Printable View
will run for president in 2008? My bet is on hilary, edwards, and guillianni (sp?).
Hilary - I hope she runs, outta make competition low for the others.
Edwards - He'll be back, i dont think kerry will run again.
Guillisnni - After all the help and support he showed with 9-11, and hes awsome job as a mayor of NY, i think he would be EXTREMELY hard to beat, and would definitly have my vote.
Guiliani, Julianieeee, whatever, probably won't run. I wouldn't expect it, anyway.
Kerry will be a part of politics for years to come, I think he might try one more time.
H. Clinton - her staff is already preparing for 08, so she's probably in the race.
Bill Richardson
Lewis Black
haha hes got cool views on some stuff. politics and hes like, flipping out. Saw him live for a few CC shows, hes good.Quote:
Originally Posted by B0bDole
I want Nadar.
I think kerry will try again, I don't know about the others.
might it be........Dan Quayle!
http://carcino.gen.nz/images/index.p...9a680/343745d2
*down the bottom*
unless Kerry can come back with a REALLY big " i told you so!" then i doubt he will be very credible
Al Sharpton as usual lol
H Clinton is the only definite I can come up with. Well, aside from Nader and Sharpton. Guliani is a possibility. I can't imagine Edwards making a serious run. It's really too early to tell for anyone except Hillary.
Do you think she stands a snowball's chance in hell of being elected though?
Yes, she has just as much chance as Bill did in his first election.
EDIT:
Weird, you just changed your sig. Before I posted it was Homer, after it was some other thing.
Take a breather, I didn't mean to shock you...just don't jump off of the roof.
I don't even know if I'd vote for Hillary.
cnn chimed in on this topic:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...gop/index.html
hilary? hell ya. I wouldnt vote from her but almost every female would, combine that with her publicity from the clinton bs and youve got a popularity problem. I think she has a huge chance, unless guilliani goes for it.
Hillary would be an awful choice for a candidate.
I fully expect her to run.
Hmm... Then Jeb Bush could run after her term... Then we'd need to find another Clinton to keep the cycle going. :p
The country will only get worse. I think guilliani would be an awsome president, but i feel the same about nadar.
> The country will only get worse. I think guilliani would be an awsome president, but i feel the same about nadar
Nader was only running as ego masturbation; there's no way he could think he would have actually made a difference in this. He was ........ed because no one had paid attention to him in the last 20 minutes and decided he needed to be in the limelight.
I'd like to see which of your views Giuliani and Nader share positions on. They seem like pretty disparate candidates to choose.
I agree with nadar. He got used to having a fair amount of weight and now hes a "crying little political biotch baby" (howard stern).
Even if giuliani didnt agree with me on much i still think hed be an awsome preident. I mean, would you want a pres that agreed with rod? think about that lol.
> Even if giuliani didnt agree with me on much i still think hed be an awsome preident.
Why?
Having Hillary as the democratic nominee seems way too risky IMO. While it might draw more women voters, it also might scare away an equal number or even more male voters. Democrats will be so desparate to get into the white house in 2008 that I'd be surprised if they took such a chance. But then again maybe thats just the kind of gamble they need.
Or maybe that's the kind of retarded move the current DNC leadership would make.
They actively seek to make life hard for themselves.
>>why
because imo hes very level headed, fair, and makes very good, responsible decisions. He'd be reserved but enforcing, if that makes any sense to anyone but me.
No, it makes sense. I was just wondering why you'd vote for someone who's apparently got very different views than you. And now I see :cool:
Yea my views are often filled with ignorance, misguidence, stupidity, and anger. Not what you'd want to lead the country. Hes fair, so he would consider the views of those like me, and hes intelligent enough to explain why were wrong, or agree if were right.
The Democratic party needs to re-evaluate their agenda and their approach. Based on not just the Presidential election but the others as well, they are losing power quickly. While not a Demo myself I think the real issue with them resides in leadership and advertising. They need to stand firm on their platform and stop pandering to this and that. I know that every party and politician panders, but the Demos seem to do it a lot. I think that is where they are losing people but I could be wrong.
Either way they need to figure it out quickly or they won't be in power in 2008. I think they realize that too....or maybe they don't and will keep trying the same old stuff that hasn't worked since Clinton left office.
i see Hilary (Pres. Canidate) with Powell (VP. Canidate) or Giuliani (VP. Canidate).
i agree that the Democratic party will need to revamp a good portion of its policies prior to winning anything (house, senate, presidency). My choices are due to it is ripe for the time of a woman and a non-white to be in the main offices of power. Long overdue.
Powell is a very unlikely canidate. I think that this past term has pretty much turned him off of the political side of things.
