Race to the White House

[HGervais]

Primaries are getting close and I'm just wondering who everyone thinks at this point will be on the ballot come a year from now. No partisan pissing matches please.
Republican side, if I had to place a bet I would say the ticket will be Romney/Huckabee or depending how it breaks, maybe even Huckabee at the top of the ticket. Either way I don't think the Republican side will be as easy to beat as a lot of people seem to believe. I do think the religious right is serious about walking to a third party candidate if Giuliani secures the nomination and all politics aside, and clearly not for the same reasons, I agree with them. Giuliani scares the hell out of me. I also would not be surprised to see Ron Paul win the New Hampshire primary and scare the crap out of everyone on the Republican side. I can see a scenario where the Republican power brokers get scared and make a retreat back to something familair like McCain but I doubt it. I don't know what Thompson was thinking jumping in the way he did and considering he hasn't tried explaining why he jumped in I kind of think he is DOA...maybe he is angling for AG? Or would that be too cute by half? Only thing I would put money on is Huckabee being a big part of the mix.
Democratic side, I'm not convinced Clinton has the juice to ride this thing. She is certainly positioning herself as the inevitable candidate but I'm not sure. The problem is Obama still smells like Howard Dean to me....I like him and I like a lot of what he has to say but up until the point he starts showing he can throw a few punches, I think the jury is out on him. John Edwards let himself get defined by the Coulter crowd as the Breck candidate to early and so much of what he has done since seems like whining. And I don't think there is anyone else running. Okay I kind of like Chris Dodd. If Hillary wins I can see a Wes Clark or even a Jim Webb getting the call for VP. If Obama wins I look for a sign that he is serious about his changing the culture and reaching across the aisle for his VP pick...maybe a Chuck Hagel? Eh. It will probably be Hillary. Can't say as I'm all that thrilled by the prospect. Hillary vs Rudy...New York showdown! Hillary vs Huckabee...Arkansas showdown!
Hmph. I like Ron Paul & Barack Obama. Maybe I really am Andrew Sullivan in disguise.
Alright, so yeah it is early but considering this thing will probably be decided by March it isn't too soon to be speculating.

[Belmondo]

I enjoy speculating but I haven't got a clue as to who will win the Republican nomination. Guiliani is leading in the national polls but not in the early primary states. No question Romney is a newly minted conservative - he was very moderate as governor of my home state of Ma. He can be accused of being a flip flopper and his religion has to be considered an issue when I hear people asking "are Mormons Christians?" (Correct answer - "who gives a shit; as long as he is not allied with the neo-cons who got us into our current mess.") I love McCain, and he still has a slight chance; the rest of them have insufficient name recognition and little chance.

However; I'm ready to say it's all but assured that Hillary will be the nominee and I won't be the least bit surprised if she wins the general election. Dearly love Obama, but Hillary is the one with a pair of brass ... never mind, just get ready for a woman in charge.

[HGervais]

I guess one of the problems now is that with all the primaries front-loaded the questions will all be answered by Super Tuesday. It isn't a marathon race to the nomination any more, not that it has been for quite some time, but rather a sprint to the quasi-national primary. I say this with no partisan rancor but Giuliani scares the hell out of me because I think he is insane. I said it a year ago, the more people find out about Giuliani, the less they like him. Hillary is the exact opposite. She has been demonized so heavily by the right-wing for so long that she has no where to go but up...and she really has been running a great campaign. It has been said that Obama's biggest problem is that he has been running his campaign like he is the front-runner & clearly he isn't and it is killing him. If we were talking about the Romney of a year or two ago I could have swallowed voting for him with little trouble. We could do a lot worse than a pragmatic right-of-center northeastern Republican. And no, a person's religion should not make a bit of difference. I work from the assumption we are all Americans and right or left, we all want what is best for America....we just disagree on the specifics of getting there. The problem with Romney now is of course the depth with which he is willing to flip-flop on every issue to make himself acceptable to the religious right. Again, a big part of my problem with McCain is the way he has been willing to sell his soul so the religious right will accept him. Funny thing is of course is that of all the Republicans running he is the most traditionally conservative. Same goes for with Ron Paul. I'm amazed at the hatred in some circle for Paul. If I'm Romney, Huckabee looks real attractive as a running mate. He is a more likeable George Bush and he gives Romney serious cred with the Dobson crowd.
If you look at Clinton's record and her policies, she is very much a center/just left of center candidate and I probably agree with her on about 75% to 80% of the issues being discussed. That said, I'm looking for a good reason not to vote for her. The idea of the White House being controlled by two political families for up to 28 years does not appeal to me. I want change. I want someone different. I just don't think we are going to get it. Ugh. Now I have depressed myself.

[Steve T Power]

I got mega excited - i thought this thread might have been about an illegal underground street race from some undisclosed starting point to Washington D.C - Sign me up for that!

