OT: 2008 Elections

[pk500]

If it were a race between Hillary & McCain, that I as a lefty would even THINK of voting for McCain should say something.

I'm a centrist, but I would drag my bare balls through broken beer bottle glass and used, rusty Wilkinson Sword razor blades with 100 pounds strapped to my back before I EVER pulled a lever for Hillary Clinton in any election.

I find it hard to believe that Obama could be more polarizing than Hillary solely because of his race. At least people see him as genuine and inspiring.

Hillary has two strikes against her: There are sexist troglodytes who won't vote for her because she's a woman, and there are people like me who hate her transparent, phony, power-hungry guts and won't vote for her, period.

Take care,
PK

[Brando70]

I'm not saying Obama doesn't have concrete positions on the issues. He does. But that's clearly not the focus of his campaign, and is apparently not even in the Top 10 reasons that his most ardent supporters appear to back him for President.

I'm not sure if he's doing this consciously or not, but it seems like he's heeding the lessons of the Gore campaign in 2000. Gore talked to death about specifics and what he planned to do, while Bush limited most of his platform to a few key elements like reducing taxes. Obama has details out there if you want to look, but when it comes to public speeches it's the change song every time, because inspiration is what puts asses in the primary booths, not policy details.

I'll be the first to admit that I find him charismatic and also believe he has more integrity than any other Democratic candidate save Kucinich (who is way too left for me). His lack of experience does bother me, but at the same time the fact that he hasn't been entrenched in the muck of Congress for a long time makes me think he's not as indebted to special interests. He certainly has some political debts he'll repay if elected -- all presidents do. However, compared to Edwards and Clinton, I feel like he has more policy freedom and independence.

I was sorry that Richardson did so poorly. He was my favorite before the debates started because I felt he had great qualifications for the job. He just didn't have the charisma to be president, and that really is a key ingredient to the White House.

[Slumberland]

Ha... I don't expect them to make way for him. What bothers me is when they use tactics that I've always associated with the worst of the Right, i.e. fearmongering mailings (a recent Hillary mailer had shades of that Reagan/Mondale finger-on-the-button TV ad) and suddenly harping on 'experience', which is somewhat ironic for both Hillary and how Bill ran for prez in '92. As for the divisiveness, I don't mean within the democratic party, but more the thread that runs through the left these days that there's got to be some kind of payback for the last 8 years, rather than a positive message. That's all.

[pk500]

I was sorry that Richardson did so poorly. He was my favorite before the debates started because I felt he had great qualifications for the job. He just didn't have the charisma to be president, and that really is a key ingredient to the White House.

As someone said here, Richardson will make a fine vice presidential nominee.

He has a ton of experience at all levels of government, is Hispanic, is an expert on the hot-button issue of immigration due to his experience in New Mexico and will help deliver votes in the Southwest. Delivering those votes will be important if McCain is the GOP nominee.

Take care,
PK

[Jared]

An Obama/Richardson ticket is likely the best ticket the Democrats could come up with. Richardson will guarantee a swing state (New Mexico) and he's got excellent experience, and is (IMO) a better candidate than Edwards, Biden, and Dodd (my guesses as the other VP candidates).

And Hilary....a lot of people don't like her for the wrong reasons (because she's a woman, because she's a Clinton). But there are a lot of principled reasons why Democrats don't support her (Iraq war vote, Iraq war position, running on "experience" in unelected positions, the most conservative positions of the three candidates, etc). If she wins, a lot of people will either stay away from the polls or vote with the lesser of two evils in mind.

[wco81]

Ha... I don't expect them to make way for him. What bothers me is when they use tactics that I've always associated with the worst of the Right, i.e. fearmongering mailings (a recent Hillary mailer had shades of that Reagan/Mondale finger-on-the-button TV ad) and suddenly harping on 'experience', which is somewhat ironic for both Hillary and how Bill ran for prez in '92. As for the divisiveness, I don't mean within the democratic party, but more the thread that runs through the left these days that there's got to be some kind of payback for the last 8 years, rather than a positive message. That's all.

Well every candidate who's reached this point, raising money, positioning themselves for the run for years, campaigning, etc. will have to decide what's most important, that they get into office, almost at any cost, or that the policies and vision they espouse get promoted, even if it's another candidate who becomes the standard-bearer for those policies.

