, responding to me makes it crystal clear you aren’t responding to me. Whatever.
Personally, I don’t like Hillary because of her handling of the Clinton-Lewinski scandal. I think her approach sent the message to any impressionable women: “If your man cheats on you, and you can get something out of it if you stick with him, then stay with the cheater.” She stayed loyal, she became a New York senator.
I also don’t like Hillary’s position on the war. She’s much more hawkish than many Democrats, and in a mailing asking for people’s opinions on several issues of importance to voters, Iraq wasn’t even listed. While a lot of Democrats wound up voting to support the war (and they should be ashamed if they’re now protesting what they helped to happen), she’s still in favor if staying there. And if it was a bad idea under Bush, it’s a bad idea under her.
I wouldn’t rule out Obama. Heck, any attempt at excessively sleazy tactics (like suggesting the congressman who was swore in on a Koran could be part of Al Queda) could backfire in his favor.
We shall see.
Obama is such a gamble…I think the Party will take the easy way out and, while lauding him, say that he needs just a few more years of experience (and hëll, that may be true).
There’s also the question of whether he can take a punch. Running against an idiot like Allan Keyes, in an election where his two biggest rivals were both derailed by sex and spousal abuse scandals, he hasn’t had to face a serious opponent. (Except his unsuccessful campaign against Bobby Rush, who clobbered him.) It remains to be seen how he will do in a rough and tumble campaign.
Personally I like him and it would be cool to have a president younger than I am! But I think Hillary is more electable, at this point.
I would honestly rather see Obama as President, and I think his odds are better than Clinton’s. But if it was an Obama/Clinton ticket; whoever said they would be unstoppable is totally on the money.
I doubt they’re smart enough to go for that, though. Politics are vicious.
Peter, you’re certainly more familiar with Hillary than I am since you live in New York. If she really said that she wasn’t doing it to position herself for a White House bid and there’s footage of this somewhere, then I agree. Although I have to wonder if there’s anybody in politics who’s completely honest. It’s a pretty depressing thought.
But, I’m not so sure about this part:
I’m not sure Barack Obama is, either. I don’t think he’s got enough experience and, frankly, I still think there’s sizable pockets of this country that don’t put a black man in office (hëll, I grew up in the 1960s where assassination was the order of the day, so I’m worried some white supremacist is going to pop a cap in his head.)
I’m sure that there are still people who feel that way, probably more than I would guess if I had to pick a number. But I like to think we’ve come a long way in the last 40 years and that such people are significantly fewer. I mean, whatever state includes the highest number of bigots, Obama doesn’t need to win it. He just needs the majority of electoral votes, and I think he could get them.
But even if he were to run and lose, does that mean he shouldn’t have run in the first place? Yes, there are nutjobs out there who’d like to kill him, I’m sure, but why should that factor into his decision whether to run or not? If we wait until there are no people left who vote on such things as race then we’ll be waiting for an EXTREMELY long time. So I think the best thing for him to do, if he’s emotionally tough enough to take the slings and arrows and almost inevitable Swift-Boating from whoever his GOP opponent is and give back as good as he gets, is to give it a shot.
Saying “I shouldn’t even try because there are still a lot of racists in this country who would vote against me because of how I look” does not make any sense, frankly.
As crazy as it sounds, I’d almost rather see Al Gore take another run at it.
I don’t think that’s crazy at all. If the guy has the energy to do it again (and let’s face it, campaigning in this day and age is not for the thin-skinned), I’d like to see him go for it.
Kerry will run because it’s the sort of thing only an absolutely political tone deaf person would even contemplate.
LOL!
My choice for president would be Joe Biden.
For the most part I’ve been pretty impressed with him. I mean, I think he said something that sounded bad a while ago but I can’t remember exactly what. Mainly I remember him being tough on Ashcroft about torture, and I gained a good deal of respect for him as a result of that.
I would have liked to have seen Russ Feingold run
The only person who voted against the Patriot Act. I agree, he’s be a great choice.
If he couldn’t clobber Bush from a position of strength, he doesn’t deserve another chance now.
OK, but if the Republicans don’t have anybody particularly electable since McCain and Giuliani ran into problems, Gore has a good chance anyway.
Yeah, well in Crater’s case it would be nice if he took a break. But it would be tough, so many Jews to libel, so little time.
Um, what? I hadn’t heard of him saying anything libelous about Jews or a specific person…to what are you referring?
