Democrats & Liberals Archives

Sizing up the 08 Field

It’s tough being a political junkie. As soon as one election is over, you start pining for the next one. The urge to speculate is irresistible. So keeping in mind the caveat that no one has a clue what is going to happen over the next two years to change the dynamics, here is how I see the presidential field in 08.


Hillary Clinton is clearly the front-runner. She is a fascinating figure, and someone could write a book or two on her place in the American psyche. I think it is fair to say that conservatives are obsessed with her, far more than liberals are. Personally, she leaves me lukewarm. My biggest reservation is the dynastic implication of a second Clinton presidency.

A prediction: Barack Obama will not get the nomination. Looking back at the past few election cycles, the tortoise (aka, The Comeback Kid) usually beats the hare in these nomination races. Howard Dean was the hare last time, and Obama is this time. The question is: who is the tortoise?

Al Gore has the look of a tortoise. On paper, he is at least as qualified as all of the other candidates. While he was not an outstanding campaigner by any means, he didn’t make any major mistakes in 2000. There were no botched jokes or Mary Cheney moments. He didn’t get photographed in any odd uniforms. While the Bush team managed to work the media to exploit tiny misstatements, I doubt they will play along again. Furthermore, I think we can safely assume that any booby traps in his past have been found and detonated by now. If the Democrats want to play it safe, they go with Al.

John Edwards has a lot in common with Barack Obama. Both are good communicators with thin resumes. Either would make perfectly decent vice presidents. Edwards polls well now against Republicans, but heaven knows what that means at this early date.

John Kerry is going to get a handshake and a gold watch.

Bill Richardson and Tom Vilsack have a lot in common. Both are governors who are almost unknown to the public. Bill Richardson looks good on paper, having served in Congress, as ambassador to the UN, and finally as the Governor of New Mexico. He is, however, prone to giving people “noogies”. I’m not kidding. Tom Vilsack is a orphan, which may actually open him to a creative line of the attack from the GOP. Seriously, can’t you just see one of the GOP’s resident heavies explaining how he never developed good family values?

The rest of the pack doesn’t look very promising. I liked Wes Clark at first, then realized that there was something really creepy about him when you see him on TV. Evan Bayh is dull and too nonpartisan*, and he already withdrew. Joe Biden got caught plagiarizing a mediocre politician.

Aside from my prediction about Obama, I will only state the obvious: Clinton is the one to beat now.


Looking at the current slate of possible candidates, it is easy to argue that none of them can win the GOP nomination: John McCain is relatively old (70) and many conservatives distrust him. Rudy Giuliani is far more liberal, but, oddly, more trusted by many conservatives. Condi Rice is implicated in the mistakes leading up to the Iraq War, and she’s, well, an unmarried Black woman. (Black would be a first; woman would be a first; unmarried would almost be a first.) Mitt Romney is a Mormon**, and his last job was Governor of Sodom. Newt Gingrich is too abrasive, and he’s a philandering Clinton-bashing hypocrite to boot.

The problem with this analysis of course, is that somebody has to win the nomination, and in all likelihood it will be one of the above. I just can’t begin to guess who. McCain is the frontrunner, but that also makes him the biggest target.

*Yeah, I know. Americans are tired of the negativity and are yearning for a candidate to reach across the aisle. We want politicians to stop bickering and work together to solve problems. The MSM says this before every presidential election. It never happens.

**This is more significant than it may appear at first glance. Mormons have substantial theological differences with other Christians, and even with the larger Judeo-Christian tradition. Being an agnostic Jewish liberal I could hardly care less about these distinctions, but I think it will be a big issue on the GOP side.

Posted by Woody Mena at January 7, 2007 9:40 AM
Comment #201851

‘As soon as one election is over….’

The next one starts … and the candidates are more concerned with their political futures than the people’s business.
I would be more inclined to pick someone who isn’t taking 2yrs off work to run for president.

You are right about Clark - creepy. I didn’t know anyone else thought that about him.
Romney may do ok if he plays his ‘mormon card’ right.

From your list above - Richardson - need to know more about him though.

Most of the rest of them would cause more rifts than togetherness.
Most of them just don’t ‘carry’ themselves ‘like a President’.