The campaign people they hire are in it only to win, not to forward some cause. Because it pads their resume and makes them more marketable in future campaigns.

Plus you will inevitably have outside groups which take it upon themselves to use more questionable tactics.

I'm not saying that these things are happening without Clinton's consent. Ultimately she pays the price, as happened in Iowa.


As for running against Bush, that's kind of a high-percentage play these days. I think both IA and NH had record turnouts or much greater than in 2004. Part of that may be a reaction to Bush.

It'll be interesting to see how closely the GOP nominee allows himself to be associated with Bush.

[pk500]

Jared:

Just wondering out loud: Is an Obama-Richardson ticket too risky for the Democrats because one man is black and the other Hispanic?

In this era of simmering, ubiquitous racism in America, is it vital for the Dems to have at least one white person on the ticket?

Maybe it doesn't matter because racist Billy Bob probably is going to vote GOP anyways since they'll continue to fight them furriners, conduct prayer revivals in the Oval Office and won't empty his gun rack with gun control.

But is it too much of a risk for the Dems? Another facet to consider from a very interesting race.

Take care,
PK

[wco81]

An Obama/Richardson ticket is likely the best ticket the Democrats could come up with. Richardson will guarantee a swing state (New Mexico) and he's got excellent experience, and is (IMO) a better candidate than Edwards, Biden, and Dodd (my guesses as the other VP candidates).

And Hilary....a lot of people don't like her for the wrong reasons (because she's a woman, because she's a Clinton). But there are a lot of principled reasons why Democrats don't support her (Iraq war vote, Iraq war position, running on "experience" in unelected positions, the most conservative positions of the three candidates, etc). If she wins, a lot of people will either stay away from the polls or vote with the lesser of two evils in mind.

That and her fundraising (from the same big money sources as Bush), the perception that she's bought and paid for.

She's the establishment candidate, just as Bush was in 2000 on the GOP side. McCain had a moment where it seemed the establishment would be turned upside down but that didn't last.

Obama has an uphill climb.

[pk500]

It'll be interesting to see how closely the GOP nominee allows himself to be associated with Bush.

Good point. But I can't imagine there will be too much association.

Very few of the GOP Congressional legislators running for re-election in the midterm election of 2006 wanted Bush's campaign stumping, and his approval ratings are just as low or lower now.

Plus Romney and McCain are running on platforms of nebulus "change," which is a tacit indictment of Bush. Romney and Huckabee are self-styled "outsiders," so they certainly don't want Bush as their campaign buddy.

I see where Obama got John Kerry's endorsement today. Is that a blessing or a curse? Is there any way Obama can decline that nod?

That endorsement is more of a slap at former running mate Edwards than anything. But Edwards is going down in flames soon, anyways, whether he has Kerry's support or not.

Take care,
PK

[Jared]

Jared:

Just wondering out loud: Is an Obama-Richardson ticket too risky for the Democrats because one man is black and the other Hispanic?

In this era of simmering, ubiquitous racism in America, is it vital for the Dems to have at least one white person on the ticket?

Maybe it doesn't matter because racist Billy Bob probably is going to vote GOP anyways since they'll continue to fight them furriners, conduct prayer revivals in the Oval Office and won't empty his gun rack with gun control.

But is it too much of a risk for the Dems? Another facet to consider from a very interesting race.

Take care,
PK

I think that 90% of Americans don't know that Bill Richardson is Hispanic. Maybe if he was Guillermo Nino de Ricardo.

I don't see Hispanic racism as a problem. The bigger issue might be that reactionaries will paint Richardson as someone that will open the immigration floodgates simply because he's Mexican. But most people that are swayed by immigration scaremongering are voting Republican regardless of who the Democratic VP is, so I figure this wouldn't be a big deal in a general election.

[kevinpars]

I am another lefty that would think long and hard about pulling the lever for McCain over Clinton. Or simply not pulling the lever at all for president and turn my ballot in after voting for all the other races.

[matthewk]

This is why I hate to read political threads. The labeling of Republicans as "Billy Bob racists", "fearmongerers", and "swayed by immigration scaremongering" makes this just as much a democratic ass-kissing/GOP bashing thread as it is (or could be) a real discussion on the election and real issues.

