Full Version: Who should the 2008 nominee be?
Here's a pretty definitive list of contenders. Who do you think the democratic nominee should be?
Barack Obama is my favorite poltician (he's competent, measured, respectful, and frank) and he is currently polled as the Democrat most likely to win in a general election. Seems a no brainer to choose him for me, I just hope he runs.
I think Hillary perceives Obama as a real threat, as her latest attempt to smear him ended in flames. CNN Debunks False Report on Obama. Somebody is shakin' in her boots!
I am kind of looking at this from the way the Republicans will counter certain candidates.
They will paint Hillary Clinton as too shrill, too liberal and part of the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton cycle. They will keep the gender issue bubbling under the surface by reminding us that Clinton's sex is not an issue.
O'Bama will be painted as green and perhaps too liberal. The Republicans will keep the race issue alive by constantly telling us that O'Bama's race is not an issue. Remember how Bush continually told us John Kerry's military service wasn't an issue while the "Swifties" did the dirty work?
I am the lone vote for Bill Richardson, who might be the Republicans' worst nightmare. He has experience, voters seem to view Governors more favorably than Senators and he would break down the door to the idea that only white males need apply - Richardson is Hispanic. Having said that, I don't think he has much of a chance.
They will paint Hillary Clinton as too shrill, too liberal and part of the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton cycle. They will keep the gender issue bubbling under the surface by reminding us that Clinton's sex is not an issue.
O'Bama will be painted as green and perhaps too liberal. The Republicans will keep the race issue alive by constantly telling us that O'Bama's race is not an issue. Remember how Bush continually told us John Kerry's military service wasn't an issue while the "Swifties" did the dirty work?
I am the lone vote for Bill Richardson, who might be the Republicans' worst nightmare. He has experience, voters seem to view Governors more favorably than Senators and he would break down the door to the idea that only white males need apply - Richardson is Hispanic. Having said that, I don't think he has much of a chance.
I ain't tellin' which one of the above Democrats I'm pulling for, but I think there's some darn fine candidates to choose from that list. As much as Bush has lowered the bar in terms of qualifications, it doesn't take much to do better that what we've suffered with for the last six years.
Look at the list of Republicans that have declared or are likely to and with the possible exception of John McCain, I don't see any of them that stack up to the cream of the Democratic crop. Mitt Romney? Sam Brownback? Tom Tancredo? Newt Gingrich? President NEWT? President MITT? Puh-leeze!
The problem I see for any Democrat not named Hillary or Barack is
. It takes a LOT of it to be a serious contender and how someone like Chris Dodd or Tom Vilsack can possibly convince enough donors to cough up the cash to make them viable is going to be a huge problem. Some of the folks on this list won't even make it to Iowa.
Hillary has already said she won't accept matching federal dollars which frees her up to raise as much as she can for the primaries and the general election (if she gets the nomination). Even as much love as Obama is getting now, he could find all the oxygen sucked out of the room by the ability of the Clinton Crew to raise money and snap up endorsements.
And thank heavens John Kerry woke up and smelled the coffee. Who wanted a sequel of the 2004 beatdown?
Look at the list of Republicans that have declared or are likely to and with the possible exception of John McCain, I don't see any of them that stack up to the cream of the Democratic crop. Mitt Romney? Sam Brownback? Tom Tancredo? Newt Gingrich? President NEWT? President MITT? Puh-leeze!
The problem I see for any Democrat not named Hillary or Barack is
. It takes a LOT of it to be a serious contender and how someone like Chris Dodd or Tom Vilsack can possibly convince enough donors to cough up the cash to make them viable is going to be a huge problem. Some of the folks on this list won't even make it to Iowa.Hillary has already said she won't accept matching federal dollars which frees her up to raise as much as she can for the primaries and the general election (if she gets the nomination). Even as much love as Obama is getting now, he could find all the oxygen sucked out of the room by the ability of the Clinton Crew to raise money and snap up endorsements.
And thank heavens John Kerry woke up and smelled the coffee. Who wanted a sequel of the 2004 beatdown?
I've had to do a lot of thinking about my vote and what's going on here.
I count myself as a concerned member of the Obama herd-- concerned because I'm part of a runaway pack of fanatics. So i've had to ask myself what the attraction here is.