I am waiting for the ‘new guy’.
The one that is fairly well known. Does his job. Hasn’t been running to the microphone every 5 minutes to get his face out to the public.

Posted by: dawn at January 7, 2007 10:07 AM
Comment #201853

Great post! Dont worry about pining for the next election. Team trades and new contracts are fun, too. Remember, if not for the off season, there wouldnt be an opening day to look forward to.

Posted by: JoeRWC at January 7, 2007 10:11 AM
Comment #201854

I have 2010 election figured out too, as far as Barack Obama goes. If he is elected pres or veep, of course, it won’t be an issue.

Otherwise, he can run for Governor of Illinois in 2010. This will take advantage of the happy fact that the end of his first Senate term will coincide with the end of IL Gov. Blagojevich’s term in office. Then he will be well positioned to run for pres in 2012 and/or 2016.

The only catch is that Blago is a Democrat and may want to run for re-election. But he could probably could be “convinced” otherwise, perhaps with a dead horse’s head.

Just kidding. Democrats would never tolerate cruelty to animals. ;)

Posted by: Woody Mena at January 7, 2007 10:19 AM
Comment #201857

I love Al. During the entire Bush presidency I couldn’t help but think about how much better off we would be with him. I couldn’t have been the only one.

I like Hillary too, but I’m convinced she could never win. She’s been demonized by the right, where there are many folks who hate her. It’s not a rational thing. She won’t win.

Do not underestimate the cult of Obama. This man went to Texas recently and people mobbed him. He might be the real deal, a leader of the times who can pull this country together and move it forward. I’m waiting to make my final decision about him, but I think any presidential candidate would be lucky to run with him on the ticket.

Another thing that bodes well for democrats is that republicans used to have some candidates, like McCain, Powell, Condaleeza, or Guiliani who I would have considered voting for a while back, but now I can’t even stomach thinking about them. They’ve shown who they are now, and it’s made the country sick.

Posted by: Max at January 7, 2007 11:14 AM
Comment #201859
This man went to Texas recently and people mobbed him.

With apologies to the Great State of Texas…

they weren’t holding a rope, were they? ;)

Posted by: Woody Mena at January 7, 2007 11:38 AM
Comment #201860

I personally still like Biden, but I’m realistic. On an electability scale of 1 to 10, he comes in at about a 3 or a 4.

Richardson would have been my #2 pick, but somehow the “noogie” thing leaves me with a strange mental picture, something like the Bush/Merkel “tickle & grab” with a certain degree of pain.

Posted by: KansasDem at January 7, 2007 11:50 AM
Comment #201864

Nice article, Woody. If I had my druthers, it would be Al Gore. I think the time in the wilderness, so to speak, will make him a stronger candidate/campaigner.

I’m lukewarm on Hillary. I think Edwards is a bit smarmy, Kerry is dead on arrival, Obama too inexperienced, and Vilsack too unknown (though that doesn’t rule him out of course). Richardson I kind of like but not as much as Al Gore.

I suspect Gore means it though when he says he won’t run. I hope he changes his mind.

Who knows, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see either Guiliani or McCain as the Republican nomination. Gingrich may run but I don’t think he has a chance. Actually, tactically speaking, it might be best for the Dems if he get the nomination. I just don’t see that, though.

Posted by: Trent at January 7, 2007 12:26 PM
Comment #201875

This was a great post Woody.

As a Libertarian/Capitalist/swings right, I like Obama. The guy presents himself in a profesional manner, that just says all about the business.

Hillary scares me, too much talk, too little walk. Kind of resembles the W. in that sense. He did a lot of good talking as Governor then became president. I fear the same from Hillary, no war, but then again… war is not the only way to screw up a country.

Gingrich isn’t abrasie, he is down right evil. I have never heard him speak with out hating something. I wouldn’t vote for him even if he was running against Nixon.

Gore acts too much like a puppet. He seems to lack any personal motivation. That can be a bad thing in a highly partisan government from either side. History has proven this. If he had a balanced congress behind him, he would get my vote.

