Let the headlines begin: "Barack Hussein Obama: The Feel-Good-About-Yourself Candidate," compliments of GOPbloggers. I've gone after the conservatives for taking out after Barack Obama's middle name, starting with Glenn Beck. In fact, one of my posts opened out onto a lawsuit threat against me by one wingnut, which happened just yesterday. Not to worry, progressives came to my aid, including Bob, Mash, Joe, Roxanne and many others, including in emails that got me (and my attorney) in touch with the right copyright and First Amendment lawyers. But Obama entering the '08 race is the beginning of what will be a very nasty campaign, not only because his middle name, "Hussein," will be used against him time and time again, but because Republicans are highly prejudice, and our candidates are so formidable.
John Edwards has already gained a lot of ground, especially with his strong stance against escalating the war in Iraq, as well as his proclaiming Mr. Bush's escalation "The McCain Doctrine." His strong support of unions also helps.
Barack Obama has not been nearly as strong on the escalation, evidently preferring "symbolism" to action, or confusing one as being as strong as the other. (I won't say "I told you so," but I did warn you.) But Obama did strongly push back against escalation after Mr. Bush's speech last week. Certainly the fact that Obama was against the Iraq war from the start helps, but he wasn't in the Senate, so it's difficult to know what he'd have done if he were.
As for Hillary Clinton, she planned a "newser" today about her recent trip to Iraq, but one in her group fell ill so it was canceled. However, assuming she'll run in '08, I hope her group gets better at messaging. Wolfson's recent swipe at Edwards was just pathetic.
But as Edwards statement on Sunday said so well, it's not only silence that is betrayal, offering only symbolism alone against escallation in Iraq is equally insulting.
Clinton's surprising broadside came just hours after Edwards, in Harlem, delivered a sharp condemnation – clearly aimed at Clinton, although he didn't mention her by name – against those who fail to "speak out" against the war in Iraq.
"Silence is betrayal, and I believe it is a betrayal not to speak out against the escalation of the war in Iraq," Edwards told a crowd at Manhattan's Riverside Church, where Martin Luther King had declared his opposition to the Vietnam War.
"If you're in Congress and you know that this war is going in the wrong direction . . . it is no longer OK to study your options and keep your own private counsel," he said.
"Silence is betrayal. Speak out and stop this escalation now." …
HILL JABS AT JOHN
TAKES HER FIRST SHOT VS. AN '08 PREZ FOE
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
why would we want a candidate concentrating on the presidency when they are supposed to be representing their electorate?
this is a shame, and shows a corrupt mentality. It is the system that dictates it, but still, 2 weeks after the new congress and they are all out showboating instead of ending the madness.
I find this behavior from all elected officials disgusting.
think they would listen to us if we asked them to get back to work?
Fitz!
FITZMAS!!!
Joe-Bama!
A fine tuned weather vane!
only tacked left to get past the Illinois Daley/Dem establishment to secure the primary, but has been getting some milage among the gullible as someone with ‘principles’.
Al Gore. Accept no substitutes.
Good post. I have to say I’m not convinced either Edwards or Obama is ready for prime time. I am also becoming leary of of Obama’s finger in the wind failure to actually stand for anything (though he gets points as best orator -Edwards a close second and both a stark contrast to the garble from Bushes 41 and 43). For the same reason I’m not into HRC.
Bill Richardson is interesting and has done good work in the past.
It will be an interesting year.
I also agree with Oldtree @1 that they all should STFU and get to work.
My preference would be Gore. Say Gore/Edwards? And perhaps if not this combo, Edwards for A.G.?
Hello firepups.
I think part of this rush to ‘08 is because everyone wants to put the nightmare presidency of Mr. Bush behind us.
punaise @ 4
Pun – how seriously do you take that report of Japan (sorry too lazy to find the link) that Gore has finally ruled himself out completely?
punaise @ 5
Punaise, I’m so with you on this!
How about Edwards/Obama?
GORE!GORE!GORE!GORE!
Can’t we just put Hillary out to pasture?
Well, it’s very great to see Barack enter the race. He’ll at least force folks toward his way of newer, less old-school thinking. Does he have a chance? Who knows. I truly like this man, though. And, we could use a new, unseasoned person. Christ, look what the “insiders” have given us: a Fascist state. Edwards, Biden, Gore? I like them, too. Hillary, ah, I don’t know. The woman part isn’t the issue. We could use a good woman for a huge change. But, she has that baggage, and I’ve never been happy about her moving toward the dull center. Also, I have this feeling Rove and Co. would be licking their chops if she ran and won the nomination.
Who else would I prefer? Olbermann, obviously.
sporkovat @
4
Dig it! As a chartered Dirty F$%king Hippie who left the ROTC to go on to be a CO and tell Dick Nixon the FBI and the idiot clowns of the AFL-CIO, I was a member of the Carpenter’s Union too, to go fuck themselves I can assure you without fear that:
Obama-the-Empty-Suit is not the answer to our nation’s problems.
Nor is he as progressive as say….
Rahm Emmanuel
Dick Schumer
Joe ‘Can’t Do It’ Biden
In a few short words: Fuck Obama.
He’s a triangulating loser whom the ReThugs are down on their Fundie prayer mats imploring their racist, jingoist ‘God’ to make the Democratic nominee.
Why else do you think the corporatist media is drooling over him?
So, what did you all make of this headline and story: No Al Gore in U.S Presidential race?
http://today.reuters.com/tv/vi…..277761a7e1
Re-elect Al Gore in 2008!
petedownunder @ 9
that would be the report that I willfully ignored, head in sand? I hear it might have been a bad translation.
my take, as expressed the other day: Gore will allow himself to be drafted in 12/07, after everyone else has slugged it out for many months.
(check out this fantasy straw poll at DKos)
Well, this is OT but it would have been EPU’ed on the last thread.
In the spirit of facilitating the judicial process, Scooter Libby offered his own list of potential jurors. “I realize that it might be difficult to find a sufficient number of lying backstabbing loons and warmongers to form a jury of my peers so I thought I would respectfully submit the names of some of my friends,” he said:
David Addington
William J. Bennet
John Bolton
George Bush
Stephen Cambone
Richard Carlson
Dick Cheney
Steve Forbes
Alberto Gonzales
Stephen Hadley
Fred Kagan
William Kristol
Edwin Meese
Richard Perle
Condoleezza Rice
Dennis Ross
Donald Rumsfeld
Mel Sembler
Alan Simpson
Alan Tessler
Paul Wolfowitz
James Woolsey
John Yoo
Philip Zelikow
Several of these can be found here:
http://www.scooterlibby.com/
Taylor Marsh @
13
Hasn’t that been shown to be a translation error?
