US Elections 2008 - Speculation and Analysis (Future Election Discussion)

That was on display on the last Democratic debate where she cannot answer questions honestly, but she sticks her finger to the wind to determine what position she's taking. It's not something old, or a change of opinion that she's taken and has been consistent. She's typically inconsistent and triangulating positions for her advantage.

If you want to discuss the GOP frontrunners, fine. Giuliani in particular has been honest about his social liberalism, and I give him great credit for that. Romney has not. He's changed his mind to appeal to the GOP base, but he's not waffling like Sen. Clinton is. I don't think what Romney is doing is reflective of principle (it's more political), but Clinton will lash out when cornered... and then whine and boo hoo about being in an all boys club.

The country isn't adverse to voting in a woman as president, but Hillary tries to have it both ways (trying to play up to the level, and then hiding behind her skirt).

Mrs. Clinton is no 'Iron Lady'

Believe me, V03, I have serious dislike for the Bush Administration, especially in relation to his piss poor leadership concering this local situation... and the fact that he actually vetoed legislation that would improve the levee structures in surrounding parishes... saying it would 'cost too much'. This is more than asinine, as he's spent trillions in foreign occupations. The expenditure would have been a minor fraction of what the treasury has spent overseas.

However, this is not a referendum on the Bush Administration in 2008. He's gone after that.

The Dems had better look forward instead of looking back, or they may lose yet again.

 

DM

Giuliani in particular has been honest about his social liberalism, and I give him great credit for that. Romney has not. He's changed his mind to appeal to the GOP base, but he's not waffling like Sen. Clinton is.

He's honest...compared to Romney, who has set the bar pretty low. Giuliani has clearly shifted positions on guns, judges, partial birth abortion AND the Red Sox/Yankees. He has clearly been evasive about overturning Roe v. Wade. All things that if Kerry would've done ya'll would be apoplectic by now.

However, this is not a referendum on the Bush Administration in 2008. He's gone after that.

To a degree it is, because many of these jokers supported him 100%...and that shows a lack of judgment.

Giuliani with former relationship with Kerik, which he's handling quite well politically.

He wanted to appoint this guy the head of Homeland Security. A savvy opponent should be able to point to this as a lack of judgment. And it certainly isn't the last we've heard about it.

As has been said here, he's more Kerry than Kerry.

Yea, by you.

Seriously though...I don't see why you love Giuliani so much and despise Romney. Romney is certainly far more the opportunistic flip-flopper, but he hasn't exploited a national tragedy for personal gain, was probably as good a Governor as Giuliani was a Mayor, and he certainly doesn't have the personal character issues that Giuliani has.

V03 is right, as he always, always is. Tit for tat things like a staff plant in the audience is stupid yes, but if we are to spend all of our time overanalyzing such relatively unimportant stuff, your boy Rudy ain't going to come out looking exactly like honest Abe.

 

An example of why I favor him is that I'd rather have had Giuliani at the executive helm than someone like Nagin for a major disaster. It makes a big difference, and it's not inappropriate for him to make points on his involvement with that previous affair that was widely acclaimed at the time.

Also, I'm not concerned about a politician's personal life, unless it involves something patently illegal (like what Vitter did, and he should be forced out). I don't care if Giuliani has the perfect family or not, but at least he's not in a phony contrived political opportunistic arrangement of a marriage like Bill and Hillary.

Clinton's soft policy on terrorism in the 1990s - which led to 9/11 in the first place, in my opinion - may come back to bite her as well, notwithstanding the fact that people are probably tired of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton... not to mention that the former President would have substantial influence in a Hillary Administration, something I don't know if the American public will accept (a dual Presidency, so to speak, with a former term-limited President in power throughthe back door).

What is Hillary going to point to? Her votes to approve the Iraqi war or the subsequent funding? That won't sit well with an already peeved progressive base that's supremely ticked at the pathetic Pelosi/Reed Congress.

I despise Romney because he's patently disingenuous. It's like those three local politicians that switched parties just so they could compete with Bobby Jindal for the Louisiana gubernatorial election. All politicians are frauds to a certain extent, but Romney, Hillary and Edwards take the cake on this front in the current field. Obama is more sincere, but a bit too naive and not willing to get tough.

