Bill from NYC Posted April 19, 2005 Posted April 19, 2005 Clark was a dismal failure in the primaries. I do not see him running again. Obama needs more time, but he will be a VERY formitable candidate for the Dems. Richardson is a possibility. Reid seems to be positioning himself for a run. I also agree that primaries should be closer together. I think it should be one day for ALL primaries for the party. No one or couple of states should determine the nominee. I disagree with your assertion that Kerry was not in the position/did not want to attack Bush. The problem is that he was just opposing anything Bush was for, then when questioned on it and forced to give specifics his opinions were not much different from Bush. As you said, he tried to be all things for all people, which means that he had no message. In order to be an effective communicator, you need to start with a message. "Bush Bad, vote for me because I am not Bush" is not going to cut it. 308869[/snapback] Look, I am not saying this is right. It is in fact regretable, but there will not be an African-American named Obama serving as the President of the United States. Not in our lifetime. The lib dems own the African American vote, lock, stock and barrel. His candidacy would perhaps increase AA voting numbers, but it would also bring out the racist vote. In other words, he would not bring a much need voting base to the table (it is already there), and he comes from a state that already votes for dems. I am thinking that Hillary is the clear choice for the dems in 08. Looking at the last several loser dem candidates, it just makes sense.
KRC Posted April 19, 2005 Posted April 19, 2005 Reid comes across as an ass to me. I don't know how he and Pelosi got into leadership roles, just like you wonder about DeLay, Lott, etc. The thing that killed Kerry was he did not stand up forcefully enough to the "flip-flopper" attack. Something where he raised his voice, and quote from the 2000 debates about "No nationbuilding" etc. Make it clear that *ahem* other people have changed their minds as well.... *ahem* We never saw that on the evening news, b/c it wasn't being said. Kerry was also weak on this issue b/c the parties are in the middle of a SERIOUS policy swap re: playing World Cop, which I agreed w/ the Repubs before about not getting involved in other people's crap and I agree w/ the Dems now about not getting involved in other people's crap. Kerry refused to attack on this point, which was the point in this election, b/c of his voting record. I'm looking for a much better slate in '08 with people who aren't afraid of a fight. 308913[/snapback] Fighters are fine, but you need a message to go along with it. The Dems of late look like bitter, andgry people and it turns voters off. After the last election, all I heard the Dems say is that they lost because they were not angry and bitter enough and that the voters are stupid. They need to wise up in a hurry if they expect to have a chance in '06 and '08. They may benefit from another weak Republican candidate since the usual heir apparent in the VP candidate has already stated that he is not running. You will then get a fresh face which will make it easier to win. Again, the Dems need to right their ship in a hurry. Right now, they are flustered and have no direction. They are still the party of "we oppose anything the Republicans support." If they continue down this road, they will fail.
Terry Tate Posted April 19, 2005 Posted April 19, 2005 Would it be wise for them to run a governor, just because executive --> executive? The track record for congressmen becoming president hasn't been very good. That, and they ran a just-left-of-center guy in Gore that alienated the "base", and then a just-right-of-Teddy-Kennedy guy in Kerry that alienated the centrists. My short list includes Wes Clark, Bill Richardson, and Barak Obama tho it's probably too soon. 308855[/snapback] I believe governors make better candidates for that reason (as a general rule). The nature of the type of work in a state-level executive position gives the candidate an absolutely huge advantage over a senator or congressman. Governors lead; legislators sometimes lead, sometimes follow, they do all their work as part of a comittee - they don't have a demonstrable record of running the whole show. Not to say they couldn't, it just isn't on their resumes. You end up getting an explanation about a law, rebutted by someone who tells you what he thinks should be done - which takes me back to people don't vote for a position or a policy, they vote for a person they think can lead. A legislator has to break out of the mold of his career to do this, a governor is already there. For that reason, I think Bill Richardson is the only realistic choice in your short list. Look at governors for the best candidates. Senators, congressmen, and to a lesser extent, generals, are all starting out from behind.
KRC Posted April 19, 2005 Posted April 19, 2005 Look, I am not saying this is right. It is in fact regretable, but there will not be an African-American named Obama serving as the President of the United States. Not in our lifetime. The lib dems own the African American vote, lock, stock and barrel. His candidacy would perhaps increase AA voting numbers, but it would also bring out the racist vote. In other words, he would not bring a much need voting base to the table (it is already there), and he comes from a state that already votes for dems. I am thinking that Hillary is the clear choice for the dems in 08. Looking at the last several loser dem candidates, it just makes sense. 308915[/snapback] As much as she denies it, there is no question that Hillary is positioning herself for a run. It will all depend on the reactions of the voters to her moves of late. No other Dem can compete with her during the primaries. Obama needs more grooming. By '08, you will probably see him make a move for a leadership position within Congress. Expect him to stay there for a term or two before putting his hat in the ring. People know the name, but they do not know much about him and his views. He has time.