Instead it;'s just another thread about American politics - somebody shoot me

[Dunnyman]

On the Republican side, I, too am spooked by Rudy, the guy just oozes slime. Plus he's been caught out as the biggest liar in the business, and he still keeps trying to ride 9/11 into the White House. Thompson has zero chance, he's a loudmouth, and god knows his barely legal wife will get chopped to bits by the media come crunch time. McCain, well, THE flip-flopper, depending on which way the wind is blowing, looks horrible in brown lipstick due to kissing Bush's ass for the last six or so years. He's also got the image of an "old" man, with "old" ideas, America isn't looking for Grandpa to run the country. Romney has a couple of things I would have liked, had he not backtracked on all of them trying to get some love from the fundies, and he's shown he'll say whatever he has to in order to get elected. Yikes. Huckabee? A fairly solid conservative, and while he's liked by the religious types, he's not extreme about it. He's also shown good smarts in fiscal issues, and he's not owned by the corporations. I'm hoping he might be able to unite the country.
The Democrats are in a mess, no two ways about it. Hilary is the front runner, but I'm not overly fond of her, because of her willingness to go along with damn near everything Bush has done. On the other hand, it means the Big Dog will be back in the White House, and I'm pretty sure she's smart enough to listen to him, and she's made it clear he'd have a position of some kind. I love Obama's willingness to challenge the status quo on just about everything, I just hope he's around if not as the Presidential candidate, then as the VP. The black voter turnout has been a mess since Dukakis basically slapped Jesse Jackson in the face in 88, and Obama's got a chance to unite the Democratic party. Are we ready for a black VP? I think we are. For a President? I just don't think so, even though I'd happily vote for him. I like John Edwards, and I love the fact that he openly admitted he disagreed with Kerrey on a number of issues. He's got guts, and a healthy respect for American workers, and no love for the big corporations, but he's not in a position to do much in the primaries right now.I don't think anyone else has a chance.

Unless Gore jumps in with a readymade campaign, and Wesley Clark as his running mate.
Then I'd be getting ready for 8 years of peace and prosperity...

[Jon Mercer]

I got mega excited - i thought this thread might have been about an illegal underground street race from some undisclosed starting point to Washington D.C - Sign me up for that!

Instead it;'s just another thread about American politics - somebody shoot me

The Sea to Shining Sea Cannonball Rally?

[call]

I'm Canadian, can I play, too?

I think the Repub nom will come down to Guliani or Romney, both of which I don't care for. Guliani because he keeps grudges and has a serious problem with ego, Romney because I think he'll probably privatize the entire government in a week.

On the Dem side, it will be Hillary.

If it comes down to Hillary vs. Guliani, I think it will go to Hillary. People are tired (generally) of the Republicans, and Guliani is slimy enough to displease a lot of people, especially once they start digging into his marriages, security and law business. Again, not that Mrs. Clinton is so good, but the other options are so limited.

If it goes to Hillary vs. Romney, it will be much closer. The only knock on Romney is the Mormon thing, but I don't know how Americans feel about that. He's enough of an "outsider" to avoid the Republican tarnish, although he seems to be running largely on a platform of "what is good for business is good for America".

God bless Canada, where elections are over in a month!

[Jon Mercer]

I'm Canadian, can I play, too?

No, have some goddamn pride.

[Bill Treadway]

As someone who lived through Giuliani's two terms as mayor, I question why some people think this guy is such a great leader. He wasmore like the big bully who never shut the hell up than a strong leader. He did clean up Times Square (for which I'll forever be grateful), but the man was a divider- especially in the aftermath of the Diallo shooting. I question his claim that he'll be the best man to fight the war on terror. If he truly was what he claims to be, he'd have built the anti-terror command center UNDERGROUND in Brooklyn back in 94 instead of putting it in Tower 7. Mind you I voted for him back in 97- despite my reservations. It was mainly due to the fact that the rest of the field was such thin soup. The Rev Al Sharpton is not one of my favorite people, but he's right when he said that when it comes to Giuliani, you have to remember Sept 10.

[call]

I'm Canadian, can I play, too?

No, have some goddamn pride.

You newfs barely made it into Confederation. Heel draggers! Catch up and then you can tell us Torontarians how to run our democracy ('cause we do...the rest of you are only along for the ride)!

[Jon Mercer]

I'm Canadian, can I play, too?

No, have some goddamn pride.

You newfs barely made it into Confederation.

And we've been living in regret ever since Joey Smallwood sold us all out to Ottawa. Free NFLD!! Long live the republic!!

[TemporalWisdom]

(Thompson's) barely legal wife will get chopped to bits by the media come crunch time.

The hell? She's 41 with considerable experience in politics - and she worked as a media consultant for a law firm. Sounds like you've bought into the hype about the supposed "May-December Marriage," Greg. Granted there's a 24-year age difference, but it's not as though he married some kid who didn't know better. It's a little...yeah, but I'm not judging. Question is, how many people will judge?

Okay, on the Democratic side, I like Obama and Edwards. I guess I could live with Clinton as President. I don't much like her, but we'd have broken a major barrier in terms of gender equality, and she'd have to be spectacularly bad to be worse than Bush.