[pk500]

This is why I hate to read political threads. The labeling of Republicans as "Billy Bob racists", "fearmongerers", and "swayed by immigration scaremongering" makes this just as much a democratic ass-kissing/GOP bashing thread as it is (or could be) a real discussion on the election and real issues.

Nice overreaction. If anything, this has been one of the most civil, measured threads on politics in the last six years here.

Be honest: White people who distrust people of color, live and die by the Second Amendment, and want "values" and fear of foreign attack to be major political issues are going to vote GOP every single time, regardless of the Democratic ticket.

That was my point.

Nice try to paint me with the Democratic brush, though. I haven't voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since Clinton in 1992, and I'm giving McCain a seriously long look if he gets the GOP nomination and doesn't have Huckabee as his running mate.

Take care,
PK

[matthewk]

I'm not trying to paint you as anything. Talk about overreaction. I listed a number of anti-GOP quotes, and yours happened to be one of them.

I know it's been civil so far. It's also "appeared" at times to be one-sided. I was just trying to point out that people like me, who lean towards the conservative side, may be learly of posting their own views based on the seemingly anti-GOP lean this thread has taken from time to time.

Guess I need to add 1 more New Year's resolution to my list: Don't post anything that may be deemed as negative until I've had at least 30 minutes to mull it over.

[Brando70]

This is why I hate to read political threads. The labeling of Republicans as "Billy Bob racists", "fearmongerers", and "swayed by immigration scaremongering" makes this just as much a democratic ass-kissing/GOP bashing thread as it is (or could be) a real discussion on the election and real issues.

Yes, because there's such strong anti-immigration rhetoric from the liberals in this country.

No one is saying that Republicans/conservatives are racist on the immigration issue, or that it makes you a racist to have strong feelings against immigration. But just about all of the racism that gets infused into that debate comes from conservatives, in the same way that most of the anti-war fervor up until 2006 came from liberals.

To answer PK's question about Richardson/Obama, I don't think their ethnicity will be a factor. Along the lines of what Jared said, it's not like it's an Al Sharpton/Carlos Mencia ticket. Obama makes Wayne Brady look like Malcolm X, and while Richardson occasionally mentions his ethnicity it's not a key part of his political identity. Plus, as Chris Rock once said, if you're going to be the first black president, you're best defense against assassination is to pick a Mexican as the VP.

I think a female candidate would have a much harder time, even if her name wasn't Clinton.

[pk500]

I'm not trying to paint you as anything. Talk about overreaction. I listed a number of anti-GOP quotes, and yours happened to be one of them.

How was my description of that voter "anti-GOP?" Does that type of voter not vote Republican every single time?

Conversely, I would have no trouble if you described someone who puts a woman's right to choose, environmental issues, gun control and an end to the Iraq War as a "peacenik," "flower child" or "tree hugger." It's a humorous label, nothing more.

People firmly rooted in certain core issues to each party aren't going to change their vote regardless of who is running. They're voters for ideals, not voters for the people representing those ideals.

Take my wife, for instance. She's not racist, but it simply doesn't matter who the Republicans and Democrats nominate for president -- she's pulling the GOP lever EVERY time. She still thinks Bush is a fine president, and no contradictory facts can convince her otherwise.

I know it's been civil so far. It's also "appeared" at times to be one-sided. I was just trying to point out that people like me, who lean towards the conservative side, may be learly of posting their own views based on the seemingly anti-GOP lean this thread has taken from time to time.

If anything, you should be willing to post your views. It will lend more balance to the discussion. The only reason this discussion appears to be more one-sided is because none of the GOP supporters in here have spoken up.

Take care,
PK

[Jared]

This is why I hate to read political threads. The labeling of Republicans as "Billy Bob racists", "fearmongerers", and "swayed by immigration scaremongering" makes this just as much a democratic ass-kissing/GOP bashing thread as it is (or could be) a real discussion on the election and real issues.

I specifically worded what I said so as NOT to be labeling Republicans as those things. This is what I said:

"But most people that are swayed by immigration scaremongering are voting Republican..."

Out of the set of people that would be swayed by immigration scaremongering, the people in THAT SET are more likely to vote for a Republican than a Democrat. However, that set of people does not comprise the entire Republican party, only a subset. So what I've said is NOT the same as saying that all or even most Republicans are swayed by immigration scaremongering.

The same logic applies with PK's comments as well.