UConn James Posted April 19, 2005 Posted April 19, 2005 Fighters are fine, but you need a message to go along with it. The Dems of late look like bitter, andgry people and it turns voters off. After the last election, all I heard the Dems say is that they lost because they were not angry and bitter enough and that the voters are stupid. They need to wise up in a hurry if they expect to have a chance in '06 and '08. They may benefit from another weak Republican candidate since the usual heir apparent in the VP candidate has already stated that he is not running. You will then get a fresh face which will make it easier to win. Again, the Dems need to right their ship in a hurry. Right now, they are flustered and have no direction. They are still the party of "we oppose anything the Republicans support." If they continue down this road, they will fail. 308923[/snapback] A subdued anger might have been good in the election. It might have given everybody a sign that Kerry actually had a pulse, at times. Everybody's view comes from their perspective. From the other side of the hill, the Republicans are the party of "we oppose anything the Democrats support." Fresh faces aren't bad. We need a lot of them in D.C.
UConn James Posted April 19, 2005 Posted April 19, 2005 Look, I am not saying this is right. It is in fact regretable, but there will not be an African-American named Obama serving as the President of the United States. Not in our lifetime. The lib dems own the African American vote, lock, stock and barrel. His candidacy would perhaps increase AA voting numbers, but it would also bring out the racist vote. In other words, he would not bring a much need voting base to the table (it is already there), and he comes from a state that already votes for dems. I am thinking that Hillary is the clear choice for the dems in 08. Looking at the last several loser dem candidates, it just makes sense. 308915[/snapback] Check the voting stats re: the black vote. There was the start of something in '04. I can only say it would be a good thing to have Jesse Jackson be less of a voice in the Dem Party. I choose to think a little more optimistically about the racial thing. As for Hillary, it's hard to say if she'll run. If she does, I don't think she gets it. Lots of history there, and not much of it is good for her. In NYC she's safe, going national I wouldn't bet on her. Lots of discussion centers around running a current Dem governor, for the same reason as is being discussed in the thread.
Bill from NYC Posted April 19, 2005 Posted April 19, 2005 Check the voting stats re: the black vote. There was the start of something in '04. I can only say it would be a good thing to have Jesse Jackson be less of a voice in the Dem Party. I choose to think a little more optimistically about the racial thing. As for Hillary, it's hard to say if she'll run. If she does, I don't think she gets it. Lots of history there, and not much of it is good for her. In NYC she's safe, going national I wouldn't bet on her. Lots of discussion centers around running a current Dem governor, for the same reason as is being discussed in the thread. 308960[/snapback] I strongly hope that you are correct about the racial thing. I honestly thought it would get better after 9/11. Maybe it did, we can only hope. My daughter told me that AAs and Hispanics voted a little bit more for repubs in 04, but I dont have the numbers. She also has an article in the Dartmouth Beacon titled "AFL-CIO GOP" in which she examines the labor vote and other issues. If what KRC and others say about the media is true, I see Hillary as a virtual lock to get the nomination in 08. She is already running to the center. From what I understand, Bill is even ridiculing gay marriage. It will be another circus.
KRC Posted April 19, 2005 Posted April 19, 2005 A subdued anger might have been good in the election. It might have given everybody a sign that Kerry actually had a pulse, at times. Everybody's view comes from their perspective. From the other side of the hill, the Republicans are the party of "we oppose anything the Democrats support." Fresh faces aren't bad. We need a lot of them in D.C. 308947[/snapback] It depends on how the anger is focused. "Bush Bad," "Bush stole the election" and other crap will hurt the Dems. Anger towards the Swifties is good. You just have to keep it below the Dean level. The problem with the bitter angry liberal in the last election is that they seemed to be seething in hatred and they were just trying to swat at anything in hopes that something would stick with the electorate. They need to focus their attention on specific issues and <gasp> offer a solution. Criticism without solutions will doom any campaign. The Dems did not realize this in '04 and have yet to show any semblence of realizing it since. Don't get me started on the Republicans. Hell, they were the reason why I ran my campaign last year, so there is definitely no love towards them.
