General Pres. Candidate 08 Thread

[Usually Lurkin]

Repubs:
Rudy and McCain have both thrown in with the initial exploratin committees.
Romney is a name that's kicked around a lot, but no one knows who he is yet.


Dems:
Hillary - I think she's got the early democrat support.
Obama - my money is on him cause he doesn't have the baggage
Gore - come on, you know you want him to stay in the spotlight.



ok, ok . .
I really just wanted an excuse to post this:
Walken- Click here for the campaign websight where you will find the candidate who takes the best pictures, and who can store a watch up his *&& for many years.
He's now updated his website to include his position on 3 whole issues!

My one true hope is that Gary Coleman or Todd Bridges will run (preferably both, on the same ticket. "Whatchyou talking about, America???")

[kg_veteran]

UL - I have seen that website before. I love how it's a political website, but he has all of these pictures of himself that look like they came out of a magazine you'd see in the checkout line at the grocery store.

Bizarre is the only way to describe Walken and his candidacy.

[fluid.forty.one]

John Stewart for Pres.

[jacktruth]

http://www.pollingreport.com/WH08dem.htm

http://www.pollingreport.com/WH08rep.htm

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by jacktruth

http://www.pollingreport.com/WH08rep.htm

Republicans Republicans +Independents
% %
John McCain 28...26

Rudy Giuliani 22...22

Condoleezza Rice 13...12

Newt Gingrich 5...4

I think Condoleezza would win if she wanted to.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

Republicans Republicans +Independents
% %
John McCain 28...26

Rudy Giuliani 22...22

Condoleezza Rice 13...12

Newt Gingrich 5...4

I think Condoleezza would win if she wanted to.

I don't think Condi would have a chance, not enough of a calculating cold SOB in her.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Bizarre is the only way to describe Walken and his candidacy.

it really is.

But can you seriously say you don't want a president that photographs this well:

And sure, it might mean the end of US super-powerness, but it would also mean a SNL revival.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

I don't think Condi would have a chance, not enough of a calculating cold SOB in her.

you sell her short on the sob quotient.

she could not win because a) she has never run for public office before and doesn't know the "tricks of the trade" as it were, and b) she is an image of what people want her to be, not what she truly believes and embraces.

what does she believe about the issues? nobody knows...

[kg_veteran]

Rice is not enough of a known quantity to win.

UL - I agree with you completely.

Walken 4 Prez!

[chumdawg]

Could Walken be the next Reagan? Sign me up!

[MavKikiNYC]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

she is an image of what people want her to be, not what she truly believes and embraces.

what does she believe about the issues? nobody knows...

This kind of ephemeral criticism always makes the back of my neck tingle.

Not that this is the case with you, MD, but....I have heard this kind of emptiness from ultra-liberal establishment males, who truth be told, seem to have some kind of issue with an Afrian-American female of relatively conservative ideology being in a position of power.

Name a specific issue, and I'd say that you'd be able to find more specific info on her posiition. Otherwise, she has served in an administration where it is not necessarily appropriate for her to publicize her opinion on every issue, particularly domestic/social. There may well be some criticisms (in fact, I know there are), but better to be specific than just slime her with meringue.

She has done the job that she was tapped to do, with discretion sometimes being the better part of valor.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by MavKikiNYC

This kind of ephemeral criticism always makes the back of my neck tingle.

Not that this is the case with you, MD, but....I have heard this kind of emptiness from ultra-liberal establishment males, who truth be told, seem to have some kind of issue with an Afrian-American female of relatively conservative ideology being in a position of power.

you should know that I am a huge proponent of equality for women in the workplace...and that extends to the political workplace too.

I'm not sure that your criticism of the "ultra-liberal establishment males" isn't also accurate of ultra-conservative establishment males as well..

Name a specific issue, and I'd say that you'd be able to find more specific info on her posiition. Otherwise, she has served in an administration where it is not necessarily appropriate for her to publicize her opinion on every issue, particularly domestic/social. There may well be some criticisms (in fact, I know there are), but better to be specific than just slime her with meringue.

she should NOT be expressing her views on the myriad of issues a candidate should address because she is NOT a candidate. I don't criticize her for not being public on her positions.

yet it is not easy to find her position on issues either. where does she stand on social security? nclb and public school finances? affirmitive action? tax cuts? immigration? stem cell research? open trade?