I like McCain, he is old, but he is a centerist, and holds close to the original Republican ideals of small government and the strength of the individual, not the neo-con judeo-christian jihad of today’s republican.

Dido for Giuliani.

I guess who I would really like to see win is either Obama or Nader, yes I voted Nader once and I will do it again. I like him, that won’t change.

Posted by: Bryan AJ Kennedy at January 7, 2007 1:27 PM
Comment #201878

If Iraq does not cease to be a quagmire by the 2008 election, and if Gore gets the right kind of packaging as the guy who would have prevented much of the mess we are in, Gore could win the popular vote. The public is becoming very attuned to the global climate change issue and Gore would indeed chart a course out of Iraq. Gore however, would have to field a credible plan to deal with the train wreck coming between national debt and retiring boomers. If he can do that, I believe he will be our next president.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 7, 2007 1:40 PM
Comment #201889

I supported McCain in the 2000 primaries. I still like him, but I am considering Mitt Romney. He will face anti-Mormon bigotry & his being governor of Mass may not help in SC, but he is clearly one of the most intelligent guys in the race and a proven good manager.


Gore cannot come up with a entitlement plan. He does not have the ability.

Re climate change, that topic is easily overtaken by others. Bush was an early advocate, but anybody can jump on that wagon, perhaps with more practical solutions. Bush will soon begin to make some moves and by 2008, all the candidates will have a global warming plank. Gore will be a leader in the way that Atari was a leader in video games.

Posted by: Jack at January 7, 2007 2:30 PM
Comment #201897
Richardson would have been my #2 pick, but somehow the “noogie” thing leaves me with a strange mental picture

Richardson should be OK, as long we keep him away from Kim Jong Il. That guy is just begging for a noogie. Seriously, get those two in a room and we might be one “nyuk nyuk nyuk” away from nuclear annihilation.

I suspect Gore means it though when he says he won’t run.

He is apparently leaving the door open.


I appreciate the compliment, but how does a right-swinging capitalist support Nader? Just wondering.

David and Jack,

I would be surprised if anyone managed to sell serious changes in SS next year.

Posted by: Woody Mena at January 7, 2007 4:00 PM
Comment #201907


That would depend on what ones definition of capitalist.

In my opinion the definition I identify myself with would be:

“One who believes in ones right to own and freely acquire more.”

Large corperations often operate in a manner that crosses the boundaries between government, private, and non-profit. I believe any corssing between such boundaries is an act against an individuals right to ‘obtain more’.

Many of today’s corperations are owned in part by the government, such as 4 out of 6 media networks (not espn or c-span). This is very close to socialism/communism.

I also believe that all property/possessions should be owned in private by a person, not an entity. No one should be able to leave an inheritance to a cat or NASDAQ or anything else that isn’t homosapien.

I am not totally against big business. I like the manner in which Microsoft operates. They have had many opportunities to buy out the Unix and Macintosh. Yet, they have not, in all respects to the laws against monopolizing.

I am against the idea of false advertisement to any degree. If you show someone skinny and happy eating a triple thick 1 1/2 pound burger, super-extra-deluxo fries, and 64 oz soda, that is in my personal opinion of false advertisement. If you were a 5’6” female roughly weighing 120 pounds, your stomach would burst before comsuming that entire meal, that is false information.

I got about another thousand or so examples of how the majority of corperations are anti-capitalism, but I don’t want to spend too much time posting about something not relevant to the original topic.

Just thought I would be curtious and answer an intelligent question with an intelligent answer.

Posted by: Bryan AJ Kennedy at January 7, 2007 4:31 PM
Comment #201913

Jack said: “Gore cannot come up with a entitlement plan. He does not have the ability.”

I haven’t a clue what you are talking about. Come up with an entitlement plan? You must be referring to someone else’s comment.

Bush denied the human factor to global climate change until just a year ago. He had been listening to the 15.8 million dollar Exxon disinformation campaign saying their products were not exacerbating climate change. Bush is a Johnny come Lately on this issue and only because of Gore’s immense success in promulgating the issue. My daughter in an extremely Republican school district just finished watching Gore’s movie and doing a report on it.

