PeterDavid.net

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 hell, 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 Hell 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. Hell, 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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

Sorry Mike, I thought I'd made it clear that my days of responding to you are over.

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 hell, 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 (hell, 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." Bullshit, 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.

Yeah, well in [Carter]'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?

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." Bullshit, 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."

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 bastards 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. Hell, 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.

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.

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.

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.

Those are sound-bytes from the 2004 campaign minimizing the greed of insurance companies. Insurance company profits are fucking huge.

Some nutty guy in New Jersey, furiously typing away at his keyboard.

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 Whore, 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 fucking 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 Whore, 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?

My statement was based on observations of fact, the details of which I cited. Not optimism.

Surrounded by people who voted blacks into Washington, are you?

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.

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.

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.

Those are sound-bytes from the 2004 campaign minimizing the greed of insurance companies. Insurance company profits are fucking huge.

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.

From the way you've framed things, if the insurance companies are charging their fees -- from which they make their fucking huge profits -- to make doctors feel safer, they seem to be doing a piss-poor job.

My posts are mostly citations.

Luigi Novi: Just out of curiosity, where are your citations for the assertions you’ve just made to me?

What assertions are you referring to?

My ex-wife (a doctor) says that Edwards is the one candidate who would get her to vote Republican.

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.

Some nutty guy in New Jersey, furiously typing away at his keyboard....

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.

You wanna say again you don't know why I thought you were referring to me, google-stalker -- or are you lying again?

I voted for SENATOR Barack Obama, not PRESIDENT Barack Obama. It would be nice if he finished at least ONE term as senator, don't ya think? You know, to see what he is capable of accomplishing. If he is elected in 2008, he'll be older than Bill Clinton or JFK were when they took office, however, he has nowhere near the experience of either. Obama has never managed any sizeable organization, and he's spent most of his career working for someone else.

I don't care how nice a guy he is, nor how good a phrase he can turn. Can he lead? Can he handle real pressure? Can he organize and pick a decent staff? Frankly, I think it is way too early to tell, and I think he is being forced by desperate people in his party to go too far, too fast.

As far as Hillary goes, she is so, well, underwhelming. That being said, if she is in a weak field of luckluster candidates, she just might be able to pull it off.

Remember, Bill Clinton backed into the White House in 1992 with only 43 percent of the popular vote -- hardly a ringing endorsement by voters.

Yeah but that was with a relatively strong thrid party candidate. It's hard to see one of them now unless:
SCENARIO #1- Gulliani or McCain so upset the arch-conservatives that they nominate someone to represent the "true" conservatives. Given that this would almost ensure a Hillary victory it's hard to imagine it gaining traction.

Scenario #2- Hillary so upsets the hardcore anti-war crowd that they nominate someone to register their disgust. In all liklihood this would be more of a protest vote than anything else--I can't see a strong candidate breaking from the party.

Third party candidates appeal to people who want fresh faces. One nice thing about 2008 is that whoever wins they will be someone who hasn't been president or VP (I'm assuming Gore is sticking to his guns over not running).

Pitiful.

"I don't care how nice a guy he is, nor how good a phrase he can turn. Can he lead? Can he handle real pressure? Can he organize and pick a decent staff?..."

After the joke of a president we've had for the last six years, does THAT even matter anymore?

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. ...Who knows what could happen with the right campaign and the Party behind him?
Luigi - no way in hell. McCain has been majorly towing Republican party line for a year now, and in the process has run roughshod over all the things that made him such a novel Republican the first time around. He's gone back or outright contradicted himself on many stands, the most prominent being his simple support of the current Administration.

If he gets the nod, it's not just The Daily Show and The Colbert Report that are going to be having a field-day showing "before" and "after" clips of McCain. He'll be labeled a flipflopper faster than any other presidential nominee; it'd basically be like handing not only news and late night comedians a silver plate of material, it's giving the Democrats amazing fodder.

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.
*shuffles feet*
Er, thanks Mr. Myers. I'm just gonna go stand in the corner and blush for a bit...

(I do very much appreciate the compliment.)

For everyone giggling over the idea of my cat helping me type, I offer you the following proof, from last week: Toledo helping me index an academic blog. (Granted, it was the other cat helping me type this morning, but I work with what I have.)

Giuliani’s only problems, as I recall, was that he developed colon cancer. Isn’t it presumably now in remission?

Actually I was referring to how a briefcase containing his campaign strategy was lost by his people, found by somebody else, and leaked. At the time it happened, it sounded as though it had hurt his chances quite a bit.

The look in Toledo's eye is exactly the same one my Maine Coon gives me right before he tries to open an artery in my throat.

You know, Rob, I'm not altogether certain that the "stolen" briefcase wasn't a deliberate leak. Better to get some of this out now in the open than later. And anyway, it's not as though Giuliani's marital tales of woe weren't common knowledge.

People say that Giuliani is way to liberal and New Yorkish to appeal to the flyover state conservatives but I think they may underestimate just how much those people remember and respect his actions on 9/11. A little moderation on his gun control stance and a promise to at least consider pro-life judges for the Supreme Court and I think he can still get the nomination, though at this point it's McCain's to lose.

That DRM stuff is interesting, but it wouldn't alter my support for Biden because A) I think we've got bigger issues to worry about and B) All these attempts are doomed to failure anyway; you can't stop the progress of technology. People will find a way around it in short order, and in a few decades time, the companies will give up and get used to the new model.

Luigi - no way in hell. McCain has been majorly towing Republican party line for a year now, and in the process has run roughshod over all the things that made him such a novel Republican the first time around. He's gone back or outright contradicted himself on many stands, the most prominent being his simple support of the current Administration.

Yes, indeed. I used to have a lot more respect for him than I currently do. He's gone from calling Jerry Falwell one of America's "agents of intolerance," (yay!) to sucking up to the Falwell, presumably to get more right-wingers to vote for him. (Boo!)

He's done the right thing in the past by voting against drilling in ANWR and for standing in the way of the administration on torture, but lately it seems as though somebody's stuck a magnet on the bottom of his moral compass. There was a time I might've considered voting for him, but that time is gone.

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.

Whether it's a question of somebody wanting to kill him or just vote against him because of his skin color, it doesn't matter. Fuck those people. If Obama is a stand-up guy (which he appears to be thus far), and has a shot of winning even if it's just by a narrow margin, he should go for it.

There are people who can't abide a black man in office, or a woman in office, it's true. If I had to guess, though, I believe that some of those people are just afraid of the unknown; they've never had a president who wasn't a white male before. So the sooner somebody qualified (and not, you know, pure evil) gets into office and sets a precedent, I believe that there will be a lower percentage of people who will cast their votes based on things as irrelevant as gender or race.

I am glad someone above made the "carpetbagger" comment, that is how I always have felt about Hillary since she and Bill made the move to New York. And did anyone believe her comments about running for the senate not to wait to be Pres., anymore than when George W. Bush ran for Gov. of my state in 1998?

I have mostly voted on the right side of the ticket since 1980. The one exception was when I voted for Paul Tsongas (Spelling?) in the primaries way back. But for 2008 I can not find one person Demo or Repub that I can look forward to supporting. While the Democrats will have to most diverse slate looking to the office. Obama-Black, Hillary-Woman, Richardson-Latino, who can run on pure ideas for the future?
Also what may harm Hillary and Obama is that since 1960 no Senator has run for the big office and won.

Not sure which talking head pointed it out, but the point was that senators tend to not be leaders but compromisers,(Does is that a word and if it is how do you spell it?) That is why candidates who ran states have a better chance, (Reagan, Carter, Clinton, George W.). So maybe the Gov of New Mexico could be the Democrats best chance. Me I'm getting my old Howard the Duck button out, that or my C'Thullu for president shirt out of mothballs. It's time we stopped voting for the lesser evil!

Bobb
(Your mileage may vary.)

You know, Rob, I'm not altogether certain that the "stolen" briefcase wasn't a deliberate leak.

Do you mean by him or by one of his opponents?

Giuliani is a guy I used to respect, similar to McCain, but don't anymore. I trace this loss of respect back to his speech at the RNC. If he had not spoken at the convention and lavished such praise on Bush, I'd feel differently.

I've been following U.S. politics for less than five years, and it has never ceased to amaze me what people will do out of party loyalty. Republicans who seemed otherwise sane (Arlen Specter and Lincoln Chafee being examples) have backed Bush administration policies they didn't agree with out of party loyalty in the past, and I'm like "What the hell is wrong with you guys?! Just vote your conscience, dammit! This guy doesn't deserve your loyalty!"

Giuliani has never challenged Bush, and therefore I don't care how liberal or R.I.N.O. he may be. Barring some huge development that proves to me he's seen the error of his ways, I will not vote for him. He took a side in 2004, it was the wrong side, and I hope the 60-some percent of Americans who currently oppose the war don't forget that Giuliani helped the architects of that war keep their jobs and guaranteed it wouldn't end anytime soon.

I have a dream, and that dream is simple a Gore/Clark ticket.... this combo covers all the bases enviromental, military, foriegn and domestic...

John

If you're looking for a candidate that actively went against his own party...good luck! I suppose you could give Lieberman and Zell Miller a shot.

As for McCain and Failwell, I'm thinking that McCain can point out that one of the things that people supposedly liked about him was that he reached out to those who didn't always agree with him--a true "uniter not a divider" kind of guy. Well, one of the things you have to do to be a uniter is to actually have a dialogue with people who might oppose you. As ong as he continues to oppose some of the issues that Fallwell espouses I have no problem with him treating him with a certain level of respect. It's like how Democrats have to tolerate Al Sharpton--a necessary, if repugnant, bit of theatre.

The thing that so many found appealing about John McCain was that he appeared to be a man of principle, who stuck with what he believed in. The perception right now is that he's compromising those principles and running to embrace whatever faction he needs to to get elected. If he is actually dialoging with people while still standing by criticisms of their actions or stances, Bill, that is more admirable, and maybe the truth of that will be more clearly perceived by actual campaign time. The bind that he's in is that the only way he can get the endorsement of the Republican party powers may be to publicly abandon some of his beliefs. He might think he can go back to following his beliefs after he's elected; but losing the trait which has caused so many outside of the Republican party to admire him could win him the nomination battle, but cost him the election war. I guess a lot could come down to how far the Party forces him to change.

I have liked a lot of what I've heard from/about Wesley Clark. And it's occurred to me of late that it might be good to have a president with actual military experience for a while (he didn't become a general just through desk duty, right?).

And, I'm also a little disappointed that Hillary may be running for president this early into her second term. Even as a registered Democrat and fan of President Clinton, I was a little dubious of her moving here to become one of our senators. But, she showed a willingness to pay her dues, gained some reputation for working with both sides, has gotten good marks from observers as a senator, and has done some good work for New York state. The timing of the open (no incumbent as president) election just works out poorly, I suppose, with the beginnings of campaigning being so soon after the start of her second term.

Isn't the point of an exploratory committee to see if a run is feasible? All candidates do it now, she's not even the first on the Democrats' side. She also said, that she had no intention of running for President DURING HER FIRST TERM IN THE SENATE, and she didn't.

I know someone who met Hillary Clinton years ago, and said the unfortunate part about her, is that while she's a very warm, caring person, she's not a good public speaker, and comes across badly, as a result.

Given the crap we've been through these last 2 presidential terms, I'll take Hillary Clinton, very gladly, any day of the week, because there's no way, this side of hell, that she could be any worse.

I wish the Dems would just come out with a JLA lineup...

President - Al Gore
Vice President - Joseph Biden
Secretary of State - John Kerry
Secretary of Defense - Wesley Clark

and go from there...

Until later
John

It's Hilary's turn. And Jeb Bush goes in the on-deck circle.

Personally, my hope is that Joe Biden will get the nomination.

Luigi Novi: My statement was based on observations of fact, the details of which I cited. Not optimism.

Mike: Surrounded by people who voted blacks into Washington, are you?
Luigi Novi: Mike, I’m sorry, but really have no idea what this comment means. You accused me of responding to Peter’s comments about Obama and race based on experience and optimism, and I responded by saying that it was based on facts that I cited. I don’t see how this comment by you serves to refute that point. I vote for the candidate that I think will do the best job. If the parties nominate someone of that description who happens to be black, so be it. If Obama is nominated, he’ll get my vote. If the people who surround me haven’t put blacks into Washington, maybe it’s because there haven’t been any black candidates from the two major parties. These comments didn’t even have anything to do with me but with Obama. I pointed out how minorities will no longer be minorities by 2040-2050. That isn’t optimism. It’s a stated projection by the Census Bureau. In what way do your responses disprove this?

I am, however, surrounded by people who vote for Latinos locally, since that’s the dominant ethnicity in Union City, NJ, where I live. I don’t know if that answers your question or not.