Romney has the 'look' of a President, which counts in this media age (sad, isn't it?). But, he looks terrible in debates, and he comes across as more disingenuous than even Hillary does (Hillary is simply better at it). If his positions were genuine, I'd be more comfortable supporting him. Actually, on a personal level, I like Obama more than Romney, even though I'd think Romney more capable for the job even with his wiffle-waffling.

 

Well, Daffy Duck would be better than Nagin. And I don't mean to pick on your state...but wtf? I was reading about local Louisiana political history and you guys sure are corrupt.

it's not inappropriate for him to make points on his involvement with that previous affair that was widely acclaimed at the time.

To again use a Daffy Duck analogy...people would've rallied around Daffy Duck. Its the sadness and shock of tragedy that brought the city together, not Giuliani. He did a decent job, but now he continues to exploit such a tragedy for political and financial gain. Perhaps the best line this election season was that Rudy's foreign policy experience equals to "a noun, a verb, and 9/11".

I don't care if Giuliani has the perfect family or not, but at least he's not in a phony contrived political opportunistic arrangement of a marriage like Bill and Hillary.

Look, I ain't going to deny that some politicians make my skin crawl too, but statements such as this just show that there is something about Hillary that no matter what she does you're going to hate it. This is quite a twist to justify dismissing Giuliani's massive personal failures, who has had several wives/affairs, his children seem to despise him, etcetera...yet its Hillary who is awful even though she wasn't the one who committed adultery AND seems to have raised a good kid.

Clinton's soft policy on terrorism in the 1990s - which led to 9/11 in the first place, in my opinion - may come back to bite her as well

Yawn. You sure it wasn't Reagan's soft policy of selling arms to terrorists and the fact that those Islamofacists that Rudy loves to talk about killed more Americans during his term than any other...with the exception of 9/11?

And I think there will be a lot of people, especially independents, who would welcome a Clinton presidency...Bill, at least.

I've had enough of the Bush/Clinton dynasty too...but screw that. Ya'll can't call the game after we've had 2 Bush VP terms, 3 Bush Presidential terms and only 2 total Clinton terms.

Anyway, I don't think Romney looks 'terrible', rather too rehearsed. But I'd settle for that if he could be a good President.

Obama is more sincere, but a bit too naive and not willing to get tough.

What do you mean by 'get tough'?

 

Romney has the 'look' of a President, which counts in this media age (sad, isn't it?)

Yea, I'm not sure Chester A. Arthur could win if he were to run now.

But if Rudy can grow facial hair like this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ambrose_Everett_Burnside.jpg

I'll consider voting for him.

 

I just read that Chester A. Arthur was the last President not to have a pet in the White House. Seeing how the top 1% of pets live better than 99% of the population, I want a leader who criminalize pets inside houses. Not because I particularly hate pets, my family has an outside dog, but there is something fundamentally morally wrong with a world that has such a huge income inequality between the rich pets and poor people. Perhaps if we let the rich keep the poor as "pets," they would see how morally bankrupt our world is.

 

Yea, no ****.

heheh

Wasn't that Biden's line? I can't remember. I'm sure I can pull up asinine comments that have a habit of coming out of his mouth.... People in glass houses, ya know?

It isn't just 9/11. It's NYC in general. People aren't in fear of going to the city now, whereas when I went there before the city was revamped, the cops warned us to basically stay out of Times Square and downtown.

You brought up the personal issue. I don't care about it, and I don't think it's relevant.

It's a genuine concern to the Clinton camp, and a weakness in a general election. The public wants change.

I'd settle for him over Hillary.

He's been a pansy when it comes to countering Hillary. Now, how is he going to stand up to Iran and other regimes if he's got limited backbone when going against his opponent in a Democratic primary?

Dancing on the Ellen DeGeneres Show or being on Saturday Night Live doesn't count....


---

As far as appearances go, it's a sad thing to say, but Abraham Lincoln probably couldn't get elected today. Superficiality, FTL.

 

DM, are there any democrats that you'd support?

 

Wasn't that Biden's line? I can't remember. I'm sure I can pull up asinine comments that have a habit of coming out of his mouth.... People in glass houses, ya know?