On the Republican side, the only one I like even a little is Thompson. I haven't heard enough from him to decide how much I like him, but Guiliani, Romney, and McCain are all slime. McCain and Guiliani are scary slime - Romney at least is just a shameless opportunist.

I really, really, wish Michael Bloomberg would make a bid for it. As Mayor of New York City, he's not been a buck-passer, and I agree with all his stances.

That's who I like. Who I think will win....Edwards isn't likely to get the Democratic nomination, it'll be Clinton or Obama. McCain and Romney are nowhere, it's between Guiliani and Thompson. You know, you can buy stock futures on the outcome of the race, and last I checked it's 2-1 for a Democratic victory. So Clinton will likely win the nomination, and if she does, she'll probably win the election.

Unless Bloomberg tries. Please?

[The Omen]

I guess I'm in the minority in that I actually like Guiliani? My family blood does trickle down from the Roman Empire so perhaps that's why. I hear all this talk of slime ball and sleaze oozing from every orifice...luckily I assume that about all politicians, so now I can measure each of them on an even scale.

Dem

Hillary- 4-1 favorite (And I, for one, welcome our new insect fascist overlords!)
Obama-8-1
Edwards-14-1
Biden- 21-1


Rep

Guiliani- 3-1 favorite (And I, for one, welcome our new insect fascist overlords!)
Romney- 5-1
McCain- 20-1
Thompson- 25-1

[Dan Mancini]

Try as I might, I can't bring myself to care (or pay much attention) at this stage of the game. Cripes, why don't we just fire up election season on inauguration day from now on?

[Ptolemy]

I like what Obama says. I'd vote for him in a heartbeat. Don't know if he could get anything done. But I'd like to see him try. I'm ambivalent about Clinton. I believe she's learned the hard way that the only way to affect change is from the inside. This may be smart, but it makes me think of her as an insider. I still think a Clinton/Obama ticket would be cool. I like Edwards but don't think he has a chance.

The big problems I see facing America right now is healthcare. Much more important than the war on terror or drugs or crime or even jobs (right now). I see fixing healthcare as not only being the right thing to do, but will help in all sorts of areas - immigration, social security, poverty, American competitiveness, balance of trade, and probably several others. What I've seen proposed by Clinton (and Edwards and Obama) is probably doable - which is a big plus. But I'd like to see it go further. For example nationalize the drug companies - but I'm just dreaming.

The other issues: war on terror, environment, etc. are important too - but I figure no matter who gets elected, we're going to be better off in those areas.

I guess my point is that I'm a 'one issue' guy this time. I'm going to support whoever I think has the best plan and the best strategy for getting that plan done. I'll have to send money to someone - as I live in the reddest of states and Romney will likely take the state even if he isn't on the ballot. So my vote will probably be worth much.

[Ptolemy]

Didn't know where the most appropriate place for this was - either in the fire thread or this one. This one is more political so I'm putting it here:

and yes, it is off topic, but I didn't want to start a whole new thread.


Comments by Greg Saunders at the Huffington Post.

Put down that hose, Comrade

Since the President was so concerned about "socialized medicine" that he vetoed SCHIP expansion, can we assume that his trip to Southern California tomorrow is to deliver a lecture about the evils of socialized firefighting? After all, if the free market is the best way to fight poverty, injury, and disease, I'm sure the invisible hand would have no problem putting out a few fires. Since America has the best healthcare in the world, maybe the progress against the wildfires would go quicker if the firefighters borrowed a trick from the insurance industry and only concentrated on saving the homes of people whose employers have enrolled them in a private fire protection plan that provided coverage for fires caused by accidents, arson, and acts of god. Just cross your fingers and hope that the fire gets put out before your coverage lapses.

[Future Man]

Didn't know where the most appropriate place for this was - either in the fire thread or this one. This one is more political so I'm putting it here:

and yes, it is off topic, but I didn't want to start a whole new thread.


Comments by Greg Saunders at the Huffington Post.

Put down that hose, Comrade

Since the President was so concerned about "socialized medicine" that he vetoed SCHIP expansion, can we assume that his trip to Southern California tomorrow is to deliver a lecture about the evils of socialized firefighting? After all, if the free market is the best way to fight poverty, injury, and disease, I'm sure the invisible hand would have no problem putting out a few fires. Since America has the best healthcare in the world, maybe the progress against the wildfires would go quicker if the firefighters borrowed a trick from the insurance industry and only concentrated on saving the homes of people whose employers have enrolled them in a private fire protection plan that provided coverage for fires caused by accidents, arson, and acts of god. Just cross your fingers and hope that the fire gets put out before your coverage lapses.

I'm no political scientist but government should be counted on for collective security, of which firefighting is one component. It's one of the main reasons we 'agree' to have government at all. To extrapolate that into government providing for our every need, well that's a slippery slope. I have no problem with healthcare for the poor and their children, but I don't think the government should make it easier for middle class folks to forego making responsible household budgetary choices, particularly with human nature being what it is. Health insurance should come before cable TV.

