PDA

View Full Version : "Don't Tell Mama, I'm for Obama"



Bird of Prey
12-08-2006, 07:33 PM
For now, an unofficial rivalry

Possible Clinton-Obama presidential clash has Senate abuzz

"Don't tell Mama, I'm for Obama" has become the Obama campaign's unofficial motto. It's a reference to Clinton's nickname as first lady and an example of the conflicted loyalties of many Democratic political aides. Some are talking to both camps about possible jobs in the presidential campaigns. Meanwhile, Democratic senators who are not considering presidential bids of their own are remaining neutral. . . . http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16099863/

Unique
12-08-2006, 07:42 PM
Personally - I think nominating these two would be slitting our own throats.

I've been a Democrat since I've been old enough to vote. I have no intentions of changing my party affiliation.

The best - nay, the only thing I could do should this be the Democratic ticket is ABSTAIN.

Obama I don't mind, but he's very young in the political areana. I will not vote for Hilary - ever. She makes a great Senator. New York should keep her.

dclary
12-08-2006, 08:01 PM
In other news, Joes Biden and Lieberthal prepared to take the White House by storm, trusting they could ride the "bravo says white males rule the world" stereotype straight into pennsylvania avenue.

dclary
12-08-2006, 08:29 PM
targets of opportunity, Bop. :p

Unique
12-08-2006, 08:36 PM
It doesn't have anything to do with her being a woman.

It has everything to do with her position that the US should be subordinate to the UN.

Sorry, I'm not buying it.

oswann
12-08-2006, 08:39 PM
It doesn't have anything to do with her being a woman.

It has everything to do with her position that the US should be subordinate to the UN.

Sorry, I'm not buying it.


Women have the right to be just as stupid as men.

Os.

Unique
12-08-2006, 08:43 PM
Women have the right to be just as stupid as men.

Os.

Me or her?:cool:

Jean Marie
12-08-2006, 08:48 PM
Me or her?:cool:
Her.

Jean Marie
12-08-2006, 08:50 PM
Obama's too young, IMO. He may just be nominated though because of charisma, alone.

Give him until 2012 and he'd more than likely be seasoned enough.

Unique
12-08-2006, 09:08 PM
Imperialist.

ya think?

In that case I'll have to consider it a compliment.

billythrilly7th
12-08-2006, 09:08 PM
I just pray that the Dems nominate Hillary or Obama.

Both Rudy and MCcain will trounce them. IMO and according to the polls.

I really don't say anyone the dems put up against Rudy or McCain winning to be honest.

An Evan Bayh is a strong candidate though. He seems cool and a moderate.

There must be others. Somewhere.

William Haskins
12-08-2006, 09:21 PM
what we saw in the mid-terms was a number of conservative-leaning democrats winning over repubs in a "throw-the-bums-out" wave.

this was a feelgood situation for those who wanted to see a sort of wholesale (R) to (D) flip of the rollcall.

the presidential election in 08, being the national stage it is, is going to expose deep divisions in the democratic party, from the right-leaning, somewhat hawkish DLC to the hardcore left.

personally, i think it will prove to be a healthy process. at the very least, it's going to be big fun to watch.

Dawno
12-08-2006, 09:35 PM
While I'm not about to cross the aisle to vote for Obama - and experience is a big issue for me, when he's more seasoned I could be persuaded to change my mind depending on his record in the Senate. I think people need to hear what he's saying. If a run for the White House gets folks thinking about topics like this (any emphasis is mine, elipses are mine as well, where I've skipped certain paragraphs):



For some time now, there has been plenty of talk among pundits and pollsters that the political divide in this country has fallen sharply along religious lines. Indeed, the single biggest "gap" in party affiliation among white Americans today is not between men and women, or those who reside in so-called Red States and those who reside in Blue, but between those who attend church regularly and those who don't.

Conservative leaders have been all too happy to exploit this gap, consistently reminding evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their Church, while suggesting to the rest of the country that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage; school prayer and intelligent design.