Of course, Bush is no longer popular in this heavily Republican hill country of Texas, and that’s saying something.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 7, 2007 4:51 PM
Comment #201914

Woody: As always a great post. I would offer these thoughts: (1) the next six months will be critical in clarifying the 2008 picture; (2) the 2008 GOP candidate will be a throw-away candidate just as Bob Dole was in 1996; (3) in light of #2, I expect McCain will pull off the nomination and win in the neighborhood of 200 electoral votes; (4) Al Gore is a man to watch over the next 6 months; (5) the Democratic party comes out of the 2006 cycle quite disciplined, unified, and organized while the GOP now finds itself in disarray and seems to be digging itself even deeper into a hole (courtesy of the fundamentalist right and GWB); (6) there has been a lot of sotto voce discussion in Democratic circles that regardless of who gets the top slot on the ticket, Obama will hold the second slot; (7) current electoral math suggests Hillary can win every state Kerry won in 2004 plus pick up Florida and Ohio with ease; (8) there was polling done the middle of December which showed a Clinton/Obama ticket vs a generic GOP ticket winning Kerry’s 19 states plus Ohio, Florida, Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, New Mexico, and Virginia (barely)——- at this point, I think a Clinton/Obama ticket quite likely; (9) repeating #1, the next 6 months are critical to clarifying the 2008 picture.

Posted by: Dr Poshek at January 7, 2007 4:53 PM
Comment #201915

Woody, serious changes, perhaps. Big changes, likely not. Saving S.S. will require Bush exiting the White House and getting someone with an eye to political reality in there.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 7, 2007 4:53 PM
Comment #201917


“getting someone with an eye to political reality in there.”

Are you suggesting a re-elecion of Bill Clinton.

If so, I’m game for it.

We can even make his add say

“Bill Clinton, a JFK for the new millenium.”

I like it, I’ll start printing the flyers next week.

Posted by: Bryan AJ Kennedy at January 7, 2007 5:02 PM
Comment #201919


You seem to have a misunderstanding about the Clinton and also GWB (judging by your post in the center). Unless the Constitution changes, they cannot run again.

Posted by: Woody Mena at January 7, 2007 5:19 PM
Comment #201920


“Unless the Constitution changes, they cannot run again.”

You are correct.

U.S. Constitution. Bill of Rights.
Amendment 22. Ratified 1951. Section 1.

“No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.”

‘Then it goes on stating that it does not effect the President currently holding office in 1951. Section 2 is irrelevant to anything after the ratification of the amendment’

I was just being humorous on both accounts. The truth in the humor being that it could change, just probably-most-very-likely-not.

I firmly believe that one only yields true knowledge with a light heart. That is why I try to put a little humor into it. If it is a problem I will stop, I have no intentions of offending anyone and would prefer not to.

We as humans are generally bias to our own desires and perceptions. The sterner we become the less likely we are to acknowledge an instance when we are incorrect.

It is human nature, I am just as guilty of it.

In fact, my New Year’s resolution has been to stand before each new idea as a friend of it.

Posted by: Bryan AJ Kennedy at January 7, 2007 5:46 PM
Comment #201923


I missed the irony.

I have met several educated people who were under the impression that no one can be elected President more than twice in a row, so I figured you were part of that camp.

Posted by: Woody Mena at January 7, 2007 6:33 PM
Comment #201932

“We as humans are generally bias to our own desires and perceptions”


No truer words have ever been spoken. For instance, I’m much more acutely aware of the need for Social Security and Medicare after falling ill at the age of 51 and ending up on Social Security Disability. Prior to that time (2001) I had actually thought privatization, at least in part, MAY not have been a bad idea.

Now, with an ERISA appeal still pending after 5+ years, and still not seeing a penny from my CIGNA disabilty policy I’m pretty damn soildly opposed to any privatization scheme. I’m not surprised to see that CIGNA also rated very poorly in their first year of providing Medicare Part D benifits.

Individual life experiences definitely shape one’s political opinion.

Posted by: KansasDem at January 7, 2007 7:40 PM
Comment #201933

“no one can be elected President more than twice in a row”


Didn’t the 22nd amendment take care of this?