Oh Biden has made some asinine comments...but this one was very clever and completely spot on.

It isn't just 9/11. It's NYC in general. People aren't in fear of going go the city now, whereas when I went there before the city was revamped, the cops warned us to basically stay out of Times Square and downtown.

For the umpteenth time, crime started going down three years before Giuliani was in office. Prosperity wasn't just located in NYC, it was across the country during the 90s. Giuliani made some good efforts, had some serious missteps, but he seems to take credit for just about everything, something that he was routinely mocked for during his tenure. In fact, I do believe his approval ratings were around 36% before 9/11.

You may have gone to NYC once or twice, but being Jewish, we are required by Jewish law to go to NYC at least a few times a year from birth on.

You brought up the personal issue. I don't care about it, and I don't think it's relevant.

Its personal issues, not singular.

But obviously Hillary's 'personal' issues annoy you, so I do think its relevant depending on the candidate.

And again, it says a lot about his character...especially if he is running on the 'family values' ticket.

It's a genuine concern to the Clinton camp, and a weakness in a general election. The public wants change.

I want change too, but again (to my surprise), she has done as well, if not better, than any of the other candidates in the polls. In fact, I think the Clinton name helps her tremendously.

Dancing on the Ellen DeGeneres Show or being on Saturday Night Live doesn't count....

Correction: being on the Ellen DeGeneres Show in the first place is a weakness.

Now, how is he going to stand up to Iran and other regimes if he's got limited backbone when going against his opponent in a Democratic primary?

Frankly, I'm surprised you'd go for this. I'd hope that someone would in fact deal differently with rogue regimes than they would with an opponent in a primary OR a general election for that matter. Perhaps he is sincere when he says he isn't going to get down-and-dirty with his political opponents. IMO this means absolutely nothing when it comes to foreign affairs. From George W. Bush to Rush Limbaugh...I may dislike what they do or disagree with what they say, but I'd certainly confront them far differently than I would a Kim Jong-Il or Ahjaminajewhatever.

 

Yes, but not of the current crop on the national level. I vote for Democrats all the time in local elections (next week, I'll be voting for a Democrat for Louisiana AG in the runoff).

Well, of course, you're going to say that it's spot on. It's a Democratic talking point.

Giuliani is threatening to Democrats, because they know he can win... moreso than any of the other GOP candidates currently. I saw a Quinnipiac poll the other day that has him even with Hillary in Connecticut.. a definite Blue State.

Imagine if he picks off even just a few Blue States. Hillary will get none of the red Southern States.

However, Gov. Strickland from Ohio endorsed Hillary. I'm not sure if that will make a difference in the general election in that State.

Virginia is trending more 'blue' (due to D.C. suburbs); but if Hillary is in the mix, that may negate the trend factor.

Hillary's personal issues are political issues, because neither she or Bill stand on their own. They are in a political and business partnership, which would have more of an effect than any other spouse that lands in the White House.

The press love her. Until Russert (who is one of my favorite journalists... fair and tough), she has not been challenged.

She broke under simple questioning, and the GOP hasn't even started on her yet.

But Obama already has been talking about going to the table with these regimes in a position of weakness, without preconditions.

He's also come across as weak against Hillary, who has a potent political regime on the Democratic side.

Of course one would do things differently with different individuals, but he's playing with kid gloves. Edwards is not playing with kid gloves against Hillary, but he's getting no traction because of his other problems.

Obama is in a more viable position to take advantage and pounce on Hillary's weaknesses, but he's not showing he's that adept at taking advantage of open opportunities in an assertive fashion.

 

Hold on a moment. What is really the basis for this?

I keep hearing a lot of people accusing Romney of "flip flopping" a lot, but what do they really use for examples? I can only really think of three issues: abortion, gay rights, and hunting. Well, let's look at those three (and feel free to point out others, if you have any).

On the hunting one, I'll give that to you. He screwed up in saying that he had been a "life-long hunter" when he hadn't been hunting since he was a kid (until very recently). However, as things go, that's a relatively minor incident that you could find a comparable one for any politician.

