Thread: Who do you think....(2008)

  1. #46
    Bob Dole for '08 B0bDole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    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

  2. #47
    Mayor of Awesometown Govtcheez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Roosevelt was actually elected to 4 terms. They didn't do the amendment until years after his death.

  3. #48
    Arggggh DeepFyre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    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 .
    Keyboard Not Found! Press any key to continue. . .

  4. #49
    Registered User axon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    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?


    Brainy Candidates Need Not Apply
    By Ariel Dorfman,7091860.story

    Chilean Ariel Dorfman has just published "Other Septembers, Many Americas:
    Selected Provocations 1980-2004" (Seven Stories Press). Website:

    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

    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

    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

    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

    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.

    some entropy with that sink?

    there are two cardinal sins from which all others spring: Impatience and Laziness. - franz kafka

  5. #50
    Registered User Scribbler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Aurora CO
    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.

  6. #51
    essence of digital xddxogm3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Quote Originally Posted by Govtcheez
    Two terms.
    So there is a light at the end of the tunnel.
    "Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence;
    supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting."
    Art of War Sun Tzu

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    I think that this past term has pretty much turned him off of the political side of things.
    being treated like the "house slave" might have had some effect on that.

    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.
    there used to be something here, but not anymore

  8. #53
    train spotter
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    near a computer
    >>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.
    "Man alone suffers so excruciatingly in the world that he was compelled to invent laughter."
    Friedrich Nietzsche

    "I spent a lot of my money on booze, birds and fast cars......the rest I squandered."
    George Best

    "If you are going through hell....keep going."
    Winston Churchill

  9. #54
    Mayor of Awesometown Govtcheez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    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.

  10. #55
    Super Moderator VirtualAce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    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.
    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.

    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.

  11. #56
    In The Light
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    I think the Hillary vs Richardson primary will be as interesting as the entire rest of the election.

    I don't like you very much. Please post a lot less.
    *and then*
    No, I know you were joking. My point still stands.

  12. #57
    Redundantly Redundant RoD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    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.

  13. #58
    Mayor of Awesometown Govtcheez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    I'm saying you're wrong.

  14. #59
    Cheesy Poofs! PJYelton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    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.

  15. #60
    Registered User axon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    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

    some entropy with that sink?

    there are two cardinal sins from which all others spring: Impatience and Laziness. - franz kafka

Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. C & visual studio 2008
    By Red Maw in forum C Programming
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-02-2009, 09:06 PM
  2. WinHEC 2008
    By brewbuck in forum Tech Board
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-08-2008, 04:17 PM
  3. VS 2008 Express with 2005 PSDK
    By Mario F. in forum Tech Board
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-11-2008, 12:29 PM