I mean without repeal of the 22nd amendment we couldn’t possibly face another Clinton (Bill), or Bush (GW) term could we?

I know I’m playing the “rube” here but I must hear the punch line.

Posted by: KansasDem at January 7, 2007 7:53 PM
Comment #201943

Sen. Hillary Clinton is going to dominate once she enters the race

Posted by: Alex at January 7, 2007 9:08 PM
Comment #201944


I wasn’t trying to be funny, but apparently I wasn’t clear.

We all agree that Bill Clinton and George HW Bush cannot be re-elected without a change to the Constitution.

If there is a joke Bryan can explain it.

Posted by: Woody Mena at January 7, 2007 9:16 PM
Comment #201951


I’d hoped you’d quote Steny Hoyer opposing Presidential term limits.

Posted by: KansasDem at January 7, 2007 10:36 PM
Comment #201952

“…one only yields true knowledge with a light heart….”

Quick! Somebody cut out Dick Cheney’s heart and set it on fire!

Posted by: Tim Crow at January 7, 2007 10:56 PM
Comment #201969


Would it burn with a hard, gem-like flame? Somehow I doubt it. Regardless, you assume Cheney has a heart.

Posted by: Trent at January 8, 2007 1:06 AM
Comment #201978

Good posts. With regards to the Dems 08 nominee, a few thoughts.

Hillary Clinton: A pretty hard sell. While control of Congress for 2 years might moderate the Democratic base a bit, I think 6 years under Bush and the Republicans has shifted a lot of the Democrat primary voters further left than the mainstream, especially in the Northeast and West Coast. I remember Michael Moore calling out the dire warnings of things to come for Hillary after what’shisface knocked of Lieberman for the Connecticut Senate nomination. Also, some pastor got in trouble for saying this, but he’s essentially right; Clinton runnning for President would bring out more Republicans to the polls to vote against her than if Satan ran. Sorry to all of you Clinton fans out there, but that’s a fact. Hillary is way to polarizing, most people already either love her or hate her. Plus, she’s still got to deal with the fact that she’s a woman, a not insignificant hurdle to overcome.

Obama: I’m not in the States and haven’t been for the last 2 years, so I’m a bit out of it, but I really don’t get all of the hubub about him. He’s very professional and comes off as a nice guy, but he’s ridiculously inexperienced. Being the only black Senator can either help or hurt depending on what state you’re in, but I really don’t think he’s ready for the Presidency. Might be a good choice for VP though.

Al Gore: Already had his shot, and he has about as much charisma as the stump he speaks from. Sorry, but I don’t think global warming is going to be the decisive issue in 08. Plus, look at his last performance at debate. First he was rude and arrogant. Then the polls came out and showed that people viewed him as rude and arrogant. The next debate, he laid down and looked like a wet blanket. Then the polls came out and said he looked like a wet blanket. So for the last debate, he tried to somehow not lay down while not looking arrogant and just came off as a poll-driven rube. Not a good sign of leadership.

And my thoughts for the GOP:

McCain: I don’t get why he polls so low with some conservatives. I checked out and he’s rated as one of the most conservative Senators out there, even more so than someone the likes of Santorum. He’s also one of the few Republicans who can carry the moderate voters and might even be able to bring some Dems along with him. Is a bit old, though.

Guilliani: His performance on 9/11 pretty much made up for all of his troubles with the mistress. Plus, running NYC is more like being a governor in all but name than a mayor, and the country’s been electing governors for a while now. He’d have to work with some conservatives, especially about his support for abortion and gay rights, but can probably overcome this. Great VP choice if he doesn’t get the nod.

Condi: Issues with connection to current President, plus being a woman plus being black. On the other hand, would also make a great VP choice, especially if Hillary gets the Dem nod. As far as marriage goes, I’m pretty sure Buchanon was the only President who wasn’t married when he was elected, but he was a widower. Condi as a single woman would be a first.

Mitt Romney: I like him, but probably hard to get nominated due to being from Massachuttes, being a Mormon.

One more thing. I think I saw an argument about this on this site before, but the 22nd Amendment only says you can’t be ELECTED more than once. Say Hillary gets the nomination, then makes Bill her VP and promises to resign a day after she’s nominated. Bill would serve out the rest of her term and I think that would be legal, at least the way the amendment is worded.