On gay rights, people keep pointing to his comments in the 1994 Senate race and claim that he's shifted his position from supporting gay rights to opposing them, but that really isn't the case. The genesis for claiming that he changed position is his opposition to gay marriage, which simply wasn't on the table at all in 1994. The issue didn't really hit the scene until the late 1990s, particularly with a court case in Hawaii that wasn't decided until 1999. Until then, "gay rights" meant protection against workplace discrimination, and so forth. Romney hasn't changed his position on that. He still supports non-discrimination against gays, he simply does not support same-sex marriage. How is that a "flip flop"?

That really only leaves abortion (and related issues like stem cells). I would submit to you that he hasn't "flip flopped" on abortion, he has simple flipped. There is a difference.

Flip flopping implies that a person has switched back and forth (multiple times) between two positions repeatedly. When it comes to abortion, Romney hasn't done that. In fact, throughout his campaign, he has been incredibly consistent on the subject of abortion. Yes, it is a different position than he held before, but he hasn't tried to hide that. It's not a case of "I voted for it before I voted against it" (to use the now-classic example), but a simple statement of "I was wrong before, and have realized my error."

Isn't one of the goals of the anti-abortion movement to convince more people that abortion is wrong? If you convince someone of that, how would you expect them to act if they were sincere about their change? What would it take to convince you that they were sincere? Or are they simply politically doomed because they once held a position that you disagree with?

There is actually a very good op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today that discusses Romney, and how he reaches decisions.

Isn't one of the biggest c

 

Well, of course, you're going to say that it's spot on. It's a Democratic talking point.

Its not a 'talking point', its a comment. Many things the Democrats say I find to be quite lame (see: Edwards).

Its spot on because its accurate.

Giuliani is threatening to Democrats, because they know he can win... moreso than any of the other GOP candidates currently. I saw a Quinnipiac poll the other day that has him even with Hillary in Connecticut.. a definite Blue State. Imagine if he picks off even just a few Blue States. Hillary will get none of the red Southern States. However, Gov. Strickland from Ohio endorsed Hillary. I'm not sure if that will make a difference in the general election in that State. Virginia is trending more 'blue' (due to D.C. suburbs); but if Hillary is in the mix, that may negate the trend factor.

Of course he is threatening and could win...but he is threatening because IMO he would be a lousy President, and is a pompous ass.

And check rasmussenreports.com. He had a poll where Hillary did well in Tennessee, Virginia, and Florida. And crushed in Arkansas. If the GOP is forced to spend money defending these states, THEY could be in trouble.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/

While I think the electoral vote will end up to be similar in 2008 as it has been (bearing in mind that the Democrats only need a state or two to win), I do think more states on both sides will be considered 'in play'.

Hillary's personal issues are political issues, because neither she or Bill stand on their own. They are in a political and business partnership, which would have more of an effect than any other spouse that lands in the White House.

Does it hurt to twist yourself into such a pretzel to defend Giuliani and attack Hillary on this? So what if they are strong together. In fact, I think Hillary would've gained much more politically by leaving Bill. I think it was an interview with a legit journalist, Carl Bernstein, who has been highly critical of Hillary, who said that they truly do love each other.

The press love her. Until Russert (who is one of my favorite journalists... fair and tough), she has not been challenged. She broke under simple questioning, and the GOP hasn't even started on her yet.

She had one gaffe so far. And the GOP has been after her for years. If anyone has been treated with kid gloves and has yet to face true scrutiny, no one compares to Giuliani.

But I agree, Russert, who sometimes tends to go with the 'gotcha' stuff, is certainly one of the better ones.

But Obama already has been talking about going to the table with these regimes in a position of weakness, without preconditions.

This seems to be an oversimplifaction of Obama's stance, but nonetheless it is completely separate from how he deals with his political opponents.

 

Because Bush maintains his positions even when it is politically inconvenient for him. The temporal correlation between Romney's run for the Presidency and his switching of sides seems very politically convenient for him, and thus his motives are subject to question.

 

KK

Well, since you addressed DM, I'll let him respond. But one can google, or look at wiki, and there are a great many instances where he has clearly shifted positions for political expedience.

Why, then, is it consistent to attack someone who has consistently shown a willingness to reevaluate things when new data is presented to him?

