lets pre-emptively discuss the 2008 election

[oatmeal fetish....]

Two years from now we can dig up this thread and all have a good laugh.

Believe it or not I wouldn't be surprised if we had a woman's election in 2008 - Hilarly Clinton against Condaliza Rice. Though Rice hasn't expressed any interest in running, she already has 30% of her party in favor of putting her on the ticket, and as she hasn't expressed any disintrest of becoming the president of the united states, she may very well be pressured into running. While I would love to see Mccain nominated, I don't think he will be, as he has become almost too liberal (and has become too close to Lieberman, who I expect he would choose as a running mate) which is really a shame because he would probably win.

[Larry Flyntz]

I think it will be a man's election. Mark Warner for the Dems v. John McCain or George Allen for the Republicans.

I don't think the Dems will pick Hillary because only 26% of Americans have said they will definitely vote for Hillary if she runs and 41% have said they will definitely vote against her (according to a recent Rasmussen poll). That's bad. Plus, the first two primaries are Iowa and New Hampshire, not crazy liberal havens.

Here's why the Dems shouldn't pick Hillary:

-She's a Senator.
-She's a liberal.
-She's from the northeast.
-She's a woman.

Three of the last four presidents were governors before becoming president. The fourth was a VP. Senators simply do not do well in presidential elections.

Our last truly liberal president was LBJ. Carter and Clinton were both pretty moderate Democrats. America will not elect such a liberal as Hillary.

Our last president from the Northeast was Kennedy. The rest of the country views us northeasterners as pretentious assholes, which, to some extent, we are.

I don't think I need to even point out that we have never had a woman president, but I just did it, so there you go.

Mark Warner is the opposite (sort of) of all those. He's an ex-governor, a moderate, from the South (Virginia), and a man. Oh, and he actually has charisma. If the Democrats pick him, I think he can beat anyone except McCain.

I'm thinking the Republicans might pick McCain this time, because he's trying real hard to make himself seem more conservative. He's been bosom buddies with Bush lately, which is unusual for the McCain we Democrats know and love. But, it could all be a facade, since he knows he needs the conservative base's support to win in the primaries.

I'm not really worried about candidates like Frist and (possibly) Santorum. I think America has moved far enough to the center to reject such wacko conservatives. But, then again, if it's Frist v. Hillary, who knows?

[The Ocean]

I'm hoping the Republicans choose George Allen, and that George Allen chooses Michael Steele as his running mate.

Although Michael Steele has never expressed interest in being president, and I believe he is currently running for the US Senate.

[aeg5014]

GO McCain!!!!!!!!!

[oatmeal fetish....]

THATS AEG I AM SO GLAD YOU POST IN MY THREADS

[Larry Flyntz]

I'm hoping the Republicans choose George Allen, and that George Allen chooses Michael Steele as his running mate.

Why should they pick Allen?

I agree with you; I think Allen would be a good choice strategically (second only to McCain, I'd say), but I want to hear your reasons for the sake of debate/discussion.

Another reason why the Democrats should choose Mark Warner: it gives them a chance of picking up Virginia. Running a democratic candidate who is from a traditionally "red" state gives the Democrats a decent chance of picking up that state. Sure, it failed for Al Gore (he's from Tennessee, I do believe), but he's Al Gore, so that explains that. Warner was pretty popular in Virginia, so unless the Republicans put up Allen (Senator from Virginia), I think he'd take the state. At this point, the Dems need all the help they can get.

Actually, that last statement may not be true. After all, if the Dems run a moderate like Warner, their chances of picking up swing states like Iowa, Ohio, and Florida greatly increases. So, Virginia wouldn't even matter in that instance. Although, seeing blue in that traditionally red part of the map would be nice.

[Larry Flyntz]

Bump.

I am now 99.9% convinced that Hillary will not be the Democratic nominee. "Hardcore" Democrats are the ones who vote in the primaries, and they hate Hillary. She has polled very very low on increasingly-powerful liberal sites like dailykos.com. She'll win her Senate race this year, but I'm counting her out in 2008.

Another possible choice for the Republicans: Mass. governor Mitt Romney.

[Larry Flyntz]

Bump. Again.

Warner is officially out of the race. This is very troubling to me. Someone strong needs to oppose Hillary, and it looks like Obama is going to wait this one out as well (although, who knows?). So, without Warner or Obama, the Democrats don't have too many options. My pick: Indiana Senator Evan Bayh. Indiana, despite being located between the true-blue Illinois and the middle-of-the-road Ohio, is extremely conservative. It's a sure-fire win for any Republican presidential candidate. I've always said that picking Democrats from classically Republican states is the way to go. Until the Democrats can regain enough momentum to truly reclaim dominance of American politics, they have no business nominating candidates from the Northeast.