Democrats, for the most part, have taken the bait. At best, we may try to avoid the conversation about religious values altogether, fearful of offending anyone and claiming that - regardless of our personal beliefs - constitutional principles tie our hands. At worst, there are some liberals who dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, insisting on a caricature of religious Americans that paints them as fanatical, or thinking that the very word "Christian" describes one's political opponents, not people of faith...

Now, such strategies of avoidance may work for progressives when our opponent is Alan Keyes. But over the long haul, I think we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the power of faith in people's lives -- in the lives of the American people -- and I think it's time that we join a serious debate about how to reconcile faith with our modern, pluralistic democracy.

And if we're going to do that then we first need to understand that Americans are a religious people. 90 percent of us believe in God, 70 percent affiliate themselves with an organized religion, 38 percent call themselves committed Christians, and substantially more people in America believe in angels than they do in evolution.

This religious tendency is not simply the result of successful marketing by skilled preachers or the draw of popular mega-churches. In fact, it speaks to a hunger that's deeper than that - a hunger that goes beyond any particular issue or cause.

Each day, it seems, thousands of Americans are going about their daily rounds - dropping off the kids at school, driving to the office, flying to a business meeting, shopping at the mall, trying to stay on their diets - and they're coming to the realization that something is missing. They are deciding that their work, their possessions, their diversions, their sheer busyness, is not enough.

They want a sense of purpose, a narrative arc to their lives. They're looking to relieve a chronic loneliness, a feeling supported by a recent study that shows Americans have fewer close friends and confidants than ever before. And so they need an assurance that somebody out there cares about them, is listening to them - that they are not just destined to travel down that long highway towards nothingness...

For one thing, I believed and still believe in the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change, a power made real by some of the leaders here today. Because of its past, the black church understands in an intimate way the Biblical call to feed the hungry and cloth the naked and challenge powers and principalities. And in its historical struggles for freedom and the rights of man, I was able to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death, but rather as an active, palpable agent in the world. As a source of hope.


There's more at this posting of his keynote address (http://www.barackobama.com/2006/06/28/call_to_renewal.php) to Call to Renewal. If it's not all rhetoric, if he really means it perhaps he can make a change in the attitude of the liberal side of the equasion about the relevance of faith.

Celia Cyanide
12-08-2006, 09:45 PM
I love Obama. That is all.

billythrilly7th
12-08-2006, 09:54 PM
I love Obama. That is all.

Why?

To me, this is a text book case of a media darling and everyone jumping on board.

ETA: With that said, on a purely charismatical level, I like him too.

His policies are atrocious however. Far lefter. So lefter. No good.

And unlike many others, I don't vote for the popular, good looking guy for President.

Thank you.

Jean Marie
12-08-2006, 10:02 PM
I'm w/ Dawno, I'm not ready to cross the aisle, yet, for Obama. However, wait until 2012, and I just might. Matter of fact, I probably will. Why? Because by then he will have gained the experience necessary.

Too bad he doesn't have it, now. I wish he did.

billythrilly7th
12-08-2006, 10:07 PM
Not saying anyone specifically, but...

For the life of me, I don't understand how someone who has political principles and beliefs can cross the aisle just because they think "Oh, he's cool. So, what that he's going to raise taxes, fund massive entitlements, cut the military, end the Patriot act, put us all in danger, etc...I like him!!"

He's one of the highest rated liberals in Congress. He's wayyyy left.

"I like him though!"

I like lots of people. I like Bravo. I wouldn't vote for him though.

I guess it sucks to be me. I have my beliefs and I have to stick with them.

:Shrug:

William Haskins
12-08-2006, 10:12 PM
he voted to reauthorize the patriot act in march of this year.
he's against gay marriage.
he sees value in dialogue with evangelicals.

William Haskins
12-08-2006, 10:17 PM
just throwing the facts out there. he's an interesting mix of liberal and not so liberal positions.

billythrilly7th
12-08-2006, 10:17 PM
he voted to reauthorize the patriot act in march of this year.
he's against gay marriage.
he sees value in dialogue with evangelicals.