I think we should just "merge" with Canada and let them run things for a while
You think that a Democrat is going to run with one of two Republicans?Quote:
Originally Posted by xviddivxoggmp3
Yea not likely, and giuliani as a VP? no way he wont settle.
contrary to popular belief. Most women would vote their principles and NOT just based on getting a woman into the white house. I know an awful lot of women who will vote against her.Quote:
Originally Posted by RoD
I share Cheez skepticism here. Not going to happen. Remember kerry was reported to have toyed with the possibility of McCain as a running mate. They don't do that sort of thing very often.Quote:
Originally Posted by Govtcheez
> Remember kerry was reported to have toyed with the possibility of McCain as a running mate.
I don't think that was ever seriously considered, since McCain had come out and very publically stated he wouldn't accept the nomination if it was offered.
Woulda been cool, though.
it has happened in the past.
i believe that 2008 campain will be ran on trying to show unity among the parties.
i believe this term will show that a one sided approach creates very one sided results.
ie. John Adams (Federalist) Thomas Jefferson (Republican).
I'm sure there are more, but this is the first example that came to mind.
please forgive me that the examples are a little out dated.
I know it's happened in the past, but show me some time recently where it's happened.
And of course one side having control of all three branches creates one-sided results. The thing is, the side that's controlling it generall likes those results, so there's no reason to create a balanced ticket.
Besides, running Hillary (a female Democrat with the last name Clinton) and Powell (a black Republican) is a terrible idea. Loads of people will vote against it because they hate blacks, women, the name Clinton, Democrats, or Republicans.
wheres the communist party at these days? mind you, they stand about as much chance as a black naturalised lesbian hippy atheist :p
we'll have to see what tricks george can pull out of his hat in the next four years to judge properly who stands a chance methinks
you do know he can't run again right?
UNTIL HE AMENDS THE CONSTITUTION TO MAKE HIMSELF DICTATOR FOR LIFE!
ah yes. like in star wars.
echo GC and PJ on the multi party ticket - it'll never happen.
The democrats need to do something drastic to either mobilize their base or move more twards the middle. The move towards the middle seems as the thing to do; there is not much more of the base that could be mobilized - the loyal democrats DID vote this election. The fact is that there is simply more republicans than Democrats; The democrats should try and get to the heartland of America to persuade the middle of the road folks to their platform - it is rather doubtful they'll get anything done in the deep south, but states such as Ohio, Indiana, and Iowa could very easily be theirs.
My picks for 2008 is a Giuliani/McCain ticket (either one VP/P) and for the Democrats...don't overlook the young, newly elected senator from Illinois - Obama. He is very likely to be the next VP candidate. I'm not sure about the democratic presidential candidate - but it surely will not be Hillary...that would be self destruction to the Democratic party.
=====
I have been out of the country for a while, but I did vote this election :) and in a true middle of the road way: Bush and Obama.
> Obama.
Hehe, it's not as if you had much of a choice. I have no idea why the republicans ran Keyes.
He'll make a great candidate for higher office soon, but I think he'll be seen as too young if he runs for anything in '08.
>>but I think he'll be seen as too young if he runs for anything in '08.
the momentum he has right now might carry him along for the next 4 years...and precisely the fact that he is so young and fresh might appeal to many (only for VP though)
so why is bush not capable of running again?
i thought all presidents have the option of 3 terms.
> i thought all presidents have the option of 3 terms
Two terms.
Washington thought it would be a good idea to limit it to two terms, so everyone followed that "idea" until roosevelt actually tried for a third term, when they just added to the constitution limiting it to two terms. So thank god bush cant run again. Thank you washington
Roosevelt was actually elected to 4 terms. They didn't do the amendment until years after his death.
yea that whole multi party thing will definately not work cuz you never get anything done with two parties in power.
>>all the women would vote for hilary
dont count on it. its not like women are bimbos or something, if hilary has good policies then they might vote for her
i dont think edwards or kerry will run again, because they didnt have enough momentum to win the election and i dont think that either will ever get that momentum.
i think that the only way for democrats to win is to be more down to the people. i mean, if you think about it, the true reason bush won (imo) was because he was a faithful christian and he was much more of a "family-man" than kerry. even though he never really fought for the middle class, he was more like them than kerry was which helped him pull in votes. if you looked at most of the republican advertisements most of them portrayed kerry and edwards as the rich (which they were) and mean bullies of the playground. most average "folk" couldnt connect as well to the rich and powerful people that kerry and edwards were, so they couldnt see things the same way as them. having said that, i dont think that hilary clinton would win because she just doesnt seem as "connected to the people" as giuliani ( or however its spelled) would be. I would still vote for hilary though, if i could :(.
uhm, DeepFyre, you didn't make much sense but somehow it reminded me of the article I'm attaching below. What do you guys think?