I think we know where she stands on iraq....

She has done the job that she was tapped to do, with discretion sometimes being the better part of valor.

a great question is if she has done a good job at what she was tapped to do...it seems the jury is still out on that one.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by MavKikiNYC

She has done the job that she was tapped to do, with discretion sometimes being the better part of valor.

which is why I think she's in a better position to present her case to far righters than guiliani would be. She's got some views on abortion that might make the far right queasy, for instance. But if she chose to present herself as candidate, she can point to her service thus far as evidence of "reform". And she's got time yet to "toughen up" her image, or to stake positions wherever she feels she must.

[mary]

Is that Walken website fake?

*feels stupid for asking*

[u2sarajevo]

Man.... wouldn't that be great to have a President that, at his State of Union speech, would ask for more Cowbell?

I think that site is fake. It was up for 2004 also.

[jacktruth]

Forget anybody that is in this Bush administration. This presidency is effectively over. Americans get a bad taste of even the best presidents. Condi will not run. If she did, she would not win.

It will be very difficult for any republican to win against any democrat in 08. This is 2-party politics. In 94, the republican wave started and ended in 04. The democrat wave started in 06. With Bush still a figurehead of the country, the democrats will be able to blame him for the bad and credit themselves for the good. The American public will take it at face value and the democrats will probably have all of Congress and the presidency in 2008. It's 2-party politics.

If Hilary wins in 08, I think it will be a single term presidency because people will be sick of the democratic party by then.

Given the choice, Republicans would be much better served to lose in 08 with a right wing candidate, than to win with a RINO. My opinion.

[fluid.forty.one]

The democrats are in trouble if Hillary is their strongest candidate.

[jacktruth]

I would like to see Tom Osborne run. What man in the country wouldn't vote for the coach of one of the great power football teams in this country. He's got great conservative values and is about as hard nosed as it gets.

[untitled]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

But can you seriously say you don't want a president that photographs this well:

And sure, it might mean the end of US super-powerness, but it would also mean a SNL revival.

The Continental!

"Would you like, uh, some champagna?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Continental_(satire)

[MavKikiNYC]

Originally Posted by jacktruth

I would like to see Tom Osborne run. What man in the country wouldn't vote for the coach of one of the great power football teams in this country. He's got great conservative values and is about as hard nosed as it gets.

Right, he could have Christian Peter as Sec. of Defense, Mike Rozier as Sec. of Health Education and Welfare, and Lawrence Phillips as Atty. General.

[Drbio]

Lawrence Phillips as Attorney General....LOL!!!!

[Evilmav2]

Originally Posted by jacktruth

I would like to see Tom Osborne run. What man in the country wouldn't vote for the coach of one of the great power football teams in this country. He's got great conservative values and is about as hard nosed as it gets.

I'd vote for Tom Osborne in a grease-fired second, but sadly no such dream candidacy is likely to occur in '08, and thusly most Republicans are probably doomed to be faced with a disapointing choice between Giuliani and stupid McCain. Of course, some mildly unknown dark horse (somebody like Brownback, Huckabee, Largent, Guinn, etc... ) might be able to gain some traction in the primaries, and give the conservative base someone they really might rally around, but that potentiality is appearing increasingly more unlikely by the day...

[Drbio]

Evilmav2 for President in 2008!!!!!!!!!!!

Now THAT'S a dude I could vote for.

[Usually Lurkin]

allright, his views on baby-killing aside, Obama might have what it takes.
This proves he's willing to go the extra mile, and he seems to be a pretty cool dude.

read this for some background on the story.

[birdsanctuary]

Originally Posted by fluid.forty.one

The democrats are in trouble if Hillary is their strongest candidate.

Contrare mein frare, they have Oprah too...

Hillary - Winfrey in '08'

[birdsanctuary]

I think if Guliani V.P. and McCain Pres. can link up in one ticket, they'll win easily...

[jacktruth]

Medved blessed me this thanksgiving with a glimmer of hope for the candidacy of Al Gore. . .


The Democrats' Dilemma in 2008
Posted by: Michael Medved at 2:13 AM
Even while they’re still celebrating their many victories of 2006, Democrats face a daunting dilemma regarding the upcoming presidential race in 2008: everyone expects Hillary to win the nomination, but no one expects that she can actually win the presidency.


