Campaign 2008

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Yeah, I don't get where I come into this argument either. I just meant with Obama, I found it slightly annoying that people were already talking about him running for President when he had just won the Senate seat. Citing Lincoln isn't a fair argument, because people knew where he stood on the issues, from the Douglas debates as noted. I'm sure I can research it and find out, but I don't really know Obama's stands on major issues at this point. I didn't say I wouldn't vote for him if he runs for President.

 

Bringing up the Cheney/Edwards debate is interesting, though. I personally think Cheney came out looking better, but I suppose a lot of people disagree with that assessment.

[snuffbox 0]

In the 1850s one probably had to go out of their way, over a period of time, to find out about the goings-on at those fabled debates. There was no Nexus search, 24 hr television news, C-SPANs, internet etc...it should go without saying that knowing a candidate's stances is FAR easier now than it was then. But apparently it does need repeating. Just because those Douglas-Lincoln debates have become legendary over the years due to numerous books and the incredible legacy of Lincoln, the only way to find out about them at the time was by either being in Illinois, reading newspaper accounts (that could take weeks to be 'fresh news'), or the pamphlets that were published over the months/years following.

 

John Edwards was Cheney's chewtoy that night. Very brutal television.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

snuffbox, those are good points.

 

My favorite part of the Cheney/Edwards debate was Edwards bringing up something about Cheney's lesbian daughter, and Cheney simply answered "I'd like to thank Mr. Edwards for his kind words about my family," and left it at that. I don't like Dick Cheney, but you have to give him credit for rising above on that point.

[snuffbox 0]

I put Cheney on the same level as LBJ, the bottom of America's political barrell. But he clearly dominated on that occasion.

 

I think that a look at Cheney's warhawk views can be extrapolated from his gay-marriage views. Having a lesbian daughter, he is better able to understand a side of that story that he otherwise would not, and takes a states-rights stance on the issue. Had he had other things to do in the 1960s besides eluding the draft repeatedly, his views on war now would probably also be far different.

[SuperJerk 0]

In the 1850s one probably had to go out of their way, over a period of time, to find out about the goings-on at those fabled debates. There was no Nexus search, 24 hr television news, C-SPANs, internet etc...it should go without saying that knowing a candidate's stances is FAR easier now than it was then. But apparently it does need repeating. Just because those Douglas-Lincoln debates have become legendary over the years due to numerous books and the incredible legacy of Lincoln, the only way to find out about them at the time was by either being in Illinois, reading newspaper accounts (that could take weeks to be 'fresh news'), or the pamphlets that were published over the months/years following.

 

John Edwards was Cheney's chewtoy that night. Very brutal television.

I think the northern abolitionist press gave Lincoln quite a bit of publicity. Despite his denials he wanted to ban all slavery, Lincoln was one of the abolitionist's rising stars. The thing about the 1850s is that slavery was the "War on Terror" of their day. Slavery was the issue that defined everything else, and the Republican Party wouldn't even exist had it not been.

[snuffbox 0]

Yes, the debates (and the Cooper Union address among other things) were well publicized at the time...but the ability to acquire such information was far more dificult due to a lack of options (newspapers, pamphlets, word of mouth, books) and to get anything in a timely fashion was next to impossible. One had to go out of their way to gain such knowledge in the 1800s. Fortunately for the particpants of that era, Americans involved themselves in the politcal process as we do the NFL today.

 

Today, in the case of Barack Obama, there are his speeches which are carried live (and then replayed) on C-SPANs, televised interviews & speeches ready to be seen & heard on tv, radio, & online, Wikipedia for quick links and info, his own website and others' dedicated to him, and he has a book out right now that deals exclusively with his political stances. How people might struggle to find out how he thinks and feels is due to laziness and nothing else.

[SuperJerk 0]

Yes, the debates (and the Cooper Union address among other things) were well publicized at the time...but the ability to acquire such information was far more dificult due to a lack of options (newspapers, pamphlets, word of mouth, books) and to get anything in a timely fashion was next to impossible. One had to go out of their way to gain such knowledge in the 1800s. Fortunately for the particpants of that era, Americans involved themselves in the politcal process as we do the NFL today.