Right, because they changed abortion in 2002, and Romney received 'new data'.

It's not a case of "I voted for it before I voted against it" (to use the now-classic example)

Sure the way Kerry said it was stupid, but he did mean that he voted for a bill that included $87 billion dollars but voted against a separate bill because it had different provisions. Seriously, if you are going to present yourself as a 'political moderate' who is fair defender of both sides, at least pretend for G-ds sake.

I will say that I do think based on reading his statements, his demeanor, his rhetoric, and his record/experience, and so forth...I do think he'd be a much better President than Giuliani.

 

I stated that I didn't believe Romney is sincere in his positioning. I didn't mention 'flip-flopping', or going from one position to the next back to the original. You're right, he's 'flipped'.... because he is vying for the GOP nomination.

Or, if these were his true convictions, then he was insincere to the people of Massachusetts that elected him.

I don't agree with Giuliani on certain social issues, but he's not compromising his positions on an obvious attempt at political opportunism as Romney has done.

New data?

C'mon, KK. Romney has flipped on things he's long known about, and he's doing it because he wouldn't make it in a GOP primary for what his positions have been.

So, he adjusted them. Conveniently so.

---

DS77, I don't mind a 'pompous ass' in the White House (heck, Bill Clinton is as narcissistic as they get).

 

DS77, I don't mind a 'pompous ass' in the White House (heck, Bill Clinton is as narcissistic as they get).

I prefer a narcissist to a pompous ass. In fact, I think one has to be a narcissist to even run for President.

And Clinton wasn't a pompous ass, just kinda sleazy.

While I'd love to pick on KK for a while...I have had to feed myself. My kids are at my parents house, and my wife is out. This is the first time in a while I have to feed myself and I don't see much in the fridge. I seriously don't know what the heck I'm going to do. I try to stay away from fast food, so I may just wander the Earth for a while hunting and gathering.

 

There is a difference between "subject to question" and "lacking veracity".

The only real position that Romney switched at a "politically convenient" time is on abortion, and he has given an explanation of that several times. Considering his tendency to constantly reevaluate data (as described in the op-ed I linked to), and considering that it was a time when new data was coming out on stem cells, is it unreasonable that he reevaluated his position on abortion after reevaluating his position on stem cells because of that new data?

Kimball Kinnison

 

That's certainly possible, but the existence of a possibility does not mean it is true. The simpler explanation is that his stated position on the issue was always tailored to get him the most votes (first in Massachusetts and now nation-wide among Republicans).

Between these two, I am more inclined to choose the latter.

 

Or, he sincerely changed his mind on the issues. It has happened before. Reagan changed his position on abortion, and that could be seen as an opportune time, yet it also proved to be a lasting change. George H. W. Bush also was once an abortion supporter, but changed sides on that issue in order to get the VP nomination in 1980, and yet his change proved to be lasting as well.

Did either case disqualify them from being President?

Name one clear example other than abortion.

Kimball Kinnison

 

I don't think it disqualifies him. If elected, he may be a good President.

I just don't think he's sincere.

Oh, there are plenty.

A few examples:

Romney's Changing Views: Candid or Convenient?:

One candidate believes abortion should be legal, endorses embryonic stem cell research, supports a minimum wage increase, believes gays and lesbians deserve full equality and should be allowed to serve openly and honestly in the military, and opposes capital gains tax cuts.

The other candidate is firmly against abortion, opposes stem cell research, vetoed a minimum wage increase as governor of his state, vehemently opposes gay marriage and wants to maintain the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, and supports capital gains tax cuts.

It's the old Mitt Romney versus the new Mitt Romney.

From Ruth Marcus of Washington Post:

Once he supported allowing gays to serve openly in the military and backed a federal law to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation -- not anymore. He's gone from saying "I don't line up with the NRA" to becoming, last August, a life member.

Romney told the Boston Globe in 1994 that, as a registered independent, he voted in the 1992 Democratic primary for Paul Tsongas because Tsongas was from Massachusetts and he favored Tsongas's ideas over Bill Clinton's. Appearing last weekend on ABC's "This Week," Romney offered a contradictory explanation: "When there was no real contest in the Republican primary, I'd vote in the Democrat primary, vote for the person who I thought would be the weakest opponent for a Republican."

