posted by The Vagabond
I agree both Obama and Clinton have respectable chances this time out. I believe Obama represents a better chance than Clinton because he isn't
connected to nearly as much bad blood as Clinton. Clinton has a voting record that puts her to the right of her constituency and a "buzz" that puts
her far to the right of many swing voters. She'd mobilize Republican votes by being on the ballot, and that's a problem . . “ [Edited by Don W]
1) I posted elsewhere ‘08 is the year for Hillary, Nancy and John McCain. All are in their 60s; they will be in retirement homes by 2012. I
mentioned Speaker Pelosi because another poster averred she might be our next president. Only if Lee Harvey Oswald returns from the dead and confuses
VP Cheney for Governor Connolly.
2) Well, Hillary is adroit. Late Wednesday night, she wired B43 that she no longer would support his call to war as she had done earlier because his
newly proposed escalation was contra-indicated. She is now free of that albatross.
3) I suggest anyone who does not want to vote GOP and thereby endorse the War in Iraq, will vote Democratic. A poll taken just after the president’s
speech showed 47% of likely voters put the Iraq issue first, and 9% put immigration second. 47 to 9! Only a “win” for B43 in Iraq between now and
November 4, 2008, will give the GOP nominee an even chance.
Any political advisor worth his salt is sitting his candidate down and making him stare at the vote count from Florida in 2000, lecturing their
candidate about how George Bush came that close to making global-warming denial films . . “
Right. The 2008 election will be decided in Ohio (new Democrat governor) and or Florida (new Republican governor). Or so I hear. I believe the FL
Dems lost by 380,000 votes in 2004, which more nearly represents Florida’s post Reagan pro-GOP sentiments. Without being overtly Semitic the Dems
put Joe Lieberman on the ‘00 ticket to carry the Jewish vote in Florida. He came within 537 votes of doing that, which shows the Dems knew what
they were talking about. Privately. Election-wise. By the same token, I believe the Dems will want a candidate who can put the South into play in
'08. My idea for VP is Mark Warner, former Gov of Va. Or one VP candidate who can guarantee Ohio, like Dennis Kusinich.
Hillary is married to the most image-wise politician alive in the US and Lord knows she's got the money and the notoriety to make a serious primary
bid. Then there's Obama. He's Charismatic, Articulate, Likeable and Very Intelligent. He WILL NOT lose a debate in his campaign; I am willing to bet
money on it. If he gets to the general election, I think he can win frustrated Republicans . . “
Wait up here, Mr Vag. Remember the very close Tennessee open seat senate race - until Playboy Club got involved - Harold Ford versus Bob Corker to
replace Sen. Frist? The GOP never misses a chance to play the race card. Willie Horton with the first Bush. Jesse Helms 2 times in his last two senate
races. George Allen who got trapped when he was caught on video. Although dirty tricks are often said to have been the work product of Richard Nixon,
they are wrong. The first dirty tricks were played out in the 1792 election - our #2 - and have been part and parcel of the American political scene
ever since. But I asset the GOP are by far the worse of the two parties.
Obama is al long shot, good to have in the background, like a spare quarterback of some talent. But for Democrats in 2008, it is Hillary’s to lose.
The only question is whether or not he'll have the money in the primary to keep himself from being a dark horse candidate . .
I presume no pun intended?
Ferraro was chosen specifically because Mondale was out to set a precedent. She was a gimmick. When minorities become serious candidates because they
are qualified, that's a sign that progress in the equalization of our society . . it has been frustratingly slow at many points, [but] is not at a
stand still. I've got high hopes for the 2008 election. It's a shame that 2010 will come and I'll probably be a cynic again. [Edited by Don W]
Performance will determine the winner in both ‘08 and ‘10 in my opinion. The voters gave the Dems a chance to show what they can do. If they like
what they do, then it’s good news for Dems, if they don’t then it’s back to business as usual. More tax breaks for the R&Fs and more debt for
your grandchildren to pay back instead of school tuition. Choices. Priorities.
posted by Seagull
Vagabond. Mr. Obama is indeed a very articulate man, not to mention intelligent. However intelligent and articulate he is, I don't think he can match
the Clinton machine. The Democratic nomination is Mrs. Clinton's to lose. She will have to do something incredibly stupid to lose it. IMHO, of
course. Another problem with Mr. Obama . . I've yet to hear him articulate a plan . . Yes, he wrote a book, but how many people are actually going to
spend the 25 or 30 dollars to [read] it? He needs to get out even more than he is already to have a chance of being more than an also ran. Again,
IMHO. [Edited by Don W]
My sentiments exactly, Mr S. Based on what I heard today on CNN, from Mr Axlerod his 2004 Illinois senate race adviser, Barack will keep current with
all legal requirements for a candidate but he will not decide whether to “go for broke” until about 3 weeks prior to the last day allowed by law.
(No one has told me when that is.
[edit on 1/16/2007 by donwhite]