Taylor Marsh @
13
What I make of it is no new news here, Taylor. The video doesn’t have an actuality of Gore absolutely declining to run or accept a nomination. The headline isn’t backed up in the article’s text.
Democrats said Felix Allen all the time during the election. Republicans probably feel justified in using Obama’s middle name.
Hope this doesn’t make me a concern troll. :-(
Crazy Horse @ 17: I think it depends who’s doing the translation.
As for me, I think even if Gore says no it means nothing. What politician hasn’t changed his mind, especially if the presidency is dangled in front of his face?
Let me get this straight. Hillary was prepared to make a statement about her recent’ fact-finding’ mission but one of her entourage got sick? Gee. And this is the person who wants to lead this country?
Taylor Marsh @ 13
To be honest, I really didn’t know what to make of that. Nothing of the sort was said on the video and “won’t run for President” wasn’t even in quotes.
The whole thing struck me so odd that I brushed it aside. I just don’t believe it yet. I think Gore would have been far more formal about it.
Thanks, Taylor, for the link. I’ll be sure to look at the article, but I’m sure I’ll never accept it.
BTW, Howard Dean, Edwards, or even Obama for VP, as long as they make Joe Wilson ambassador to the UN. There also should be a lot of good roles for people like Richardson in a Gore cabinet.
I simply don’t believe Gore will leave us to the likes of Hillary!
I think if enough people were to ‘come on’ to Gore to run; he would. I want Gore!
This sounds crazy but Edwards is too shiny. Obama seems just too young for the problems ahead. Gore & Wesley!
Oboma is the flavor of the week. There is a reason for that–he has never been baptised by fire. He speaks in warm and fuzzy empty platitudes. I don’t really have anything against him, but I can’t see him standing ground in the face of a McCain buzzsaw.
Hillary has faced a huge pushback from the left. Obviously, she has bought into the “centrist” mindset of electability. Someone forgot to tell her she will win absolutely zero Republican votes, so her strategy has effectively made her an island unto herself
Note to Hillary: determine who you are and stand right there, voters don’t like to grab moving targets. Your home is to the left–but to date you are classified as a runaway.
Edwards. I like what I’m hearing from the guy, but like Obama, I wish he had more experience.
Gore–please come back. Your country needs you.
punaise @ 14
(check out this fantasy straw poll at DKos)
The problem with that approach is that it means he would declare just weeks ahead of IA and NV caucuses and NH primary. I assume he would not have any way to be on those ballots nor the machinery in place. I doubt Edwards, Obama and Hill would just roll over for him, so how does he actually get the delegates he needs for the nomination?
Pelosi/Webb.
I for one support Hillary 100%. To continue for as long as they’ll have her for Senator from NY.
ccmask at 26 — Don’t hate Edwards because he is beautiful… *g* (Sorry, couldn’t help myself. Remember that old commercial?)
Taylor — great piece. It’s interesting to watch the Presidential kabuki start this far out from the race time, isn’t it?
There certainly seems to be a ground swell of support for Gore to run again; i could envision a popular draft happening. Despite many heartening signs, the Dems still seem to dissappoint regularly.
Pelosi for U.N. Ambassador! Webb for Secretary of Defense! Or Veep.
I’d like someone with Bernie Sanders’ values. Looking around, I see a lot of current and former DLCers running, and Kucinich has already been written off.
Doesn’t make me too happy, but all of the Repug alternatives are much, much worse.
That said, it’s simply too early to see the field clearly. There are more important things to concentrate on right now, I think.
CHS @ 33 – You bet it is. And I *do* remember that commercial.
Also, fyi to everyone, James Webb will give the response to Bush’s SOTU speech.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 32
If he would tone down the religion. I’d like to see a separation between church and politicians.
George Walker Bush
John Walker Lindt
John Walker Red
Taylor Marsh @
37
I am impressed that the Dem leadership has chosen Webb for this important appearance. I predict Webb will make one of the most riveting such responses in recent U.S. history. OK, OK, I know there isn’t much competition for that kudo.
karma miranda @ 38
Donkey Ho-T, chasing after Old Bushmills
I like Obama and Edwards for similiar reasons: progressive values, intellectual firepower, analytical strength and charisma. I think Barrack has an edge but John is not far behind.
Both candidates have a weakness, they are Senators without more than one term’s experience and no other policy experience in federal government. This doesn’t make them unelectable but it’s worth keeping it in mind.
You didn’t ask but we should talk about the mule in the room; the democratic front runner Hillary Clinton. I have not been able to get excited about her candidacy since she got on board with the flag-burning amendment to the US Constituion. It’s more than a disgusting right-wing political stunt. It’s bad policy.
Now how about Senator Russ Feingold as a candidate? He has oodles of Senate Foreign Relations Committee experience. Maybe VP?
Can we please finally put Kerry and Gore out of the race? At this point, they are a handicap. Gore can serve as head of the EPA and Kerry can be an presedential advisor. He has the values and intellect but damn, what a blabber mouth. I wish he wouldn’t do his thinking with his mouth open.
Heh. I seriously doubt Webb will lead us on a resounding chorus of kumbaya!
I still see big monkey-wrenches coming, long before the race gets serious. How will the Dems react to an attack on Iran? What happens when the next al Qaida attack is actually against a Saudi production facility? Or when the eastern US grid goes down for two months?
I don’t like what i’m seeing, but i really don’t like the reaction i see from the cabal that’s still in power. And that’s likely to be the biggest single effect on 2008.
The Dems are still having a hard time reacting to Bush’s: hey, f*wads, we’re already surgin’ what are you gonna do about it, huh?
Oprah/Dr. Phil = OD ‘08.
Oilfieldguy @ 43
As long as we don’t hear the phrase “together, we can do better” it will be better than last year’s ASOTU.
Edwards is my man.
Why? His personal story, the value he places on work and workers, and his personal apology for his IraqWar vote.
Pretty doesn’t hurt.