She’s much more hawkish than many Democrats
Yeah, I haven’t watched her every move, but that’s the impression I’ve gotten based on information I’ve absorbed here and there.
Personally I’m still voting for Dennis Kucinich. The man actually wants a Dept. of Peace. How can you beat that?
Biden is a weinie. I wish that guy’d get a job on Faux News so no one would see him.
Oh as for the swipe that Carter has libeled Jews, you might want to read the book. I fail to see why the Israeli gov’t and all jews are always and forever the same in so many people’s eyes when it comes to debate. James Zogby had a great piece at Huffingtonpost about this. Why can’t we debate the wrong-doings of a country without making it into a discrimination case?
Um, what? I hadn’t heard of him saying anything libelous about Jews or a specific person…to what are you referring?
He wrote a book about how Isreal treats the Palestenians, thereby committing the unforgivable act of critizing Isreal.
I think that Carter’s transgressions go waaaaaay beyond mere criticism of Israel. It’s probably a subject for another thread, if Peter wants it, but I think Carter’s actions of the last few months have been disgraceful–not the least of which was blaming any criticism on the pro-Israel lobby which, he thinks, pretty much controls the debate in this country and claiming that a vocal pro-Palestinian viewpoint is “nonexistent in this country to any detectable degree.” Bûllšhìŧ, says I.
And like most bullies he won’t dare debate the issue with anyone with a better grasp of the facts, like, anyone.
But don’t take my word for it. Go to the library and read the book, paying close attention to the weird religious aspects of his story–upon his first visit to Israel he tells Golda Meir ”I said that I had long taught lessons from the Hebrew Scriptures and that a common historical pattern was that Israel was punished whenever the leaders turned away from devout worship of God. I asked if she was concerned about the secular nature of her Labor government.”
Yikes. No wonder his Center is bleeding members.
Rob, I think you’re right that Obama has a good shot at the presidency–once his main weakness is fixed, which is his inexperience. Best scenario for him–Hillary wins the nomination, is beaten in the election (no guarantees for either I hasten to add) and the party turns to him. If it’s McCain that wins the presidency he may well be a one term president purely on age and health issues. If it’s anyone else a lot will depend on events we can’t predict.
Even if Hillary wins and has 2 terms in office, Obama is a young man in 2016. And it isn’t like he will lose his charisma and likeability any time soon. His political gifts are considerable.
I don’t think being black is a hindrance to him at all. yeah, there are those who will vote against him just based on that but there is also a desire in this country for a black president–people practically begged Colin Powell to run. Off the top of my head I can’t remember any other politician who was so courted.
I’m not sure Barack Obama is, either. I don’t think he’s got enough experience and, frankly, I still think there’s sizable pockets of this country that don’t put a black man in office
The good news is, most of those pockets aren’t going to be inclined to vote Democrat, anyway.
As for the lack of experience, I don’t think it’ll be a significant factor. In fact, it might even turn out to be a plus. Every time someone uses that as a knock against him on the campaign trail, all Obama has to do is point out the collective experience of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, etc., and where that’s gotten us.
That said, I also hope Gore jumps in. A Gore/Obama ticket would be incredible.
I’m voting for Lex Luthor again. He’s tan, he’s rested, he’s ready.
Michael, Bill’s answer to your question — surprise — is “nothing.”
Propogating a whisper campaign that Hillary is engaging in a whisper campaign. Libeling Jimmy Carter that he engages in libel. That is Totally Normal Psychology.™
I think we need someone who is on the side of it’s citizens (not consumers). I was completely going to support Joe Biden in his run, but after he and that nutcase Disneycrat Feinstein decided to support DRM for all things media .. the both lose my vote.
It’s about time we stop talking about “electablity” and stop letting our elected officials only help business interests. They serve us.
As far as Obama’s experience level .. he doesn’t NEED to be a 2 term Gov. or a 6 term Senator. He’s done quite lot and seems to have a grasp on how things work. I agree with PAD .. the cost to protect him will probably double from those of W or previous office holders. Based on my day to day experience living in “fly over space” .. there are quite a few racist bášŧárdš who’d ban together just to take him out. 🙁
Yeah, we had the “I’m in and I’m in to win” quote mentioned up here, too, and if that’s the sort of platitude she’s going to be deluging us with (yeah, like she’d in it to lose?) I’d go with the other guy … assuming I was in a position to vote down there.
I’m largely in agreement with you, Peter, except that I’d have replaced “surprised” with “thrilled” in the blog entry’s title.