Posted by: 1LT B at January 8, 2007 3:23 AM
Comment #201983

1LT B,

Hmm, I think there may actually be a loophole there in the 22nd amendment. Interesting. I’m not sure that Bill Clinton could be legally elected VICE-president either though. I direct your attention to the 12th amendment, which regards direct election of the veep.

…But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

Of course, this just begs the question: IS Bill eligible to the office of the President? We are caught in a logical circle.

You could imagine some Rube Goldberg scheme where Bill becomes, say, Speaker of the House first, but I think the law would always require an “eligible” President. Whatever that means.

As for Giuliani — honestly, what I don’t get is why Republicans would support him, when his politics are scarcely different from well, “Satan” (aka Hillary). But if he is really acceptable to the GOP, no complaints from me.

Posted by: Woody Mena at January 8, 2007 6:00 AM
Comment #201984

Another take on the return of President Clinton, with the input of some law professors:

Posted by: Woody Mena at January 8, 2007 6:07 AM
Comment #201985


Interesting point and article about a possible repeat of Bill Clinton. I think that based on the 22nd amendment, Bill wouldn’t qualify to be elected VP, but some of the succession things they talk about in the Slate article might work. On the other hand, to be appointed like Ford, Slick Willie would have to be approved by the Senate, and I think that would be killed in committee.

Posted by: 1LT B at January 8, 2007 7:16 AM
Comment #202008

I think Howard Dean probably would have done fine if it weren’t for his famous yell after Iowa…so I think Obama is in a good position…right behind Hillary and still widely unkown with plenty of ground to gain.

Independents for Obama

Posted by: Independents for Obama at January 8, 2007 11:19 AM
Comment #202015

Seeing how this is still America if Obama gets the nomination,presidency or even the vice he will be the target of assasination. Not pretty but true. He must know this and is a brave man indeed.

Posted by: BillS at January 8, 2007 12:09 PM
Comment #202031

I’m not worried about WJ Clinton (maybe the interns should be tho :-) The real risk is that with Bush still in charge, if a state of emergency were declared and the electoral conference weren’t held, then Congress could allow Bush to remain as President despite the succession act (if for example more Dems than Reps were bumped off by the bomb that caused the state of emergency, etc…)

Also, I believe you can’t be elected VP if you’re inelligible to be Pres.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at January 8, 2007 1:17 PM
Comment #202034

Bill Clinton cannot be president again. However, he does have a fairly good chance of living in the White House again.

Posted by: jlw at January 8, 2007 1:25 PM
Comment #202042

If ther was a way for Bill to run again, He would win. Face it, the White house used to be one of the best party schools in the country…..:)

But seriously, I have to agree with JC. The lack of respect that Arab and eastern asian nations show to women, Bad idea to have a female president. It could very well be viewed as a sign of weakness. And as much as these countries hate us, they do still fear us. Sorry Condi and Hillary:(

John McCain is someone I admire a great deal. He served his country with great honor long before he got into politics. He has a very big veteran following. Yes he is old, but how old was Ronald Reagan??
Al Gore is a very intelligent man. I met him back in the late 80’s, and I was impressed. But he will need to work on his ‘people ” skills if he hopes to have a chance. And maybe some dance lessons..:)

John Edwards…..He inspires no confidence at all. I live in NC and we don’t like him here. He needs to continue chasing ambulances.

Too bad Arnold was born outside the country…

Posted by: Mike S. at January 8, 2007 2:30 PM
Comment #202058


“I believe you can’t be elected VP if you’re inelligible to be Pres.”

This is a true statement.

The Vice-President has the same obligations and is limited by the same legislation as the President.

Bill can not run again as Pres or Vice-Pres. He can hold office as a cabinet member in the executive branch.

From his prior statements, I highly doubt he will. He seems more interested in philanthropy than politics these days.