It would be easy to discredit Obama as an "articulate," "safe" "Kenyan-not-Black" Black candidate that White America can "trust." I mostly reject that idea. As far as I can see there's very little safe about the man, from the very harsh reality that his father and brother were/are both muslim, to his past drug use, to the fact that he makes no bones about his own race; unlike Colin Powell, ("I ain't that Black") he identifies Black, his hypothetical first lady would be Black, he represented a predominately Black district in the state senate, applauds Malcolm X in his autobiography, the list goes on. Not to mention: his name.
So I think the racial matter is more complex than him just being a kind of Black that America feels cozy with.
In fact, I think the untested, politically dangerous aspect of his biography/heritage is exactly what is driving a great deal of this love affair.
He's obviously intelligent, reasonable, strongly Democratic-but-acceptably-mainstream, and convincing. In the age of radio, he might have been one of our history's most un-controversial shoe-ins.
But the speaker himself is an open challenge to what I think a lot of Democrats believe needs to change: the assumed ascendancy of White-driven Evangelical Christianity and the conservative culture that engages in a fretful, response to all thing perceived as foreign and un-american.
I'll explain:
18 years ago, all Bush I had to do to dismount Dukakis's campaign was split screen Dukakis's pic with an acquitted Black rapist. And whether or not you think the infamous ad launched against Harold Ford was racist, the mere fact that the ad was under debate for being racist proves that this is no easy climate for any Black candidate, regardless of his or her "safe-ness."
So this support for Obama is either incredibly bold or blind, and I think it actually speaks to the best in America's "volvo-driving, well-intentioned" liberals.
Salon columnist Debra J. Dickerson beleives "he's the equivalent of Stephen Colbert's "black friend." Swooning over nice, safe Obama means you aren't a racist." But I'm not at all sure she's correct. I think this is in large part a very bold, calculated move to make the media, the pundits, the attack adsters behave: for one election cycle, we'd like a mature, racially enlightened campaign that can look past trivial matters like Obama's middle name, or his brief childhood in Indonesia. This might be a big middle-finger towards the politically dominant part of the country that outwardly holds a monopoly on patriotism, while inwardly harboring some pretty strong anti-black and anti-immigrant beliefs.
However, I could be wrong.
That aside, I've chosen to support the man for reasons other than his heritage. In effect, he's had my vote waiting for him since 2004, but this quote from the DNC convention this weekend sealed the deal:
On health care:
"Lets take advantage that we're seeing a consensus between big business and labor that the status quo is unsustainable. Let's talk to conservatives as well as liberals about the need for reform."
Clinton's centrism aside, Obama seems willing to give conservatives a fair shake, while maintaining a self-assured democratic position. I realize that's an acrobatic stretch of rhetoric. But its also inspiring. He gives the next political election meaning, signifigance. He can talk about Helth Care Reform and make it sound like a generational, spiritual quest. I think there's a time to elect a statesman president, someone with age and experience and limited aims. This is not that time.
I count myself as a concerned member of the Obama herd-- concerned because I'm part of a runaway pack of fanatics. So i've had to ask myself what the attraction here is.
It would be easy to discredit Obama as an "articulate," "safe" "Kenyan-not-Black" Black candidate that White America can "trust." I mostly reject that idea. As far as I can see there's very little safe about the man, from the very harsh reality that his father and brother were/are both muslim, to his past drug use, to the fact that he makes no bones about his own race; unlike Colin Powell, ("I ain't that Black") he identifies Black, his hypothetical first lady would be Black, he represented a predominately Black district in the state senate, applauds Malcolm X in his autobiography, the list goes on. Not to mention: his name.
So I think the racial matter is more complex than him just being a kind of Black that America feels cozy with.
In fact, I think the untested, politically dangerous aspect of his biography/heritage is exactly what is driving a great deal of this love affair.
He's obviously intelligent, reasonable, strongly Democratic-but-acceptably-mainstream, and convincing. In the age of radio, he might have been one of our history's most un-controversial shoe-ins.
But the speaker himself is an open challenge to what I think a lot of Democrats believe needs to change: the assumed ascendancy of White-driven Evangelical Christianity and the conservative culture that engages in a fretful, response to all thing perceived as foreign and un-american.