Luigi Novi: 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: 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.
Luigi Novi: Unless you’re at least 67 years old—older if you yourself were witness to life during that 25 year period, I don’t see how this has anything to do with you. Can I assume that you’re in your seventies, just out of curiosity?

No, such a movie portraying males of my ethnicity has not done this. No, I only have to deal with films and TV shows that consistently treat Italian-Americans as one-dimensional, stereotypical, monosyllabic, racist thugs and murderers. And the occasional business in my hometown that tries to charge me more or refuse me service because I don’t speak Spanish.

The problem with this statement on your part (aside from the fact that you seem to think that blacks are the only group with a distorted media image—something largely mitigated by modern political correctness and diversity) is that it seems to imply that simply by being white, I somehow have it made, as if the concept of “privilege” is such a stark black-and-white question (no pun intended) that merely because I was not the group unfairly targeted by The Birth of a Nation, that that somehow means that I have not had to deal with the same pitfalls in life as everyone else has. Well, I’m sorry you feel that way. There are undoubtedly aspects of some white people’s lives that I suppose they owe to the color of their skin. But there are also other variables that help determine where you are in life, like socioeconomic class, parental upbringing, education, and maybe even luck, not to mention all sorts of other obstacles that every human being has to deal with, no matter how much greener you think the grass is on my side of the lawn. But looking around, I don’t see my life as one of “privilege”. I’m broke, have a lousy outdoor job in which I’m often treated like dirt, and in which I haven’t been working since before Christmas because of the weather, and the one temp job I was given after New Year’s lasted two days, without any reason give to me as to why I was not kept on. I’ve been looking for a new job since October 2005. I don’t see how being white has mitigated this.

Mike: 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.
Luigi Novi: I don’t have to worry about housing brokers because since I can’t afford to live on my own right now, that I have to live with my parents. Nor can I afford a car.

Mike: 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.
Luigi Novi: Again, you have not established that I don’t acknowledge that it exists, for the simple reason that the comments on my part that prompted your responses had nothing to do with it.

I do acknowledge that it exists, specifically because I took that test online myself (assuming that the one you’re talking about is Harvard University’s Race Implicit Association Test). It showed that I slightly favor Europeans, and overweight people, both of which surprised me. It should also be pointed out that that test (which you can take at https: //implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/ [connect the prefix to the url]) makes a point about implicit, unconscious attitudes, rather than overt, fully conscious ones. (More on that point at: www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-11-29.html.) It only stands to reason that even unconsciously, a person will tend to favor members of groups to which that person belongs, a point that is obviously not exclusive to whites. I don’t know why the results you cite would also hold for black subjects, but if you could furnish us with sources, please do so.

In any event, none of this refutes my statements about Obama, or even pertains to it. You saw a comment I made about race, and used it to begin a satellite thread about a different a completely different topic about which you seem to have a very self-righteous chip on your shoulder, launching into an attack upon my personal life, which I never brought up, even accusing me of basing my statements on “experience” and “optimism”, when my post made it explicitly clear that it was a statement on a matter of fact based on cited sources. For someone who extols the virtues of citations, it’s a bit surprising that you ignored this fact, instead choosing to respond with just attacks and assumptions about me and my life, without much citations of your own.

Mike: From the way you've framed things, if the insurance companies are charging their fees -- from which they make their fucking huge profits -- to make doctors feel safer, they seem to be doing a piss-poor job.
Luigi Novi: The point is that contrary to Czar’s comment, things would not necessarily be “okay” if Edwards gets elected. The point was not about how well insurance companies are doing their job.

Luigi Novi: Just out of curiosity, where are your citations for the assertions you’ve just made to me?

Mike: What assertions are you referring to?
Luigi Novi: You disagreed with my statements about how the Census Bureau has projected that whites will be the minority by 2040-2050 by dismissing it as “optimism”. Where is your citation that that statement is not true, or for that matter, the citation upon which you established my state of mind? You also asserted that the university study on race demonstrated a bias towards whites even on the part of black subjects. Where is your citation for that?

Kelly: For everyone giggling over the idea of my cat helping me type, I offer you the following proof, from last week: Toledo helping me index an academic blog.
Luigi Novi: Geez. I’m happy that I can just get Elsa to use the litter box and stop scratching up the house. And just a minute or two after I wrote this, she jumped into my lap and started rubbing her face on the lower right-hand “Enter” key, causing spaces to appear between the different paragraphs. Now why can’t you be helpful like Toledo, Elsa?!

Rob Brown: Actually I was referring to how a briefcase containing his campaign strategy was lost by his people, found by somebody else, and leaked. At the time it happened, it sounded as though it had hurt his chances quite a bit.
Luigi Novi: Oh yeah. I had forgotten about that.

If you're looking for a candidate that actively went against his own party...good luck!

Well, here's the thing about guys like Specter and Chafee--eventually, they stopped blindly supporting Bush and began questioning him. Specter did with the wiretapping, and Chafee explicitly refused to vote for extending that same NSA wiretapping program and John Bolton's tenure as U.N. ambassador because, as he put it after losing his seat in the midterms, the American people had spoken and expressed their disapproval for those things and he wasn't going to go against their wishes.

I just have to ask why these guys didn't wise up sooner.

With Giuliani, he could've just politely declined the invitation to speak at the RNC. You know, "Thanks guys, I'm honored that you'd ask me, but I don't agree with the man and won't endorse him, so you'll have to find somebody else. I'm sorry."

I was willing to overlook McCain's appearance because aside from the war, I pretty much agreed with him on everything. He denounced the Swift Boat guys, torture, drilling in a wildlife refuge, etc. I think I started to have my doubts when he was willing to settle for a compromise on the torture thing with the Bush; this is not the kind of thing that you compromise on. Plus, since taking that stand (and then caving a little bit), I'm wondering "what has he done lately?"

History repeats itself. When her husband was put back into the Arkansas governor's seat after a term out, he said he was there to stay and would not be using it as a launchpad to the Presidency.

At least Hillary put in a full term before she made the power grab.

Al Gore for President. Howard Dean for Vice President.

Then the Republicans could run on the slogan:

GORE-DEAN NOT!

// But a Clinton/Obama ticket? That could be unstoppable. //

Have to disagree, I think that would pretty much garentee the Dems would lose, The other side could run a brain dead guy (or just get Bush to run again, same thing) and they wouldn't even have to do anything to beat that ticket. Like it or not, There are large parts of this country that will not vote for a black person and an equally large, (if not bigger) segment of the population for which the idea of woman in the White House is obscene. These predudices can, and someday will, be overcome, but they need to be overcome by strong well liked personalities with lots of good solid, unarguable experience behind them. Neither of which is seen in evidence here, Clinton is just too unliked, (there are people who liked her husband but still can't stand her), and Obamba is to new on the scene, (plus he has a name that sounds like the worlds most wanted terrorist, something Fox News has already picked up on). Combine those and you have pretty much the definition of a ticket that's lost before it's out of the gate.

If you're looking for a candidate that actively went against his own party...good luck!

Well, if you can find a republican who will admit he exists, there's red state senator and Vietnam veteran Chuck Hagel:

Many of those who want to rush this country into war and think it would be so quick and easy don't know anything about war. They come at it from an intellectual perspective, versus having sat in jungles or foxholes and watched their friends get their heads blown off.
--2002

Look at the deficits that have been run up... And Republicans have been in charge... We've been adrift in a sea of incompetence, with no fiscal responsibility.
--Fall 2004

The tough questions were not asked when we sent young men and women into Vietnam. Where were our elected officials then? Eleven years and 58,000 deaths later, we lost. I don't want that to happen in Iraq.
--Fall 2004

I have a responsibility to do everything I can to assure our men and women who are serving in uniform and their families that America has a policy that is worthy of their sacrifices... The deadly struggle for Iraq is not a video game that can be turned off until Nov. 2. War is not an abstraction... I know. I've been to war.
--Fall 2004

I don't think the federal government has any business in dictating what constitutes a marriage.
--May 2005

To question your government is not unpatriotic -- to not question your government is unpatriotic.
--November 2005

I took an oath of office to the Constitution, I didn't take an oath of office to my party or my president.
--December 2005

Well, I didn't like what Mr. Rove said, because it frames terrorism and the issue of terrorism and everything that goes with it, whether it's the renewal of the Patriot Act or the NSA wiretapping, in a political context.
--January 2006

National security is more important than the Republican Party or the Democratic Party. And to use it to try and get someone elected will ultimately end up in defeat and disaster for that political party.
--January 2006

If [Cheney]'d been in the military, he would have learned gun safety.

That last one had me ovulating.

PAD,
Did you see Gov. Bill Richardson announce his Presidential Exploratory Committee today? I've been a fan for a long time. He is totally electable. He has lots of political and government experience and he has a proven track record. Check him out!
Joe
(Texas)

Have to disagree, I think that would pretty much garentee the Dems would lose, The other side could run a brain dead guy (or just get Bush to run again, same thing) and they wouldn't even have to do anything to beat that ticket.

I don't think it would be that easy at all. Yes there are people who would never vote for a black person but there are also many American who are LOOKING for an appealing African American to vote for. Again--look at how Colin Powell was courted, practically begged to run. He would also probably be a big factor in increasing turnout of the black vote--they overwhelmingly vote Democratic but turnout has not always been enough to tilt the outcome.

I keep being told by my Democrat friends that Hillary can't win, people don't like her, she won't get the nomination and if she does she'll be crushed in the election, etc. I just don't agree. Even though the Democrats traditionally kill the early front runner I still say she's got it locked up. She can raise more money than all the other candidates combined. How do you stop that? And as far as the general election, it's unlikely that anything new will come out about her. There are no bad surprises waiting to be sprung.

This is going to be one of the most interesting elections ever, if only because it will be the first to use the internet as the primary vehicle of disseminating information. Both Obama and Clinton made their announcements on the web. This will be huge.

The one thing I'd like to say is that I find that in elections, predictions tend to become self-fulfilling prophesies. worrying about someone not being electable tends to make them un-electable.
Thanks.

Randall, that's a great point. However, expectations can also work for you--if Hillary is considered "unelectable" and she is shown to be close or even slightly ahead in the polls at any point it will seem like a far greater deal than it ought to be.

Sometimes negative perceptions can be your friend, if they can be easily contradicted. A lot of people painted Reagan as a dangerous scarey guy in 1980 but when people saw him on TV he looked like a friendly grandfather. Similarly, if the word against Obama is his supposed inexperience, if I were him I'd be boning up on my geo-politics. Drop a couple of references to the ongoing potassium situation in Kazakhstan and whether or not Afoa Moega Lutu will challange Togiola Tulafono for governorship of Pago Pago.

Did you see Gov. Bill Richardson announce his Presidential Exploratory Committee today? I've been a fan for a long time. He is totally electable. He has lots of political and government experience and he has a proven track record. Check him out!

Has Richardson responded to the criticism he delayed a ban on cockfighting to avoid alienating voters with whom cockfighting is still popular?

I also got the impression it was Richardson's stupidity that nurtured the weak case against Wen Ho Lee -- his obvious political manipulation helping not at all to dismiss rumors he was responsible for leaking Lee's name to publicly scapegoat him. Even the presiding judge went on record apologizing to Lee, and the government chipped in the lion's share of his $1½ million settlement of his lawsuit .

While there are certainly probable candidates I like less than others (let's just say "social conservative Kansas Senator" qualifies pretty darn quick there), right now I don't really like any of the prospectives on either side. I was leaning towards Mark Warner, based on a talk he gave to myself and about 40 other people at work a year or so ago, but he pulled out.

Gore I think would be better than the current crop, with the caveat that he's also the only one I've had the opportunity to personally interact with a few times (group lunch, small group conversations). As for money, there're reports that he may have sufficient Google stock from being a long time advisor to self-fund a campaign, or at least to jump start it. I stress that I've no idea whether that's true or not.

Obama I had pencilled in for VP in '08; he talks real purdy, but it's all generalities and he's nigh-zero experience. Edwards is similar; he really accomplished nothing in his one Senatorial term, has a used car salesman vibe about him, and for someone who's supposed to be a charismatic trial lawyer, he sure didn't do well against Chaney in the VP debate. Hillary just has too much baggage.

How quickly you guys forgot! It wasn't more than six months ago that all the talk was how Hillary Clinton would be DOA if she became the Democratic candidate.

The Republicans have all those nice sharp knives and the short-phrase attacks ready to remove from the display case. You know, short phrases like "lesbian," "anti-Christian," "supporter of adulterer," "health care meddler," "more ambitious than Caesar," and a whole bunch more. They might even help out people on the left who want to nail her for her wholehearted support of Bush's war; why should the Repub's care what happens to Bush's legacy now?

Now, Obama...well, his lack of experience is a problem, but it's harder for them to attack a black man without instant cries of "Racist!" Which, given the usual Republican strategy, is a nice turnabout.