Don't be fooled. This guy is not centrist.

His liberal rating is in the 80%'s somewhere. Or very close to it.

I like him too. AND if he was truly a centrist, I'd never vote for him, but I wouldn't be posting warnings about how others shouldn't.

On a personal level, I don't care who we elect. I'm generally unaffected by our government.

Every post I post and every battle I fight is because I'm just looking out for the folks.

:)

Jean Marie
12-08-2006, 10:22 PM
he voted to reauthorize the patriot act in march of this year.
he's against gay marriage.
he sees value in dialogue with evangelicals.
didn't know he was against gay marriage. thanks, william.

glad you're back.

billythrilly7th
12-08-2006, 10:26 PM
Well that should seal his fate.

Don't worry.

Like Hillary, I'm sure his position will "evolve" when it comes to this.

Honestly, when I think of Hillary's evolving position, I hate all of these guys. Both parties. If Obama does decide to run, watch how his liberal rating slowly drops...."Obama...this isn't an important one...let's vote conservative on that Pig bill." etc....

Politicians are just about power and how to manipulate their convictions to play better when they're giving a speech here and how to manipulate them this way when they're giving a speech there and how when the poll says they're losing support with this group then have their positions "evolve."

It's a disgusting situation, the majority of the people we have to choose from in this country.

That's why I need to get in there.

My time is coming.

Kate Thornton
12-08-2006, 10:27 PM
Obama for president, Clinton for VP - that ticket would have my vote.
And even then, they'd be a little too conservative for my tastes...

I'd really prefer the reverse ticket, but I don't think it would be successful, so I'd settle for it this way.

nicegrrl
12-08-2006, 10:29 PM
Obama cant be president because he has a stupid name.

Seriously. People wont vote for a guy whose name rhymes with Osama. We're talking about the country that elected Dumbya and co.

billythrilly7th
12-08-2006, 10:33 PM
Please vote for Rudy prior to staging your coup.

In case the coup fails.

A. I'm not running until 2024.
B. There will be no coup. I will win in a landslide vote in 2024. Bring election monitors in, read the results and weep. But be prepared to say "I was wrong and thank you, Billy" when my terms end.

________

Hillary will not be second wheel to Obama. And won't have to. She's destroying him in the polls. Of course the gap could close, but it's not Obama's time. It's Hills.

He'll have his time though and hopefully we'll have a much better idea of what he's about and what he believes in.

Thank you.

billythrilly7th
12-08-2006, 10:34 PM
Obama cant be president because he has a stupid name.

Seriously. People wont vote for a guy whose name rhymes with Osama.

And like I pointed out in some alternate thread, his middle name is "Hussein."

Won't fly.

William Haskins
12-08-2006, 10:35 PM
Obama cant be president because he has a stupid name.

Seriously. People wont vote for a guy whose name rhymes with Osama. We're talking about the country that elected Dumbya and co.

oh good lord.

nicegrrl
12-08-2006, 10:42 PM
You know the next terrorist to attack God's country is going to be called Mhammad Baraq or something. That would be the last straw.

Obama Hussein? How much worse could it be?

Let's try and campaign for a guy named Adolf Koresh next time.

Opty
12-08-2006, 11:10 PM
I don't think Obama's youth impede's him from making intelligent, well-thought-out, informed decisions. His seems to be an attitude of open-mindedness (at least for as long as I've followed him).

JKF was considered "young" as was Clinton when he took office. He was only one year older when he was elected than Obama is now.

However, someone much older naturally runs the risk of being set in his/her ways, with a clear and restricitve ideology.

Of course, sometimes that's good. Other times it's not.

And, "youth" could also refer to his political experience. But, even though he only has 10 years experience in politics, I like his ideals, he talks a very good game, and...come on...we could go from Dubya to a guy who graduated both from Columbia and Harvard and was a constitutional law professor at Chicago.

In my opinion, Obama's "youth" is very much an advantage.

billythrilly7th
12-08-2006, 11:25 PM
I don't think Obama's youth impede's him from making intelligent, well-thought-out, informed decisions. His seems to be an attitude of open-mindedness (at least for as long as I've followed him).