Edwards is a fake. Edwards may be great trial lawyer but he offers nothing.
Obama is another fake who offer nothing. Sure the buzz is great but what does he offer? nothing.
Where the hell is AL ? Please AL get on board so we can go to work. This country needs an experienced prez who command respect overseas and at home.
This country can’t elect another boy to do a man’s job which we will do if we elect Edwards and Obama.
Montag said I’d like someone with Bernie Sanders’ values.
I’d like someone with Colonel Sander’s values…a chicken in every pot!
…or pot in every chicken would work too.
Hugh @
17
…and I’d like Antonin Scalia as the judge, Ken Starr as prosecutor and Robert Kaplan as the only journo allowed to cover the trial…
I could support Edwards enthusiastically. Gore as well. Obama…not so much. He’s an inspiring speaker, but what’s else has he got?
Really, I think Hillary would make a great president. But as a candidate, she’s a mess.
Also, the Democratic nominee will have an affect on downticket races. I would like to dump Inhofe R-OK. He’s up for ‘08.
Will Pelosi run?
Ed*ard Teller @ 39
Recall last year’s response was from another victorious Virginian, Tim Kaine. National Dems have recognized that Virginia’s purple.
Plus — I think lots of folks have heard the “how’s your boy?” story leaked by the White House.
so what does the possible Unity ‘08 ticket of contempt-twins McCain/Liberman do to the calculus?
Personally, I welcome Obama’s candidacy. He’ll contain Hillary long enough for Edwards (or Gore) to get some wings.
ccmask @ 52
nah, but hopefully she’ll be warming the seat by this time next year…
I think Gore would have to be crazy to run again. Climate change has been his personal issue for years and now as a private citizen he’s finally getting attention direct toward the issue. If he goes back into office, climate change becomes one of a dozen or more things on which he’ll have to work.
I hope Wes Clark runs. He’s intelligent, experienced (although the last primary cycle was his only campaign experience), and I really like his approach to international issues.
petedownunder @ 28
The problem with that approach is that it means he would declare just weeks ahead of IA and NV caucuses and NH primary. I assume he would not have any way to be on those ballots nor the machinery in place. I doubt Edwards, Obama and Hill would just roll over for him, so how does he actually get the delegates he needs for the nomination?
Hmmm…just because nobody has ever won (to my knowledge) as a write in candidate, does that mean it couldn’t be done? Do those states allow write-ins? How would we go about starting a write-in campaign now? How would we go about starting to affirm to him our intentions of drafting him now?
ccmask @ 52
I’d bet against her running. She has a good job, and appears to be thriving in it so far. Maybe in six years if a Democrat isn’t elected President in 2008.
Another reason I think this is that I can’t remember a sitting Speaker ever running for President.
For the other side, I say a little prayer every nite for Brownback/Musgrave 2008.
I’ll echo the Gore sentiment. Seasoned, smart, visionary, consistently right about the most important issues, Gore has everything we need, and hopefully has learned from the last few campaigns how to fight back against our hacktacular media.
After Gore, I like Clark, Edwards, and Richardson.
No on Hillary because of her triangulation. I like Obama, but really want to see someone with a little more maturity and some record of achievement.
TeddySanFran @ 59
Careful what you’d wish for. When W. was first nominated, my reaction was “Who’d vote for that moron?” Turned out a lot of people are perfectly OK voting for a moron for President, as long as they like him.
Considering those who have their hat in the ring or show strong indications that they will soon.
Edwards background (with strong exception for his original position on the war) as well as what he is saying now, impresses me.
Kucinich background and message is spot on, imo. He is in a position in the House to push for several ideas he expresses an intrest in, including a return of the fairness doctrine. I will be watching for more from him.
Obama is a media darling alright. He spoke last month in Little Rock and won over nearly everyone in attendence, much to their surprise. Don’t know much about him but I worry he would be an easy buy out and prone to triangulation over substance. I want to see and hear more specifics from him.
Clark needs to replace Lieberlovin’ Senator Pryor or help clean up the DOD – possible Sec. Def.
That said, Draft Senator Russ or Gore
Always great to see you Taylor, sorry for your litigous troubles.
Congress, please act now, please. Stop the Bush cabal and the war.
I am not excited by any of the Dems in ‘08, because I believe support for civil unions instead of full marriage rights is intellectually dishonest.
montag @ 35
I watched him on a show the other day. I liked him; he said all the right things. Pretty smart guy. Wonder why they always seem to dismiss him? Something about his looks maybe?
Great Post – and thanks to Pach for the live blogging earlier. Amazing lens on history. I would be very happy with both Edwards and Obama (and of course also as a pair). I have heard them both speak and each is awe inspiring (something which both Carter and Clinton had – that certain 1uality of charisma – which is why I think both could get elected. On Gore, he really blew the last campaign by refusing to engage Clinton; Tipper drives me nuts, and Gore himself comes across as too preach-y (even if true). Basically unlike Obama and Edwards he doesn’t come across as a grounded populist.
Basically, to put it bluntly, I can’t stomach Obama. He is so obviously compromised. We don’t have time for his BS.
Yeah, my blood’s so mad feels like coagulatin’
I’m sitting here just contemplatin’
I can’t twist the truth, it knows no regulation.
Handful of senators don’t pass legislation
And marches alone can’t bring integration
When human respect is disintegratin’
This whole crazy world is just too frustratin’
-Barry McQuire
We need the real deal. “We are On The eve of distruction”. And it is being perpetrated by our own government.
good. so we have a consensus.
punaise @ 67
On?
So far, I’m pretty sure we’ve resolved that the next President should be a human being, but some of the other details need to be worked out.
punaise @ 67
Hillary/LIEberman??
OOPs, I meant to say Kucinich at my number 64.
Actually, now that Ayatollah Dobson has officially issued a fatwah on McCain, a McCain/Lieberman unity ticket might not be a bad tihng….
Taylor Marsh @ 14
Well, he’s already said he wasn’t going to run. Then I think he flirted with the idea a bit. But I like Gore too much to see him run, quite frankly. After the Dean debacle, I hate to see anyone I really like as a person run for President. I would include Russ Feingold in that group (and, yes, I know he’s not running).
Nowadays, I would go for someone whose positions I could, for the most part, get behind, but not someone I’m particularly crazy about on a personal level, such as Edwards (I have forgiven him his Iraq vote since he came out later and said he’d made a mistake).