If the Democrats nominate or don't nominate people based largely on the mean things that republicans will say about them they will not only lose, they will deserve to lose. Nominate the best person for the job and let the chips fall where they may. Was nothing learned from throwing Dean overboard for the "more electable" Kerry? Hint--if the members of the party don't like the nominee why should they expect the general electorate to?

One factor we've left out in all this--if California is moved up as they are discussing it to be that may end the primary season really quickly. Win California = win the nomination. Not sure if that's a great idea--California may not be a national bellwether--but it will probably be a further reason to consider Clinton the frontrunner.

Bill,
I feel this is the PERFECT time for Obama to run, for the following reasons:

1.) Part of his strength right now is his freshness and that he is a "new" face. It won't be quite so new in 2016 and especially not in 2024. Which brings me to...

2.) History would indicate that the democrats will regain the White House in 2008. Since Truman's second term ended in 1952 and ended the fifth straight term for Democrats, neither party has been able to hold onto the White House for three straight terms, except for Reagan/Bush Senior from 1980-1992. Considering how unpopular Bush is right now, it increasingly looks like this trend will continue in 2008. So if a Democrat is going to win, why not take a shot, especially....

3.) Since, if the current trend does in fact hold, and a Democrat wins the White Housein 2008, odds ar good he/she will be reelected. Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton and Dubya have all been reelected (and Johnson was basically seen as reelecting JFK). Even Ford and Carter came close in their campaigns for a second term - and only Carter can be seen as a failure entirely of his own making.
So, Obama would be waiting until at least 2016. Of course...

4.) If trends # 2 and 3 hold, then a Republican will be elected in 2016 and be elected to two terms, meaning Obama will have to wait until 2024, when he will be 63.

5.) After 16 years of two men holding the office who were absolutely villified by their opponents, Obama's "positive" message and "we are a purple nation" will likely never resonate so much as right now.

6.) Part of the reason Senators have failed so miserably in their quest for the White House is because they have reams of votes which can be sifted through to find controversy and contradictions. With Obama's sparse experience, that will be nowhere near the problem it would be in 2016 or 2024.

Just something to think about.

Matt Adler,
Do you really find it unthinkable that Hillary already has people digging up dirt on Obama? Right now, he is her biggest obstacle to the White House. This is a woman who used to hire private investigators to dig up dirt on Bill's mistresses to discredit them. As someone once said, "All's fair in love and war" and most successful campaigners I know own a copy of "The Art Of War".

Craig Ries,
"Carter, Clinton, Gore. Three men who were president or vice-president and they haven't stopped working since leaving office."

Really? No vacations? they must really be tired!

"Unlike Ford or Bush Sr. And, I suspect, Bush jr. will be the same as his father."

On what factual basis do you make these ridiculous assertions? Ford and Bush Sr. both did/have done a lot since leaving office. They may not have made a movie or made a deal that allowed North Korea to develop nuclear weapons but Ford's legacy grew in the years he left office and he worked with Carter on several things, to say nothing of his wife's famous rehab center.
Bush Sr. has, among other things, been working with his former rival Clinton on many things. Honestly, it's been on the news.

She's not ever real she's living on the plastic lifestyle Bill created for her. Power hunger and stupid what more could you ask for???

Posted by: Bill Mulligan

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 Hell freezes over.

Agreed.

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.

She may not have a lot of choice in that; if Obama is Very Popular, she may be stuck with him as VP candidate.

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.

"What's good for General Bullmoose is good for the USA!"

Posted by: JamesLynch

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.

Or, perhaps, hard as it may be to believe, maybe she actually sorta likes the guy?

Posted by: Bill Mulligan

Ben, what's DRM?

"Digital Rights Management" - why you can't play the osngs you buy from Apple on your new Zune and vice-versa; also what got Sony/BRM sued by lots of citizens and more than one State.

Posted by: Matt Adler

That DRM stuff is interesting, but it wouldn't alter my support for Biden because A) I think we've got bigger issues to worry about and B) All these attempts are doomed to failure anyway; you can't stop the progress of technology. People will find a way around it in short order, and in a few decades time, the companies will give up and get used to the new model.

However, it's my opinion that anyone who votes in favour of DRM (or the Pro-Bono Copyright Act, a few years back, when the Bono part was still alive) is (A) putting himself in the position of King Canute, suggesting poor political judgement or (B) suggesting strongly that he is being well-paid by Corporate America. [(C) All of the Above, is also a possibility...]

Jerome, at THIS point in time, the only evidence that Hillary has people digging up dirt on Barack is from the usual right-wing loudmouths who are quoting--AS THEIR ONLY SOURCE--a website owned by Sun Myung Moon's people. (Of course, it wouldn't be unthinkable that Karl Rove is the "source" that Insightmag.org was quoting. We should never forget how Rove operates--the sleazier the tactic, the better.)
Hillary *may* be doing some investigating on Barack, but as long as the only reports are coming from the right-wing noise machine, I'm not ready to believe that either she or her campaign is the source of any "whisper campaign".

The more and more political posturing I see, the more and more I'm liking Bill Richardson's chances when he eventually throws his hat into the ring.

Joseph W,
I'm just saying I wouldn't be surprised to see her digging up dirt on Obama. The Clintons have made a political killing by destroying their opponents. It has obviously gotten them very far, so why would they change now?

// Yes there are people who would never vote for a black person but there are also many American who are LOOKING for an appealing African American to vote for. //

Sadly I strongly suspect that the amount of Americans who are looking for an appealing African American canidate is vastly outnumbered by the amount of American's for whom putting a Black person in office is the worst possible scenerio they can think of. There are way to many people out there for whom the civil war never ended or they feel the wrong side won, (and for the wrong reasons), and a whole lot of folks who feel that all the problems of this country started with the civil rights movement and really resent the idea that Martin Luther King has his own holiday. I would like to believe otherwise but the world I see around me, (not the one I see on TV shows, where a white guy can bring a black girl to the school dance and no one says anything), tells me a very different picture.

I feel this is the PERFECT time for Obama to run, for the following reasons:

And you have an impressive list of reasons. You may well be right.

One thing that must weigh on Obama's mind--Democrats are not terribly kind to those who go for the bras ring and fall short. If he tries and fails to get at least the VP nomination he may end up on the scrap heap along with Bill Bradley, Joe Biden, etc. It's an odd thing that the opposite seems to occur with the GOP--last times primary loser is often this times frontrunner.

But I'm thinking that you are right. Mario Cuomo is probably kicking himself for not running when his stock was high.

Power hunger and stupid what more could you ask for???

No more power hungry than anyone else who runs for president. And stupid? Not at all.

She may not have a lot of choice in that; if Obama is Very Popular, she may be stuck with him as VP candidate.

That's true though if she beats him in large part by portraying him as inexperienced it will take a heaping handful of chutzpah to then put him a heartbeat away from the presidency...I guess it depends on how ugly the campaign gets.

The more and more political posturing I see, the more and more I'm liking Bill Richardson's chances when he eventually throws his hat into the ring.

VP candidate at best. (And not a bad choice for that.)

I would like to believe otherwise but the world I see around me, (not the one I see on TV shows, where a white guy can bring a black girl to the school dance and no one says anything), tells me a very different picture.

I can only speak from my experience as a Northerner in the middle of Nowhere NC; A black boy can take a white girl to the school dance and nobody even blinks. (The reverse is less common but still isn't going to set any tongues wagging). A surprising development to me and a pleasing one.

I'm not saying it's that way everywhere but my oldest daughter was also dating a gentleman from Nigeria in Upstate New York and did not report any ugliness from people. Perhaps times are changing for the better--kids today have grown up in a culture that shows such relationships on TV and movies and it's the bigots who are the villains. Maybe real life is starting to reflect that TV ideal.

// I would like to believe otherwise but the world I see around me, (not the one I see on TV shows, where a white guy can bring a black girl to the school dance and no one says anything), tells me a very different picture.

I can only speak from my experience as a Northerner in the middle of Nowhere NC; A black boy can take a white girl to the school dance and nobody even blinks. (The reverse is less common but still isn't going to set any tongues wagging). A surprising development to me and a pleasing one.

I'm not saying it's that way everywhere but my oldest daughter was also dating a gentleman from Nigeria in Upstate New York and did not report any ugliness from people. Perhaps times are changing for the better--kids today have grown up in a culture that shows such relationships on TV and movies and it's the bigots who are the villains. Maybe real life is starting to reflect that TV ideal. //

Times are changing for the better but that doesn't mean we don't have a long way to go. New York for instance is realtivly progessive and intergrated, but I'm told just a few hours away in Philly the idea of a black kid playing with a white kid is still a rarity and that's in a big city with a huge African American population. And even New York has more then it's share of racial problems, see the recent cop shooting for instance. Could a black person become president, sure, but it wouldn't be easy and would take a certain kind of person to overcome the predudice a whole lot of us have. I don't think Obamba is that person, not only is he black but there's a whole lot of people who think he's Muslim, (I don't think he is, not that it really matters to me, but thank you Fox News for blurring that truth) and his name is very simular to the worlds most wanted man (once again thank you Fox News for confusing that issue). Considering that one of the reasons Kerry lost the last election because the competition told a whole lot of people in the Bible belt that he planned to outlaw the Bible and leagalize gay marriage and they BELIEVED THAT, I don't think it would be all that hard for the competition to squash Obamba before he gets out of the gate, (hell Fox News has already started).

"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?"

IMHO, absolutely nothing.

I'm not saying it's that way everywhere but my oldest daughter was also dating a gentleman from Nigeria in Upstate New York and did not report any ugliness from people.

If she's the liberal doctor's daughter, I'm glad she feels free to tell her defensive republican father just everything.

Is there any news on when and where Hillary made this tape that was released on the Internet? I don't live in New York, but I can't imagine it's that green in January. That background looks like June or July. That, coupled with her statement about the "conversation being one-sided lately" makes me think this was filmed at least before the Democrats regained the congressional majority. I'm theorizing the tape was made months ago and just now released. (Shades of the cave guy!)

Peter said:

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.

I seem to recall a certain US Senator-turned-Presidential candidate named Robert Kennedy pulling the same strategy and I don't recall anyone in the public eye yelling "Foul!" back then. How times have changed!

Luigi Novi: My statement was based on observations of fact, the details of which I cited. Not optimism.

Mike: Surrounded by people who voted blacks into Washington, are you?
Luigi Novi: Mike, I’m sorry, but really have no idea what this comment means. You accused me of responding to Peter’s comments about Obama and race based on experience and optimism, and I responded by saying that it was based on facts that I cited. I don’t see how this comment by you serves to refute that point. I vote for the candidate that I think will do the best job. If the parties nominate someone of that description who happens to be black, so be it. If Obama is nominated, he’ll get my vote. If the people who surround me haven’t put blacks into Washington, maybe it’s because there haven’t been any black candidates from the two major parties. These comments didn’t even have anything to do with me but with Obama. I pointed out how minorities will no longer be minorities by 2040-2050. That isn’t optimism. It’s a stated projection by the Census Bureau. In what way do your responses disprove this?

I am, however, surrounded by people who vote for Latinos locally, since that’s the dominant ethnicity in Union City, NJ, where I live. I don’t know if that answers your question or not.

Luigi Novi: 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: 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.
Luigi Novi: Unless you’re at least 67 years old—older if you yourself were witness to life during that 25 year period, I don’t see how this has anything to do with you. Can I assume that you’re in your seventies, just out of curiosity?

No, such a movie portraying males of my ethnicity has not done this. No, I only have to deal with films and TV shows that consistently treat Italian-Americans as one-dimensional, stereotypical, monosyllabic, racist thugs and murderers. And the occasional business in my hometown that tries to charge me more or refuse me service because I don’t speak Spanish.

The problem with this statement on your part (aside from the fact that you seem to think that blacks are the only group with a distorted media image—something largely mitigated by modern political correctness and diversity) is that it seems to imply that simply by being white, I somehow have it made, as if the concept of “privilege” is such a stark black-and-white question (no pun intended) that merely because I was not the group unfairly targeted by The Birth of a Nation, that that somehow means that I have not had to deal with the same pitfalls in life as everyone else has. Well, I’m sorry you feel that way. There are undoubtedly aspects of some white people’s lives that I suppose they owe to the color of their skin. But there are also other variables that help determine where you are in life, like socioeconomic class, parental upbringing, education, and maybe even luck, not to mention all sorts of other obstacles that every human being has to deal with, no matter how much greener you think the grass is on my side of the lawn. But looking around, I don’t see my life as one of “privilege”. I’m broke, have a lousy outdoor job in which I’m often treated like dirt, and in which I haven’t been working since before Christmas because of the weather, and the one temp job I was given after New Year’s lasted two days, without any reason give to me as to why I was not kept on. I’ve been looking for a new job since October 2005. I don’t see how being white has mitigated this.