Quote:
COMMENTARY
Brainy Candidates Need Not Apply
By Ariel Dorfman
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...,7091860.story
Chilean Ariel Dorfman has just published "Other Septembers, Many Americas:
Selected Provocations 1980-2004" (Seven Stories Press). Website:
www.adorfman.duke.edu
October 22, 2004
Is John Kerry too intelligent to be president of the United States?
It was what I felt instinctively the first and only time I met him, at a
lunch at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, in 1998. He was
subtle, full of cultural and historical references, elaborating each fine
argument at length, with perception and nuance. I commented to one of his
aides afterward that I regrettably thought his brains could turn out to be
the biggest impediment to a man like him ever occupying the White House.
All these years later, with most polls still showing George W. Bush ahead of
his opponent after three debates in which Kerry proved himself more
articulate and thoughtful and flexible and able to understand an
increasingly dangerous world, I am afraid I may have been right. Yet it
still seems inconceivable to me that someone as incompetent, incoherent and
obtuse as Bush could possibly command almost half the votes of his fellow
countrymen.
Is it that Americans actually like Bush's know-nothing effect? Or is it that
Kerry strikes Americans as too highbrow? As pretentious? Do they see his
complexity as excessive effeminate suppleness?
This anti-intellectualism has, unfortunately, a long history in the United
States.
I first encountered that widespread prejudice as a 10-year-old Latin
American boy in New York in 1952. It was an election year, and I was
enrolled in the Dalton School on 89th Street - a bastion of American
progressives. I had no doubt that "my" candidate, Adlai Stevenson, one of
the most lucid and cultured men in the nation, was going to defeat Dwight D.
Eisenhower, a general who bragged that he preferred playing golf to reading
a book. In a mock vote, the tally in my class was, as far as I recall, 27 to
1.
A few days later, the American people, in the real balloting, overwhelmingly
chose "I like Ike" over "egghead" Adlai. When I asked my dad how people
could possibly reject someone as smart and educated as Stevenson, he
explained that this was a transitory aberration, the malevolent dregs of
McCarthyism, which had convinced many Americans that, at a time of great
national peril, being an intellectual was akin to being a traitor.
But it was not an aberration and certainly not transitory. Eleven years
later, Richard Hofstadter published his "Anti-Intellectualism in American
Life," a Pulitzer Prize-winning book that explored the deep roots of this
wariness toward anyone "who takes more words than are necessary to tell more
than he knows," as Eisenhower himself rather wittily phrased it.
Anti-intellectualism had its origins, according to Hoftstadter, in American
traits that anteceded the nation's founding: the mistrust of secular
modernization, the preference for practical and commercial solutions to
problems and, above all, to the devastating influence of Protestant
evangelism in everyday lives. Anybody who cares to read this masterful book
today may be astonished to see how it anticipates and even predicts the rise
of the neoconservatives and Christian fundamentalism in contemporary
Washington.
Hofstadter seems to be writing in 2004 when he chillingly states: "The
fundamentalist mind is . essentially Manichean; it looks upon the world as
an arena for conflict between absolute good and absolute evil, and
accordingly it scorns compromises (who would compromise with Satan?) and can
tolerate no ambiguities. It cannot find serious importance in what it
believes to be trifling degrees of difference."
And this mind-set could well elucidate why so many Americans recognize that
Kerry may have won the debates but is unable to persuade them with his fine
distinctions to change their minds or vote for him.
It may turn out that enough undecided voters will set aside their
misapprehensions and select Kerry as their next president. It may be that
Iraq, the loss of jobs, the rise in healthcare costs and so much more will
make them ignore the fact that Kerry is someone they would not want "to
share a beer with."
More than a century and a half ago, in the very state of Massachusetts that
Bush has maligned in every speech, there lived in the city of Boston, not
far from where Kerry has his home, a man named Ralph Waldo Emerson. He was
arguably the preeminent North American intellectual of the 19th century, and
in "The Conduct of Life" he wrote these prescient words: "Our America has a
bad name for superficialness. Great men, great nations, have not been
boasters and buffoons, but perceivers of the terror of life, and have manned
themselves to face it."
The terror of life.
One can only hope that his fellow Americans, so many years later, will not
be afraid of choosing as their leader a man who believes that the best way
to defeat the multiple terrors of today and tomorrow is with an intelligence
of which no human should ever be ashamed.
I hear a lot of talk from people speculating Hillary... however I seriously doubt she could be elected into office.
Not because she's a woman (personally I think '08 will be a prime opportunity for a female or any minority to run) but because there's a whole lot of scandals/garbage/skeletons that'd be reawakened (Hilllary was already shown to be the brains behind the whole Whitewater scandal). All of that garbage was temporarily forgotten when Bill decided to have 'sexual relations' with Monica, which pretty much occupied the spotlight until his term was over.