In the past, I seem to have gravitated towards the kind of people that inspire too much passion for the masses and media to handle, and thus, crash and burn under the incessant, tedious dissection by the msm, which is deeply biased against true progressive thought. They feel threatened by it all.
Obama: too bland, and possibly too easy to fall under the sway of the DC consultants.
Of course, we’re all assuming here that there will be an election :)))
Edwards on CNN now
So far, I am impressed with Speaker Pelosi because she is going full speed ahead with her well thought out plan and the hell with the critics. Who else in the Democratic party has done/is doing the same?
I like Webb because he isn’t obliging his senior colleagues by waiting years to be heard when there is much that needs doing now and he’s willing to be the one to start things going in the right direction. And he does it respectfully.
But, for me it is much too early to pick a favorite. Time for watchin’ and waitin’.
My party, the Democrat Party, has so much talent. Exclusive of a particular New York Senator. Naturally.
Gore, Webb, Clark, Edwards, Pelosi, Kucinich and others. I love ‘em.
Before i moved to Germany, Pelosi was my rep for two decades. She’s as skilled as anyone in running the congressional rapids, and we need her to stay there, with backbone. that’s what she was trained for, not president. Her policy confidant is George Miller, who she respects ohne ende. We need them working the halls, period.
The system is so dayum broke. KO is like Edward R. Murrow squared, and it only has the slightest effect. When amurka begins to realize that now is equivilent to 1936 Deutschland, then we will begin to make progress. End of screed.
Danke, FDL. Today was cool…and it will get better… and thanks Taylor.
On McCain, can an unrepentent pro-war rethug running with a serial liar from blue Connecticut win without the 45%-55% or so the rethug electorate that comprises theocon base?
Taylor:
I know this is OT but I wanted to thank you for pointing out that Jack Bauer IS a democrat.
I sure wish there was a Dem contender who would put Country above personal and political wants and needs like he does.
Cujo359 @ 67
(it was toungue-in-cheek)
Here’s a factor to consider: how many of these candidates would actively avoid–by all necessary means–going to war after being elected?
After all, most of them voted for this war in the beginning, and on evidence that was clearly trumped up.
How many of them are capable of doing the hard work necessary to undo the damage the Bushies have done? How many of these people voted for the Patriot Act? How many are willing to take on the political crap-slinging that will surely ensue over dismantling a system intended to do nothing for security and everything to increase Executive power?
How many are going to do the difficult work to re-regulate corporations and the financial world, along with restoring some progressivity to the tax code?
How many are going to have the balls to stand up to the Pentagon and the military contractors and demand some sanity in the defense budget?
Without doing all or most of those things, there’s no money for anything else they may promise during the campaign.
I don’t have the answers to those questions, but maybe someone else does.
Blub @ 77
Given their propensity for lying, and the press’ propensity for lapping up their lies and printing them uncritically, I think Unity08 (McMentum) could be TradMed’s favorite ticket, and the corporatists’ wetdream. Imagine that ticket vs. AnyDem vs. GOP theocrats. How would the electoral college split three-ways?
kristinejoy @ 65
What about war??
Taylor, whenever you have to write about Debbie Schlussel, I think you should go with that stick figure with the smeared lipstick. Its hilarious
41Neil says:
No!
twolf1 @ 76
Edwards is doing the heavy lifting. I’m watching CNN. Thanks for the heads up!
ccmask @ 75
Yes, what would truly be grand is an impeachment of Bush/Cheney and Madame Speaker just eases right into the Presidential slot.
{{fantasy music playing in background}}
mui @ 84
I sorta like this one of Scooter Libby.
TeddySanFran @ 82
Love that!
My party, the Democrat Party,
-Oklahoma kiddo
Oklahoma kiddo, What the heck are you thinking? There is no such thing as the “Demorat Party”. The party is called “The Democratic Party”. Please. Don’t be obtuse.
Montag @83:
Few long-sitting senators have managed to get elected directly from their senate seats into the presidency in the country’s history, and I think the reasons why are much more palpable this time around. …for all the reasons you mention, which is exactly why Obama’s star is shining brightly now and why a Gore candidacy would be very compelling.. they don’t have blood on their hands. Edwards may pull it off by doing enough mea culpas with that smile of his…
punaise @ 80
As was I, just not as artfully ;)
Gore a handicap? Gore in ‘08!
Obama, I think not. I can’t forget that he dissed his own party during the Alito confirmation hearings. When people like Leahy were standing up to be counted in a filibuster, Obama was busy on the Sunday talk shows bashing Democratic weaknesses and lack of unity. He finally supported the filibuster, but I got the feeling it was all political maneuvering on his part. I don’t like him.
Hillary? I love smart powerful women, but she can’t win in 08 – too many hate her.
Edwards seems smart,thoughtful and articulate. I’d give him a closer look.
Personally, I’d love to see Senator Leahy in the White House but #1 – he’s already in a good place with the Judiciary gavel in his hands and #2 he’s not a glossy sound bite man so he could be a hard sell nationally.
I’d vote for Gore again in a heartbeat.
And Montag? Sanders? Another terrific export from Vermont to Washington. Fire in the belly, and a scrapper from way back. Maybe not quite ready for prime time, though.
I like Russ, too, but he said he will not run. I also like Clark a lot, but I want Gore. Every time I see him and think about his running that John Lennon song to Yoko comes to my mind. It’s not really apropos, but that’s the way my mind works. ;)
“It’s time to spread our wing’s and fly,
Don’t let another day go by my love,
It’ll be just like starting over – starting over“
montag @ 81
Those are truly good questions, Montag. I don’t see anyone answering them yet. But i’d have to start with the youtube video of Eisenhower’s last speech, which still floors me.
kitt @ 92
I can’t help it. ;)
Slightly off topic –
I usually make a point of using the “rate this story” stars on the bottom of articles on MSNBC (e.g. Kieth’s Countdown stories), but suddenly they aren’t there any more. Has anyone else noticed this? And do you have any idea why?
– MarkusQ
carolyn urban @ 94
I just said someone with his values. He’s not running and has no intention to run. I expect Bernie to be occupying his new Senate seat until he retires (he’s in his early `60s now, I think).
Ok kiddo,
“Democrat Party” happens to be a rightard talking point slur. See, they all got together and decided the “Democratic Party” sounded, well, too democratic. So they decided to pervert the name.