Mike: 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.
Luigi Novi: I don’t have to worry about housing brokers because since I can’t afford to live on my own right now, that I have to live with my parents. Nor can I afford a car.

Mike: 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.
Luigi Novi: Again, you have not established that I don’t acknowledge that it exists, for the simple reason that the comments on my part that prompted your responses had nothing to do with it.

I do acknowledge that it exists, specifically because I took that test online myself (assuming that the one you’re talking about is Harvard University’s Race Implicit Association Test). It showed that I slightly favor Europeans, and overweight people, both of which surprised me. It should also be pointed out that that test (which you can all take at https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/), makes a point about implicit, unconscious attitudes, rather than overt, fully conscious ones. (More on that point at: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-11-29.html.) It only stands to reason that even unconsciously, a person will tend to favor members of groups to which that person belongs, a point that is obviously not exclusive to whites. I don’t know why the results you cite would also hold for black subjects, but if you could furnish us with sources, please do so.

In any event, none of this refutes my statements about Obama, or even pertains to it. You saw a comment I made about race, and used it to begin a satellite thread about a different a completely different topic about which you seem to have a very self-righteous chip on your shoulder, launching into an attack upon my personal life, which I never brought up, even accusing me of basing my statements on “experience” and “optimism”, when my post made it explicitly clear that it was a statement on a matter of fact based on cited sources. For someone who extols the virtues of citations, it’s a bit surprising that you ignored this fact, instead choosing to respond with just attacks and assumptions about me and my life, without much citations of your own.

Mike: From the way you've framed things, if the insurance companies are charging their fees -- from which they make their fucking huge profits -- to make doctors feel safer, they seem to be doing a piss-poor job.
Luigi Novi: The point is that contrary to Czar’s comment, things would not necessarily be “okay” if Edwards gets elected. The point was not about how well insurance companies are doing their job.

Luigi Novi: Just out of curiosity, where are your citations for the assertions you’ve just made to me?

Mike: What assertions are you referring to?
Luigi Novi: You disagreed with my statements about how the Census Bureau has projected that whites will be the minority by 2040-2050 by dismissing it as “optimism”. Where is your citation that that statement is not true, or for that matter, the citation upon which you established my state of mind? You also asserted that the university study on race demonstrated a bias towards whites even on the part of black subjects. Where is your citation for that?

Mike: 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.
Luigi Novi: I don’t have to worry about housing brokers because since I can’t afford to live on my own right now, that I have to live with my parents. Nor can I afford a car.

Mike: 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.
Luigi Novi: Again, you have not established that I don’t acknowledge that it exists, for the simple reason that the comments on my part that prompted your responses had nothing to do with it.

I do acknowledge that it exists, specifically because I took that test online myself (assuming that the one you’re talking about is Harvard University’s Race Implicit Association Test). It showed that I slightly favor Europeans, and overweight people, both of which surprised me. It should also be pointed out that that test (which you can all take at https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/), makes a point about implicit, unconscious attitudes, rather than overt, fully conscious ones. (More on that point at: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-11-29.html.) It only stands to reason that even unconsciously, a person will tend to favor members of groups to which that person belongs, a point that is obviously not exclusive to whites. I don’t know why the results you cite would also hold for black subjects, but if you could furnish us with sources, please do so.

In any event, none of this refutes my statements about Obama, or even pertains to it. You saw a comment I made about race, and used it to begin a satellite thread about a different a completely different topic about which you seem to have a very self-righteous chip on your shoulder, launching into an attack upon my personal life, which I never brought up, even accusing me of basing my statements on “experience” and “optimism”, when my post made it explicitly clear that it was a statement on a matter of fact based on cited sources. For someone who extols the virtues of citations, it’s a bit surprising that you ignored this fact, instead choosing to respond with just attacks and assumptions about me and my life, without much citations of your own.

Mike: 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.
Luigi Novi: I don’t have to worry about housing brokers because since I can’t afford to live on my own right now, that I have to live with my parents. Nor can I afford a car.

I think most on this thread are really underestimating Governor Bill Richardson. I'm not sure who I'll vote for yet but while everyone is taking shots at the A-listers, Richardson could pull something out of the bag early.

The first three contests, NH, NV, and Iowa taken as a group work best for Richardson in the early delegate count. Let me explain.

Of the three states NH (my home state) and Iowa put candidates through the retail politics wringer. You can't just swoop in with a bag of money and buy air time and expect to win. You have to go door-to-door and convince eye-to-eye to win. Steve Forbes found this out in 1996 when he outspent everyone and came in fourth. When Steve looked people in the eye, they looked him in the smirk.

Not being perceived as a threat with a single digit poll margin, he will fly under the radar as the A-listers (like Hillary and Obama)pummel each other, and throw mud etc... Richardson won't need a bag of money in those two states but he will need to work hard. Who is in the Guinness Book for the handshake record beating Teddy Roosevelt? Bill Richardson. He could come away as a positive alternative to "the Bickersons".

That leaves NV, and as a bordering state Governor he will have more knowledge on which events to go to and which are a waste of time and money. His coffers will increase as people see him rise in the polls in NH and Iowa.

I mean it's not fool-proof, but that's how Carter, Clinton, and Reagan did it.
Why not Handshaking Bill?

--Captain Naraht.

P.S. If we're writing our own Presidential tickets how about:
Bill Myers/Bill Mulligan 2008?
Mike can be White House Press Secretary!

Mike: 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.
Luigi Novi: Again, you have not established that I don’t acknowledge that it exists, for the simple reason that the comments on my part that prompted your responses had nothing to do with it.

I do acknowledge that it exists, specifically because I took that test online myself (assuming that the one you’re talking about is Harvard University’s Race Implicit Association Test). It showed that I slightly favor Europeans, and overweight people, both of which surprised me. It should also be pointed out that that test (which you can all take at https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/), makes a point about implicit, unconscious attitudes, rather than overt, fully conscious ones. (More on that point at: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-11-29.html.) It only stands to reason that even unconsciously, a person will tend to favor members of groups to which that person belongs, a point that is obviously not exclusive to whites. I don’t know why the results you cite would also hold for black subjects, but if you could furnish us with sources, please do so.

In any event, none of this refutes my statements about Obama, or even pertains to it. You saw a comment I made about race, and used it to begin a satellite thread about a different a completely different topic about which you seem to have a very self-righteous chip on your shoulder, launching into an attack upon my personal life, which I never brought up, even accusing me of basing my statements on “experience” and “optimism”, when my post made it explicitly clear that it was a statement on a matter of fact based on cited sources. For someone who extols the virtues of citations, it’s a bit surprising that you ignored this fact, instead choosing to respond with just attacks and assumptions about me and my life, without much citations of your own.

Mike: From the way you've framed things, if the insurance companies are charging their fees -- from which they make their fucking huge profits -- to make doctors feel safer, they seem to be doing a piss-poor job.
Luigi Novi: The point is that contrary to Czar’s comment, things would not necessarily be “okay” if Edwards gets elected. The point was not about how well insurance companies are doing their job.

Luigi Novi: Just out of curiosity, where are your citations for the assertions you’ve just made to me?

Mike: What assertions are you referring to?
Luigi Novi: You disagreed with my statements about how the Census Bureau has projected that whites will be the minority by 2040-2050 by dismissing it as “optimism”. Where is your citation that that statement is not true, or for that matter, the citation upon which you established my state of mind? You also asserted that the university study on race demonstrated a bias towards whites even on the part of black subjects. Where is your citation for that?

Kelly: For everyone giggling over the idea of my cat helping me type, I offer you the following proof, from last week: Toledo helping me index an academic blog.
Luigi Novi: Geez. I’m happy that I can just get Elsa to use the litter box and stop scratching up the house. And just a minute or two after I wrote this, she jumped into my lap and started rubbing her face on the lower right-hand “Enter” key, causing spaces to appear between the different paragraphs. Now why can’t you be helpful like Toledo, Elsa?!

Rob Brown: Actually I was referring to how a briefcase containing his campaign strategy was lost by his people, found by somebody else, and leaked. At the time it happened, it sounded as though it had hurt his chances quite a bit.
Luigi Novi: Oh yeah. I had forgotten about that.

Jerome Maida: The Clintons have made a political killing by destroying their opponents.
Luigi Novi: Like who?

100% agreed. Hil and Barak just aren't electable outside of the more liberal areas of our country and don't have the experience necessary for the highest office in the land. And Al Gore does. Furthermore, he'll be running without the bad taste (no pun intended) of the Monicagate debacle in America's collective mouth.

What bugs me is that the votes in the midterm elections were barely counted and already nearly a dozen candidates declared themselves running or at least thinking about running.

I think a mandatory cooling off period should be in order.

That said, I think all of the major candidates on both sides (Hillary, Obama, McCain, Giulliani, etc) all have major strengths and major weaknesses. It's far too soon to predict who will win and who isn't electable. A lot can change in 2 years, but going just with my gut, I'd say that while we will have a woman president one day, it won't be Hillary Clinton for several obvious reasons.

I'm theorizing the tape was made months ago and just now released. (Shades of the cave guy!)

I think it's been well established that the tape was made a week or two ago. The outside background may well be fake but that's no big deal these days--background is routinely tweaked for effect. Better a nice flowery garden than some goof in a snowjacket holding a "Bababooey" poster.

Captain Naraht--haven't really heard a lot from Richardson to form much of an opinion one way or another. If Obama stays in the race to the end he will have to be very careful not to encourage a black/Latino split--the party can ill afford any in-fighting.

Bill Myers/Bill Mulligan 2008?

Heh. Myers will be sleeping very unsoundly. Be a real shame if something were to happen to him...

I took the Harvard test and it claimed I showed a slight preference for African-Americans. I think the results are skewed by the order that the test is given--a lot of it depends on reaction time and you just get better at it as time goes on. I'm a bit dubious of the validity of these things.

And Al Gore does. Furthermore, he'll be running without the bad taste (no pun intended) of the Monicagate debacle in America's collective mouth.

Not to keep harping on this but Gore says he isn't running. And every day more money and skilled campaigners are being tied up by other candidates who are running. If there is no change in his position, and fast, he has to be taken out of the potential pool.

I don't know whether to believe this guy or not, but he did predict that the current pope would pick the name Benedict

http://www.catholicplanet.com/future/next-prolife.htm

Let me refer to the following as Statement A:

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.

As a standalone statement, Statement A is reasonable. Jim Crow-era laws ended in the US 40 years ago. The handicapping influence of a defunct institution has to end sometime. The same for slavery which ended a century earlier.

Let me refer to the following as Statement B:

I don’t have to worry about housing brokers because since I can’t afford to live on my own right now, that I have to live with my parents. Nor can I afford a car.

You're comparing the legal descrimination of denying you services, of what are for most people the largest purchases of their lives, because of inadequate funds -- to the illegal descrimination of denying the same services based on skin color.

You're unambiguously trying to paint something unfair as fair.

There might be someone who can reconcile the premise behind Statement A with the fixed games presented as fair minorities are subject to. That person simply isn't you.

(This is why I don't buy the Free Market Kool Aid™ anymore -- it depends on presenting fixed games as fair.)

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, [your] optimism is also typical of the racially privileged.

Just out of curiosity, where are your citations for the assertions you’ve just made to me?

What assertions are you referring to?

You disagreed with my statements about how the Census Bureau has projected that whites will be the minority by 2040-2050 by dismissing it as "optimism". Where is your citation that that statement is not true, or for that matter, the citation upon which you established my state of mind?

I took the section I bolded in Section A to be the substantial part of it, and I meant to refer to that specifically. I do not deny your census stats.

And the only assertion I made about your state of mind was that you had one. If you don't have a state of mind, I won't challenge your word you don't.

You also asserted that the university study on race demonstrated a bias towards whites even on the part of black subjects. Where is your citation for that?

I refer to the NPR interview with a representative of the study. I don't have a link, but she unambiguosly said blacks and women were likely to hold a white patriarchal bias, which she admitted she also held.

Thank you for admitting your white bias. I don't so much have a problem with bias than I do the pretense of fairness that shelters and denies bias. It's the deliberation that separates casual bias from racism. I hope I can count on you not to present something unfair as fair, as it has now been made obvious to you.

By deliberation, I mean the quality or state of being deliberate, not the act of deliberating.

Mike: As a standalone statement, Statement A is reasonable.
Luigi Novi: Except that it wasn’t made as a “standalone” statement. It was one sentence in an entire paragraph made in response to Peter’s claim that Obama might not get elected because of racist pockets in the country, and his fear that a white supremacist may try to assassinate him. Taking that statement out of context is irrelevant.