Yes, you're right about that.

 

There's a difference between a book, a speech, and a debate, though. Books by politicans are often ghost written using the politicians notes, and speeches are usually written by professional writers as well. While a debate is something you can rehearse for, there is no way to prepare for every situation. It is different than an interview or Q&A session, because you must defend your own ideas, and also articulate a substantive critique of what the other person is saying. It tests your ability to communicate and persuade in a hostile environment unlike any other circumstance a voter would have a chance to witness.

 

Today, in the case of Barack Obama, there are his speeches which are carried live (and then replayed) on C-SPANs, televised interviews & speeches ready to be seen & heard on tv, radio, & online, Wikipedia for quick links and info, his own website and others' dedicated to him, and he has a book out right now that deals exclusively with his political stances. How people might struggle to find out how he thinks and feels is due to laziness and nothing else.

If Obama actually wants the job, it is his responcibility to persuade us he should get it. He will probably not get the nomination because of his inexperience. However, the act of running will set him up nicely for a run in 2012 or 2016, both in terms of the experience it will give him, but also in terms of building up name recognition for the future.

[snuffbox 0]

Has anyone suggested that Obama uses a ghostwriter? I haven't heard that yet, but won't be surprised to.

 

I know JFK's (no, Jerk, I'm not comparing Obama to JFK) Profiles in Courage is always mentioned as possibly ghostwritten. And John Ehrlichman went to his grave feeling that John Dean's books (Blind Ambition in particular) were ghostwritten.

[SuperJerk 0]

Has anyone suggested that Obama uses a ghostwriter? I haven't heard that yet, but won't be surprised to.

 

I know JFK's (no, Jerk, I'm not comparing Obama to JFK) Profiles in Courage is always mentioned as possibly ghostwritten. And John Ehrlichman went to his grave feeling that John Dean's books (Blind Ambition in particular) were ghostwritten.

To my knowledge, no one has said that about Obama's book. I have every faith Obama really believes everything he says, but speeches and boks are controlled situations.

 

These books are mostly meaningless anyways. They tell what the candidate wants to do, but 90% of the president's time is spent dealing with unforseen situations or reacting to crises. You can't really get a feel for how he'll do with that from a book.

 

Giving speeches is probably one of the worst ways to determine if someone can be a good president. Martin Sheen gave some really great speeches on "The West Wing," but that doesn't mean I want to elect him to anything.

[snuffbox 0]

I guess that's why everyone liked Ike back in the day.

[SuperJerk 0]

I guess that's why everyone liked Ike back in the day.

 

Getting credit for winning World War II gives you all kinds of credibility and political capital to which there is no modern day equivalent, and residential debates were unheard of until 1960.

[SuperJerk 0]

Here's some candidate news...

 

Kerry assessing impact of 'botched joke' on '08 prospects

Like 2 years ago, Kerry is the last one to realize he's in trouble.

 

Vilsack blasts McCain's call for more troops in Iraq

I'm not sure what foriegn policy credibility Vilsack brings to the table, but his plan is interesting.

 

Officials: Bayh to take first step in 2008 bid next week

 

I'll reassess his chances of actually getting the nomination once we get a firm answer from Hillary and Obama. There's different combinations of candidates that will get different outcomes as to who the nominee will, and there's no absolute as to who could just roll in and crush everyone. Edwards, Bayh, Obama, Hillary are the contenders, and all have their own strengths and weaknesses. Biden, Dodd, Vilsack, and Kerry would be better off just staying home. The Democrats almost never nominate the early frontunner in non-incumbent primaries (Humphrey in 76, Hart in 88, Cuomo in 92).

 

On the Republican side, its a 2 man race. Usually the GOP goes with the early frontrunner, but both McCain and Guiliani have equal claim to that title. They'll crowd out every other candidate in the field, with Brownback and Romney jockeying to get enough attention to get the VP slot. Pataki probably won't run if Guiliani's running. The odds are against Bill Owens and Mike Huckabee running as well.