The latest evidence of the party’s profound “Hillary Problem” surfaced on the front page of the New York Times today (Tuesday) under the headline: CLINTON WON EASILY, BUT BANKROLL SHOWS THE TOLL. The article quoted a liberal website in noting that Senator Clinton was guilty of “blowing a shameful $36 million on a shoo-in campaign.” She spent more than any other candidate for Senate anywhere in the country, despite confronting an underfunded, unknown opponent who she beat by an overwhelming 30 points. Her profligate spending (including $13,000 for flowers, $746,450 for catering, $27,261 for valet parking, and as much as $800 in a single month for credit card interest) left her with little cash on hand for her upcoming presidential race and, more importantly, showed a sloppy, spendthrift management style that should worry even her most committed supporters.


The doubts about Hillary (all but universal among Democratic insiders) have contributed to a flurry of candidates who seem determined to challenge her for the nomination: Senator Kerry, of course, and former Senator Edwards, and Senator Biden, and Senator Bayh, and Governor Vilsack and Congressman Kucinich and, perhaps Senator Obama.


While the GOP race has already narrowed to just three serious candidates (McCain, Giuliani and Romney—see my blog from yesterday) the Democratic field remains wide open – reflecting the widespread assumption that Hillary may remain the obvious frontrunner for the nomination, but would face a tough time winning a majority of the electoral votes in a general election.


In a sense, she’s in the same position as Bob Dole when he sought the Republican nomination of 1996, or John Kerry when he secured the Democratic nomination in 2004: a drab, safe selection that inspires more respect than enthusiasm among party activists. They assume it’s “her turn,” even though they realize (as with Dole and Kerry) that she carries political negatives that will make it difficult for her to win.


If the Democratic field continues to include a half-dozen (or more) rivals to Hillary’s claim on the nomination, she’s almost sure to grab the delegates she needs against a fragmented opposition. She remains by far the best known candidate, and there’s no state in which her support would dip below 30%. With numerous rivals, that core backing will prove more than enough in every primary: especially if she maintains her status as the only female candidate facing a collection of men. In her campaign, she becomes the issue, and people who attempt to run to the right of her (Bayh, Vilsack) or to the left of her (Kerry, Kucinich) or to beat her from both sides at once by combining a more conservative style with more leftist policy positions (Edwards, Biden) will probably find themselves frustrated by her celebrity status that transcends issues or ideology.


If she weren’t a woman, her opponents for the nomination could question her on the basis of sheer competence: how can someone run credibly for President with zero administrative experience in any aspect of human endeavor (Bush had run several businesses, and served as Governor of Texas for six years) and with a Senatorial campaign that squandered $800 in a single month on credit card interest? In the current situation, however, anyone who questioned her administrative capacity (remember her task force on healthcare?) would be charged with “sexism,” or denigrating the ability of women to serve in executive positions.


The bottom line is that whatever her shortcomings as a public speaker, TV presence, and debater (she’s gotten much better in the last few years, as a matter of fact), her biggest problem remains her hopelessness in administrative expertise. Republicans should continue to relish the chance to run against an administratively incompetent candidate who squanders tens of thousands of dollars on valet parking, $13,000 on flowers, and $800 (in a month!) for credit card bills that no one paid promptly.


The only potential rival who might still succeed in wresting the nomination from Hillary’s grasping, nail-bitten fingers is Al Gore. With his acclaimed documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" poised to win an Oscar, his impassioned popularity on the anti-war left, and the sense that he was horribly gypped in the election of 2000, Gore could enter the race even at a very late date and raise the money and support needed to win.


He remains so quirky and bizarre that one can only hope he will self-destruct as he did six years ago, but Gore’s familiarity to the general public (even his idiosyncrasies have begun to look endearing) might make him a formidable opponent indeed when the key question may be, “Which candidate scares you most?” Al Gore should look scary to all Americans (mentally troubled individuals—nutburgers—ought never be granted access to nuclear weapons), but his sheer silliness(combined with self-deprecating humor) helps to reassure people that he’s harmless. I never thought I’d live to say it, but we’ve reached the point where Republican strategists should fear (and try to block) Al Gore.

[dude1394]

AlGore, Algore, algore he's the man, if he can't do it, no one can.