JKF was considered "young" as was Clinton when he took office. He was only one year older when he was elected than Obama is now.

His youth isn't bad.

His inexperience is what's bad. Yes...his "political youth."

Jack Kennedy had 6 years as a U.S. Representative and 8 years as a Senator before he ran for Prez.

Thank you.

dclary
12-08-2006, 11:28 PM
I am horrified that I was about to post that he can't win because of his name.

Not so much because I believe that, but because it now appears I'm in agreement with Nicegrrl, who has been on a massive rush of incredibly bad opinions recently.

Dang.

William Haskins
12-08-2006, 11:28 PM
good points, but obama has a ways to go before he matches the pre-presidential political experience of JFK.

billythrilly7th
12-08-2006, 11:29 PM
With everything I've said today...I'll still take Obama over Hillary any day of the week and twice on Sunday, as much fun as it would be to have the Clinton's back in the White House.

I just wish the Demcrats would choose an experienced man, with a decent centrist record, who is intelligent and charismatic and would probably do a good job as Prez.

http://speakout.com/VoteMatch/people/Evan_Bayh.jpg

He's a democrat who if elected, I would sit back comfortably and say "not bad at all."

billythrilly7th
12-08-2006, 11:36 PM
I'm serious when I say that lack of a long political history could be of immense value if the war rages on and incumbents and/or career politicians appear paralyzed.

Don't be fooled.

Jeez.

He's already a poltician. He acts like a politican. He sounds like a politician. He drifts in the wind like a politician.

He's in the Senate for god's sakes!

They're the worst.

He's not some small business owner from Topeka, Kansas who is deciding to jump into politics and bring an outsider's perspective in to the mess that is Washington.

He's a career poltician already.

Come on. Wake up, BoP. It's Friday for god's sakes!

billythrilly7th
12-08-2006, 11:46 PM
I'm wide awake, Billy. He's still a relatively NEW Senator, not one of those guys who - when you put their current picture up against when they were first in office - you think it's two different guys. Like it or not, he's a breath of ever-lovin fresh air.

I don't know if it's gullibility or wishful thinking.

It doesn't matter though.

I'm gonna throw out the million dollar question...

If Obama wasn't black and had said the same exact things, voted the same way, nothing different in personality or behavior, was a "breath of fresh air," but was a white guy named Charles Vickery would there be any of this buzz?

Would Oprah be touting him as "her man" if he wasn't black?

What say you?

Unique
12-09-2006, 12:00 AM
If you really want to explore someone's position on particular issues,
you can check here (http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm).

Specifically - right here (http://www.ontheissues.org/Issues.htm)

billythrilly7th
12-09-2006, 12:02 AM
If you really want to explore someone's position on particular issues,
you can check here (http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm).

Specifically - right here (http://www.ontheissues.org/Issues.htm)

This place is better IMO.

http://vote-smart.org/index.htm

That's your "go to" place for the info, the ratings, the stats.

Thank you.

SC Harrison
12-09-2006, 12:11 AM
I just wish the Demcrats would choose an experienced man, with a decent centrist record,

Geez, Billy. A few posts up you stated you would not vote for a centrist. Do you mean you wouldn't vote for a Republican centrist, but a Democrat centrist is a good thing?

Give it to me on an eighth-grade level, man. I can only go so deep.

billythrilly7th
12-09-2006, 12:20 AM
Geez, Billy. A few posts up you stated you would not vote for a centrist. Do you mean you wouldn't vote for a Republican centrist, but a Democrat centrist is a good thing?

Give it to me on an eighth-grade level, man. I can only go so deep.

I believe I said I wouldn't vote for a Democratic centrist.

But yes that is a good thing compared to a southpaw.

If the Republicans aren't going to have the White House, I want a Democratic centrist in there.

Of course I'd vote for a Republican centrist. I am one. So are my boys Rudy and McCain.