Reawaken the previous scandals, and I seriously doubt any campaign could overcome it.
So there is a light at the end of the tunnel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Govtcheez
hehehehehe
;0)
being treated like the "house slave" might have had some effect on that.Quote:
I think that this past term has pretty much turned him off of the political side of things.
I think that H Clinton will be the democratic candidate in 2008. I am not impressed with the possible candidates overall in 2008, I am waiting till 2012 in which we might see Obama running for pres.
>>Obama running for pres.
He just became the fifth black US senator in 216 years, the third since 1881, out of over 1800 that have served.
One of three current minority senators.
He could split the religious right (which got GWB elected) but IMO he would not take one central US state from any WASP candidate.
Therefore Obama has about as much chance as Nader of becoming pres.
You can easily win the election without the central US; he wouldn't need that to be elected. Think about it, if Kerry had taken either Florida or Ohio, he would have won, and he lost the entire middle of the country.
Believe it or not I think this poster hit the the nail on the head. Perhaps the culture of the country has changed drastically in that past 4 years, moreso than you or I or even the media understands. Candidacy is all about what I call 'likeability'. Bush had more of it this time obviously. The old theory about if more Demos got out and voted we'd have a Demo in office just simply didn't work this time. More did get out and vote and yet the Rep. still won. That's a serious mis-step by the Democratic party and one that needs to be fixed. First, the one issue that needs to be dropped is that the candidate has to be perfect in speech and everything to be elected. We all love elegant speakers but let's face it Bush simply isn't one, yet he still captured the votes. It was a very strange election and even though I'm Republican I really felt that Iraq was too big of an issue for Bush to win against Kerry on. Man oh man was I wrong. The senior Bush lost his re-election bid over Iraq and I really thought this one would too, but he didn't.Quote:
i think that the only way for democrats to win is to be more down to the people. i mean, if you think about it, the true reason bush won (imo) was because he was a faithful christian and he was much more of a "family-man" than kerry.
This must mean that although the issues were at hand, I really think more people voted for who they could 'connect' with. It's quite apparent that a lot of voters don't know the issues or what one candidate stands for over another, but 'like-ability' is key. If you can't connect with the candidate you are not going to vote for them.
Perhaps this is something the Demos need to examine. Clinton really had a mess during his re-election bid, yet he also got re-elected which blew the Rep. minds. Like-ability is extremely hard to beat. While Clinton was a very good speaker you still felt like you were getting exactly who he was, not what the Demos wanted you to see. The same is true of Bush - but he is not elegant, nor is he impressive in speech, yet you know somewhere that the person you are getting is, well....Bush. That's obviously important to the country at this time in history. The Demos should put up a good candidate and a good approach come 2008, but we will see. Times have changed and as such so must both political parties.
And on another note, while we all banter back and forth about Demos and Rep., it seems to others that we are a divided country, yet I believe it is probably one of the healthiest countries in the world right now. We can banter about elections, banter about candidates, and banter about major issues that would bring some countries to their knees, yet we still remain a united nation for the most part. I agree with Guiliani (however you spell it) that we could not have given a better example of how to do an election than what we just showed the world. It's a great system and it works.
Howdy,
I think the Hillary vs Richardson primary will be as interesting as the entire rest of the election.
M.R.
It seems to me that many of you doubt the power of the idea of a female president. Think about just how many female activists there are out there, even the few men that join these groups. Combine those very large numbers with those who would vote for her simply because shes a fellow female, and we have a very large following for hilary simply for being female.
Im not saying they are bimbo's, im saying they will vote for her for their own pride.
I'm saying you're wrong.
Even if you were right and Hillary magically does goes get a ton of female votes simply because she is female, you are forgetting that there would likely be the same amount of men who DON'T vote for her because they'd hate the idea of a woman running this country.
Besides, the vast majority of female activists would vote democrat anyways so this really doesn't gain anything.
I have the feeling that people simply hate Hillary - there is something about her, I can't quite put my finger on it, but she is simply not likable. Bill has incredible charisma, even people who did not agree with him, had to kinda like the guy.
Hillary is an awful harpy - well if she does run, GOOD: another Republican in the office! yey :D
Howdy,
She is way to liberal for this country.
M.R.
She's also far too risky of a candidate (for many reasons) for the Democrats to field in an attempt to regain some sort of control over the federal gov't.
>>She's also far too risky of a candidate (for many reasons) for the Democrats to field in an attempt to regain some sort of control over the federal gov't.<<
the state that this party is in right now, anything could happen.
Well, it is clear that they have to change if they want to be a contender, but if they're smart, they won't take too much risk. As you said, though, anything could happen.