I know you didn’t intend anything by it, but it is something that lots and lots of lefties pay real close attention to.
Cujo359 @ 69
O come on you guys – not so bad. We have far better candidates than before (and certainly than the Repugs.
And, bottom line, no LIeberman or Hill’ry
Oilfieldguy @ 90
That’s a good one too. It didn’t appear for me originally though. I had to click on artwork link.
Oilfieldguy @ 99
they (Republicons) say it with a condescending sneer.
montag @ 81
Edwards was a newbie, but the others who voted for it should have known better. I have a particular problem resolving Kerry’s vote with his past experience. He, of all people, should have known better.
A tough question to answer. I think it’s going to require a combination of administrative ability, doggedness, political agility, and charisma. That’s a rare combination of traits, to say the least.
My guess: Edwards, Kucinich, maybe Clark and Kerry. The rest, almost certainly not.
Kucinich.
Clearly, I don’t either.
Wolfie – Condi is now also on Scooter Libby’s witness list.
I didn’t know that. Kinda late for that, isn’t it?
At this point, I think anything’s possible, and I don’t discount the possibility of disclosures of shrubco misconduct so egregious (pun intended :) ) that impeachment and removal would remain off the table. Given any credible reason [my two favorites are shrub tapping legislators’ phones or a shrubcoite caught red-handed with a few billion in Iraq money in a Caymans account.. both very real possibilities], probably 10-12 rethug senators may be counted on to vote for removal without any further consideration. Assuming more treachery from Liarman, that only leaves 5 to 7 rethugs to persuade (under immense public pressure). I think Scarborough, the hawk, had some guests on last night speculating openly (and quite gleefully) that this all ends with a rethug Barry Goldwater delegation in the Oval office before mid-year.
mandrake @ 89
Crazy Horse @ 96
I always find this interesting, because Eisenhower’s speechwriter cribbed a bit from Washington’s farewell address to put that speech together.
But, the horrible irony in that speech is that Eisenhower did little to stop that complex from developing, and it was his first Sec. of Defense, Charles E. Wilson, who really created the framework of it. Most of the Pentagon brass who helped implement the system had worked for him during WWII, and he pretty much left them alone (that’s part of the reason why Kennedy inherited a Pentagon that was laced with right-wing extremists).
It was happening under his nose, and he seemed not to notice until his last week in office? I’ve always found that speech ever so slightly tinged with disingenuousness for those reasons.
mandrake @ 83
I didn’t say I wouldn’t vote for them. :)
Just means that I don’t think any are true progressives, unless you believe an “occasionally intellectually dishonest but otherwise honest progressive” is supposed to get my juices flowing.
I’d like to start calling theirs the Republ-ICK Party. And call each of them a Republ-ICK.
The reason the GOP chose “Democrat Party” is that the focus groups liked it least (it ends in RAT). Thus, -ICK.
I think it would be pronounced re-pubble-ICK.
montag asked
Feingold leaps to mind. The original loose cannon who has never been afraid to stand alone.
Actor Christopher Walken is running for president. Perusing his website, one can gleen that he is a progressive candidate. Plus – he’s an actor. Even republicans agree that actors make the best politicians.
punaise @ 105
Actually, they usually say it as if it is just what it is. They are trying to accomplish exactly what they have now seem to have accomplished. Which is to have people like OK Kiddo forget that the party is the Democratic Party and make it “mainstream” to say the disgustingly insulting “democrat party”. Limbaugh and Gingrich and other such scum have brought that into mainstream lexicon. We need to put a stop to it. Not accept it and even move it along.
Montag #83 – If only those questions were part of the MSM meme. *sigh*
answer: Kucinich
Feingold or Gore as well.
I want the next president to be comfortable sitting down with his laptop and decidering to communicerate with the toobz people… and to have some wit to bring to the table. There’s only one who stands above the heap of the many who are also good… but he’s french!
Punaise!
i don’t want the preznit to make me cringe, i want to laugh.
carolyn urban @ 110
Only one problem–he’s not running and said so, quite definitively, two or three weeks ago. That’s why I don’t bring him up in these musings.
“they (Republicons) say it with a condescending sneer.” And in Novak’s case, with spittle collecting in the corner of the lips.
punaise @ 105
Really? I had not heard this. Well then, ‘Democratic’ Party it shall be. I am obtuse so please bear with me. That is I am angular. More than 90 deg., but less than 180deg. ;)
Yeah, that’s why I left him off my list too.
Neil @ 42
This sums up my feelings pretty well — I like both of them. Yeah, Obama’s moralizing grates on me like it does everyone else here, but on the other hand, I have a friend in Chicago who worked on his Senate campaign (videotaping campaign stops), and is angling to do the same for his WH run… so that balances things out. (If he doesn’t hire her, of course, I hope Obama’s campaign crashes and burns.)
I’m really impressed on a tactical level at how Edwards has run so far.
“I’ve got an idea: Lets dredge up somebody really exciting, somebody that can really energize young people, the center, and everybody else who isn’t automatically going to vote for anyone other than McCain.
I know: Russ Feingold!”
Does anybody really believe that?
Blub @ 80
Uh oh. No. Not when CTBlogger is number one on youtube
His words Seems like Chuck Hagel’s bitchslapping of Joe Lieberman on Meet the Press generated a lot of interest. With over 35,000 views in 48 hours, it seems like Lieberman struck a nerve . . . (check out CT blogger’s video responses from round the country.) Mwahahaha
All in all a losing ticket. Gosh I hope Mcain will commit political suicide.
montag @ 108
Don’t forget about the diabolical duo of Allen and John Foster Dulles
Montag, i know, it’s hard to connect the Eisenhower speech content and the career disengenuousness??? But it still floors me that he even said it, as if his conscience was acting up.
Good to know Hill engages the circular firing squad tactic.
It wasn’t real clear to me what Edwards said, specifically, to provoke Hill’s defensive shot.