Mike: You're comparing the legal descrimination of denying you services, of what are for most people the largest purchases of their lives, because of inadequate funds -- to the illegal descrimination of denying the same services based on skin color. You're unambiguously trying to paint something unfair as fair.
Luigi Novi: No, I’m not comparing them, since they have nothing to do with one another. You’ve simply misread my statement, and the intended meaning behind it. I responded to your statement that I’m “privileged” by virtue of my skin color by pointing out that skin color is not the only variable that determines one’s future, and pointed out, as an example, that being white did not pave a golden road to an ideal housing situation, because other variables (which you do not take into account) are present. Only in your Straw Man argument were situational obstacles and illegal discrimination being “compared”. If this point of mine is still not clear, then let me rephrase it, using the original statement by you, and a revised response on my part:

Mike: 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.

Luigi Novi: Maybe not: But there are other variables in life that may prevent me from having an ideal life. Being white may give me an advantage, but that’s just one variable. There are others that may keep me in the same position—or worse—than you.

If I did not convey the point that I intended when I originally responded, then I apologize.

Mike: And the only assertion I made about your state of mind was that you had one.
Luigi Novi: The assertion that you made was that my statement to Peter was based on “experience” and “optimism”, rather than observation and citable facts. Those were your words, and optimism is indeed a state of mind, as is basing an opinion on experinece. Again, as soon as you can establish that I was based my statements on these things, please do so.

Mike: I don't so much have a problem with bias than I do the pretense of fairness that shelters and denies bias. It's the deliberation that separates casual bias from racism. I hope I can count on you not to present something unfair as fair, as it has now been made obvious to you.
Luigi Novi: It has not been made obvious. I have not engaged in any pretense, deliberate or otherwise, nor have I presented anything unfair as fair. I made the meaning behind my mention of my housing situation clear, and while I’m willing to concede the possibility that it was not clear in the original post, I have further clarified it. Rather than make a similar concession that perhaps you misread it, you just arbitrarily assumed a dishonest motive or fallacious bit of reasoning on my part, rather than allow for other possibilities. That’s unfortunate. But for my part, I’ve already established a reputation among the more respected visitors here for approaching these discussions and honesty and good faith. By contrast, you assume the worst interpretations of my words, and don’t even bother verifying them by asking me about them, which says more about your state of mind than anything in my posts. If you want to arbitrarily convince yourself of this in order to satisfy predilection towards enmity or paranoia, or some chip on your shoulder, go right ahead.

Peace, Mike.

Luigi Novi: I’ve already established a reputation among the more respected visitors here for approaching these discussions and honesty and good faith.
Bill Myers: For what it's worth, I've always admired your commitment to rational discourse and find myself looking forward to your posts.

Jerome Maida -
Ford's legacy grew in the years he left office and he worked with Carter on several things, to say nothing of his wife's famous rehab center.

Honestly, I completely forgot about the Betty Ford Clinic.

Bush Sr. has, among other things, been working with his former rival Clinton on many things.

He made a commercial with Clinton for the tsunami, and he made an appearance with his wife after Katrina, an appearance he probably regrets.

I don't see him out there making speeches about the things that can be done to help the world and so forth. He mostly just sits at the ranch.

It's been a pretty big case of doing whatever possible to stay out of the public eye. And I guess I just prefer my former presidents to be keeping busy and showing that they actually gave a damn about their country, rather than just their legacy, ala Bush Jr.

Reagan, obviously, can be excused from the conversation, but by comparison, it just doesn't seem like Bush Sr and Ford (in more recent years) pale in comparison to the fact that Carter and Clinton are going to be out there until the day they each die.

Captain Naraht -
I think most on this thread are really underestimating Governor Bill Richardson.

Well, if that's the case, then Vilsack has just as good a chance as anybody as well, since he's from Iowa. :)

But then, like Vilsack, nobody really knows Richardson and what he's done to date.

If this point of mine is still not clear, then let me rephrase it, using the original statement by you, and a revised response on my part:

For another, you don't have to worry about housing brokers losing interest in serving you based [on] your skin color, or car salesmen charging you more based on the same.

Maybe not: But...

You asked me for a privilege being white has afforded you, and now you've affirmed that I've given you one. Thank you.

Rather than make a similar concession that perhaps you misread it, you just arbitrarily assumed a dishonest motive or fallacious bit of reasoning on my part, rather than allow for other possibilities.

Why should I allow for any other interpretation than mine -- when you admitted to a white bias?

(Again, I'm not challenging casual bias, only the deliberate sheltering of bias by pretense or denial.)

I agree with you that both Clinton and Obama are not electable. Alas, specifically because they are female and black, respectively. I think that there are vast swaths of the country -- of both parties -- would will not now or ever vote for a non-white, non-male for President. There are probably a fair number of Democrats who would simply not vote rather than have to vote for someone like that; I don't think they would switch parties and vote for the other side, though.

Hillary has her own issues beyond being female as well, of course.

My prediction is Bill Richardson. Not because I know anything about him, but because he's a governor. All these senators running for President... you have to go back 40 years, to Kennedy, to get a president who was not previously a governor or a vice-president, to get someone who didn't in theory already have experience in the vein needed for the role. (And thus I'll put up Guiliani for the Republican candidate. Mayor of New York is close enough to governor for the experience level, I think.)

Rather than make a similar concession that perhaps you misread it, you just arbitrarily assumed a dishonest motive or fallacious bit of reasoning on my part, rather than allow for other possibilities. That’s unfortunate. But for my part, I’ve already established a reputation among the more respected visitors here for approaching these discussions and honesty and good faith. By contrast, you assume the worst interpretations of my words, and don’t even bother verifying them by asking me about them, which says more about your state of mind than anything in my posts. If you want to arbitrarily convince yourself of this in order to satisfy predilection towards enmity or paranoia, or some chip on your shoulder, go right ahead.

On further consideration, I simply don't know what your grievance is here.

Here's your original reply:

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.

I don’t have to worry about housing brokers because since I can’t afford to live on my own right now, that I have to live with my parents. Nor can I afford a car.

I replied that you compared a legal descrimination to an illegal descrimination. You didn't like that interpretation so you rephrased.

So why the drama?

I'm not sure if the normal "rules" will apply to this election. Mark Evanier has pointed out that at this point Bill Clinton was at 1% in the polls so why are we even taking seriously any poll on popularity. Jim and others have pointed out that senators seldom go far in these things. All perfectly valid but this is an election like no other and anyone who treats it as such might be making a huge tactical error.

The time when Americans more or less passively watched these things unfold before them is over. With the internet they can find out more about a candidate than they ever could from a segment on the nightly news. If the candidate makes a mistake it is all over youtube, forever, along with the remixed version set to rap and a half dozen flash animations starring the candidate along with badgers and the Star Wars Kid. (Just ask former senator Allen).

That certainly adds volatility to the mix. At the same time the money involved has gone through the roof. The Federal Election Commission Chairman said that this one will have a 100 million dollar entry fee and I suspect he's right. It gets hard to imagine someone at 1% now being able to raise $100,000,000.

It also seems to me, from a casual glance, that the Democratic Party has a more web savvy approach than the Republican Party. That may also mean that if any of the Republican candidates can close this gap they may put themselves in a good position to squeak ahead in the nomination race.

.
.
Al Gore for President. Howard Dean for Vice President.

Then the Republicans could run on the slogan:
.
.
GORE-DEAN NOT!
.
.
Gordian Knot---Get it?
.
.

Bill Myers: For what it's worth, I've always admired your commitment to rational discourse and find myself looking forward to your posts.
Luigi Novi: Thanks, Bill. :-)

Luigi Novi: Luigi Novi: Maybe not: But there are other variables in life that may prevent me from having an ideal life. Being white may give me an advantage, but that’s just one variable. There are others that may keep me in the same position—or worse—than you.

Mike: (Quoting only the first sentence of the above): You asked me for a privilege being white has afforded you, and now you've affirmed that I've given you one. Thank you.
Luigi Novi: Whether you acknowledge or respond to it or not, my point remains the same: That being white is only one variable out of many (which I’ve never denied), and does not, in and of itself, afford me a “privileged” life, inasmuch as I’ve made it clear that I do not have one. Instead of refuting this point, or even responding to it honestly, you’ve now decided to edit out the entire remaining section of the passage, and reacting with the message board equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going, “La-la-la-la-la…”, in order to completely ignore the point.

Mike: Why should I allow for any other interpretation than mine -- when you admitted to a white bias?
Luigi Novi: Why should you allow for any other interpretation than yours? Well, two reasons. First, maybe because the passage in question was made by me, so the only one who can give the original intent behind it is, um, you know, the person who actually made it. How exactly your interpretation of it can be as accurate as mine, I don’t know.

Second, because, as I pointed out above, my admission that I may have the same types of biases that everyone has was not the point of the passage in question, but in a different portion of the thread. The original passage—the one that you misinterpreted—was the one in which I pointed out that I did not have a very good housing situation or a car, which you interpreted as an comparison between illegal discrimination and circumstantial obstacles. I clarified this above by pointing out that it was a way to underscore the point that skin color is one of many variables that determine your living conditions. That original point was made in my 10:55am post today. You responded to that passage with the misinterpreted meaning in your 2:48pm post. The post I then made in which you say I “admitted my white bias”, didn’t occur until 3:57pm post. So how exactly you could justify your misinterpretation at the time—and the refusal to consider any others at the time you expressed it, by perhaps asking me what my intent was—in light of a statement that didn’t occur until over an hour later, I don’t know.

Mike: Again, I'm not challenging casual bias, only the deliberate sheltering of bias by pretense or denial.
Luigi Novi: So you assert that I’ve “admitted” a white bias, but then continue to insist that I’m “sheltering” or “denying” it?

Mike: I replied that you compared a legal descrimination to an illegal descrimination. You didn't like that interpretation so you rephrased.
Luigi Novi: I didn’t say that I didn’t like that interpretation. I said that it was wrong.

……

I have attempted to allow for the possibility that whatever misunderstanding you and I were experiencing, that you were approaching my posts in good faith. But it’s clear with your last post above that you are not. Like every other flamer, troll and paralogist, you are deliberately and knowingly dishonest, conducting yourself not with civility, intelligence and sincerity, but by distorting and manipulatively editing other people’s words, assuming sinister intentions rather than showing intellectual curiosity by asking people for their intended meaning, attempting to portray statements made in one portion of a thread to have been made in a completely different one, and then having the temerity to accuse others of “pretense”. By behaving in this way, you reveal yourself as a willful liar, an intellectually bankrupt hypocrite, and an abject coward.

You’re shrouded.

I can see the slogans now:

"Hillary Clinton: Closer to Being a Woman Than Obama is to Being Black"

I replied that you compared a legal descrimination to an illegal descrimination. You didn't like that interpretation so you rephrased.

I didn’t say that I didn’t like that interpretation. I said that it was wrong....

I have attempted to allow for the possibility that whatever misunderstanding you and I were experiencing, that you were approaching my posts in good faith. But it’s clear with your last post above that you are not. Like every other flamer, troll and paralogist, you are deliberately and knowingly dishonest, conducting yourself not with civility, intelligence and sincerity...

It's clear that I'm dishonest. And in my last post too.

What was my deception, exactly? That you actually did like my interpretation? Where did you say you liked my interpretation?

If it's clear that I'm dishonest -- from my last post -- you should have no problem pointing out my deception again.

...but by distorting and manipulatively editing other people’s words...

Please cite an example.

...assuming sinister intentions rather than showing intellectual curiosity...

If we can't take you at your word -- why are you here?

(Again, I'm not challenging casual bias, only the deliberate sheltering of bias by pretense or denial.)

So you assert that I’ve “admitted” a white bias, but then continue to insist that I’m “sheltering” or “denying” it?

I said the text you are responding to to keep my agenda clear -- as opposed to the deceitful agenda you ascribe to me. It wasn't directed at you, so I enclosed it in parentheses.

Why did you -- who are holding me to the standard of truthfulness -- feel the need to misrepresent what I said by removing the parentheses?

Why should I allow for any other interpretation than mine -- when you admitted to a white bias?

Why should you allow for any other interpretation than yours? Well, two reasons. First, maybe because the passage in question was made by me, so the only one who can give the original intent behind it is, um, you know, the person who actually made it. How exactly your interpretation of it can be as accurate as mine, I don’t know.

When you say my last post was dishonest, Luigi, will you please do me the courtesy of actually reading it?

When I said I reconsidered your post I was replying to -- because I don't know what your grievance is -- I submitted an updated reply:

On further consideration, I simply don't know what your grievance is here.

Here's your original reply:

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.

I don’t have to worry about housing brokers because since I can’t afford to live on my own right now, that I have to live with my parents. Nor can I afford a car.

I replied that you compared a legal descrimination to an illegal descrimination. You didn't like that interpretation so you rephrased.

So why the drama?

What... is... your... problem...?

I wish I could feel certain the HTML typo in the previous post is obvious in comparison to the original, but since I can't be certain Luigi will review my post he based his accusation of dishonesty on, I feel compelled to post the text in the correct formatting:

On further consideration, I simply don't know what your grievance is here.

