"And the next President of the United States is..."

ConversazioniProgressive & Liberal!

Iscriviti a LibraryThing per pubblicare un messaggio.

"And the next President of the United States is..."

Questa conversazione è attualmente segnalata come "addormentata"—l'ultimo messaggio è più vecchio di 90 giorni. Puoi rianimarla postando una risposta.

1abductee
Dic 11, 2006, 10:21 pm

Since there has been so much speculation in the media recently about whom the Democrats might nominate to run for President in '08, I thought it might be interesting to get some avid bookreaders' opinions on the possibilities and strength and weaknesses of each candidate.

So do you all think it'll be one of the current frontrunners, or are there some other candidates out there which could upsurp the "known names" in a run for the presidency?

And as another thought, what VP nominees would best match the field of possible presidential ones?

2MrKris
Dic 11, 2006, 10:26 pm

Messaggio rimosso.

3abductee
Dic 11, 2006, 10:28 pm

oh, I totally agree...I just want to learn more about some of the lesser-known politicians that might run.

4daschaich
Dic 11, 2006, 10:38 pm

Wikipedia knows all about lesser-known politicians. Go there and you can learn even more than you want to -- Democrats, Republicans, Others.

5MrKris
Dic 12, 2006, 12:31 am

Messaggio rimosso.

6cjacklen
Dic 12, 2006, 11:26 am

It could be worse...

You could live in a state that is so small it gets ignored (such as... Kansas?). That has always irritated me. Candidates give the clear impression that your vote doesn't count unless you live in California, New York, or Iowa... then they have the nerve to wonder why voter turnout sucks.

7MrKris
Dic 12, 2006, 11:58 am

Messaggio rimosso.

8daschaich
Dic 12, 2006, 1:06 pm

Well, the advantage is that the electors represent fewer voters (thus more electors per voter), and it's really a negligible advantage. Except for a handful of swing states, most of the 51 Presidential elections can be called months (or years!) ahead of time. And even among those swing states, it's only the bigger ones (Ohio, Florida) that can play a deciding role in the election, and get the most attention (as opposed to New Hampshire or New Mexico).

Sometimes the supposed advantages of the electoral college for smaller states are brought up to argue against direct election of the President. So I always like to debunk them when I have the chance. Steven Hill's 10 Steps to Repair American Democracy does a somewhat more thorough job.

In primaries, size is somewhat more important because the outcomes are usually not as predictable, but the date of the primary election plays a larger role than I think it should. Those near the beginning of the primary season will attract the most attention (Iowa, New Hampshire), while after Super Tuesday or so the outcome is generally clear and later primaries become less important.

9MrKris
Dic 12, 2006, 1:34 pm

Messaggio rimosso.

10MrKris
Dic 12, 2006, 3:00 pm

Messaggio rimosso.

11MrKris
Dic 12, 2006, 6:05 pm

Messaggio rimosso.

12bemidjian
Dic 14, 2006, 8:55 pm

As one who lived in the Mistake by the Lake during the days of infamy, I have to join the chorus of not Kucinich. He did not cause the problems for the city but he spent his mayoral years as an incompetent and a blowhard, a frightening combination.

I have hopes for Russ Feingold of Wisconsin for one of the top jobs. Bob Casey is Pennsylvania may be essential in winning back the traditional constituency of the party now that working people are discovering that the people they voted for think outsourcing jobs is a family value.

13MrKris
Dic 14, 2006, 11:08 pm

Messaggio rimosso.

14Linkmeister
Dic 30, 2006, 2:00 am

Obama is kind of a native son out here in Hawai'i, and there's an active "Draft Obama" group out here making noise. The poor guy's here to spend Christmas with his grandmother (I think), and this draft organization has been holding press conferences (or at least issuing press releases) trying to convince him to run.

Gah. I like him, but I'm not ready for Presidential politics yet this cycle, and I'm not sure he is either.

15quartzite
Dic 30, 2006, 7:01 am

I too like Obama, but think it too soon in his career to go for President. Not too soon to start building name recognition though.

16jaimelesmaths
Gen 2, 2007, 5:20 pm

I predict a John Edwards/Barack Obama ticket. You saw it here first.