My second pick: New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson. I've also always said that Governors are good picks. They don't have voting records, so there's little to criticize. The most opposing candidates can do is say "Hey, look what he did in New Mexico!" But, that kind of critique doesn't resonate across America. He's Hispanic, and I'm not sure if that's a good or bad thing. It would probably reverse the trend of Hispanic support fading from the Democratic party, but I would simply be shocked if we had a Hispanic president before a black president or a woman president. But, I have no real reason to think that people wouldn't vote for him because of that, especially with a last name like Richardson. And, according to Wikipedia, in 2005, he informed party leaders that he'd be running in 2008.

[Larry Flyntz]

Oh shit. Obama just withdrew his previous statements that he wouldn't run. Now, this doesn't mean for sure that he will run, but I think when a politician says "I'll consider it," that probably means "I'm running." WOO! OBAMA IN 08!

[Rhino......................]

I'd vote for Obama.

I HOPE HE READS THIS

[CadmiumYellow]

i don't have much of a personal opinion on obama and i'll admit that i know little about him, but i found some interesting opinions in an editorial from today's new york times:

"The giddiness surrounding the Obama phenomenon seems to be an old-fashioned mixture of fun, excitement, and a great deal of hope. His smile is electric, and when he laughs people tend to laugh with him.  He's the kind of politician who makes people feel good.
But the giddiness is crying out for a reality check.  There's a reason why so many Republicans are saying nice things about Mr. Obama, and urging him to run.  They would like nothing more than for the Democrats to nominate a candidate in 2008 who has a very slender resume, very little experience in national politics, hardly any in foreign policy-and who also happens to be black.
The Republicans may be in deep trouble, but they believe they could pretty easily put together a ticket that would chew up Barack Obama in 2008."

the talk here is questioning the timing of Obama's running for office, rather than the legitimacy and sincerity of his political concerns. the article closes with "He's 45. There's no hurry. He should take all the time he needs."

[Larry Flyntz]

I disagree. I think Dick Durbin put it best when he said to Obama, "Do you really think spending six more years in the Senate and casting 1000 more votes will make you more qualified to be president?"

I think that the less time Obama spends in the Senate, the better off he'll be. That means less votes to criticize. Plus, I don't think there's any doubt that he'd make a stronger candidate than Hillary.

There was another op-ed piece in the Times a few days ago that said, "The Democrats may well win on Election Day this year. But one of their best hopes for long-term viability in the post-Bush era is that Barack Obama steps up and changes the party before the party of terminal timidity and equivocation changes him."

I agree with that. The status quo of the Democratic party is not good. Hillary Clinton is the status quo; we can't win with that. Now that Warner is out of the race, Obama represents one of the very few Democrats who can move the party away from that.

[CadmiumYellow]

i think a lot of what you said makes a lot of sense, flyntz. the only thing i'm still not sold on is foreign policy. because i think it's currently so essential for our leaders to be good at, i'm wary of any candidate that hasn't had much exposure to it.

[Larry Flyntz]

I would agree in a practical sense. What I mean by that is that the American people perceive that the President needs to be strong in FP, but really, the various departments (not even the heads of these departments, most of the time) make the vast majority of the FP decisions. As long as the president has appointed smart people to these departments (and I don't think Obama would pull some Bush-style cronyism), American FP really isn't in danger. However, America doesn't perceive it that way. So, I do think you have a compelling point, even though it's only compelling because the American people are largely ignorant about the FP-making process.

[CadmiumYellow]

i would still want a president that's diplomatic, and who would choose the right people to make those decisions. i also tend to appreciate intelligent candidates who are intelligent on their own, before they appoint a cabinet. i'm not saying that obama is unintelligent; i'm just hesitant to rationalize inexperience with "well, they can just appoint someone that's smarter than they are." i would prefer a presidential candidate to be intelligent, informed, and experienced enough to know what they're talking about. but maybe it's ignorant and idealistic to be hopeful for this? you know much more about politics then i do, flyntz. anyway the end! i am out of things to say on this subject right now.

[oatmeal fetish....]

Just a fun little thing some people might find interesting -

My cousin and her husband are apparently friends with Obama, and were students of his at the University of Chicago. Though he's a baptist they both say that they think he is pro-life. Hopefully I'll be seeing them again soon (they live in pittsburgh a few minutes away from me) so I'll try to get more details from THE INSIDE.