I’ve long viewed Hilary as nothing more than possibly the best of a limited range of options. I like much about her, but I also dislike much about her. I think much of the criticism leveled at her would not be if she were male, but at the same time, her New York senatorship was a bit dubious, and her assertion that she had long been a Yankees fan, was nothing more than shameless. I don’t mind her running for President after two terms as Senator, mostly because I expected her to. Had she run after only one term, even I’d have been surprised at the chutzpah.
With Obama, I think he has a great public image. His inexperience may be the biggest thing against him, especially if his opponents capitalize on it effectively, and his is own campaign doesn’t de-emphasize it effectively. I find your comment about growing up in the 60’s to be a bit odd, since I would think that noting how 40-50 years have passed would be an argument against the idea that racism would hurt his campaign. The question I see would be one of the degree to which racism has lessened since then, rather than the existence of it back then. If you’re right, and this isn’t the year for it, then at least we can smile that it eventually will be, since the minority population is growing, and the Caucasian one is well, turning into the minority one. (If current trends continue, it will be by between 2040 and 2050, according to the Census Bureau, as reported in the 11.10.06 The Week.)
And as far as assassination, well, every high-profile public figure receives death threats, and the President receives lots of them every year. When Bill Clinton came to speak at one of my home town’s schools prior to his reelection, the Secret Service naturally had some of the streets closed off, and were on every rooftop. This would be no different for Obama.
As for whether either of them won’t go over well with certain pockets of the country, I admit I’m not sure. I hope that that’s not true. I would think that if Clinton wins the nomination that she should select Obama as her running mate as a natural choice. I don’t think I can see the converse, since Clinton’s experience vs. Obama’s inexperience makes it unlikely. With such ticket, I wonder if they would have a lock on the vote of both women and minorities, who would be aching to see the first female President, and first minority Vice President. Not the most sound motive for selecting a candidate, mind you, but in observing what is rather than what ought, it’s pretty much what goes on in politics these days, with Schwarzenegger being a prime example, and the notion that Obama’s name is somehow relevant being another.
Gore? Can’t say I disagree with your reasoning. If he and his people could make sure that he not make the same mistakes pertaining to his past lack of charisma, and counter the right-wingers’ lies about him (Love Canal, inventing the Internet, etc.), then yeah, he could make it work. It’d be worth it, if for no other reason than to shove it in the face of people like Sean Hannity, who assuredly insisted back before the 2000 Election results that there wouldn’t be anything for him in 2004 or thereafter if he didn’t win.
Chadwick H. Saxelid: Last year, or the year before, my dad (who is a staunch republican) told me that he believed it would be an Clinton/Obama ticket and that they would would easily win. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if that turned out to be the case, or if the Pres/Vice Pres roles were switched and it turned out to be an Obama/Clinton ticket.
Luigi Novi: No way. A two term-senator and former, very pro-active First Lady, as the running mate of a junior senator just finishing out his first term?
Mike: I think we can kiss John McCain goodbye. From his behavior, it seems like he was counting on Bush staying the course, and early-campaigning by saying we need a surge. Then, not wanting McCain’s campaign to define his legacy, Bush started pitching for a surge. He might have enough support to put up a fight in the primaries, but the coining of the phrase “McCain Doctrine” has pretty much ended McCain’s presidential chances.
Luigi Novi: The fact that McCain is a more moderate, less religiously fanatical person than Bush, imminently more qualified, and a combat veteran and POW, would definitely make him attractive to the non-extremist Republican voters, and for that matter, the fence-sitters. One also has to keep in mind the unpredictable effects that the tactics used in marketing and campaigning for him, especially if the party puts their full force behind him (as was ostensibly promised to him for supporting Bush), can have. Campaigning tactics are probably the hardest wild card variable to discern. Looking at McCain’s record versus Bush’s, McCain should’ve won the nomination in 2000, but didn’t. Who knows what could happen with the right campaign and the Party behind him?
Nat Gertler: Actually, to be absolutely correct, Clinton and all the other Senators who voted for it did something worse. They did not vote to get us into the war. They voted to abdicate their responsibility, and to vest the president with a power that the Constitution specifies belongs to the legislative branch.
Luigi Novi: I’m not sure I understand this point. That power is precisely what’s being exercised when she, as a member of that branch, voted in that manner. It’s not that the separation of powers was violated; it’s that you disagreed with the way she voted. (Or am I misunderstanding you here? If so, sorry.)