Can anyone help me here?
john in sacramento @ 122
Oh, no, haven’t forgotten them. I can’t. :)
Suzanne @ 81 – My pleasure! For those of you who don’t know what we’re talking about…
http://www.taylormarsh.com/arc…..hp?id=1824
Kristinejoy@65
OK, I’m going to get some flack for saying this, but, frankly, I don’t think that we can run on culture war issues, just because I don’t think the party, nationally, can ever reach concensus around issues like gay marriage and immigration, and I think we need to run on a strong, unified, totally unequivocal platform:– a reaffirmation of our consitution and the values it represents, multilateralism with US leadership instead of unilaterism war and conquest, social equity (social security, healthcare, taxation, etc etc), fiscal responsibility and clean government, a strong and just economy, energy independence and sustainable environmental policies. On the culture war issues, the next president needs to be enough of a progressive (and I believe that Gore and Edwards are, for example) to create the infrastructure (judicial, legislative, etc) necessary for us to prevail on these issues in the 2010 midterms…
Crazy Horse @ 123
The key in that was that he really wanted to blame Congress. When the draft was being done, he wanted the phrase to read “military-industrial-Congressional complex,” but staff and speechwriter removed the bit about Congress as too contentious and partisan.
Republicants.
Taylor’s post highlights a problem with the Democratic Party. It does nothing to groom a stable of potential Presidential contenders in 2008.
Some like Kerry and Gore have run and lost. They need to overcome their image as “losers” and definitely show that they have learned from their mistakes. Kerry had until his last gaffe become more vocal and on message. He desperately needs handlers to teach him how to focus, focus, focus. Gore has good ideas but he too needs to learn how to focus his message and stay on it. Both need to learn how to anticipate opposition attacks and talking points and how to respond to them. Think of how well Big Dawg deflated his Fox interviewer. This is what these guys need to be able to do.
Hillary Clinton could use some lessons too. She has a strong base among old style traditional Democrats but strong negatives everywhere else. You would think that Big Dawg or Peter Daou would have been working with her but if they have it has been without any visible result so far. No one is saying she shouldn’t be calculating in politics. It’s just that she shouldn’t be so blantantly obvious about it. And then too Bill understood the importance of being the Comforter in Chief and articulating “I feel your pain.” Can anyone out there see Hillary in this role? My impression of Hillary is that she doesn’t give a flying f*ck what anyone thinks or feels, and it comes across.
Obama has star power and charisma. What he lacks is substance. However much he wants to be he can’t be all things to all people. At some point, he is going to have to move beyond platitudes and tell us what he actually believes, where he wants to take the country, and how he thinks we’ll get there.
Edwards has the issue of fairness on his side. He still needs to be able to give a brief, clear statement of this with a few concrete proposals. His position on Iraq is good, but his views on foreign affairs is unclear and needs a lot of fleshing out. There is also a question of his executive experience.
Wesley Clark is bright and has a good grasp of international relations. In his numerous military positions, he had a lot of executive training. His domestic experience is, however, slight. How well he could work with civilians on domestic issues is an open question.
Bill Richardson has the advantage of being a governor. As such, he has executive experience working on issues that strike close to home. He also has foreign policy experience having been our ambassador to the UN. He was also a Congressman.
I have no favorite for the 2008 election. Of those I mentioned above, I think Bill Richardson comes closest to being the whole package, but that is not exactly my point. These and others I haven’t mentioned could all be strong candidates, but the Democratic Party has really got to get off its hind end and start working with these people to smooth the rough edges, give experience where it is lacking, and build these potential candidates’ messages. What is so wrong about having a half dozen strong, solid candidates, instead of one but only if we could pick and choose the best qualities of a handful of flawed, limited hopefuls?
Oilfieldguy @ 128
I like that–it’s got all the elements required in it: cant, can’t, replicant.
Obama, no. Unseasoned, unproven.
Edwards, yes. I like most everything I’ve read by him and about him; I think he could do a good job in office.
Well, I for one am glad that the democratic candidates are members of the human race.
Taylor Marsh @ 126
Dern. I was hoping for the stick wearing lipstick picture. Link?
ironranger @
135
Is the Senator from New York?
Hugh @ 129
Hillary, I peel your feign.
i don’t know why i’m in such a serious mood tonite, but i want to say something to the commenting community here.
Many of you seem incredibly knowledgeable about inner politics, and you all seem to love the game. it’s my thought that when you’re so closely involved, it’s real hard to see the big picture. The only solutions now come when the big picture is taken into account.
the difference between politics as usual and the money necessary to drive it, and the vision necessary to bring us out of this darkness, is so vast…
vision has become a buzzword i wish to take back. Show me real vision, because without that, we’ve got no solution. There’s no politician who’s showing vision yet, except a small, deserved nod to Mr. Gore.
Here you go, Oilfieldguy…
http://www.taylormarsh.com/ima…..size=large
Oilfieldguy @ 136
http://www.taylormarsh.com/arc…..p?id=25043
Check the bottom of the article for more artwork. I really like Wally’s.
montag @ 128
Interesting, i didn’t know that. Danke, montag.
I would prefer Gore. To my mind he is the candidate who would be the best president. Electability? He’s already won the race once. I think he could do it again. The problem is that Gore may have found a job, combating global warming, that’s more important than being president
Taylor Marsh @ 137
Piccasoesque. Teehee
Taylor Marsh @ 140
dat funny
I am a Democrat by registration and have been so since I was able to vote. But if the truth were known, I am actually a left wing, liberal radical.
Margot:
>>I think he could do a good job in office.
based on what? Edwards will have to surround himself w/ bunch of cronies who may or may not offer him good advise. We all saw what happened since 2000.
Crazy Horse @ 136
Well, I think everyone who’s hoping for Gore to reenter politics are likely to be disappointed (lots in that crowd in 2004).
But, you’re right–there’s no one out there running who’s taking the long view, thinking forty or fifty years ahead. That’s part of the culture, though. When the world is reduced to the next quarterly statement, one’s view is truncated to the point where long-range vision seems frivolous to most people.
I’ll be upfront and say that I was involved in the draft Clark movement in ‘02 and would prefer him to be the Democratic nominee if he runs. My number one issues are with our foreign policies and I feel Wes Clark excels in foreign and economic policies.
Being from Chicago Illinois area and being one of Obama and Durbin’s constituents, I would take Dick Durbin over Obama in a heartbeat. Not thrilled with some of Obama’s votes and triangulations. With that said though I’m not your average “middle” American.
I am concerned about our average “joe” American racists still being a major voting block. I come from a family full of them unfortunately. They have that south side white flight mentality and my father in law is already forwarding the “swift boat” emails on Obama and his early education and “true” religion.