As for the candidates, I would like to hear more from Huckabee. His demeanor alone tells me a lot about him, and is very appealing. His counterpart on the Dem side for me is Richardson. He seems a very straightforward person who says what he means and means what he says. Unfortunately they both seem more like VP candidates--which is what many of these lower-tier candidates are really running for but cannot say it.

I cannot fathom the appeal of Romney or particularly Giuliani (although he deserves great credit for Times Square as others have said). In fact my wife participated in a phone survey last night, where one question was, Who would you never consider voting for, Repulbican-wise, and she said Giuliani. At the end of the call she was somewhat embarrassed to learn that the survey was being conducted by the Giuliani campaign.

But I really, really cannot fathom the appeal of Hillary. If EVER there were a phony-baloney, say-anything-to-get-elected, vote-for- me-because-I-am-so-ambitious kind of candidate, it is her, and that's without getting into the slimy stuff like campaign money, or the prospect of her husband being back in a position of power (he brings out the same feelings in most Republicans that Bush does in Dems, trust me). I would love to see a woman President (Thatcher was a great PM IMO), but not her by any stretch.

I can see why Obama has a certain appeal to those on the left, because he sounds good, but his inexperience quickly surfaces when pressed.

In truth however, a Hillary/Obama ticket would be a formidable one indeed.

[Gobear]

.

But I really, really cannot fathom the appeal of Hillary. If EVER there were a phony-baloney, say-anything-to-get-elected, vote-for- me-because-I-am-so-ambitious kind of candidate, it is her, and that's without getting into the slimy stuff like campaign money, or the prospect of her husband being back in a position of power (he brings out the same feelings in most Republicans that Bush does in Dems, trust me). I would love to see a woman President (Thatcher was a great PM IMO), but not her by any stretch.

I can see why Obama has a certain appeal to those on the left, because he sounds good, but his inexperience quickly surfaces when pressed.

In truth however, a Hillary/Obama ticket would be a formidable one indeed.

100% agreed. I can't stand that phony, power-hungry bitch. I'm not happy with the lame choices the Dems have and ain't no way I'm voting for the Sith Lords. I'm just not going to vote because it makes no difference if Hillary or a GOP candidate wins--the Pubs and the Dems are just the right and left hands of the same corporate puppeteers. Whoever wins, the American people lose.

[Dan Mancini]

I'm just not going to vote because it makes no difference if Hillary or a GOP candidate wins--the Pubs and the Dems are just the right and left hands of the same corporate puppeteers. Whoever wins, the American people lose.

Sadly, that pretty much sums up how I feel at the moment. 2008 may be the first presidential election I don't vote in since I started voting almost 20 years ago.

[IChiWawa]

Sarcasm aside, the real difference in who wins the presidency is in Judicial nominees, in which case I favor Conservatives. Aside from that, IMO it's just one party seeking to buy votes with largesse for a different section of voters and large donors, be it overpriced prescription drugs for seniors or Walter Reed-grade health care to just about everyone.

That being said, I havent voted for a Rebublican (nor a Democratic) nominee for President or Senator since the 80s. I don't feel any have been qualified.

One thing is fairly certain, if a faction of conservatives is swayed by the incredible amount of Giuliani hate (more from the left than the right but for opposite reasons, one to torpedo a perceived threat and one because they think he's too liberal on social issues) and supports a third-party candidate, Hillary will win faster than you can say Ross Perot, whose supporters were responsible for the previous Clinton.

I really don't see Hillary losing unless the press does a better job of covering her incredible weakness for dirty money. They may not even care about the Chinese connection. Even so, she may be better/smarter/slicker than anyone the Repubs nominate. As CIC, she'll have to work hard to be worse than Bubba and Dubya. But Alito and Roberts v Breyer and Bader-Ginsberg? No contest.

[Ptolemy]

I think the argument could be made that if "collective security" applies to fighting fires then it could also be applied to fighting disease. If I recall correctly, firefighters were originally private, but it didn't work and the government took over.

I don't think it comes down to choosing cable tv or choosing healthcare for all but a very tiny minority. Cable TV is pretty much available to everyone at a reasonable price. Healthcare is not.

[Kenneth Morgan]

For Pete's sake, the election is more than a year away. I'm not going to start actively considering the matter at least until after the beginning of 2008.

[The Omen]

I'm just not going to vote because it makes no difference if Hillary or a GOP candidate wins--the Pubs and the Dems are just the right and left hands of the same corporate puppeteers. Whoever wins, the American people lose.

Sadly, that pretty much sums up how I feel at the moment. 2008 may be the first presidential election I don't vote in since I started voting almost 20 years ago.

That's how I've always felt and continue to feel. That's why I'm a know nothing punk kid.

[Dan Mancini]

I don't think it comes down to choosing cable tv or choosing healthcare for all but a very tiny minority. Cable TV is pretty much available to everyone at a reasonable price. Healthcare is not.