Here's your original reply:

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.

I don’t have to worry about housing brokers because since I can’t afford to live on my own right now, that I have to live with my parents. Nor can I afford a car.

I replied that you compared a legal descrimination to an illegal descrimination. You didn't like that interpretation so you rephrased.

So why the drama?

I haven't decided yet if I'm going to vote in the next American presidential elections. I did it last time, but with much hesitation. I'm legally entitled to do it, since I have an American passport, but I do not live in the US, so is it right to vote? I'm not sure.

In any case, it is interesting to hear different attitudes toward the candidates. If I do decide to vote, I would have to become more informed about them.

There's something encouraging about the fact that a woman and a black man are seriously considered for the job. Many here are concerned that maybe the electorate in the US is still not ready. I don't know. Maybe now finally is the time. There has to be a first time. And there is something problematic about delaying it over and over because of fear.

I've seen a bit of Obama. He seems to have a certain Kenedy-esque charisma. And charisma seems to be worth a lot in presidential elections. I'm also impressed by the way he seems to talk not only about what's wrong but about what can be done to make it better. Hope is very important at this stage. It's been a lousy decade, and I personaly could use some hope. I realize that the lack of experience is a problem. I wonder how he'll address it? Will he look for an LBJ-like running mate to address this weakness? Then again, after Bush people may feel that experience is more important than they did in the past. It will be interesting to see how far can charisma take Obama.

I know governors have had an advantage on senators. Probably because they are perceived as having executive experience? But don't senators have more experience in dealing with foreign policy?

Hilary is an interesting candidate. She seems lacking in charisma, but she has been able to become popular -- it would seem -- in New York. Will se ba able to replicate it in other places, or is the deep-seated dislike for her just too strong.

Robertson seems to have a very good resume for a candidate -- governor, cabinet member, experience in foreign policy. But does he have that personable quality that won the elections for Clinton and Bush. After Kerry, democrats might feel that voting for the person they instinctually like, might be better than voting to the person that looks good on paper.

I also like Al Gore as a candidate. His focus on ecology is appealing. It is about time that this issue will become a serious part of politics and not just an issue for a green minority. It was quite unfortunate that at the time when two global threats -- global warming and Islamic radicalism -- came to the foreground, the most powerful person in the world did not have the abilities or the inclination to deal with them correctly. A Gore-Obama ticket may be appealing. Of course for that Gore has to run. Maybe if he is pushed to run by public opinion? Has he been able to address the handicap that lost him (narrowly) the 2000 elections?

As for the Republicans, they will probably try to present their candidate as someone possessing all the goodness of conservativism without the baggage associated with Bush. Can it work? After all, conservative attitudes are strongly rooted in the US. Also, I think Kerry lost partially because although Iraq already seemed pretty bad in 2004, the Democrats were not perceived as offering an appealing alternative to Americans concerned about terror. Will the avarage American now feel more confident about voting for liberal candidates?

One thing about McCain. He seems to support an even greater surge in Iraq than Bush does. Considering the unpopularity of the war, isn't he taking a great political risk? Could this be considered courage on his part?

-----------------------

Luigi, been there, done that, got the tee-shirt. It has a picture of a man slamming his head into a brick wall. You can have one at the color of your choice.

------------------------

About the Jimmy Carter thing. When an ex-president who is supposed to be a great dioplomat parrots bad Palestinian propaganda, it is quite disappointing, even if it is not motivated by antisemitism. Not being an antisemite is nice, but not enough. In this conflict you're either part of the problem or part of the solution. Bush is part of the problem and now so is Carter.
Here is a colmn about this from somebody who has similar positions to mine on this issues more or less:
http://tough-dove-israel.blogspot.com/2006/12/carters-palestine-israel-book-its-even.html

Matt Adler,
Do you really find it unthinkable that Hillary already has people digging up dirt on Obama?

'Twasn't me that said that. But do I find it unthinkable? I rarely find anything in politics unthinkable. Do I think it's likely? Well, the biggest argument against it is the backlash Hillary would get if it were discovered. So right now I think it's slightly more unlikely than likely, but you never know.

However, it's my opinion that anyone who votes in favour of DRM (or the Pro-Bono Copyright Act, a few years back, when the Bono part was still alive) is (A) putting himself in the position of King Canute, suggesting poor political judgement or (B) suggesting strongly that he is being well-paid by Corporate America. [(C) All of the Above, is also a possibility...]

I think it certainly suggests he gets contributions from some corporations, but that's true of all major politicians, and Corporate America isn't monolithic. All things considered, I'd rather someone be in the pocket of Time Warner than Halliburton or Philip Morris.

Robertson seems to have a very good resume for a candidate -- governor, cabinet member, experience in foreign policy.

I'm going to assume you meant Richardson. For moment I actually thought you were talking about Pat Robertson and I think a little piece of me died inside. :)

Ig Gore (or anyone else) is waiting for popular opinion to push him into running...I hope he has a comfy chair and some nice DVDs. Gonna be a long wait.

(I recommend Mr Gore--and you all--run out and get the Criterion Collection reconstruction of SPARTACUS--one of my all time favorites, looking better than it has in 40 years.)

Yes, Richardson, got confused.

Don't you think Obama was pushed to run now at least patially by public opinion, or at least by certain people who felt that there is an opportunity for a black candidate now?

In this conflict you're either part of the problem or part of the solution. Bush is part of the problem and now so is Carter.
Here is a colmn about this from somebody who has similar positions to mine on this issues more or less:
http://tough-dove-israel.blogspot.com/2006/12/carters-palestine-israel-book-its-even.html

Yeah, the guy you linked to? I don't think he can be taken at his word.

Despite his well-deserved reputation as a humanitarian and an advocate of peace, Carter, remarkably, does not call for an unconditional end to Palestinian "suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism." (p. 213) Instead he says that

It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel.

In short--forget about Palestinian confidence-, trust- or peace-building measures.

Carter isn't encouraging terrorism.

Anyone familiar with Nelson Mandela's history knows the South African government went to him and asked him to publicly denounce the ANC terrorism. Mandela refused, replying that as an incarcerated man, he isn't in a position to ask anything of anyone.

If Carter believes the comparison to apartheid applies, then, just as he would have couseled Mandela to assure the South African government he will denounce the terrorism of the ANC if they free him, he is couseling the Palestinians to give assurances they will renounce terrorism if Israel relents whatever the hell the Palestinians claim is oppressing them.

Luigi, been there, done that, got the tee-shirt. It has a picture of a man slamming his head into a brick wall. You can have one at the color of your choice.

You're welcome to help him find the deceit he accused me of. You Can Be First.™

Don't you think Obama was pushed to run now at least patially by public opinion, or at least by certain people who felt that there is an opportunity for a black candidate now?

Yes, you're correct, but Obama actually HAS a degree of popular support. Gore at 10% just isn't getting it. Now admittedly, it's possible that if he DID decide to run more people would flock to him...but I don't really see it. As I've pointed out, Democrats are not big on second chances. Gore is not the pariah that Dukakis is, they'll allow him to speak at the convention and he might even get a role in a new Democratic administration--maybe expand the Office of Homeland security to include global warming?--but I think his chance has passed and I think he knows it.

There seems to be a hunger for a new face--which, ironically could count against Hillary, I suppose. Strange that a person could be simultaneously groundbreaking and establishment butthese are strange times.

If Obama runs, Hillary has got to be his assination insurence, much like Dick Chaney to George Bush. Even the wackiest wack jobs dont try to pop a shot at him, concidering no one want Vader himself in charge.

Huh! The ABC-WaPo poll:
Clinton now holds a commanding 41-17 percent lead over the Illinois senator among Democrats and Democrat-leaning Independents, according to an ABC News/Washington Post poll taken before her announcement, and after Obama's Jan. 16 campaign kickoff.

Strikingly, Clinton did even better among black Democratic voters, amassing a 26-point lead over Obama.

So...Whites are more likely to vote for Obama than Blacks? Interesting if true.

So...Whites are more likely to vote for Obama than Blacks? Interesting if true.

It's consistent with the deference blacks have toward whites Luigi found counter-intuitive. Kind of a shame how The Man drilled into blacks a bias to pass over one of their own.

Clinton now holds a commanding 41-17 percent lead over the Illinois senator among Democrats and Democrat-leaning Independents

I think it just goes to show that Hillary isn't as polarizing to the Democratic voting bloc as many like to think.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan

Huh! The ABC-WaPo poll:

Clinton now holds a commanding 41-17 percent lead over the Illinois senator among Democrats and Democrat-leaning Independents, according to an ABC News/Washington Post poll taken before her announcement, and after Obama's Jan. 16 campaign kickoff.

Strikingly, Clinton did even better among black Democratic voters, amassing a 26-point lead over Obama.

So...Whites are more likely to vote for Obama than Blacks? Interesting if true.

According to a New Orleans attorney i know, backs on juries are more likely to convict black dfendants than are whites - because blacks who wind upon juries are likely to be upper-middle- to upper-class professionals who see black criminals as making the whole black community look bad.

Perhaps the blacks who say that they support Hillary over Obama are figuring that blacks in politics will take less of a hit if a white woman crashes and burns than if a black man does.

Posted by: Mike

So...Whites are more likely to vote for Obama than Blacks? Interesting if true.

It's consistent with the deference blacks have toward whites Luigi found counter-intuitive. Kind of a shame how The Man drilled into blacks a bias to pass over one of their own.

Nah.

Ever hear the joke about the old IRA guman who was dying and asked his sons to send for Father Reilly?

"But, Da - Fadder Reilly's a papist!"

"Right - I'm doin' a death-bed converson. Better for one of them to die than one of us."

As i said above, maybe the blacks simply figure that, in a pioneering situation, it's better for a white woman to get shot out of the saddle than a black man.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan

Huh! The ABC-WaPo poll:

Clinton now holds a commanding 41-17 percent lead over the Illinois senator among Democrats and Democrat-leaning Independents, according to an ABC News/Washington Post poll taken before her announcement, and after Obama's Jan. 16 campaign kickoff.

Strikingly, Clinton did even better among black Democratic voters, amassing a 26-point lead over Obama.

So...Whites are more likely to vote for Obama than Blacks? Interesting if true.

According to a New Orleans attorney i know, backs on juries are more likely to convict black dfendants than are whites - because blacks who wind upon juries are likely to be upper-middle- to upper-class professionals who see black criminals as making the whole black community look bad.

Perhaps the blacks who say that they support Hillary over Obama are figuring that blacks in politics will take less of a hit if a white woman crashes and burns than if a black man does.

Posted by: Mike

So...Whites are more likely to vote for Obama than Blacks? Interesting if true.

It's consistent with the deference blacks have toward whites Luigi found counter-intuitive. Kind of a shame how The Man drilled into blacks a bias to pass over one of their own.

Nah.

Ever hear the joke about the old IRA guman who was dying and asked his sons to send for Father Reilly?

"But, Da - Fadder Reilly's a papist!"

"Right - I'm doin' a death-bed converson. Better for one of them to die than one of us."

As i said above, maybe the blacks simply figure that, in a pioneering situation, it's better for a white woman to get shot out of the saddle than a black man.

Maybe they actually prefer Hillary to Obama because they prefer Hillary to Obama. The assumption that they shoould do otherwise seems somewhat paternalistic. White voters are expected to vote for the person they feel is best qualified but if Black voters exercise the same level of judgement they are somehow guilty of bias.

Until evidence to the contrary shows up I see no reason to assume the worst of African-American voters simply for choosing a white candidate over a black one.

As for the idea that they may be reluctant to see a black man try and fail...possibly, there was talk of that among Jewish circles during Lieberman's run for VP in 2000 but ultimately it didn't amount to much. Having Obama run, even if he loses, will be an indication of black political power, not weakness.

New classes start today, it will be interesting to get a feel from my students what they think and what their parents have been saying.

Maybe I'm just naive, but why can't people just elect Barack or Hillary or Al or whoeverthefuck based on their track record?

Am I an idealist, or just stupid?

Even after seven season of The West Wing and a girlfriend who was a polisci major, I still don't understand what the flap is about. Look at the person's record, what they've done for good or ill, and elect them based on that. It doesn't, or shouldn't, matter if they're black, white, yellow, male, female, herm, Antarean, or what. If they have the best interests of the people at heart, give them the job.

Far too many politicians are in there to make money. They don't give a shit about their constituents. The ones who do care get run outta town real fast. And the crooks who are in it to get and stay elected have been around forever. Watch any of the film versions of The Front Page if you don't believe me.

Nobody reads Santayana.

Must go. Need coffee.

Miles

Antareans can be elected president. It's in teh constitution.

They could be elected governor of California and anecdotal evidence says they have been.