Gavin in Va Beach Posted April 19, 2005 Posted April 19, 2005 Look, I am not saying this is right. It is in fact regretable, but there will not be an African-American named Obama serving as the President of the United States. Not in our lifetime. The lib dems own the African American vote, lock, stock and barrel. His candidacy would perhaps increase AA voting numbers, but it would also bring out the racist vote. In other words, he would not bring a much need voting base to the table (it is already there), and he comes from a state that already votes for dems. I am thinking that Hillary is the clear choice for the dems in 08. Looking at the last several loser dem candidates, it just makes sense. 308915[/snapback] I don't think we'll ever see in our lifetime a liberal African-American or woman president because quite simply the country wouldn't trust them not to do something loopy. I think there is a good chance we could see a conservative African-American or woman president because they would generally be perceived as being against quota's and other loopy leftist legislation not to mention being perceived as being stronger on defense and the country would probably would trust them a tad bit more.
UConn James Posted April 19, 2005 Posted April 19, 2005 (edited) If what KRC and others say about the media is true, I see Hillary as a virtual lock to get the nomination in 08. She is already running to the center. From what I understand, Bill is even ridiculing gay marriage. 309015[/snapback] I predict that w/in 10 years, Bill Clinton will be a Republican. Mostly b/c of the "making the world a better place" happy horsesh-- only w/o the sky blue helmets along w/ the snafu that is NAFTA. The Clintons are no friends to the Democratic Party. Edited April 19, 2005 by UConn James
Bill from NYC Posted April 19, 2005 Posted April 19, 2005 I don't think we'll ever see in our lifetime a liberal African-American or woman president because quite simply the country wouldn't trust them not to do something loopy. I think there is a good chance we could see a conservative African-American or woman president because they would generally be perceived as being against quota's and other loopy leftist legislation not to mention being perceived as being stronger on defense and the country would probably would trust them a tad bit more. 309047[/snapback] Very true Gavin but be it liberal or conservative, his name will not be Obama.
KRC Posted April 19, 2005 Posted April 19, 2005 I predict that w/in 10 years, Bill Clinton will be a Republican. Mostly b/c of the "making the world a better place" happy horsesh-- only w/o the sky blue helmets. The Clintons are no friends to Democrats. 309052[/snapback] He will not become a Republican. Neither will Hillary. Their views are too far left for the RNC, who is continuing to move right. His foreign policy is too limp-wristed for the Republicans, along with may other issues where he would butt heads with the RNC. If anything, he will turn Indy but I see him sticking to the Democratic Party.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted April 19, 2005 Posted April 19, 2005 I doubt it. Kerry sucked at communicating, tried to be all things to all people, and he wasn't in a postion/didn't want to attack Bush on his weaknesses. Those things go to the core. Would it be wise for them to run a governor, just because executive --> executive? The track record for congressmen becoming president hasn't been very good. That, and they ran a just-left-of-center guy in Gore that alienated the "base", and then a just-right-of-Teddy-Kennedy guy in Kerry that alienated the centrists. Do they actually try for a middle-of-the-spectrum guy or gal this time 'round? Trouble was that Iowa picks someone like Kerry b/c they make the Ethanol Pledge and the party and media made him the nominee. It'd be a lot nicer if they did the primaries more clustered than they do. I just hope the Dem candidates in '08 will be honest and able to talk to people about their ideas. It will be a better campaign b/w the two parties b/c one of them won't have to explain how he would do each specific thing different than the current guy. My short list includes Wes Clark, Bill Richardson, and Barak Obama tho it's probably too soon. 308855[/snapback] God help this country if Bill Richardson ever becomes president. *shudders* That guy's dirtier than the Daley family.
Bill from NYC Posted April 19, 2005 Posted April 19, 2005 I predict that w/in 10 years, Bill Clinton will be a Republican. Mostly b/c of the "making the world a better place" happy horsesh-- only w/o the sky blue helmets. The Clintons are no friends to Democrats. 309052[/snapback] I agree 100%. I will NEVER believe that the Clintons wanted Kerry to win the 04 election. Bill was all giddy about Kerry selecting Edwards, who was despised in his home state. If he had selected Gephardt, I think that he might have won the election. Not because Gephardt is great mind you, but he had HUGE labor support. Iowa turned their backs on him, thus Kerry chose this fool. My daughter had a conversation with Edwards at her school. It was pretty funny. PM me if you want details, so I will not bore the entire board.
KRC Posted April 19, 2005 Posted April 19, 2005 My daughter had a conversation with Edwards at her school. It was pretty funny. PM me if you want details, so I will not bore the entire board. 309069[/snapback] Go ahead and bore us.
UConn James Posted April 19, 2005 Posted April 19, 2005 Go ahead and bore us. 309071[/snapback] Yeah, we want the straight dope. Edwards at times seemed like a spring chicken, and other times he was genuine and showed a lot of tact. What I've heard from the backroom is that he knew he didn't have a chance for pres. but was gunning hard for the VP slot so he'd be a shoo-in down the road. I didn't like that about him. Kerry should've picked a stronger VP, but then again, Kerry should've had a solid spinal column.
Recommended Posts