You're being way too literal here. It's not about cable TV per se. It's about the massive sinkhole of consumer crap that we dump our (hefty by the standards of most of the rest of the world) salaries into. Heck, most Americans are in the top 5% of wage-earners worldwide yet still manage to buy so much worthless crap and empty status symbols that they're riddled with debt and on the verge of personal financial collapse. That's absurd. The current health insurance system needs fixing, that's for sure. But it needs to be done in a way that takes care of people who are actually poor. And the best way to do that is to demand to some degree that the rest of us alter our lifestyles as crud-sucking consumers in order to, you know, spend our money on taking care of our basic needs before buying luxuries.

[Dan Mancini]

I'm just not going to vote because it makes no difference if Hillary or a GOP candidate wins--the Pubs and the Dems are just the right and left hands of the same corporate puppeteers. Whoever wins, the American people lose.

Sadly, that pretty much sums up how I feel at the moment. 2008 may be the first presidential election I don't vote in since I started voting almost 20 years ago.

That's how I've always felt and continue to feel. That's why I'm a know nothing punk kid.

I've never been enthralled with any candidate I've voted for, but my general sense of contempt for American politics and politicians has gotten so intense that the act of voting itself now seems pointless.

[Ptolemy]

Dan, you're right about me missing the point vis cable TV. This is one topic I get excited about and I missed the point in this case.

Yes, Americans could do a better job of wisely spending their salaries.

Many people pay more for their families insurance than they do for Federal and State taxes - so many of us are paying more for healthcare than we are for battleships, roads, bridges, policemen, White House news rooms, soldier's salaries, etc. etc. (and yes I know it has been a long time since we actually built a battleship, but you understand my point).

I don't think there is/should be a line where we say "you are too rich, you're on your own". Things need to be made more efficient and more cost effective for all of us. I like the fire fighter vs. healthcare model. In order for the public to be best served I believe there should be a central authority that coordinates the delivery of both fire fighting and health care resources.

[HGervais]

For Pete's sake, the election is more than a year away. I'm not going to start actively considering the matter at least until after the beginning of 2008.

The election is a year away but the choice of who will be running will pretty be over within the next 5 to 6 months. The way the system is rigged by the time you start thinking about it, it will pretty much be over.

[Boba Fett]

For Pete's sake, the election is more than a year away. I'm not going to start actively considering the matter at least until after the beginning of 2008.

The election is a year away but the choice of who will be running will pretty be over within the next 5 to 6 months. The way the system is rigged by the time you start thinking about it, it will pretty much be over.

But then again, unless you're a registered member of the "Big Two" your opinion on who gets to run doesn't matter anyway.

[Dan Mancini]

I don't think there is/should be a line where we say "you are too rich, you're on your own". Things need to be made more efficient and more cost effective for all of us. I like the fire fighter vs. healthcare model. In order for the public to be best served I believe there should be a central authority that coordinates the delivery of both fire fighting and health care resources.

Yeah, I'm not suggesting it should be a binary system with some kind of earnings cut-off point. It needs to be revamped in a much more complex and thorough way, and the government needs to be involved at all levels in at least a regulatory capacity. I definitely don't have all the answers, but I do think the health insurance problem should be approached in combination with changes in the tax code that encourage greater personal responsibility as opposed to the sort of frivolous consumer spending some believe actually keeps the economy ticking (e.g. let's all buy houses we can't afford so we can get tax deductions!).

[The Omen]

I sort of pull for Obama because I know deep down he won't win. I like what he has to say when he says...anything. However for him to have a chance, he has to sell out in a way. And when he does that, I no longer care for him anyway.

That's the biggest problem with politics here. You can't have an original thought because most people aren't all that open to change. And rather stupid. As soon as a candidate steps out of the old tried and true rhetoric, out come the bullets from all the other candidates and their followers...and you end up being ...you know, one of them independent free thinkers who gets .03% of the vote. Sometimes I think this is the only way: http://www.seeklyrics.com/lyrics/Tool/Aenima.html

[TemporalWisdom]

I sort of pull for Obama because I know deep down he won't win.

Never say die. Anyway, someone (Richard Cohen? Eugene Robinson?) pointed out that Obama, though destined to lose, can pave the way for 2012. If Clinton wins the primaries and picks him as her running mate, he's sitting pretty. They win, and he's Vice President with an opportunity to replace Clinton after her number's up. They lose, and he gains name recognition and experience that can be used in the next election. He'd have something a bit more substantial than this flash-in-the-pan celebrity that he's enjoying now.

One thing that worries me on that score is, if he doesn't become either President or Vice President in 2009, it gives him that much more time to accumulate a voting record that can be used against him. Right now, with only two and a half years on the Senate, he's less vulnerable.

Of course, accusing Clinton of flip-flopping is ridiculous. I have no doubt she's perfectly capable of changing her stance to suit the political opportunity, but come on. Of course she changes her vote as new information becomes available. Better that than Bush, who never alters his course no matter what circumstances change. Mind you, she is different than Romney, who changes basic facts and suddenly morphs into a raging conservative for political gain.