Ever hear the joke about the old IRA guman who was dying and asked his sons to send for Father Reilly?

"But, Da - Fadder Reilly's a papist!"

"Right - I'm doin' a death-bed converson. Better for one of them to die than one of us."

Considering the IRA is made up of almost entirely Catholic separatists (ie, "papists"), your joke makes no sense whatsoever.

Maybe they actually prefer Hillary to Obama because they prefer Hillary to Obama. The assumption that they shoould do otherwise seems somewhat paternalistic. White voters are expected to vote for the person they feel is best qualified but if Black voters exercise the same level of judgement they are somehow guilty of bias.

Until evidence to the contrary shows up I see no reason to assume the worst of African-American voters simply for choosing a white candidate over a black one.

I never denied support for Hillary is sincere. I just said blacks prefering Hillary over Obama to a higher degree than whites is consistent with the deference blacks have toward whites Luigi found counter-intuitive. And that it's kind of a shame how The Man drilled into blacks a bias to pass over one of their own.

Ig Gore (or anyone else) is waiting for popular opinion to push him into running...I hope he has a comfy chair and some nice DVDs. Gonna be a long wait.

But is he going to be waiting on a desert Island with a really long extension cord? :)

Mark Evanier has pointed out that at this point Bill Clinton was at 1% in the polls so why are we even taking seriously any poll on popularity.

A question I've been asking for a long time now. I still say that it's far too early to either annoint a frontrunner or declare someone "unelectable" because they're (pick one) black, a woman, inexperienced, polarizing, etc.

Hillary is a shrewd campaigner. Who knows? She could surprise everyone or she could crash and burn as she becomes everyone's target in the primary. Obama's decisions to run is without doubt heavily influenced by the rising wave of popularity his charisma is generating. As a governor, Richardson might have a better shot at running as a Washington outsider. I'd have to say that a Richardson/Obama ticket would be a powerful combo.

I understand why people have reservations about Hilary. But what is it that caused her to become a forerunner (at this early stage) to begin with? I haven't been following US politics close enough, so I don't really know what she's done lately.

Hillary is being less than truthful again? Surprise, surprise.

Maybe I'm just naive, but why can't people just elect Barack or Hillary or Al or whoeverthefuck based on their track record?

Because a president who is a minority, a woman, or vulnerable to mischaractizations he took credit for inventing the internet, is a challenge to the pretense of invulnerability most people hold dear -- dear enough for men to sacrifice their own marriages over, and dear enough for even blacks and lesbians to display a bias in favor of a white patriarchy.

Re: Hillary Clinton's apparent lead over Barack Obama among blacks.

This is a *good* thing by any measure. Hillary Clinton, along with her husband, has a tremendous amount of good will among minorities. It would be discouraging to me, at least, if a political relationship of about 15 years could be lost or ignored simply because Obama is black.

Can Obama shift the tide? Sure. But he will have to prove himself.

Also, someone had mentioned whether it would be easier for a white woman to win the presidency as opposed to a black man. My opinion is that -- excluding the banjo-picking, Klan members -- Joe Average Middle American is more inclined to publically state that he has a problem with a female president than with a black president. Acceptable prejudice these days starts with gays then goes on to women and then to blacks. Yes, I know that most white women aren't going to be accidentally shot by the cops any time soon but in this area, I think women would have it tougher than blacks. Keep in mind that most of the negative black stereotypes are hard to pin on Obama -- he's obviously not lazy, dangerous, and so on. However, we've already heard rumblings about whether Hillary has what it takes to be commander and chief of the military and so on.

And now for something completely different (unless I missed a similar post in the previous 141 posts; sigh)...

When I first read the last paragraph...

As crazy as it sounds, I'd almost rather see Al Gore take another run at it. Hell, 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?

...I have to admit I lost track of who "he" was, which lead to the frightful thought...

ZOMBIE NIXON'S BACK!!!

A-heh. ... >coff

We now return to your regularly scheduled programming, already in progress.

Craig J. Ries Stated "Reagan, obviously, can be excused from the conversation,"

No, he shouldn't. Say what you will about Reagan as president. Love him, hate him, analyze his term in office. But Reagan was one of the more lazy ex-presidents. The only thing he did after the White House was a multi million dollar speaking tour. As much as I disagreed with Bush Sr the President, Bush Sr the EX-President beats Reagan hands down. He's one of those old-school, charity-without-flash conservatives who you never see doing public service unless he's working with the very flashy Bill Clinton.

Then Craig stated [regarding Bill Richardson being underestimated]: "Well, if that's the case, then Vilsack has just as good a chance as anybody as well, since he's from Iowa. But then, like Vilsack, nobody really knows Richardson and what he's done to date."

Good point about what each Governor has done. That's the difference between Vilsak and Richardson. Richardson has White House and international experience that Vilsak sorely lacks. These early primaries will allow every candidate to work on a grass roots level using little money (except in NV.) Put these two Governors in an NH living room for coffee with 40 people and Richardson will look far more charming and presidential.

Besides that, Iowa and NH look poorly on "favorite son" types who attempt taking advantage of the primary system. Just Google or Wiki US Senator Bob Smith's (R-NH) unsuccessful Independent bid for president in 1996. He was rewarded with facing John Sununu Jr in the Republican primary in 2002. He lost.

Bill Mulligan: "I'm not sure if the normal "rules" will apply to this election. Mark Evanier has pointed out that at this point Bill Clinton was at 1% in the polls so why are we even taking seriously any poll on popularity."

This too is probably the right way to go. At this time in 1976 and 1980, no one thought Reagan or Carter had a chance either, and a slim victory in the NH primary caused LBJ to not seek another term as President.

The reason why the Iowa Caucus and NH Primary are so important is their ability to weed out the Potomac Fever types who just wanna buy air time (i.e. Richard Gephardt). After fifty years of this Iowa and NH are pretty savvy about demanding details from candidates.

My only problem with the process is both states lack of ethnic diversity. To counter that I propose that the D.C Caucus should be held the Saturday after the NH primary. While candidates could certainly buy a lot of airtime, they would also be able to travel short distances and would have to campaign by meeting people face to face--just like in NH and Iowa.

--Captain Naraht

"Acceptable prejudice these days starts with gays then goes on to women and then to blacks"

What? There's any kind of prejudice that's acceptable? Or there are people that think any kind of prejudice is acceptable?

I truly hope this isn't a widely held view. Prejudice against gays vis a vis marriage limitations may be tolerated and allowed in some areas at the moment, but I'd hardly say that it's accepted.

Practiced, perpetuated, existing, yes, to all three. But accepted? Hardly.

Captain Naraht -
No, he shouldn't.

Well, maybe it's just me, but if I found out tomorrow that I had Alzheimer's, I'd be giving the world the finger so I could enjoy what time I've got left.

It's a horrible disease that nobody should have to deal with, and I can't blame anybody suffering from it from shying away from the public eye.

Late to the party as usual. Any cold drinks left? Damn.

Hillary and Obama each have something in common here and it's the kind of thing that will hurt their chances over time rather then help them. People are seeing more in them then what's actually there.

Hillary is a familiar face and she's associated with, for many, the "good times" before President Chimp came along. I really doubt that most people beyond the Tri-State area could really tell you the first thing she stands for other then health care issues. People are just pouring what they want to see in a candidate into her. Hell, I run across people out there who like Hillary because she voted against the war and will fix Bush's mess there. No, that's not a typo.

By early 2008, Hillary will be taking public stands on many subjects that people may not agree with and her record on things like the war will become well known to even the densest of her present supporters. Knowledge is going to fill in the blanks that people have in what they "know" about her and she may lose support because of it.

Obama has the same problem, times three, for the opposite reason. He's a new face, a new hope, that people know almost nothing about. Ask the average guy on the street who says that he likes Obama what Obama actually stands for. Odds are that you'll get regurgitated PR puff from the cable news shows or nonsensical stuff about new ideas and the future. They just project what they want most from a candidate onto his blank slate.

It's kind of like that rigged poll question that many on the left loved to use against Bush back in 2003. They would ask who you backed in the upcoming election and give one of the choices as an "unknown" Democrat opponent to Bush. Well, "unknown" was kicking Bush's butt by huge margins every time the poll was done. And why not? "Unknown" got to be the perfect candidate for each person being polled. I think that's what people are doing with Obama, even more so then with Hillary, now.

That blank slate will also hurt Obama with the moderates that might vote for him but don't follow politics in any detailed or serious way. The Republican Noise Machine (RNM) is already ramping up hard and heavy with anti-Obama falsehoods. Fox News has been reporting some nice whoppers about him and his past as absolute fact, the talk radio crowd is following suite and Joe Average on the street is already asking about his "extreme Muslim upbringing."

Yeah, you can say that facts will win out in the end. I just don't subscribe to that idea with the general public. I was still hearing certain Swift Boat falsehoods about Kerry being discussed as fact by the general public months after seeing their head guys get backed into corners on various political chat shows and admit that they were "in error" with some of their personal recollections and materials in their book. They lied. They admitted to lying. But the RNM kept banging away with the admitted lies and people kept pointing to them as facts. Granted, this wasn't helped one bit by Kerry and his attitude in general.

Hillary may be somewhat immune to the RNM this go around. What are they going to bring up? White Water? Cattle futures? Her book deal? Bill's peccadilloes? Lesbian rumors? Old news from garbage scandals. I don't think that any of them will play like they did in the 90's and they'd have a problem coming up with anything new that might play like this crap used to. Granted, Fox News and the radio guys will likely do what they do best and just make something up, but that won't play as well as it did ten years ago.

They only thing that I can see them trying to hit Hillary with right now is her abandoning her commitment to New York with an 2008 presidential run. Yeah, I can't see that as being much of a kill shot either. Most people outside of New York won't care and anybody who does care is just going to be looked at like a fool. I'm sorry, but how naive do you really have to be to think that Hillary wasn't a) using New York as her stepping stone and b) heading for the White House in 2008. Most of last Saturday's SNL Hardball skit was crap, but they nailed that topic dead on.

"What? There's any kind of prejudice that's acceptable? Or there are people that think any kind of prejudice is acceptable?"

Of course there is. Trek geeks who don't have the intelligence and good taste to admit that B-5 and/or Farscape were better shows then 90% of modern Trek deserve the persecution that they get, people who say that Red Dwarf isn't funny should rightly be treated as second class citizens and fans of the films of Uwe Boll should be shunned and segregated from the rest of society for the greater good.

Acceptable prejudice these days starts with gays then goes on to women and then to blacks

What? There's any kind of prejudice that's acceptable? Or there are people that think any kind of prejudice is acceptable?

I truly hope this isn't a widely held view. Prejudice against gays vis a vis marriage limitations may be tolerated and allowed in some areas at the moment, but I'd hardly say that it's accepted.

Practiced, perpetuated, existing, yes, to all three. But accepted? Hardly.

The first question that comes to mind is: has any elected official lost reelection immediately after comparing homosexuality to a predatory perversion, like pedophilia or bestiality? Has any radio talk show host lost his slot for comparing the Abu Ghraib torture photos to gay porn?

Micha: "Luigi, been there, done that, got the tee-shirt. It has a picture of a man slamming his head into a brick wall. You can have one at the color of your choice."

I don't think those tee-shirts are selling very well.

"Acceptable prejudice these days starts with gays then goes on to women and then to blacks"

What about Muslims?

Miles Vorkosigan: Maybe I'm just naive, but why can't people just elect Barack or Hillary or Al or whoeverthefuck based on their track record? Am I an idealist, or just stupid?
Luigi Novi: I’m guessing the former, but hey, that doesn’t have to be a bad thing. I think the reason that it may not be this simple is because in the case of Hilary, the spinmeisters of her opponents can use her record against her, and in the case of Obama, her doesn’t have much of a record, which may count against him in the eyes of voters who either prefer to vote for someone who has one, or who can be manipulated by the spinmeisters into thinking that way.

Bobb Alfred: What? There’s any kind of prejudice that’s acceptable? Or there are people that think any kind of prejudice is acceptable?
Luigi Novi: I think SER was talking about “is” rather than “ought”. In terms of “is”, there are many groups for whom it is “acceptable” to exhibit prejudicial attitudes, because whether your group is subject to this or not is as much a matter of how well it or others have used PR to promote its visibility as a group of actual human beings deserving of respect than of the moral consistency of the rest of society, even those who generally men well.

We had a thread some time ago in which Peter mentioned something to the effect that some group (I don’t remember which, maybe it was comic book fans) that is the “only” group for whom prejudicial attitudes are acceptable. I responded there are many groups subject to prejudicial attitudes, like Indians, Arabs, Gypsies, Native Americans, atheists/agnostics, Trekkies, soap opera fans, fat people, unattractive people, etc. Whether you notice them depends on who you are, where you live, and in general, the exposure you’ve had to the information about them and their lives. The fact is, there are still people who hold quite overt prejudicial, and even outright hateful attitudes against not only these groups that I’ve mentioned, but even the ones that may be perceived in liberal circles to be afforded respect, like blacks, gays, women, etc.