Surely a man with a Harvard MBA could do better than that. At the time of the primary, Tsongas was doing better than Clinton in matchups against George H.W. Bush. And Tsongas didn't need Romney's help trouncing Clinton in his home state.

To give this explanation the credit it doesn't deserve, Romney's rationale boils down to arguing that he didn't really mean his vote; he was just trying to game the political process. Those considering Romney in 2008 have reason to wonder what a politician who admits so freely to that kind of manipulation is willing to do to win their votes.

On his inconsistencies with immigration:

But that is markedly different from how Romney once characterized McCain's bill, elements of which are receiving new attention in Congress and from President Bush. Indeed, Romney's past comments on illegal immigration suggest his views have hardened as he has ramped up his campaign for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination.

He's plainly manipulative.

 

Thanks to DS1977 for the kind words .

DM, your faith in Giuliani is commendable, but you can't defend him as a perfect saviour and keep a straight face. The fact is that he, like Clinton, like Romney, like Paul, like all of them, have their strengths and their weaknesses. It is a given in the modern world of instantaneous, media-driven soundbite politics that someone always gets picked on. Usually several someones, depending on the election cycle and where we are in the campaign. Right now, we're vacillating between going after Hillary because of her air of "inevitability" (which the media created, and now is working just as hard to crack), and the "down-in-the-dumps" attitude surrounding the current state of the GOP.

Giuliani was pretty much hated by the time he left office. I too still feel a powerful connection to the emotions of 9/11, but not enough to let that override all the other factors that I look at when judging a candidate. Personal life aside, Rudy offended a lot of people with his management style, he has changed positions as much as anyone, and he has been far more of a disaster in his personal life than the Clintons. He has managed it with more finesse than people like Romney, but there is a "no-win" attitude surrounding the major candidates in this race, especially Hillary. She stayed with Bill, so she's an opportunist. She said she wants to break through the "all-boys" club, so she's playing the gender card. She's acknowledging that things like immigration, Iraq, and all the other hot-button issues of today are complicated, multifaceted, and complex, so she's a vacillator.

When is it enough? You talk about the dems getting stuck on the past, but look at the GOP. Are we truly better off now than we were eight years ago? Is America in a better place, economically, militarily, internationally? Is the nation stronger, more hopeful?
Are we as a society at least pluralistically in agreement that things are going well, and that the country is heading in the right direction?

The answer to all of the above is a resounding "no". That being said, the entire GOP field is full of individuals who wish, with the exception of (gasp!) Ron Paul, want to continue GWB's legacy of idealogically-driven and divisive failed policies. If there's one thing we've learned during Bush's presidency, it's that most americans feel the country is in a worse place than before he took office. The major GOP front-runners, instead of offering a new direction for America are busy espousing such points as: a) doubling the size of Guantanamo (Romney), b) gearing up to fight Iran (Giuliani), c) doing nothing about the state of American health care (all of them), d) not changing our energy policy (most of them), e) continuing the Iraqi occupation indefinitely, no matter what the cost to our military, economy, and international prestige.

Hillary Clinton is a "fake triangulator"?. Fine. I'll take her fake triangulation, Obama's inexperience, Edward's ambulance chasing (it's a toughie on that one ), Biden's tough talking, any day over another four to eight years of the mess we have dug ourselves into. With but rare exception, no-one has come away from the past eight years happy.

The democrats are far from perfect, as are their ideas. They are not gods, nor will they be saviours. But experience has been a great teacher, and I for one am willing to give them another chance at the White House. It's going to take more than soundbites based on knee-jerk, visceral, and superficial reactions and stereotypes to chase me away from someone like Clinton. One thing I have personally learned is to evaluate all the factors in choosing a candidate. Right now, I like what I see in Hillary. Not everything, but enough. That can change, but not from hearing about her 'unelectability', her 'shrillness', or a planted question. After the mistakes of the past eight years, I am willing to be very, very forgiving to the democrats right now. Honestly, anybody who doesn't really research all the ca

 

I'll just toss this in based on how this is going...