[The Omen]

Never say die. Anyway, someone (Richard Cohen? Eugene Robinson?) pointed out that Obama, though destined to lose, can pave the way for 2012. If Clinton wins the primaries and picks him as her running mate, he's sitting pretty. They win, and he's Vice President with an opportunity to replace Clinton after her number's up. They lose, and he gains name recognition and experience that can be used in the next election. He'd have something a bit more substantial than this flash-in-the-pan celebrity that he's enjoying now.

I kind of think this is it for him. I have no science or history to back me, but something tells me he's more of a shooting star than a lasting impression. The longer he sits out there, the more he gets entangled in the dirt of the game. He won't be the new blood anymore...and honestly, as I said, he has to change too much just to become a legit candidate. It's not a problem with him, it's this antiquated system of ours that hems candidates into tried and tested alleyways.

[Kenneth Morgan]

For Pete's sake, the election is more than a year away. I'm not going to start actively considering the matter at least until after the beginning of 2008.

The election is a year away but the choice of who will be running will pretty be over within the next 5 to 6 months. The way the system is rigged by the time you start thinking about it, it will pretty much be over.

But then again, unless you're a registered member of the "Big Two" your opinion on who gets to run doesn't matter anyway.

I'm not registered with any party, so I won't really know who's running until September, 2008.

No matter who ends up on the tickets, I'll still vote though. My brother Bri put it very well: "If you don't vote, you have no excuse."

Actually, I'm more interested in whether Lautenberg will run for Senate again, and whether NJ voters will be dumb enough to vote him back in again.

[Chris_Sax]

I'm voting Lyndon Larouche.

[Boba Fett]

I'm voting Lyndon Larouche.

The charts don't lie.

[HGervais]

I'm voting Lyndon Larouche.

I hear 13th time is the charm.

[Steve T Power]

Obama winning would be pretty interesting...

If only to see how long it was before some idiot took a shot at him. lierally.

"Ladies and gentlemen, the first black presi... BLAM!"

[Jon Mercer]

Obama winning would be pretty interesting...

If only to see how long it was before some idiot took a shot at him. lierally.

"Ladies and gentlemen, the first black presi... BLAM!"

"But the president...I mean, why not shoot the president?"

[call]

Obama winning would be pretty interesting...

If only to see how long it was before some idiot took a shot at him. lierally.

"Ladies and gentlemen, the first black presi... BLAM!"

"But the president...I mean, why not shoot the president?"

"You may not mean to give offense, sir, but you are layin' it on pretty thick!"

[Chris_Sax]

abortions for some, miniature American flags for others.

[Dunnyman]

abortions for some, miniature American flags for others.

but at least the abortions are made in the USA, the mini flags are made in China, lead based paint, toxic ingredients, etc...

[sneakers]

I didn't even know there were any Republicans running. All the news in chicago concentrates just on the Democrats Hillary,Obama and Edwards. I wouldn't vote Republican anyway. Who wants someone like Bush in office.

[Erick Harper]

Here's my analysis, from the GOP point of view:
Hillary will be the next President. This election is already over. You can't beat somebody with nobody, and that's precisely what the GOP has right now - nobody. All of you Dems out there who are acting unsure about this are either way more gracious than I thought possible, or you are trying not to jinx it, like mentioning a no-hitter in the dugout.

On the GOP side, no one has my interest right now, except maybe Ron Paul - hard to argue with someone whose previous run for Pres was as the LP candidate. However, since he's not going anywhere, what have I got to work with? Crazy, liberal Giuliani, nauseatingly slick Romney, past-his-prime McCain, and Dropped-dead Fred.

I was seriously considering support for McCain 8 years ago. I watched a few of his events on C-Span and I was impressed by the real leadership and charisma he seemed capable of. I've read a couple of his books, and I'm more than impressed by his biography - he's a more genuine American hero than any of the others could even imagine. But, I was leery of his McCain-Feingold foolishness. (Silly me, W. signed it anyway.) More than that, though, McCain has always been a little unpredictable. Not just his independent streak. That I can live with. It's his tendency to shoot from the hip, to do and say truly bizarre things on a whim, that worries me - if anything, he's gotten worse about this in the past 8 years, so that every week seems to bring a new revelation of some seriously weird thing he's said recently. Then, there's the war. Contrary to some opinions, I don't believe his support for the war is kissing up to W; I think it is sincere. Make your own judgments about whether that is better or worse.

Fred Thompson - I was ready for this. I thought, "here's the guy to the rescue." Apparently not. I'd explain more, but why put more effort into an internet post than the man has into his whole Presidential campaign?

Which brings us to Huckabee. He violates my main criterion for picking a candidate: he's from the South. (Yeah, so is Thompson, but if he'd have been any good at all, I might have made an exception.) Plus, his name is freaking HUCKABEE. That just screams "unelectable hillbilly" to me. All kidding aside, he's probably the guy I want to hear more about right now - religious and mostly socially conservative without being a Religious Conservative (tm). Sounds like he was a good bipartisan leader in Arkansas, working with a Dem. legislature to just get stuff done that needed to be done. The problem with that is that he did some pretty fiscally un-conservative things, like significant tax increases, etc. in the process. That's what worries me, since the fiscal/governmental aspect is a much bigger part of the job, and a much harder test of one's principles, than the social stuff. When you get the social stuff right (or even too far right) but the actual fiscal/"business of government" stuff wrong, well, you wind up with GWB, and who really needs more of that? I fear that Huckabee would just be a smarter, less fiscally disciplined (if such a thing is possible) version of Bush.