17kageeh
Gen 5, 2007, 9:27 am

I would love to see a Gore/Obama ticket. I think that would create a Democratic landslide and we haven't see one of those since Nixon (oh how good he looks now!). I believe Hillary is far too polarizing. Besides, more voters are more reluctant to vote for a woman than for an African-American. Obama represents hope such as we haven't seen since Kennedy.

18stephlee_77 Primo messaggio
Gen 7, 2007, 3:22 pm

Oh man....Gore/Obama ticket is like a wonderful dream! I can't imagine having a president that I respect! Shoot me, but Hillary would be a horrible president. She has spent so much time lately trying to soften her image and make herself look so "moderate" that I don't think she actually believes in anything anymore!

19TheOneandOnly Primo messaggio
Gen 10, 2007, 10:44 pm

Obama is laying the groundworks to run for President in 2008...he paid his dues as a freshman Senator and is now more outspoken.

I do wish Mark Warner would attempt a run or try to get on someone's ticket.

Any ideas who the Republicans might be favored to run? I think it may be a from left field type like Mike Huckabee

20willowhistle
Gen 13, 2007, 2:55 am

I think it's McCain's to lose on the Republican side, and I'm worried that he would be hard to beat. We need to start counteracting his maverick image right now by highlighting his rubberstamping of Bush. Tie old Bush around his neck like an anchor.

I guess I'm in the minority here on Obama. He left me cold with his triangulating on Alito and his criticism of other Ds. He just strikes me as another DLCer like Hillary.

The way the primaries are lined up this time, I think it's looking good for Edwards, but who knows?

I'm really hoping Gore will give it another shot. I think a Gore/Clark ticket might be a good combo.

21TheOneandOnly
Gen 13, 2007, 11:54 pm

Well McCain is going to be 72 if he wins and takes office-which is definitely a big deal...especially depending on who chooses to be his VP...

22willowhistle
Gen 14, 2007, 12:22 pm

I hadn't thought about the age issue with McCain. I'm not sure if it would be seen as a weakness or a strength. Reagan was sure able to use it to his advantage. Wonder who McCain would pick as his VP.

23GoofyOcean110
Lug 26, 2007, 1:48 pm

Alright, so now that it's been a few months, where are folks' thoughts now on the nomination?

24ellevee
Lug 26, 2007, 2:42 pm

I think it will be Clinton and Obama.
I'd prefer Obama, but I think he needs a little more experience. In a few years, he could be an amazing president.

And Clinton, because - well, I like her and generally agree with her stance on issues.

Also: Join McCain fell asleep during the State Of The Union, which almost makes me like him.

Giuliani is a no-hope - he's too liberal for conservatives, and too slimy for everyone else.

But that's just my opinion.

25teelgee
Lug 26, 2007, 4:00 pm

I'm pulling for Edwards. The media has clearly decided on Clinton; that's a tough obstacle to overcome. I like Edwards/Obama. Clinton has pissed me off too many times.

26WinterTriangle
Lug 31, 2007, 3:43 pm

I've gotten to the point where the next barrier I'd like to see broken is to have a non-politician run this country. Looking outside the political realm might be just what we need. Somebody who instead of just running things can create something.

For now, I'd have to do more research, but I want someone who has a talent for coalition building. We need to *cure* the polarization that Bush created, otherwise, very little will get done even if a Democrat wins, IMHO.

27maggie1944
Lug 31, 2007, 4:24 pm

I have understood "politics" to be the art and science of large groups getting things done. There is no leadership without politics. What we really need is some talent in political leadership and followership. We can raise, train, and send out many leaders of talent, intelligence, and compassion; if the population is unwilling to be followers and trust each other - well, it doesn't suggest solving many problems.

28dwsact
Ago 3, 2007, 8:07 pm

I think the Democrats have good candidates this time around. I would be happy with most any of them in the White House. However, I am passionate in supporting the Draft Gore movement -- so much so that I would be willing to go to Iowa or New Hampshire at my own expense to work on his behalf.

Yes, Hilliary has comparable experience and intelligence, but she also brings tiresome baggage that we can do without. And do we really want a sequence of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. This smacks of Third World politics.

Obama has done himself no good with his recent statements about meeting in his first year with all of the dictators and invading Pakistan to get Bin Laden. This points up his inexperience. Let's get more miles on him before we let him run the country.