Czar: But I’m pulling for John Edwards, maybe I’m right, maybe I’m wrong but there is something about him that makes me think that if he gets elected, things will be okay.
Luigi Novi: Yeah, except for obstetricians. And their patients. And everyone who has to pay higher medical costs to cover their malpractice insurance. And anyone going to a hospital where the doctors can’t disclose important information for fear of being sued.
Matt Adler: My choice for president would be Joe Biden. He’s the smartest of all the candidates, and after 8 years of Bush, brains is what we need.
Luigi Novi: Yeah, but when he gives his inauguration speech, let’s pay close attention to see if it’s the same as Bush’s. 🙂
Or rewritten without authorization by his staff. 🙂
Patrick: The main problem with Hillary, is more than any other politician, she comes across as not caring about what America’s best interest is, but rather what Hillary’s best interest is.
Luigi Novi: Show me one politician for whom that is not true, or for that matter, who can afford to.
Kelly: Sorry, my cat decided I was done typing and clicked the trackpad for me.
Bill Mulligan: You cat probably has as good a chance of predicting the outcome as anyone else here. Hëll, Bill Myers’ cat write me emails.
Luigi Novi: Geez, next to your cats, guys, my little Elsa really sucks.
Rob Brown: Saying “I shouldn’t even try because there are still a lot of racists in this country who would vote against me because of how I look” does not make any sense, frankly.
Luigi Novi: Well, he didn’t say that, only that he was afraid that someone who try to assassinate him. Not that he shouldn’t run because of it.
Rob Brown: OK, but if the Republicans don’t have anybody particularly electable since McCain and Giuliani ran into problems, Gore has a good chance anyway.
Luigi Novi: Giuliani’s only problems, as I recall, was that he developed colon cancer. Isn’t it presumably now in remission?
michael j norton: Personally I’m still voting for Dennis Kucinich. The man actually wants a Dept. of Peace. How can you beat that?
Luigi Novi: By pointing out to him that we already have one. It’s called the State Department. And the Diplomatic Corps.
Bill Mulligan: Even if Hillary wins and has 2 terms in office, Obama is a young man in 2016.
Luigi Novi: I take it you mean by comparison, since he’ll be 55.
As for the lack of experience, I don’t think it’ll be a significant factor. In fact, it might even turn out to be a plus. Every time someone uses that as a knock against him on the campaign trail, all Obama has to do is point out the collective experience of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, etc., and where that’s gotten us.
I don’t know…that would imply that one thinks that experience is, in and of itself, actually BAD for you. Which is illogical.
I mean, if having less experience is actually a good thing we could probably find someone with even less experience. Some nutty guy in New Jersey, furiously typing away at his keyboard. No good would come of this, no good I say.
If Obama spends the next few years carefully working with both sides of the aisle in congress, voting his conscious but always declining from demonizing the other side–and he’s shown signs that this is the way he operates–he would be formidable.
There’s a danger in attempting this too soon–the Democratic party is seldom kind to its defeated warriors. Anyone seen Michael Dukakis lately? If he runs and loses he might not get another chance.
Then again, flavor of the months don’t last forever either. But I think with Obama we have something quite a bit different from the usual media star du jour. There’s a certain quality, hard to define, but he’s got “it”.
Anyhoo…here’s the latest poll from the Wash Post:
Clinton — 41%t
Obama– 17%
Edwards–11%
Gore–10%
Kerry–8%
On the Republican side it’s all the two guys that some non-republican insist can’t get the nomination, oddly enough
Giuliani–34%
McCain–27%
Romney–9%
Gingrich–9%
Which is also the order in which I think they would be strongest against Clinton. She’d crush Gingrich, probably beat Romney, have a very close race against McCain and lose to Giuliani.
All of this is assuming the election were held today, which, one must concede, it isn’t.
Bill Mulligan: I don’t know…that would imply that one thinks that experience is, in and of itself, actually BAD for you. Which is illogical.
Luigi Novi: If one thinks of Scotus’ idea vis à vis what spinmeisters can emphasize and drive home into the public’s minds, then whether it’s logical may be beside the point.
Bill Mulligan: I mean, if having less experience is actually a good thing we could probably find someone with even less experience. Some nutty guy in New Jersey, furiously typing away at his keyboard. No good would come of this, no good I say.
Luigi Novi: Okay, that hurt.
🙂
“all Obama has to do is point out the collective experience of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, etc., and where that’s gotten us.”
Other than what Bill said about the oddity of claiming that experience is bad, Bush is actually the President that *proves* inexperience is bad. His only political experience before his Presidency was being the governor of a state where the governor has very little power.