I'll explain:
18 years ago, all Bush I had to do to dismount Dukakis's campaign was split screen Dukakis's pic with an acquitted Black rapist. And whether or not you think the infamous ad launched against Harold Ford was racist, the mere fact that the ad was under debate for being racist proves that this is no easy climate for any Black candidate, regardless of his or her "safe-ness."
So this support for Obama is either incredibly bold or blind, and I think it actually speaks to the best in America's "volvo-driving, well-intentioned" liberals.
Salon columnist Debra J. Dickerson beleives "he's the equivalent of Stephen Colbert's "black friend." Swooning over nice, safe Obama means you aren't a racist." But I'm not at all sure she's correct. I think this is in large part a very bold, calculated move to make the media, the pundits, the attack adsters behave: for one election cycle, we'd like a mature, racially enlightened campaign that can look past trivial matters like Obama's middle name, or his brief childhood in Indonesia. This might be a big middle-finger towards the politically dominant part of the country that outwardly holds a monopoly on patriotism, while inwardly harboring some pretty strong anti-black and anti-immigrant beliefs.
However, I could be wrong.
That aside, I've chosen to support the man for reasons other than his heritage. In effect, he's had my vote waiting for him since 2004, but this quote from the DNC convention this weekend sealed the deal:
On health care:
"Lets take advantage that we're seeing a consensus between big business and labor that the status quo is unsustainable. Let's talk to conservatives as well as liberals about the need for reform."
Clinton's centrism aside, Obama seems willing to give conservatives a fair shake, while maintaining a self-assured democratic position. I realize that's an acrobatic stretch of rhetoric. But its also inspiring. He gives the next political election meaning, signifigance. He can talk about Helth Care Reform and make it sound like a generational, spiritual quest. I think there's a time to elect a statesman president, someone with age and experience and limited aims. This is not that time.
i agree with Nighttimer that you just have to follow the money to see that the Democratic Party nominee for the presidency will be either Sen Clinton or Sen Obama.
i don't know much about sports. but, i do glance out of the corner of one eye from time to time at baseball and boxing. and, one of the saddest events in either sport is a 'young phenom' being brought on too quickly for his own good. in baseball, there have been pitching wunderkind whose pitching arm was permanently burned out after only a season or two. in boxing, there have been a number of young men who were obviously future contenders, but had their careers ended by being outmatched too soon. (nowdays, much care is usually taken to avoid these outcomes.)
therefore, i think it is greatly to Sen Obama's advantage to run for the Democratic Party nomination -- and lose. we are now in the midst of a growing international debacle brought on by a President who was in no way prepared for the world at peace that prevailed when he was first elected, much less the world at war that he bears the most responsibility (as the "Decider") for bringing about. absent the greatest wartime (positive) reversal of fortune since Frederick the Great (and let's face it, our current President is not in that league), the world of November 2008 will be a much more dangerous place than it was in November 2000, or even November 2004.
thus, whether the Publicans nominate the hero-of-9/11 former NYC Mayor Giuliani or the grizzled war veteran Sen McCain, there is no way an untested Democrat would beat either one of them. (this goes for former Sen Edwards as well.)
by the same token, in 2016 Sen Obama will still only be 57, not a minute too young in light of our current president and his immediate predecessor. his current campaign will have media-tested, and voter-tested, whatever baggage he may be carrying around. yet, if not nominated in 2008, in 2016 he will not have the fatal stigma for fundraising of having already lost the "heavyweight championship of the world" 8 years earlier.
i believe the Publicans will nominate former NYC Mayor Giuliani in 2008. Sen McCain is already fading in the polls against Giuliani, and he doesn't have Giuliani's fundraising prowess. should the Publicans nominate McCain anyway, he has no chance of winning against Sen Clinton in the general election. it takes a 'star' to defeat a 'star'. Sen Clinton has been a star since January 1993. Sen McCain, after 10 years of running for president, still isn't a star, and thus has no likelihood of becoming one, at this stage. whereas, based upon experience level, Sen McCain would win against Sen Obama (he's still too young a star) or Sen Edwards, who seems destined to be a non-star.
if the Publicans nominate Giuliani, as i believe they will, there is no Democrat who will beat him, except Sen Clinton.
her greatest liabilities, a reputation for polarization and unlikeability, are equally matched by Giuliani. after 8 years as an activist First Lady and what will be almost as long a period on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen Clinton is the only leading Democrat who will provide a credible alternative to Giuliani on national defense. and, unlike my-way-or-the-highway Giuliani, she has proven in the Senate to the surprise of many moderate critics (David Brooks comes to mind) that she can, indeed, 'work and play well with others' to get things accomplished.