Joe Biden probably has more smarts than anyone else, but he has that problem with his mouth.

Even if Gore never becomes President, he will go down as one of the giants of the 21st century because of his skills in focusing not just us but the entire world on the approaching disaster of global warming. But he doesn't have to be the best President we never had. We can draft him as Stevenson and Eisenhower were drafted by their parties in 1952. Let's do it.

And wouldn't it be delicious to watch an inaugural where Gore is sworn in with Bush and Cheney looking on?

29maggie1944
Ago 3, 2007, 10:04 pm

I'd cheer to see that picture; however, Al Gore is such a gift to us as he calls us all to act responsibly, for the benefit of seven generations to follow us (thanks to our first americans for that idea). Let one of our other capable Democrats do the presidential thing. It is nearly an impossible job where as Al Gore's vision is very possible.

30geneg
Ago 3, 2007, 10:20 pm

The best picture to come out of the 2009 inauguration would be Bill Clinton on the portico of the White House with a Big S**t Eattin' Grin on his face waving at the media and a big banner that says "Welcome Home".

31Arctic-Stranger
Ago 10, 2007, 8:25 pm

My wife asked me last night if the election was this November. (She does not follow this stuff like I do.) When I told her the primaries are not until January/February, she gave me this look of horror and said, "You mean this is going to go on for another year!?"

32wyrdchao
Ago 20, 2007, 3:12 am

I love what Kucinich says, but there's no way he'll even win a primary, much less the nomination.

Hillary has her problems (see below), but I think she is the only one tough enough to win in what will be the dirtiest campaign we've ever seen. Obama or Edwards as VP could clinch the deal, though I also like Dodd. Obama COULD win the nomination, depending on media hype, but I think it would be a mistake for him this early in his career, and he really should pay some dues first. Clinton gutted out two Senate campaigns, and was far from invisible in Bill's administrations (both governor and president). She's been there.

Basically I trust Hillary for the seem reason I like Kerry; he refused to defend a position on a subject (the approval of the invasion of Iraq) because he felt victimized by the administration for lying to him. And I think Clinton's in the same boat. Remember that she is also a senator from New York, and has to channel the emotional debris of 'ground zero'.

She can't just flip on this subject, because saying she'd pull out all the troops would be lying outright. 'They lied to us. We couldn't tell the reactionary public to shut up and wait for revenge, so we HAD to vote for the war, based on the BS the admin was handing us. And noww.. we've broken Iraq, and we're stuck fixing it.' That awful thought must be going through her mind every damn day.

33BGP
Modificato: Nov 6, 2016, 10:00 pm

Questo messaggio è stato cancellato dall'autore.

34almigwin
Set 12, 2007, 8:11 pm

Thank you BGP, for this excellent and informative analysis. However, I don't think Obama is ready for the big job because he has had so little experience. I would like to see him be Vice President on a ticket with Hillary, and then run after her terms end.

35geneg
Set 12, 2007, 8:46 pm

Ditto! Ditto! Ditto! Mega-Dittos!!!

36BGP
Modificato: Nov 6, 2016, 10:00 pm

Questo messaggio è stato cancellato dall'autore.

37wyrdchao
Modificato: Set 13, 2007, 12:53 am

I also thank you for your analysis, and would like to add a few things.

Considering the close relationship between Bill and Hillary, both as a couple and as philosophical fellow-travelers, I would NOT write off her experience in the White House, nor would I ignore her role in Bill's 6 terms as Arkansas governor.

Obama would be wonderful, no argument there. But I am afraid that his administration would founder for the same reason Carter's did; it takes experience to assemble a cabinet and work with the Congress and the press.

And I think Hill is just plain tougher, less likely to make mistakes, much less likely to duck the difficult decisions.

Once again, the election will be bloody. Iraq will be with us for a while no matter who is president. Undoing 8 years of domestic Bushism will be awful at best. Hillary is more likely to be able to take the punishment and still leave the Dems in a position to keep the Congress and White House in their hands.

Obama is definitely the candidate for 2012/2016. But not now. He should concentrate on keeping Clinton honest, and taking away the nomination and winning if she stumbles. VP is the best way to ensure his candidacy later.

38geneg
Set 13, 2007, 10:34 pm

Political OJT as VP for a Freshman member of Congress sounds like creating an executive class. Is this a good idea?