Clear?

nicegrrl
12-09-2006, 01:02 AM
Not so much because I believe that, but because it now appears I'm in agreement with Nicegrrl, who has been on a massive rush of incredibly bad opinions recently.


If I were white and tall and old, I could win the presidency with my opinions. That's what should really scare you.

Celia Cyanide
12-09-2006, 01:06 AM
And unlike many others, I don't vote for the popular, good looking guy for President.

Nor do I. If I did, I would be backing Harold Ford, Jr. for president. What a hottie!

Unique
12-09-2006, 01:08 AM
Nor do I. If I did, I would be backing Harold Ford, Jr. for president. What a hottie!

thanks, celia. now i have something else to go googling for ... as if i didn't have enough already.

:D

Celia Cyanide
12-09-2006, 01:21 AM
In my opinion, Obama's "youth" is very much an advantage.

The last election set a new all time record for young voter turnout. If that's a trend, and not a fluke, his youth probably will be an advantage.

nicegrrl
12-09-2006, 01:29 AM
I totally vote for the prettiest feller on the ticket. Doesnt apply to women. I vote for the best woman for the job, but when it comes to the boys...

Just kidding. Obama and Edwards just happen to be good looking. As are George prescott Bush and Ahnold.

I always have voted democrat and I will be doing so in 2008 unless the repubs put up a really superb team and dems put up some total idiots.

Well, I will not vote for Kerry. I will vote for some random independant if Kerry runs for anything. I live in MA now too, so I can do that.

dclary
12-09-2006, 01:39 AM
If I were white and tall and old, I could win the presidency with my opinions. That's what should really scare you.

No, actually you couldn't.

No one would vote for a man named nicegrrl.

SC Harrison
12-09-2006, 01:40 AM
I believe I said I wouldn't vote for a Democratic centrist.


If the Republicans aren't going to have the White House, I want a Democratic centrist in there.



I don't understand...:(

Unless you mean, you will vote for whoever the RNC nominates, but you hope if he gets beat it's by a Democrat centrist?

nicegrrl
12-09-2006, 01:46 AM
No one would vote for a man named nicegrrl.

I know. That's why I dont run. My name sucks way to hard for purposes of winning elections. It's unpronouncable and sounds potentially terrorist.

billythrilly7th
12-09-2006, 01:48 AM
I don't understand...:(

Unless you mean, you will vote for whoever the RNC nominates, but you hope if he gets beat it's by a Democrat centrist?

I'll be as clear as I can be.

I will never as far as I can tell vote for a democrat for President. Centrist or not.

Times change. Things change. Parties morph, so you never know.

But if things stay relatively the same and the platforms stay relatively the same, I can't see how I'd ever vote democrat.

And then your last statement proves that you do understand. Perfectly.

nicegrrl
12-09-2006, 01:51 AM
I cant tell if the democrat party is leftist or centrist. I'm a centrist and the Bush admin made it clear to me that the repubs are not centrists. In fact, they are basically insane.

dclary
12-09-2006, 01:59 AM
The democratic party itself is extremely leftist. They play centrists to the mainstream just around election time.

dclary
12-09-2006, 02:00 AM
I know. That's why I dont run. My name sucks way to hard for purposes of winning elections. It's unpronouncable and sounds potentially terrorist.

Ahmed Nicegrrlijihad

dclary
12-09-2006, 02:00 AM
I don't understand...:(

Unless you mean, you will vote for whoever the RNC nominates, but you hope if he gets beat it's by a Democrat centrist?

Exactly. If we have to have a democrat on top, we want him to at least be sane.

Unique
12-09-2006, 02:05 AM
I could be wrong (it happens 2% of the time)

but it seems to me that the Republican Party serves a niche market, so to speak.
And the Democrats get stuck with everyone else by default whether we want them or not.

I'd guess I'd like to know has it always been this way or is this a relatively new phenomenon - or am I just mistaken in my observations?

dclary
12-09-2006, 02:10 AM
I could be wrong (it happens 2% of the time)

but it seems to me that the Republican Party serves a niche market, so to speak.
And the Democrats get stuck with everyone else by default whether we want them or not.