[purplefrog]

I believe Gore will run. Which brings to me to another point. Is it just me or is the 2008 presidential campaign beginning to feel like the 2006 gubernatorial race in Texas? We are going to have alot of candidates, but none of them very appealing? Just a thought..........

If I could choose, it might be Evan Bayh on the Democrat side and Chuck Hagel or Lindsey Graham on the Republican side. None of these men are very exiciting to listen to, but they are relatively moderate/conservative, and have some substance. I am not sure if Hagel or Graham will get much love from some of our members (their criticism of Bush and the Iraq war is noteworthy), but I think they are both men of conviction, willing to stand up and speak against party policy (I view that as a good thing), and are more consistent than McCain (they are maverick-lite). I am guessing that none of these three are electable (too boring), and I am not sure if any of them have had ethical lapses (important for '08 election).

[dude1394]

Lindsey Graham doesn't have a chance imo. I honestly don't think McCain does either. In general I don't like senatorial candidates.

[MavKikiNYC]

Poll: Giuliani, McCain, Obama rank high with voters, Kerry last


THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Americans have the warmest feelings about former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Republican Sen. John McCain and Democratic Sen. Barack Obama, according to a poll released Monday that scores the popularity of national leaders. The Quinnipiac University’s “thermometer reading,” taken the week after the Nov. 7 election, asked voters to rate their feelings for 20 leaders on a scale of 0 to 100.

Giuliani, a Republican weighing a presidential bid in 2008, scored the highest at 64.2.

Obama and McCain, who are also considering a 2008 campaign, finished next at 58.8 and 57.7.

President Bush was 15th out of 20 while his secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, was fourth and former President Clinton fifth.

New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton scored ninth of the 20 leaders with a score of 49. Massachusetts

Sen. John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic nominee who was roundly criticized before the election for suggesting that students who don’t study could end up stuck in Iraq, came in last at 39.6.
<snicker>Kerry later apologized for what he said was a botched joke.

Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi, in line to become the next House Speaker, improved her standing, moving from last to 12th in a few weeks. The next Senate Majority leader, Democrat Harry Reid, was 19th.

“As we enter the presidential campaign of 2008, Giuliani and McCain are in enviable positions,” said Peter Brown, assistant poll director. “They are well-regarded and most Americans are quite familiar with them.

Obama’s showing is impressive, but four in 10 Americans still don’t know enough about him to have an opinion.” The telephone poll was conducted from Nov. 13-19. Quinnipiac surveyed 1,623 registered voters nationwide and the poll has a sampling error margin of plus or minus 2.4 percentage points.

[chumdawg]

As they learn more about Obama, they will like him more and more.

I sense his potential candidacy is picking up steam. To me, he looks like the guy to beat.

Disclaimer: I don't know about his fundraising wherewithal, however.

[dude1394]

I don't think obama has enough gravitas to win the presidency. If he had 4 years of so of running something then maybe, but not a 4 year senator.

[chumdawg]

In this day and age, Dude, you can throw that stuff out the window. It's all about marketing now.

[dude1394]

Someone's sold you a bill of goods if you think that's the case. Of course it's only my opinion but people who actually vote in this country usually take it pretty seriously and they don't want someone who they don't know and has little in the way of accomplishments running the most powerful country on earth.

Again if he'd done something other than run himself maybe, but senators in general don't know how to run much of anything.

[chumdawg]

I'm afraid you are one with the bill of goods. If you think there are 100MM people in this country who analyze it to that extent, you are sorely mistaken.

All you have to do is look at exit polling to know that's not the case.

Now, to get the nomination, maybe. But DEFINITELY not in the general election.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I'm afraid you are one with the bill of goods. If you think there are 100MM people in this country who analyze it to that extent, you are sorely mistaken.

All you have to do is look at exit polling to know that's not the case.

Now, to get the nomination, maybe. But DEFINITELY not in the general election.

When's the last first term senator who won the presidency?

[chumdawg]

Oh the top of my head, I don't know. But why does that matter?

[dude1394]

Why because it supports my supposition, that inexperienced politicians who have no credentials don't usually win the presidency.

Usually they have a history of executive office or a longer resume. Although senators in general don't fare well.

[chumdawg]

It's probably time to forget all that, though.

Look around at the other potential candidates, and you will find that few of them trump Obama in the way of qualifications.

I've long maintained, and I will continue to, that this is Obama's window. He's my pick for the next POTUS.