I'm getting sick of the Republican side of things focusing on Hillary Clinton the way they are. To point out someone directly, Sean Hannity and his "Stop Hillary Express" that he has going now.
In 2004, one of the reasons I voted for Bush was because I at least felt I was voting for ideas, even though I had disagreements with some. I wasn't voting for the "I'm not someone else" candidate I viewed Kerry as, as I felt most of his campaigning and debate performance wasn't about him putting out new ideas for the future, but pointing out what he would have done in the past which was no good for progressing forward. I wasn't going to vote for a candidate whose only reason to vote for him was that his last name was not, in fact, Bush.

2008 now has the potential to be twice as bad as that, with having one side campaigning that they're not Bush, and the other side campaigning that they're not Hillary Clinton.
I don't vote for people based on who they're not, I vote based on what their plan is for the future. It seems like there is a chance this election won't feature that.

 

Who said I was defending him as a 'perfect savior'? That's a stretch of the imagination.

True.

Sounds like Hillary whining about getting picked on by all those ... MEN.

Inevitability comes from the polling. The GOP is 'down in the dumps' because of their horrendous management of the Federal budget and Congress.

Perhaps in certain circles, in liberal parts of NYC. He's remained quite popular otherwise.

[Reagan]There you go again[/Reagan].

I don't care about personal lives, unless the candidate's spouse has a vested interest in controlling power when their spouse is the elected official. Hillary is and has always been ambitious and interested in power, and she'll do anything... including staying with a faithless husband to do it. I don't care about Bill's cheating or his penchant for receiving fellatio from portly women, but I DO care about Hillary's ambition. I also care that her spouse is a former President that would probably see himself as a co-President again if Hillary wins.

No such case with any of the other candidates, Giuliani or otherwise. I don't care if they have led less than moral lives.

Of course she's an opportunist. She's ambitious, power hungry with her eyes on the prize. She uses her husband's popularity and power to her advantage, and she will swallow the infidelities and all else to achieve political greatness.

She's in it to win, and she uses the marriage like a political business arrangement.

Do you think this woman would have gotten anywhere in politics without having been married to Bill Clinton? Honestly?

She wants it both ways.

As soon as she was given legitimate questioning in the previous Democratic debate, what is the first thing she did? Ran to that all-girls college and talked about how women were good at cleaning house, while boo hooing about all the men on the stage.

It took her poll numbers down a bit.

Not only does she not stand on her own (she's used her husband as a crutch for her power, unlike the article I pointed out above about Thatcher), she cannot abide the critique. She'll run behind the skirt when challenged, just as she did the other day.

Did you not see the debate the other night?

It was other Democrats on stage that pointed it out, and provided clear proof of her triangulating (a Clinton trademark) in campaign ads and otherwise.

It isn't that the issues are complex, which they can be, it's that she's unprincipled and sticks her finger to the wind to see which way its blowing to make a call. Does she have principles, or is she simply interested in telling

 

That's how the Dems are playing it out currently. They're focused on Bush, but the election is not a Bush referendum. The GOP candiates are not really riding on his coattails or standing by him openly while campaigning. The Republicans used Clinton in a similar fashion against Dems in 2000, but there is no VP heir running this year as was the case at that time. There is no direct line to the Bush Administration.

So, it's going to be a referendum on a new set of candidates. As I stated before, the Dems are focusing on the past at their own risk with focus on Bush instead of on the prospective GOP nominee or on any substantive plan that they have for anything. Nominating Hillary harkens to the past as well (Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton).

Part of me thinks the GOP is goading the Dems to nominate Hillary, because they want to run against her. She has higher negatives than anyone running at close to 50%, and even higher among certain polled groups (i.e., married men, of whom 55% said they'd never vote for her in a recent poll). I don't know if anyone has ever been elected to the office with that high of a disapproval rate on initial running.

The focus is on her because she's the presumptive frontrunner for the Dems.

It should be the Dems' year, but they're putting up a relatively soft field. They could snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory that would almost be handed to them on a silver platter.

 

On Biden at least he is good for some laughs.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyxi0T37JmY (On Rudy)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHdSahEsIC4 (One word answer)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjsxQy0xYUs (Gun Control)