 

There's different combinations of who can beat who in the general election, with Guiliani having the best chances of any of the 16 people I've mentioned.

 

If I had to pull 2 tickets out of my ass this minute based purely on likelihood, I'd say McCain/Romney and Hillary/Bayh. Which, of course, means it probably won't happen. There's still a remote chance Hillary won't run, the Republican see reason and nominate Guilinai, or Al Gore gets into the race.

[SuperJerk 0]

From the "Please, God, No" file...

 

Hillary Clinton discussing presidential bid

Clinton was ranked first among 10 potential Democratic candidates. Second place for "likely" support was a statistical tie among Illinois Sen. Barack Obama (15 percent); former Vice President Al Gore (14 percent), who ran for president in 2000; and John Edwards (14 percent), Gore's running mate in 2000.

LOLZ

 

 

I guess its just a question of who the anti-Hillary faction (i.e. people who can see outside the confines of liberal group-think) decides to rally around. Obama would be the obvious choice, but I can't wrap my head around both of them running.

 

Hillary Clinton thinks she's Bobby Kennedy, but she's actually Ted.

[snuffbox 0]

The Hube was the early frontrunner in 1976? Really? You sure he didn't just kinda stumble out into a shortlived, mindless stop-Carter 'campaign' late in the running?

[SuperJerk 0]

Humphrey was the early favorite, before the voting actually started. He wasn't an official candidate until Carter had the nomination sewn up. I mean, you also had guys like Scoop Jackson and Lloyd Bentsen, but they're campaigns didn't go anywhere. Humphrey was the most popular name floating around in 74 and 75 before anyone knew who Carter was, i.e. like Hillary is now, Cuomo was in 92, and Hart was in 88. The unofficial "anti-Carter" candidate was Jerry Brown.

[snuffbox 0]

By name-recognition only wouldnt John Kerry be just as much of a 'frontrunner' as Hube was in '76? Nobody, except those with serious delusions like the Senators themselves, thought Hube had any serious chance in '76 just as anyone should be able to realize that Kerry is going nowhere in '08.

 

Another candidate from 1976 was God, or Birch Bayh as we mortals call him, and his Son, Jerk's personal savior Evan Bayh, is the great hope of 2008.

 

If youre going to attempt to be a pundit, Jerk, you need to look alot deeper than the surface. But I dont expect a whole lot from the guy that believes Warren fucking Harding started the Great Depression AND World War Two with his bare hands.

[Ginger Snaps 0]

From the "Please, God, No" file...

 

Hillary Clinton discussing presidential bid

Clinton was ranked first among 10 potential Democratic candidates. Second place for "likely" support was a statistical tie among Illinois Sen. Barack Obama (15 percent); former Vice President Al Gore (14 percent), who ran for president in 2000; and John Edwards (14 percent), Gore's running mate in 2000.

LOLZ

 

 

I guess its just a question of who the anti-Hillary faction (i.e. people who can see outside the confines of liberal group-think) decides to rally around. Obama would be the obvious choice, but I can't wrap my head around both of them running.

 

Hillary Clinton thinks she's Bobby Kennedy, but she's actually Ted.

 

Obama is the only one of them I like.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

My left nut is considering a run in '08 as well.

 

Constitution Party.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

He's also been in discussions with Admiral Stockdale as a possible running mate.

[Toshiaki Koala 0]

If anything's going to sink Obama's chances, it's his name. Did you know his middle name is Hussein? I thought it was a joke when I found out, but it is entirely true. Poor guy.

[snuffbox 0]

Time to pack it in, Senator.

[Toshiaki Koala 0]

Make all the snarky quips you want. Joe P. Goodolboy ain't votin' for no goddamned Al Kayda.

[snuffbox 0]

And who will Joe P. be voting for? Sen. Baseball Apple Pie?

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

No, didn't you hear about his sex scandal?

 

He buttraped a llama.

[SuperJerk 0]

By name-recognition only wouldnt John Kerry be just as much of a 'frontrunner' as Hube was in '76? Nobody, except those with serious delusions like the Senators themselves, thought Hube had any serious chance in '76 just as anyone should be able to realize that Kerry is going nowhere in '08.