But, as I said, all this is academic, since Hill has it locked up. One caveat to that: I remember back in about January of 1992, when I was a freshman in college, watching Dennis Miller's short-lived talk show. Patrick Stewart was the guest, and he was expressing his confusion about the whole primary/caucus process. Miller boiled it down as "The Republicans get to pick who will be President, and the Democrats get to pick who gets his ass kicked by George Bush," or words to that effect. At that point, the "7 Dwarves" on the Dem side (as the media labeled them) seemed like they were going nowhere. I guess we all know how that one ended, so anything is possible, however unlikely.

[TemporalWisdom]

Hillary will be the next President. This election is already over. You can't beat somebody with nobody, and that's precisely what the GOP has right now - nobody. All of you Dems out there who are acting unsure about this are either way more gracious than I thought possible, or you are trying not to jinx it, like mentioning a no-hitter in the dugout.

It's not a sure thing. There are no guarantees. Clinton could do or say something stupid. Edwards could drop out, and the votes he would have gotten could go to Obama (But if Obama dropped out, his votes would go to Clinton). Or Obama could claw his way into the lead. If there were two weeks left, we could say Clinton's got it locked up. But there's ten months to go.

[HGervais]

Here's my analysis, from the GOP point of view:
Hillary will be the next President. This election is already over. You can't beat somebody with nobody, and that's precisely what the GOP has right now - nobody. All of you Dems out there who are acting unsure about this are either way more gracious than I thought possible, or you are trying not to jinx it, like mentioning a no-hitter in the dugout.

It is funny, most the hardcore Dems I chat with don't really care all that much for Clinton for one reason or another. She is certainly trying to foster that sense that it will be her and only her, I'm just not completely sold on that being the case. I could live with her as President but I keep coming back to two families living in the White House for a potential 28 straight years and I have a major problem with that.

On the GOP side, no one has my interest right now, except maybe Ron Paul - hard to argue with someone whose previous run for Pres was as the LP candidate. However, since he's not going anywhere, what have I got to work with?

I would agree he won't get the nomination and the Republican machine is doing everything it can to shut him down as quickly as possible but I really think he is going to be in the top 3 for both Iowa & New Hampshire. I to have a lot of interest in what he has to say but balancing it with some of the bat-shit crazy stuff he believes in brings me back down to earth.

Crazy, liberal Giuliani, nauseatingly slick Romney, past-his-prime McCain, and Dropped-dead Fred.

I think you nailed them all. People used to try and tag John Kerry as flip-flopper, they could not have imagined the campaigns Romney & Rudy were going to run.

I was seriously considering support for McCain 8 years ago. I watched a few of his events on C-Span and I was impressed by the real leadership and charisma he seemed capable of. I've read a couple of his books, and I'm more than impressed by his biography - he's a more genuine American hero than any of the others could even imagine. But, I was leery of his McCain-Feingold foolishness. (Silly me, W. signed it anyway.) More than that, though, McCain has always been a little unpredictable. Not just his independent streak. That I can live with. It's his tendency to shoot from the hip, to do and say truly bizarre things on a whim, that worries me - if anything, he's gotten worse about this in the past 8 years, so that every week seems to bring a new revelation of some seriously weird thing he's said recently. Then, there's the war. Contrary to some opinions, I don't believe his support for the war is kissing up to W; I think it is sincere. Make your own judgments about whether that is better or worse.

I liked McCain a lot as well 8 years ago and seeing what Bush/Rove did to him in South Carolina provided a pretty good preview of coming attractions for the following 8 years. I would have gladly voted for him. As for the war, I don't doubt his sincerity or Bush/Cheney's for that matter. I think in most cases they think what are doing is for the safety & security of the nation. I just think in most cases they are wrong and have tried to trade security, which I'm not sure is possible, at the expense of our nation's soul. At least McCain is willing to call torture for what it is.

Fred Thompson - I was ready for this. I thought, "here's the guy to the rescue." Apparently not. I'd explain more, but why put more effort into an internet post than the man has into his whole Presidential campaign?

His campaign slogan should be, Thompson '08-I wasn't doing anything else.

Which brings us to Huckabee. He violates my main criterion for picking a candidate: he's from the South. (Yeah, so is Thompson, but if he'd have been any good at all, I might have made an exception.) Plus, his name is freaking HUCKABEE. That just screams "unelectable hillbilly" to me. All kidding aside, he's probably the guy I want to hear more about right now - religious and mostly socially conservative without being a Religious Conservative (tm). Sounds like he was a good bipartisan leader in Arkansas, working with a Dem. legislature to just get stuff done that needed to be done. The problem with that is that he did some pretty fiscally un-conservative things, like significant tax increases, etc. in the process. That's what worries me, since the fiscal/governmental aspect is a much bigger part of the job, and a much harder test of one's principles, than the social stuff. When you get the social stuff right (or even too far right) but the actual fiscal/"business of government" stuff wrong, well, you wind up with GWB, and who really needs more of that? I fear that Huckabee would just be a smarter, less fiscally disciplined (if such a thing is possible) version of Bush.