I'd guess I'd like to know has it always been this way or is this a relatively new phenomenon - or am I just mistaken in my observations?

If by niche market you mean "folks who are upper class, or want to get there," then yes.

Why do I vote for people who cut taxes on the rich? Because I'm going to be rich, and I don't want the living bejesus taxed out of me when I get there.

billythrilly7th
12-09-2006, 02:12 AM
but it seems to me that the Republican Party serves a niche market

That's a pretty big niche.

Unique
12-09-2006, 02:19 AM
maybe so, but I think dclary nailed it.

But that totally discounts the opinions and preferences of people who aren't looking or wanting to be 'upper class' or wealthy. Not everyone is cut out to be, not everyone wants to be. Do their opinions, motivations, and desires have no value then? Do they not have the same rights as others? Or is what they want invalid because they aren't wealthy?

dclary
12-09-2006, 02:26 AM
maybe so, but I think dclary nailed it.

But that totally discounts the opinions and preferences of people who aren't looking or wanting to be 'upper class' or wealthy. Not everyone is cut out to be, not everyone wants to be. Do their opinions, motivations, and desires have no value then? Do they not have the same rights as others? Or is what they want invalid because they aren't wealthy?

I'm trying to come up with an answer, and I'm afraid I'm going to interject my beliefs of what the party should do as compared to what it does do. As it stands, yes, the party does tend to neglect people who can't or won't aspire for better things, because the party's core beliefs reside in helping people help themselves -- a distinct difference from the democrats' "helping people despite themselves" approach. The increasing victim mentality in america creates an increasing number of people who believe they deserve to be catered to, regardless of their status or effort.

billythrilly7th
12-09-2006, 02:35 AM
I still don't see the niche, Unique.

How can 62 million people in the 2004 election be niche?

Maybe I don't understand the word niche.

:Shrug:

People choose their parties for multiple reasons.

To say one group is a niche, a niche made of half the country is ridiculous IMO.

For example...
I'm a Republican for the most part because I'm a hawk on defense, a hawk on crime, and believe that low taxes is the way to go. And I'm a strong believer in personal responsibility, like if you don't follow directions your vote doesn't count.

So...People who are democrats because they aren't hawks on defense, think we should be lighter on criminals, think higher taxes to pay for programs is the way to go and believe that even if you mess up, it was probably not your fault so let's see you we can help you are in the opposite niche?

I'm sorry Unique.

This niche thing doesn't pass the smell test.

And since my cold and bronchits cleared up, I'm like a hunting dog.

blacbird
12-09-2006, 01:01 PM
the presidential election in 08, being the national stage it is, is going to expose deep divisions in the democratic party, from the right-leaning, somewhat hawkish DLC to the hardcore left.

Your analysis, Will, has a lot of smarts behind it. It is interesting, however, to note that, currently, the Repubs are about as divided as I've seen them in three decades, and the Dems about as unified as I've seen them in half that time. Whether that will hold is yet to be seen.

Way too early to get excited about '08 Pres predictions. Somebody could come out of nowhere in either or both parties to stir up nominations passion, and could likewise fizzle at the election stage. I think Obama is smart enough to recognize his relative youth, lack of experience and potential down the road, and will be happy to be that "interesting dude" and build on that for the future. Clinton and McCain both are throwing the dice for the last time this time. Both have big name recognition, and big negatives, too. This one time it either works or it doesn't. Something not entirely definable in my mind says Giuliani is the Repub equivalent of Mario Cuomo: a New York Italian with some attractive qualities who won't make it out of the gate.

The announced defections from the coming race are interesting (Frist, Feingold, Mark Warner, Jeb Bush). I think there's an active atmosphere discouraging some otherwise potential candidates from running: The next President, whoever it is, is going to face a hell of a job picking up pieces left behind by the current one, and potential candidates in both parties recognize that. It could be a no-win proposition, regardless of who wins.