Ben, what’s DRM?
Luigi- Yeah, except for obstetricians. And their patients. And everyone who has to pay higher medical costs to cover their malpractice insurance. And anyone going to a hospital where the doctors can’t disclose important information for fear of being sued.
My ex-wife (a doctor) says that Edwards is the one candidate who would get her to vote Republican. Unless that republican was Romney–she’s from a family with a Mormon background and, well, has issues with the religion. But her hostility toward Edwards is pretty common among a lot of the doctors I know.
Giuliani’s only problems, as I recall, was that he developed colon cancer. Isn’t it presumably now in remission?
I think most people are referring to problems like his 3 marriages…but if it doesn’t bother the Republican base (and he is doing awfully well in the polls if that’s the case) I don’t see that as much of a problem.
But you raise an interesting point–both Republican front runners have had health issues. What if something, God forbid, pops up during the campaign? These are the kinds of intangibles that can’t be foreseen and can make a huge impact.
I take it you mean by comparison, since he’ll be 55.
It’s funny but 55 is seeming to be not nearly as old to me as it once was 🙂
No, no, Luigi, I said “some guy.”
I mean, some NUTTY guy.
50 years is also the span of time between the release of Birth of a Nation, portraying the kkk as standard-bearers of Arthurian chivalry against the sexually predatory freed slaves, and Bill Cosby as the first main stream media of a black man who carried a gun but was not a criminal.
Whatever experience you speak from, vour optimism is also typical of the racially privileged.
Those are sound-bytes from the 2004 campaign minimizing the greed of insurance companies. Insurance company profits are fûçkìņg huge.
My posts are mostly citations. Who types more furiously (or libels, or passes rumor for fact) than you?
Mike, I thought that his comment was a reference to me, since I live in Jersey (having stated so more than once, including recently on the board pertaining to the stench last week), and since his comment was made after I made a post of considerable length.
Bill Mulligan: But you raise an interesting point–both Republican front runners have had health issues. What if something, God forbid, pops up during the campaign? These are the kinds of intangibles that can’t be foreseen and can make a huge impact.
Luigi Novi: Yeah, between President Drunk/Possible Ex-Coke Whørë, and Vice President Four Heart Attacks, we can be certain that the public really cares about things like the health of the candidates. 🙂
Mike: Whatever experience you speak from, vour optimism is also typical of the racially privileged.
Luigi Novi: My statement was based on observations of fact, the details of which I cited. Not optimism.
As for privilege, I’m not certain what privileges you think being white has afforded me. But if you could name some, please do so.
Mike: Those are sound-bytes from the 2004 campaign minimizing the greed of insurance companies. Insurance company profits are fûçkìņg huge.
Luigi Novi: They are comments based on the fact that Edwards made between 40 and 80 million dollars, mainly by suing doctors and hospitals, some of his biggest fees of which were earned suing on behalf of children born with cerebral palsy, which he claimed was caused by lack of oxygen to the baby’s brain during childbirth. Edwards argued that the cp would’ve been prevented by a c-section. One of the results of this is that doctors, fearful of litigation (admittedly among other reasons), began performing more c-sections, which have quadrupled from 6% of all births in 1970 to 28% in 2003.
And the results via incidence of cerebral palsy?
Nothing.
There hasn’t been a decrease in as a result of the more frequent c-sections. Scientists now say that cp is rarely caused by anything done during delivery. When you consider that a cesarean section, while relatively safe, is a painful operation (more painful than natural childbirth, according to Dr. Edgar Mandeville of the CDC), with a three-to-five-fold risk of death from hemorrhage, infections, pulmonary embolism, etc., you hope you understand the derivation of my comment. It certainly isn’t from the last election, since I don’t really recall much from the election about Edwards in general or his malpractice lawsuits in particular.
But then again, you could’ve asked me what my sources were, instead of assuming them.
(Sources: Center for Disease Control; National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities; American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Academy of Pediatrics. Cited in Myths, Lies and Downright Stupidity by John Stossel; Pages 167-169)
Mike: My posts are mostly citations.
Luigi Novi: Just out of curiosity, where are your citations for the assertions you’ve just made to me?
Ben, what’s DRM?
Bill, DRM is Digital Rights Management .. or as I would like to call it .. Digital Restriction Management.