39BGP
Modificato: Nov 6, 2016, 10:01 pm

Questo messaggio è stato cancellato dall'autore.

40wyrdchao
Modificato: Set 13, 2007, 11:15 pm

38>Sounds like, but... not exactly a new idea. And it's better than the 'Texas-oil-baron-silver-spoon' class.

I really see this as a matter of strategy, rather than ideology. If the Dems get elected in '08, that's only the start of the battle. Too big of a mess to clean up in only 4 years.

How about the 'God' issue? Been lots of flack on the blogs about the various Dem candidates falling all over themselves to appear Christian. Is this really necessary?

41BGP
Modificato: Nov 6, 2016, 10:01 pm

Questo messaggio è stato cancellato dall'autore.

42wyrdchao
Set 14, 2007, 1:57 am

I guess I'm more interested in the 'whoring' as a barometer of the candidate's sincerity. Since we can't ignore it, we might as well use it.

I've read enough about Clinton I have some idea about her level of (public) piety, but I don't know much about the others.

43geneg
Set 14, 2007, 10:35 am

God had some pretty caustic things to say about public piety. The entire Bible is filled with injunctions against public piety. In Matthew, God points out the close relationship between public piety and hypocrisy, so when I hear a simple statement that God guides the course of ones life, I don't get excited. But when I hear a politician tell me he or she is a prophet (one who speaks for God), my hackles rise. If God wants me to have a position on an issue, He will tell me what my position should be. I don't need an heretical political self-proclaimed prophet telling me what God wants me to do.

44Pawcatuck
Set 14, 2007, 10:37 pm

The most conventionally experienced presidents in my memory were Richard Nixon and George H. W. Bush. Lyndon Johnson had been in Washington forever. Bill Clinton's resume was pretty slim by comparison.

I think that Barack Obama is smart enough, and confident enough, not to surround himself with people who are going to spend their lives telling him what a great guy he is instead of trying to get their jobs done. You could possibly even make a case that too much experience gives an executive too much of an old-boys circle and creates the danger of having a sclerotic, dull administration, under which any glimmer of imagination will be ruthlessly hunted down and killed.

45maggie1944
Set 14, 2007, 10:42 pm

I think the experience question is a bit of a straw man. Its not how much, its what quality? Experience doing what? Accomplishments? Leadership?

At this point I am too enamoured of having a woman president to get past Hillary. If I was voting today, she'd get my vote. However, it is worrisome that she is quite the establishment type. Perhaps not sufficiently "liberal" for my bleeding-heart.

Still watching, still thinking....

46wyrdchao
Set 14, 2007, 10:57 pm

I'm NOT saying experience is the be-all and end-all. I'm saying that in THIS situation, the candidate had better have a thick skin.

Also, (as noted in #44), Bill Clinton had a 'thin' resume (governorship not withstanding); other presidents with similar experience have had a rocky first couple years, ironing out their cabinets, hitting brick walls of policy, learning the Congress vs. Admin ropes, the full court Press, etc. And Bill, (and JEC, and JFK, and...) had exactly these problems.

I really DON'T want to see a GOOD man, with good ideas (such as Carter was, and Obama is) become a victim of circumstance because he wasn't quite ready for the job. If my heart was voting, it would be for him. But it's not.

I also confess to that a little fairness is in order: how about let a woman do the job for a change! (no flames, please, I couldn't think of a more diplomatic way of putting it.) Regardless of her reputation as an 'establishment' figure, I can't wait to see how things go if the Hill is really elected, and I really don't think we'll mistake her admin for status quo.

47wyrdchao
Modificato: Set 15, 2007, 1:16 am

...and here is link if you want to know more about Hillary's faith:
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/hillarys-prayer.html


We've been having a similar discussion regarding the Founding Fathers on another thread, and I'd say that it is too much to expect that we will end up with an 'atheist' candidate (if that's what we want). What we really need is one who is consistent in his/her beliefs and CLEARLY understands the constitutional limitations of religion in government.

(edited to fix the link above)

48wyrdchao
Set 15, 2007, 2:01 am


And another article on Clinton's health care 'failure', during Bill's administration.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_hillarycare_mythology

Iscriviti per commentare