If it wasn’t for our last election I probably wouldn’t give this garbage a second thought but we are where we are, stuck with Bush because of these tactics. A war hero was successfully painted a dissenting coward. What should have been a landslide was turned into another “close enough to steel” election. It will be even easier in the next election because the republicans will not be stuck with Bush.
If Obama is the nominee he will happily have my vote and confidence that he will be one of this countries best. But I have no confidence in the Democratic party being able to combat this crap by labeling it racism and changing the minds of
“terror, terror”ized “joe” Americans in the privacy of their voting booth. Don’t tell me Americans are smarter than to believe this crap cause you know better.
I’ll be honest,I want to win the White House soooo bad! I am selfish! I do not want Clinton. I am sick of the polarization, not to mention the triangulation. So you tell me, can we win with this crap if Obama is the nominee:
* It even has an Osama typo!
punaise @ 138
Nothing against her as a person (besides the Bilderberg connection) … but that voice
Ahhhhhhhg!
I am on the edge of my seat with anticipation what Hillary will tell us, after one of her staff feels better.
Blub @ 50
LOL, of course, but only in the spirit of having a fair trial.
Oilfieldguy & twolf1, just to be clear, I can’t take any credit for the drawing. My amazing tech team did it, but I own the copyright. Three cheers for Orange Geek!
http://www.orangegeek.com/
End of plug for my team, who is also responsible for the tech for my radio show, for which I simply must finish the prep. See you firepups tomorrow.
I rarely watch Tweety, but I happened to catch a couple minutes the other night when he opined that Evan Bayh would be Hillary’s running mate.
–Double ugh!
cheers, Taylor!
If we can’t get Christopher Walken to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate, then Edwards is who I like as my second choice thus far. Triangulators seeking middle ground in the deserts of the far right – and getting cute by cozying up to church/state theocrats should not be considered viable presidential candidates.
Teddy SF, I like Re-pubble-lick party. If democrats would fire back with repubble-lick party every chance they get, we might jettison this democrat party smear campaign.
Fight fire with fire.
Nice work, Taylor, on the Jack Bauer piece.
Blub @ 127
I don’t disagree. I just think its intellectually suspect.
But so be it.
Ultimately, the tradition in America is to believe that marriage is an individual right, the right to chose a spouse and start a family. This is (currently) why we don’t restrict the right based on intellectual capacity, ethnicity, financial resourses, etc. By placing restrictions on marriage (must be between a man and a woman) you are making it obvious to everyone that marriage is not an individual right, it is actually a state-sactioned priviledge, making it much easier for all couples defer the pressure that they feel to conform to what is now obviously not the final expression of a natural state of heightened commitment, but in fact a state-sponsored contract.
Gays and lesbians have had the ability to choose any model they want for their relationships. The intellectual leaders of the communiity have often opposed supporting the fight for marriage–why copy staight society? When hundreds (thousands) or same-sex couples lined up on the courthouse steps in MA and SF, it wasn’t about coordination; those were thousands of independent individuals, who felt the lack in their lives, who wanted marriage, and who believed in it.
By “protecting marriage”, I feel society is on its way to destroying it. And, nonconformist that I am, I still believe in marriage. But for how long?
But I don’t expect to hear these words from any of the candidates that are representing me. So I say them here, FWIW.
/rant
Oklahoma kiddo @ 146
Eeeeeek!!! (*runs screaming from thread*)
Crazy Horse @ 139
I disagree, Kucinich has vision, unfortunately in our image driven society he also looks like a nerd out of 1961 high school yearbook.
Edwards has vision
Not in the race: Feingold and of course Gore have vision.
Taylor,
I read the little missive lipstick-on-stick fired at you.
Next time I’m in Vegas, I’ll take you out for a bowl of wanton soup!
Crazy Horse @ 139
I think Edwards has one, and I’ll admit to not knowing what Kucinich might be saying, but in the case of the rest of the field I think that’s a fair assessment. The vision thing really isn’t there, so to speak.
Blub: I have no idea what category to put Hilary in. I just know I don’t want to see her name on the ballot.
Now I second Brownback for repub candidate. You’d never run out of bizarre, off the wall extremist stuff about that guy.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 148
Came back from overseas with a staff infection?
Does Bill know?
/snark
Is that still legal?
Obama now on cspan 2 talking about his amendment re lobbying…
Hussein means “handsome one”, btw.
I want Gore or Kucinich. I’m liking what I am seeing from Edwards NOW.
I want somebody who is NOT afraid to speak the truth.
In my dreams, it is Jimmy Carter and I would love if he would end up advising whomever wins.
Hillary is completely and totally off the slate for me– her views on the wars and Israel/Palestine make her most definately not my candidate.
Thanks Taylor for this fun thread — more of these speculative, hashing-out conversations will help.
There are several reasons why I am reluctant to vote for Hillary for prez. Not the least of these reasons is of course Iraq, and her very close ties to the DLC and the “third way”.
Honestly I don’t believe Hillary has a chance of winning on a presidential ticket (even as a vice presidential running mate). No republican will ever vote for a ticket that has her on it – in fact she may pull a lot of them to the polls to vote against her. And unfortunately she has turned her back on the Democratic base so often that I think most of the “D” voters she would need to overcome the right-wing anti-Hillary vote are not really interested in seeing her run for president. All the FOX News talking heads are salivating at the possibility she’ll run though, at least someone might make some cash off of her run.
Bye Taylor. See ya in Lost Wages.
Oilfieldguy @ 163
Does Bill care?
I can’t abide Kucinich. Not in the least. I support fairer and saner trade, as much as any Democrat does, but the outright withdrawal from the global trading system and its institutions that he continues to advocate for is every bit as wingnutty as PNAC unilateralism and Boltonesque UN bashing. If there’s anything the rethugs taught us, it’s that you take the world as its served to you and you work with it to make it a better place, not to withdraw from it.
“I am not Hillary” is not good enough.
Everyone from the left and right is runing an anti-hillary campaign. It is not good enough.
707
Eureka Springs, AR @ 159
Kucinich is great and all that – and Willie Nelson likes him – but that bit about Kucinich asking someone to find him a girlfriend was really pathetic. You’ve got a serious nerd problem with this guy. The right wing whore media will not be kind to any democrat from the democrat party.