The best example is iTunes. The music you buy is restricted to devices that are authorized to play them. With some kinds of DRM they can actual revoke your right to use what you’ve purchased. This doesn’t have anything to do with protecting the artists, but instead with protecting the revenue stream of an outdated business model. It basically revokes all fair usage right that you thought you had. It can also be made to work so that you have to buy the same media over and over and over again in different formats for different devices. I don’t know about anyone else, but I don’t want to buy a CD for $15 then have to buy a music file to play it on my iPod and then buy it again when they figure up some new format to have us buy the stuff all over again. I went from 8 track to LP to Cass. to CD .. enough is bloody enough. We should be able to convert the already purchased format to the new format without losing quality as it happens you do with converting .aac (iTunes) to CD audio .aiff then back to .mp3. We should just have high quality portable files.
Note: I pick on iTunes, but Microsoft’s formats are tainted by DRM as well and it’s even more hellish.
Biden, Feinstein and two “unnamed” republicans want to inflict this on the whole of the population for everything media. As long as they support that crap .. they are big D Disneycrats to me and no better then the business friendly right.
It’s about time we start calling ourselves citizens again instead of consumers .. consumers have no rights but citizens do.
Yeah, between President Drunk/Possible Ex-Coke Whørë, and Vice President Four Heart Attacks, we can be certain that the public really cares about things like the health of the candidates.
Oh I’m not saying the public cares but if the guy turns blue and keels over in the middle of a debate it’s gonna cost him a few points.
Mike, I thought that his comment was a reference to me, since I live in Jersey (having stated so more than once, including recently on the board pertaining to the stench last week), and since his comment was made after I made a post of considerable length.
Actually I was just thinking about the earlier “smell” posting. I don’t recall if Mike ever said he’s from New Jersey but then again I find him altogether less fascinating than, well, most things. Don’t know why he would think it was referring to him unless it was the “nutty” description. Well…
But I’m sure your reasoned arguments will convince him of the error of his ways.
John Edwards–have to give him at least the following credit–by not running for re-election he managed to turn himself from a probable 1 term senator into a legitimate contender for the presidency. That’s not too shabby.
Thinking it over, except for McCain and Clinton, it’s kind of hard to imagine what kind of president any of the major candidates would be. President Giuliani? No idea. President Obama? You got me. President Kerry? Ok THAT I think I can imagine, but it isn’t much better than President Nameless Nut (D-NJ).
Ben–thanks. Right there with ya, bro.
Any way to find out who the republican supporters are?
You know, a candidate who came out STRONGLY for consumer rights might morethan make up for the loss of funding from the record companies.
Guess I’ve posted too many times today–having trouble getting through! (Though if you can see this…oh well, I’ve never figured out what triggers the anti-spam filter).
Anyway, Luigi, I only picked New Jersey because it was on my mind from the previous “smell” thread. Don’t know why Mike would think it applied to him, unless it was the “nutty” qualifier. Well…
I don’t think that candidate health is high on the voter’s mind but if one of them coughs up blood and faints during one of the debates it could raise concerns.
Ben, thanks for the info. Right there with you. Any way to find out who the unnamed Republicans are?
Surrounded by people who voted blacks into Washington, are you?
For one, a movie portraying the males of your ethnicity exclusively as sexually predators — with southern states crowded with guys who look like you and apparently one woman of the same ethnicity to share among you — didn’t dominate film houses for 25 years.
For another, you don’t have to worry about housing brokers losing interest in serving you based your skin color, or car salesmen charging you more based on the same.
Last year a study was done at a major university where subjects were bombarded randomly with ethnic imagery and the random invocation of virtues and vices. While some people were able to attribute favorable characteristics evenly among ethnicities evenly (establishing the standard for objectivity), most people demonstrated a bias favoring white males — including black and lesbian subjects.
I can only imagine such a bias — where even blacks and lesbians default to trusting people who aren’t like them — is only more powerful when you don’t even acknowledge it exists.
From the way you’ve framed things, if the insurance companies are charging their fees — from which they make their fûçkìņg huge profits — to make doctors feel safer, they seem to be doing a piss-poor job.
What assertions are you referring to?
No wonder you feel free to libel democrats, pass along whisper campaigns against them, and weigh fantasy charges against them the same as rumors against republicans you admit are likely.
A doctor, or woman with the potential to be a doctor, found you attractive, you asked her to marry you, she agreed — tell us you didn’t break this poor woman’s heart because your smug macho pretense was ultimately more important to you than she was.
You wanna say again you don’t know why I thought you were referring to me, google-stalker — or are you lying again?