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