And I agree with PK...people with ANY political leaning should feel free to post in these threads. I don't care if you have an opinion that is the polar opposite of mine. As long as you discuss it respectfully and rationally, you can post whatever you want.

[Jackdog]

You know what's funny to me? The Dem's spouting on about the religious right,but yet they seem to find a way into black churches every election. They look uncomfortable as hell trying to clap to the gospel.

[JRod]

You know what's funny to me? The Dem's spouting on about the religious right,but yet they seem to find a way into black churches every election. They look uncomfortable as hell trying to clap to the gospel.

Sad but true.

[Brando70]

You know what's funny to me? The Dem's spouting on about the religious right,but yet they seem to find a way into black churches every election. They look uncomfortable as hell trying to clap to the gospel.

They do look about as uncomfortable as a black person at the GOP convention

[XXXIV]

You know what's funny to me? The Dem's spouting on about the religious right,but yet they seem to find a way into black churches every election. They look uncomfortable as hell trying to clap to the gospel.

They do look about as uncomfortable as a black person at the GOP convention

For some reason I just remembered Kerry going hunting...

[Jackdog]

Staying on the subject of religion and the election.

Check out the website of Obama's church.
http://www.tucc.org/about.htm

Trinity United Church of Christ adopted the Black Value System written by the Manford Byrd Recognition Committee chaired by Vallmer Jordan in 1981. We believe in the following 12 precepts and covenantal statements. These Black Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Blacks are gathered. They must reflect on the following concepts:
Commitment to God
Commitment to the Black Community
Commitment to the Black Family
Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
Adherence to the Black Work Ethic
Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness"
Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Black Community
Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions
Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System
Personal commitment to embracement of the Black Value System.

Do you think that if John McCain or Mitt Romney's local church talked about the White Community, White Institutions, and the White Value System that it would have gotten more attention from the Media than this has? Talk about a double standard.

[matthewk]

I apologize for jumping the gun. I was skimming the latest couple of pages, and certain snippets stood out. I should have read through the posts more carefully.

As for the election process so far, there is not a single candidate that has we wanted to vote for him/her. I liked the idea of Thompson before he officially joined the race. Since then he's been pretty bland.

One thing that doesn't help the decision making process is how little the mainstream media outlets focus on actual issues. Some of this can be the fault of the candidates (Obama keeps coming up with clever slogans, but I still don't know what he actually plans to change). I wish they would give us some useful information on what the candidates plan to do, or even more importantly to me, what they have done in the past. OK, so I know who has been in the Senate and for how long. How about informing me about what they accomplished during that time? Their past record is a good indicator as to what they will do if elected President.

[greggsand]

Staying on the subject of religion and the election.

Check out the website of Obama's church.
http://www.tucc.org/about.htm

Trinity United Church of Christ adopted the Black Value System written by the Manford Byrd Recognition Committee chaired by Vallmer Jordan in 1981. We believe in the following 12 precepts and covenantal statements. These Black Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Blacks are gathered. They must reflect on the following concepts:
Commitment to God
Commitment to the Black Community
Commitment to the Black Family
Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
Adherence to the Black Work Ethic
Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness"
Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Black Community
Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions
Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System
Personal commitment to embracement of the Black Value System.

Do you think that if John McCain or Mitt Romney's local church talked about the White Community, White Institutions, and the White Value System that it would have gotten more attention from the Media than this has? Talk about a double standard.

Romney's Church believes in magical underpants. I'd call that a tie...

edit: Not that there's anything wrong with that...

[wco81]

One thing that doesn't help the decision making process is how little the mainstream media outlets focus on actual issues. Some of this can be the fault of the candidates (Obama keeps coming up with clever slogans, but I still don't know what he actually plans to change). I wish they would give us some useful information on what the candidates plan to do, or even more importantly to me, what they have done in the past. OK, so I know who has been in the Senate and for how long. How about informing me about what they accomplished during that time? Their past record is a good indicator as to what they will do if elected President.

When have issues ever been part of the presidential campaign?

Candidates have always managed their images and in stump speeches, they're not going to get detailed into policies but rather shout out easy to remember slogans.

Of course the main medium for communicating with voters is TV, whether in ads or in news. Even in televised debates, it's about projecting an image or presence on stage, not delving into issues.

We select our leaders far more on the basis of likability and whom we want to see on stage the next 4 years than we care to admit.