Huckabee is Bush with more charm. And he is a big-budget conservative like Bush. And he is one of those guys who raised his hand at one of the first debates when asked if anyone didn't believe in evolution. Downside for him is that there have been several ethics investigations done on his administration and he has been officially rebuked at least 2 or 3 times....not that many people care about ethics anymore but still, it is out there. Every way I look at it I think he is the buffer than makes a Mormon or a insane, pro-choice, pro-gun control, thrice divorced mayor with no experience a less bitter pill to swallow to the movement conservative crowd. Unless he can pull a Bill Clinton and get his hands on the nomination himself...at which point that would turn your it's-going-to-be-Hillary sceanrio on its head.

But, as I said, all this is academic, since Hill has it locked up. One caveat to that: I remember back in about January of 1992, when I was a freshman in college, watching Dennis Miller's short-lived talk show. Patrick Stewart was the guest, and he was expressing his confusion about the whole primary/caucus process. Miller boiled it down as "The Republicans get to pick who will be President, and the Democrats get to pick who gets his ass kicked by George Bush," or words to that effect. At that point, the "7 Dwarves" on the Dem side (as the media labeled them) seemed like they were going nowhere. I guess we all know how that one ended, so anything is possible, however unlikely.

Ah, 1992. A simpler time when a president named Bush actually knew what he was doing and didn't have to worry about being considered a war criminal when he leaves office.

[The Omen]

Where's my thread anointing Hillary the white house about a year ago?

Unfortunately for me, I think she does actually have it all locked up.

[Gobear]

As a life-long Dem, my problem with Hillary is that she has no core beliefs, no commitment to anything other than her own advancement. She's approaching '08 as a coronation, not an election. Moroever, she's just as much a whore for corporate agendas as Bush or Cheney, so we can kiss any idea of cleaning up corruption. She's not going to pull out of Iraq, and she's probably going to bomb Iran, since she voted for Bush to do so.

Here's a video of her campaign strategy with a supporter.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=44XOKr8kips

[HGervais]

She's not going to pull out of Iraq, and she's probably going to bomb Iran, since she voted for Bush to do so.

That is a good point and I'm reminded of the main lesson from the 2004 election. When you give people a choice between a Republican candidate and a Republican-lite candidate, most people are going to vote for the real thing. The Democratic party as a whole is so terrorized as being labeled soft on security, and this is an area where staying on-message has greatly helped Republicans, that they are terrified of actually standing their ground and doing anything. A weakened president dealing with scandal after scandal and a large majority of Americans who feel Iraq is a failure that we need to withdraw from and no one can get anything done? Granted every substantive piece of anti-war legislation has been fillibusted to death by the Republican minority but at some point some one not named Jim Webb needs to stand up and hold this administration accountable for the disaster which has killed so many soldiers & Iraqis. Someone needs to end this culture of fear Bush & company have sold the country on. As the self-crowned frontrunner it should be Clinton.

[azul017]

I love Obama's willingness to challenge the status quo on just about everything, I just hope he's around if not as the Presidential candidate, then as the VP. The black voter turnout has been a mess since Dukakis basically slapped Jesse Jackson in the face in 88, and Obama's got a chance to unite the Democratic party. Are we ready for a black VP? I think we are. For a President? I just don't think so, even though I'd happily vote for him. I like John Edwards, and I love the fact that he openly admitted he disagreed with Kerrey on a number of issues. He's got guts, and a healthy respect for American workers, and no love for the big corporations, but he's not in a position to do much in the primaries right now.I don't think anyone else has a chance.

Yeah, I agree... if it comes down to Obama or Edwards, I'd pick Edwards. Obama is definitely unique and I do agree with some of the things he's striving for, but honestly, I don't think he'll make into the primaries if Hilary doesn't pick him as VP. Hilary practically has it in the bag, unless she screws up really badly before the primaries. Then it could be in the other candidates' laps... most likely Obama or Edwards.

I can sort of see why some people admire Hilary because of her forceful personality (and her being married to Bill), but I can't really see how fans can overlook her change-the-ideals-as-she-sees-politically-fit tendencies.

[HGervais]

I can sort of see why some people admire Hilary because of her forceful personality (and her being married to Bill), but I can't really see how fans can overlook her change-the-ideals-as-she-sees-politically-fit tendencies.

What are you referring to specifically? I ask because if you look at Clinton's senate record it is pretty consistently left of center on social issues while very much a hawk on defense & security issues. You could probably make the case that every vote she has cast in the past 7 years has been to build up that record in her run for the White House but more so than a lot of people running, she has been pretty consistent.