Potential candidates in no-lose situations? John Edwards for the Democrats, Lindsey Graham for the Republicans. Good 'ol Southun boys, polite, smooth, iron-fist in velvet gloves types, maybe?

caw

billythrilly7th
12-09-2006, 01:26 PM
Something not entirely definable in my mind says Giuliani is the Repub equivalent of Mario Cuomo: a New York Italian with some attractive qualities who won't make it out of the gate.

Rudy = Seattle Slew

http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/2001/1101011231_400.jpg

May god bless us with a man like Rudy at the helm.

blacbird
12-09-2006, 02:46 PM
Rudy = Seattle Slew
May god bless us with a man like Rudy at the helm.

Stay the course, Thrillsy.

caw

oswann
12-09-2006, 02:56 PM
he voted to reauthorize the patriot act in march of this year.
he's against gay marriage.
he sees value in dialogue with evangelicals.

Sounds like Segolene Royal. The traditional left in France (which makes the US left look like Fascists) don't know what hit them.


Os.

Unique
12-09-2006, 04:58 PM
I dunno, Billy - it looks good on paper but it doesn't really add up.

I mean seriously - do I look like a dove to you?
I'm big on defense but not so keen on offense.
Criminals? No use for 'em - white or blue collar. To me, raiding your corporate retirement fund is worse than selling crack. Use your talents legitimately.

So maybe it's just perception (I did mention that, you know) Maybe I just hate labels...you're a Democrat so you must be this or that... Oh, yeah.

Come find out.

MattW
12-09-2006, 06:14 PM
I think there's an active atmosphere discouraging some otherwise potential candidates from running: The next President, whoever it is, is going to face a hell of a job picking up pieces left behind by the current one, and potential candidates in both parties recognize that. It could be a no-win proposition, regardless of who wins.
Makes me wonder about the ego of people who would still consider a run in spite of all the extra baggage that comes with the office in 08.

The common wisdom holds - the best person for the job is the one who least wants it.

Someone whose arm needs to be twisted is a good start.

Unique
12-09-2006, 06:18 PM
You!

Jean Marie
12-09-2006, 09:41 PM
No, Unique, you don't look like a dove. 'Sides, cats eat doves, right?

nicegrrl
12-10-2006, 04:00 AM
Ahmed nicegrrl? Actually, My name is nicey bin jihadgrrl.


The democratic party itself is extremely leftist. They play centrists to the mainstream just around election time.
__________________

Well, Ive said it before. The congressional leadership of the parties are from safe districts or districts where the other party will never win. That is why Pelosi, the speaker of the house, is from San Fran. The parties dont want the leaders to have to spend much time campagning. Thus, both parties look more extreme than they really are. Clinton was a centrist. Gore was one of 10 dem senators to consistently support the gulf war, so he is actually pro defense. Lieberman is clearly pro defense. I think Hillary is probably close to bill. Thus, presidential candidates are at least what I look for. Admittedly the dems have some absurd congress members, but so do repubs. Overall, I go with the dems. Whether they know it or not, I think they actually are better on defense too. Clinton was going after Bin Ladin before 911 and Dummia went after Iraq while Iran got to go on a power spree all over the ME. That's no pro defense policy as far as we know now. Plus, dems like reproductive rights and secularism and other such intellectual boons.

billythrilly7th
12-10-2006, 04:24 AM
Faster than Seattle Slew. Know your thoroughbreds, Billy.

Secretariat was the obvious choice, Bird.

I like to add a little creative dust to my posts.

Thank you.
:)

billythrilly7th
12-10-2006, 05:08 AM
I'll take a win by 31 lengths over your creative dust, BT. In fact, Secretariat would leave your choice in the creative dust, Bt.

You don't get it.

:Shrug:

Lets get back to our mutual love for Rudy please before we both end up on a three day vacation.
:)

Thank you.

billythrilly7th
12-10-2006, 05:54 AM
But you do seem kind of off tonight. If you are, sorry. I'll leave you alone. And if it's me, sorry. I'll still leave you alone.

Off =ing like angry or bad mood?

Not at all.

I'm in a great mood.

As always.
:)