I wasn't current on the Hillary whisper campaign because I'm not caught up on my reading of Moonie periodicals:

CNN debunks false report about Obama

Insight Magazine, which is owned by the same company as The Washington Times, reported on its Web site last week that associates of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-New York, had unearthed information the Illinois Democrat and likely presidential candidate attended a Muslim religious school known for teaching the most fundamentalist form of Islam....

Insight attributed the information in its article to an unnamed source, who said it was discovered by "researchers connected to Senator Clinton." A spokesman for Clinton, who is also weighing a White House bid, denied that the campaign was the source of the Obama claim.

Gee, either a Hillary rep leaked a false rumor in a manor that would unambiguously trace it back to her -- or it's another Republican Whisper Campaign,™ and they couldn't use the siring of a black baby this time because Obama is the black baby in question.

Pitiful.

people who say that Red Dwarf isn't funny should rightly be treated as second class citizens and fans of the films of Uwe Boll should be shunned and segregated from the rest of society for the greater good.

There are people who don't find Red Dwarf funny? There are fans of Uwe Boll?????

I don't live in New York, but I can't imagine it's that green in January.
It is. It looks like it was filmed right across the street from where I live (I'm about 5 minutes from the main government offices). Gotta remember, we just got our first real snowfall on Monday morning - until then, it'd been greener than Seattle here.

And please, could people make an effort to spell Obama's name correctly? One B. Just one. It's not that difficult a name to spell, and misspelling it, especially right now when Fox News enjoys mooshing him in with bin Laden, is just petty and juvenile.

It's a small request, really,...

"There are fans of Uwe Boll?????"

Scary, but all too true. Google "boll fans" and weep.

Hillary has enough clout to get past sexist prejudices against her. She can win by getting the coastal states, Ohio, Michigan and a few others. She doesn't need the bubba states.

I say this because there are enough people tired of the GOP to simply vote against that party. They might not want Hillary per se, but ousting the GOP from the White House is worth putting up with her. (No matter which Republican might win, we would see the same supporting cast we've seen since Nixon. THAT alone is dreadful enough to hold our noses and vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination.)

I say this because there are enough people tired of the GOP to simply vote against that party. They might not want Hillary per se, but ousting the GOP from the White House is worth putting up with her. (No matter which Republican might win, we would see the same supporting cast we've seen since Nixon. THAT alone is dreadful enough to hold our noses and vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination.)

The conventional wisdom is that voters prefer one party controlling legislation and the other party controlling the presidency, because one party controlling both is disasterous regardless of the party.

Reagan and Clinton seem to be the obvious examples. Maybe Bush 41 was counting on voters' bipartisan preference to give him room to disregard how unhappy they were with him. The best combination seems to be republicans controlling the purse-strings in congress while a democrat cuts US military spending (to something below half of all military spending worldwide).

Unless voters can count on a party-switch in congress, a republican with some liberal cred, like Giuliani for New York, Romney for Massachussetts, or Hagel for being the maverick McCain takes credit for being, has the edge in the general election. I think 2008 is still the bubba states' election to lose.

It looks like I was wrong about kerry--sources say he will be dropping out of the race. Good move and one that I'm sure was tough for him to make.

Kerry has just officially announced that he's out of the race and will concentrate on getting reelected to the senate.

On the other hand, Newt Gingrich said this week on Fox "News" Sunday that he'd run only if he absolutely had to as a "last resort".

So, in other words, he'll only run if we beg him too. What an ego.

Den,
Of course he has an ego. So do McCain, Clinton and anyone else who actually believes they can make a difference.

BTW, I am SO glad Kerry has decided not to run. If I had to pick a former candidate, it would be Gore. I feel kerry is the epitome of the opportunistic, blowhard politician. While I disagree with Gore on many things, I do feel he is truly passionate about the environment.

Hillary isn't unelectable. All those female swing voters (and even male) will vote for her just to affect history.

Barack would be a nice VP candidate, but no way America is gonna elect a black male before a white female.

John Edwards and Al Gore are seen as losers, and today's political climate is a lot different than Nixon's. The media doesn't care about actual journalism over profit margins any more.

My vote is for Hillary. The Republicans don't have anyone to go up against her except McCain and Guliani who I think she can beat.

Even with all the attention Obama is getting--and with the advantage of people not knowing anything about him--Hillary is clobbering him in the polls.

Hillary also has an advantage no other has--everything negative that could have come out about her has already done so. There are no surprises left. Nobody else can say that.

Theres another factor as well--both McCain and Giuliani have tempers and, in the heat of the campaign, might show a side that isn't attractive. It doesn't have to be anything much, it'll still be the Youtube video of the week (witness Dean's "Yeargh!" moment). Hillary may show the emotional range of a toaster but not everyone is looking to elect the Feeler in Chief. I cringe when I hear the people around her talk about how they are going to "humanize" her (One problem with these professional handlers is that they turn into regular Chatty Cathys when given the chance, always yapping about how they are responsible for the candidate choosing Earth tones or changing their style to specifically appeal to soccer moms or whatever. Cripes, just do it don't tell people you're doing it!

Anyway, I'm more convinced than ever that Hiallry is a lock on the nomination and not a terrible early bet to win the whole enchilada (obviously a lot depends on the Republican candidate and that is far less in the bag).

But there seems to be (or was in the past) a deep seated dislike toward Hilary. Has she been able to overcome it?

I think anyone and everyone who voted for Hillary's Senatorship in the past with the belief that she wasn't running for President with the New York Senate seat as a steppingstone... gets what they deserve.

40% will never vote for her. It's a high hurdle to overcome but she can still win--especially if enough of those 40% stay home. I don't know if her unpopularity ratings are much higher than what Bush's were in 2004. As long as you are running against someone even less popular it doesn't matter.

Anyway, I'm more convinced than ever that Hiallry is a lock on the nomination and not a terrible early bet to win the whole enchilada (obviously a lot depends on the Republican candidate and that is far less in the bag).

First Hillary is going to win the nomination because she wasn't above sleazy whisper campaigns, now she's going to win the primary because she's leading in polls at the same time in the campaign her husband was at 1%. It's the infinitely-climbing fire. How will republicans survive the deprivation of not voting for Hillary in the democratic primaries?

I don't know if her unpopularity ratings are much higher than what Bush's were in 2004.

I don't know anything about Hillary's popularity ratings, but she got elected to a Senate seat in New York... twice. That's saying something, I suppose.

That, and she doesn't intend to ignore Bill, a fatal mistake in Gore's campaign.

Bill's popularity was, iirc, still pretty damn high after all the Lewinsky stuff, and there are probably some who would vote for Hillary just to get Bill anywhere near the White House again and back as an official player in world politics.

Sure, theer are those who would love to get Bill back but there are also Democrats onthe fringes of the left who are almost Fallwellian in their blaming teh Clintons for whatever defects they see in the Democratic Party (which is to say, it not being as radical as they are). I'm amazed at how anti-Hillary some of the popular leftwing sites have become.

In the end though, they'll come around. What choice will they have?

"In the end though, they'll come around. What choice will they have?"

Never underestimate the left's ability to commit suicide.

But what I'm afraid is going to happen is thatthe Republicans will run somebody he will be sufficiently disassociated from Bush, but who will support all the appropriate conservative issues -- taxation, tough on crime, 'family values' that much of america seems to support. On global warming the Republicans are already moving to take the issue away from the liberal aresenal. And on the issue of terrorism and Iraq they will try to present their (male) candidate as better able to deal with these problems than the softy (female) liberal candidate.

Wrong actions of doctors often lead to death which then carefully become covered by lawyers of clinics WBR LeoP

Sure, theer are those who would love to get Bill back but there are also Democrats onthe fringes of the left who are almost Fallwellian in their blaming teh Clintons for whatever defects they see in the Democratic Party (which is to say, it not being as radical as they are). I'm amazed at how anti-Hillary some of the popular leftwing sites have become.

In the end though, they'll come around. What choice will they have?

Considering you are commenting to what unambiguously qualifies as an anti-Hillary post, how do you account for your tolerance of the amazing radicalism of the site administrator?

Or has your presence here -- weighing democratic lapses the same as republican corruption, weighing fantasy conspiracy theories against democrats the same as rumors against republicans you admit are likely rto be true -- always been a form passive-aggression against a fringe left-winger?

And on the issue of terrorism and Iraq they will try to present their (male) candidate as better able to deal with these problems than the softy (female) liberal candidate.

Except that Hillary has been very aggressive on terrorism and Iraq. With all the various adjectives that have been used to describe her, "softy" is not one of them.

In fact,more than a few conservatives are going to be willing to put up with the many aspects of her political philosophy that they disagree with and vote for her specifically because they believe that there is no way Hillary Clinton is going to let herself look weak against terrorists. In the novel Weapons of Choice, an alternate history science fiction thriller features the aircraft carrier USS Hillary Clinton, named after "the most uncompromising wartime president in the history of the United States." I'm not sure that's not a fairly likely possibility.

"In fact,more than a few conservatives are going to be willing to put up with the many aspects of her political philosophy that they disagree with and vote for her specifically because they believe that there is no way Hillary Clinton is going to let herself look weak against terrorists."

Thanks Bill. That's very interesting.

"In fact,more than a few conservatives are going to be willing to put up with the many aspects of her political philosophy that they disagree with and vote for her specifically because they believe that there is no way Hillary Clinton is going to let herself look weak against terrorists."

Thanks Bill. That's very interesting.

"In fact,more than a few conservatives are going to be willing to put up with the many aspects of her political philosophy that they disagree with and vote for her specifically because they believe that there is no way Hillary Clinton is going to let herself look weak against terrorists."

Thanks Bill. That's very interesting.

"In fact,more than a few conservatives are going to be willing to put up with the many aspects of her political philosophy that they disagree with and vote for her specifically because they believe that there is no way Hillary Clinton is going to let herself look weak against terrorists."

Thanks Bill. That's very interesting.

Well, I don't think it was THAT interesting! :)

In fact,more than a few conservatives are going to be willing to put up with the many aspects of her political philosophy that they disagree with and vote for her specifically because they believe that there is no way Hillary Clinton is going to let herself look weak against terrorists.

Thanks Bill. That's very interesting.

Well, I don't think it was THAT interesting! :)

So the myth of big-government spending will be overlooked -- to maintain a foreign occupation most republicans no longer support?

If by "interesting" you mean "inconsequential" then it was very interesting. Why don't you just paint a target in the road and place on the bull's-eye a dish labeled "Free Democratic Candidate Birdseed?" Then when a democratic candidate who isn't Hillary stops to feed on it, you can drop an anvil on him.

"Even with all the attention Obama is getting--and with the advantage of people not knowing anything about him--Hillary is clobbering him in the polls."

Well, they just showed an Iowa poll with Hillary running third behind Edwards and Obama. I think the poll results for at least the next twelve months are going to be like the 2004 pre-election polls. Who's on top is going to be based on where you poll, who you poll and who did the poll.

"Well, I don't think it was THAT interesting! :)"

Well, it actually was interesting. I'm always interested in how different people perceive political situtions. But the quadruple post was obviously the result a a computer bug, and I though posting an "I'm sorry" will be like making loud shsh sounds in a theater -- counterproductive.

In any case, I haven't decided if it is right for me to vote in the next election, but I'm certainly not going to vote in the primaries. I hope the Democrats pick a good candidate -- and I was curious to see if Obama or Hilary are perceived as such. I must admit there is something in me hoping that the time has finally come to break the gender or race barrier in the presidential elections.

Well, they just showed an Iowa poll with Hillary running third behind Edwards and Obama.

Well that's Iowa for you...Hillary just made her FIRST appearance there and some of the others have practically lived there the last year or so...in my opinion she can easily lose Iowa with little, if any long term harm, especially if the talk about moving California to an earlier date comes true.

Hillary is going to win the nomination, barring any unforseen disaster. That's my presdiction and I'm sticking with it (and it isn't like being worng is going to cost me anything; I haven't bet the mortgage on it (last I saw betting on Hillary did not give a great return. On the other hand, betting on Arnold or Bill Clinton gave GREAT returns, possibly due to the pure impossibility of it).

Al Gore has just been nominated for a Nobel:

"A prerequisite for winning the Nobel Peace Prize is making a difference, and Al Gore has made a difference," Conservative Member of Parliament Boerge Brende, a former minister of environment and then of trade, told The Associated Press.

Brende said he joined political opponent Heidi Soerensen of the Socialist Left Party to nominate Gore...

If he wins -- and considering his unique qualification to run as retaliation against a president who arbitrarily started an unpopular war -- 2008 will be his election to win or lose.