*sigh*

I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE MEDIA AND THE POLLS.

No, Humphrey wouldn't have one the nomination, but at the time he was the only big name floating about OVER A FULL YEAR BEFORE A SINGLE VOTE WOULD BE CAST. Yes, Humphrey was already a 2-time loser and had terminal cancer. In reality, he had no chance. THAT'S NOT THE POINT. The point was that any "big names" floating out there as the top draw in a crowded field isn't a good indication of who the frontrunner will be. History says that the Democratic frontrunner will NOT be the person the media says in the popular favorite over a year before the election. That was true in all of the elections I cited.

 

Another candidate from 1976 was God, or Birch Bayh as we mortals call him, and his Son, Jerk's personal savior Evan Bayh, is the great hope of 2008.

Bayh's a good candidate and is abundantly qualified. I might change my tune if he gets shown up in the debates, but as of now, he still has a very good chance of running away with this thing.

 

If youre going to attempt to be a pundit, Jerk, you need to look alot deeper than the surface. But I dont expect a whole lot from the guy that believes Warren fucking Harding started the Great Depression AND World War Two with his bare hands.

Why do you have to lie because you don't like my conclusion about something completely unrelated?

[Dr. Zaius 0]

If youre going to attempt to be a pundit, Jerk, you need to look alot deeper than the surface. But I dont expect a whole lot from the guy that believes Warren fucking Harding started the Great Depression AND World War Two with his bare hands.

Why do you have to lie because you don't like my conclusion about something completely unrelated?

Can anyone find a quote of this?

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

This DailyKos straw poll might be a good indication of how the "liberal netroots" are leaning now. Feingold (and to a lesser extent, Mark Warner) bowing out has really shaken things up. It's funny to me that Mike Gravel is beating Chris Dodd in this poll. Personally, the top 3 in this poll would also be my top 3 (with Obama 3rd...and that's if Gore doesn't get involved). I voted for Wesley Clark.

 

I will try to find a similar Republican poll, but there really isn't one conservative web hub like DailyKos on the right.

 

Who is currently your favorite 2008 candidate?

 

Tom Vilsack

1% 204 votes

Bill Richardson

4% 785 votes

Barack Obama

28% 4703 votes

John Kerry

1% 292 votes

Mike Gravel

0% 89 votes

John Edwards

28% 4776 votes

Christopher Dodd

0% 79 votes

Hillary Clinton

5% 879 votes

Wesley Clark

26% 4469 votes

Joe Biden

1% 194 votes

Evan Bayh

1% 257 votes

[snuffbox 0]

Right now, my prognosis for top candidates are:

 

Republican: Mitt Romney (needs to avoid his father's 'brainwashing' moment)

Democrat: Barack Obama (if he runs, of course)

 

Top underdogs are Mike Huckabee (easiest slogan in American politics) & Tommy Thompson (another successful, charismatic executive) on the Right; Bill Richardson (successful executive, very charismatic) & Wesley Clark (military cred will be BIG)

 

If Gore does run it will be a big shakeup. Giuliani, crazy as it sounds, has a better chance of escaping the primaries than McCain. Hilary won't get it unless she pulls a miracle out on the primary trail re: her Iraq vote. Vilsack, Hunter, Brownback, Newt, etc are going nowhere. Bayh remains too bland.

 

Feingold should change his mind ala Bobby K in '68.

[snuffbox 0]

If youre going to attempt to be a pundit, Jerk, you need to look alot deeper than the surface. But I dont expect a whole lot from the guy that believes Warren fucking Harding started the Great Depression AND World War Two with his bare hands.

Why do you have to lie because you don't like my conclusion about something completely unrelated?

Can anyone find a quote of this?

 

Except, you know, his economic policies helped create the economic environment that allowed the Great Depression to occur, and his isolationism and trade policies encouraged the conditions that would help lead to World War II. Creating the Dept. of Veterans Affairs hardly makes up for that.

[Guest "Go, Mordecai!"]

Top underdogs are Mike Huckabee (easiest slogan in American politics)

Yes! I ♥ Huckabee!