Posted by: Bryan AJ Kennedy at January 8, 2007 3:33 PM
Comment #202072


Remember, no matter how bad these guys (and gals) look to you, one of them will almost certainly be the winner.

jc and Mike S,

I can’t believe you guys would choose a president on the basis of what Arab leaders and Kim Jong Il would think. If they can’t handle a female president, f$#% ‘em. They probably wouldn’t like a Jewish president either, but I would hate for that to be a consideration.

Also keep in mind that the Muslim country of Pakistan used to be led by a woman. So we are actually behind the times by that standard.

Posted by: Woody Mena at January 8, 2007 4:48 PM
Comment #202133


Re Obama: Sad but true. That and having ones character run through the mud by the press, the people, and reprobate Monday-morning quarterback bloggers is probably why we will never hear of Colin Powell running for public office.


Good point about being influenced by who is most qualified for the job of the Presidency rather than sex. I wouldn’t vote for Hillary, though not just because she’s a woman, I despise her policy ideas and stances on many issues. On the other hand, one thing I really hate in politics is the idea that we need some sort of quota system for elected leaders etc. I hate race-based gerrymandering for any party, both to create minority districts and to disenfranchise minorities and consolidate white votes. If the country collectively elects nothing but white Anglo-Saxon Protestants to the House, then a long as there was no illegalities with the votes that’s the will of the people. Remember, just as we shouldn’t be afraid to elect a woman president just to avoid looking bad in the eyes of Arabs etc, we shouldn’t be trying to elect a woman president just to say we did to look good to Pakistan, India, the UK, etc.

Posted by: 1LT B at January 9, 2007 3:18 AM
Comment #202189

Im sure the Democrats side is full, but wouldn’t it be great if somehow the R’s nominated Leiberman? I really like Joe, he speaks his mind and could be the great uniter we so desperately need. Too bad he is a man without a horse…


Posted by: JayTea at January 9, 2007 4:28 PM
Comment #202197
If the country collectively elects nothing but white Anglo-Saxon Protestants to the House, then a long as there was no illegalities with the votes that’s the will of the people.

Perhaps so, 1LT B, but it would be hard to argue that bigotry wasn’t a factor. It won’t be many decades until whites are a minority in the United States. If whites get shut out of elected offices, that will provide an opportunity to test the your sentiment.

Posted by: Trent at January 9, 2007 5:28 PM
Comment #202731

I think a good ticket,would either be Kucinich/Obama,Gore/Kucinich,or Gore/Obama.If Gore does not run.Than i would go with my first pick,Kucinich/Obama.Hillary supported this war and supported this president,she will not get my vote in 08.What if Bob Barr where to run in 08,how would he effect the 08 presidential election.

Posted by: thelibertine at January 11, 2007 11:57 PM
Comment #205612

It’s too bad that Hillary is the one to beat. I think Americans are looking for something new, and Clinton is certainly NOT that. Are we going to keep flipping from Bush’s to Clintons? That’s ridiculous!!! Are they the only ones who can lead this nation? C’mon guys, the more you support Hillary, the more you support defeat in ‘08. She will never win a national presidential campaign, NEVER!!! She’s too polarizing. I don’t care that people say “she’s a great retail campaigner”, and all that other crap. Let’s support someone with a new message, a message Americans are hungry for. Anyone but Clinton is our best chance to win the White House in ‘08.

Posted by: George S. at January 29, 2007 11:42 AM
Comment #212564

John Edwards -I think you all have him not given him credit, two of us talking here- John Edwards has home grown roots, he’s full of energy, he had a good southern upbringing, he has been through personal tragedy and kept his political footing, he’d be as good as Jimmy Carter, who was good because he was straight up, meets the issues head on, straight and direct without focusing on party affiliations, but on what is right and John Edwards has those same positive qualities, John Edwards has 6 years political experience on a national level,
John Edwards will hold other politicians, lawmakers, accountable for ethical performance, maybe that’s what worries some folks?
John Edwards is focused on family values and I personally think that that won’t end with his political campaign, win or lose,
I have personally called on every politician in the state of North Carolina for a matter that I consider of major importance, only one responded, John Edwards,
John Edwards comes across as real, vibrant, ethical, I think he brings NEW HOPE TO AMERICANS EVERYWHERE!

Posted by: Joyce Logan at March 17, 2007 11:09 PM
Post a comment