Sen Clinton is a demonstrated champion of virtually everything we as Democrats most believe in: reproductive rights, inclusiveness, universal access to healthcare. we owe it to ourselves to suppoort her.
i don't know much about sports. but, i do glance out of the corner of one eye from time to time at baseball and boxing. and, one of the saddest events in either sport is a 'young phenom' being brought on too quickly for his own good. in baseball, there have been pitching wunderkind whose pitching arm was permanently burned out after only a season or two. in boxing, there have been a number of young men who were obviously future contenders, but had their careers ended by being outmatched too soon. (nowdays, much care is usually taken to avoid these outcomes.)
therefore, i think it is greatly to Sen Obama's advantage to run for the Democratic Party nomination -- and lose. we are now in the midst of a growing international debacle brought on by a President who was in no way prepared for the world at peace that prevailed when he was first elected, much less the world at war that he bears the most responsibility (as the "Decider") for bringing about. absent the greatest wartime (positive) reversal of fortune since Frederick the Great (and let's face it, our current President is not in that league), the world of November 2008 will be a much more dangerous place than it was in November 2000, or even November 2004.
thus, whether the Publicans nominate the hero-of-9/11 former NYC Mayor Giuliani or the grizzled war veteran Sen McCain, there is no way an untested Democrat would beat either one of them. (this goes for former Sen Edwards as well.)
by the same token, in 2016 Sen Obama will still only be 57, not a minute too young in light of our current president and his immediate predecessor. his current campaign will have media-tested, and voter-tested, whatever baggage he may be carrying around. yet, if not nominated in 2008, in 2016 he will not have the fatal stigma for fundraising of having already lost the "heavyweight championship of the world" 8 years earlier.
i believe the Publicans will nominate former NYC Mayor Giuliani in 2008. Sen McCain is already fading in the polls against Giuliani, and he doesn't have Giuliani's fundraising prowess. should the Publicans nominate McCain anyway, he has no chance of winning against Sen Clinton in the general election. it takes a 'star' to defeat a 'star'. Sen Clinton has been a star since January 1993. Sen McCain, after 10 years of running for president, still isn't a star, and thus has no likelihood of becoming one, at this stage. whereas, based upon experience level, Sen McCain would win against Sen Obama (he's still too young a star) or Sen Edwards, who seems destined to be a non-star.
if the Publicans nominate Giuliani, as i believe they will, there is no Democrat who will beat him, except Sen Clinton.
her greatest liabilities, a reputation for polarization and unlikeability, are equally matched by Giuliani. after 8 years as an activist First Lady and what will be almost as long a period on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen Clinton is the only leading Democrat who will provide a credible alternative to Giuliani on national defense. and, unlike my-way-or-the-highway Giuliani, she has proven in the Senate to the surprise of many moderate critics (David Brooks comes to mind) that she can, indeed, 'work and play well with others' to get things accomplished.
Sen Clinton is a demonstrated champion of virtually everything we as Democrats most believe in: reproductive rights, inclusiveness, universal access to healthcare. we owe it to ourselves to suppoort her.
An Update
We can mark Tom Vilsack off the list. He withdrew today.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...3-vilsack_x.htm
Why?
He didn't think he could raise enough money to compete. Sad but true.
We can mark Tom Vilsack off the list. He withdrew today.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...3-vilsack_x.htm
Why?
He didn't think he could raise enough money to compete. Sad but true.
Topic closed...
Reason: Topic is Obsolete.
Recommended action:
If you started this topic, please contact the staff member who closed it by clicking the PM button below this post with a revised question to debate.
Helpful links:
- Starting New Topics
- Survival Guide
- The Rules
- Staff Directory
Note: This is an automated response.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.