Part of Kerry’s problem was that he allowed himself to be photographed looking like a nerd. I refer to the donning of the hair bonnet at the Kennedy Space Center and the windsurfing photos. The windsurfing backfired on him badly – thanks largely to the corporate whore media which smeared him at every turn.
Blub– I guess I am not familiar with what you cite in your 171. I would agree with your statement that:
I guess I have got some research to do.
;)
jess @ 169
no, but it is a baseline.
new threddage
You’re right, Eureka springs, about Kucinich, and Edwards vision has great sound bites. But i’m talking about the vision which will wrestle this beast we’ve become to the ground. Jeebus, Howard Dean is workin his a*s off to make the right changes.
But it’s not the vision i’m talking about.
Our children and grandchildren will view current amurka as criminally insane, including the system which perpetuates it. I think montag began to address the specific aspects of our system which need to be addressed and eliminated. Politics as usual has no answers for us.
And i want to see answers in motion.
PS. i mentioned above as one of the potential monkey-wrenches coming to amurka that the electrical grid is really fragile, and it’s more likely than not, it’s coming down again. I say that with expert experience, and it’s real scary. This time for months. Far more expert than me have been saying that for years, and no one’s listening.
His platform is here http://kucinich.us/issues
withdrawal from the multilateral institutions is #3. His analysis may not be that bad but his solutions are the the leftish analogue of Bolton’s go-it-alone libertarianism. You don’t stop outsourcing of jobs by withdrawing from the world and shutting the gates behind you.
angie @
175
My early favorite is Edwards but I think its way too early for solid plans. Edwards is out there now doing the heavy lifting as others have noted. He’s picked up foreign diplomacy experience and seems to have grown a lot over the past few years. Defeat is a good teacher.
I’d like to see a team assembled early that focuses on commitment to solutions regardless of specific position. I hate to see excellent candidates enable the destruction by media.
Our best candidate will be the one who can lead us through the impending constitutional crisis that is essentially inevitable. We’re gonna have to work our asses off just to have an election in 08.
let me buy you a beer!
I see Hillary exploding in a Muskie-like burst of loserdom fairly early on. The math is just not good for her. The first contest is Iowa. Edwards came in second last time, and has a good organization there. Vilsack is FROM there, and has a strong organization. Obama is from next door. Kucinich will pick up some votes there. So, somebody has to come in fourth. If Hillary comes in fourth, behind the Iowa governor, the guy from next door, and the guy who came in second last time, she’s toast. She will have no momentum going into New Hampshire and beyond. She’ll be covered with loser-stink.
When i read Obama’s comment that Single Payer Health Insurance would be a problem because ‘what would all those unemployed people who work in the insurance industry do?’ to paraphrase, that was the final straw for me…the man has sold out ….
punaise:
do you want to select another boy to do a man’s job ? our country did and now our country is in complete chaos. Edward and Obama should not be selected regardless of their looks, charisma etc…
we need an experienced person in the WH in 2008. All the hatred for Hillary will not do good for this country.
Al is the man. Yes, Al is boring, wooden etc…but he has experience plus he will not need to surround himself with cronies and yes man/woman to do his job.
Edwards is a fake and is phony as hell.
Obama has no experience.
Eureka Springs, AR @ 179
i accept, except after Jane’s post upstairs, i’m thinkin a beer right now is not right, unless we’re celebrating what Jane built here.
Crazy Horse @ 184
*clink*…cheers
Edwards for the right priorities; Richardson for the resume
Gore did not lose. And he is not wooden and boring. If you think that, it’s based on the campaign six years ago. Look at his more recent speeches and his appearances on television, e.g., Saturday Night Live. And in An Inconvenient Truth.
He is my choice, and I would be thrilled with Clark as VP. Al Gore is held in high esteem around the globe, and would repair about half of the bad karma we now have, the very day of the election. His commitment to stopping global warming is extremely important–but his knowledge and expertise in foreign affairs, his clear No to invading Iraq, those are the top of the list.
I don’t want another president doing ‘on the job training,’ I want someone who knows the ropes, and can come out of the box in January ‘09 with confidence and authority.
Obama is a horrible candidate. He did not have the strength of character to resist all the ego strokes and money he’s received in the last two years. Today he stands for nothing except blind ambition—an ambition wedded, of course, to absolute fealty to his corporate masters.
The really ironic thing about Obama is that despite his youth, he is running on very old, tired themes which are not even relevant to our major problems, such as Iraq and health care.
As a prima donna, he fits in just fine in the Senate. Let him stay there.
By the way, Hillary would have gotten my wholehearted support had she run in 2004. In my opinion she had a better chance than Kerry to win, largely because she knew what kind of slime she was running against and had the tools to respond to them effectively. The right wing could easily have short-circuited itself in a sputtering rage had Hillary been the nominee back then.
What she lacked was courage. She was unwilling to risk her political future in order to try to save the country from Bush.
She also is too cautious, and too martial, but frankly, I prefer Hillary to Obama, who offers no meat at all.
Edwards is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, plain and simple.
Stop for a minute, and consider what he’s actually done, and not his talk.
While many members in congress wisely voted against the Iraq war, Edwards not only voted for it, he co-sponsored the disastrous resolution with neocon Joe Lieberman, that made it possible.
Edwards also co-sponsored and voted for the massive increase in H-1b visas, that dumped 195,000 foreign workers on the job market, destroying perhaps hundreds of thousands of American tech careers.
Edwards voted for normal trade relations with China, making American workers have to compete with Chinese labor standards, which of course they can’t.
Edwards voted for the DREAM act, forcing states to give in-state tuition (a subsidy) to illegal aliens, when there are poor Americans in these states who can’t afford to send their kids to college, partially because illegal immigration drove down their wages. This act, of course only encourages more illegal immigration because it extends even further the taxpayers obligations to those who break our laws to come here.
But what about civil liberties? Here again, Edwards voted to the Patriot act, perhaps the greatest risk to civil liberties, ever.
Edwards supporters don’t want Edwards to be held accountable for these facts. Yet, Edwards made himself extremely wealthy holding others (such as doctors) accountable – while doctors malpractice premiums rose so much as to make many obstetricians leave their specialty. More illegal alien taxpayer payed births, and fewer obstetricians – could that be why health care costs are skyrocketing?
One simple question – 10 years ago, if you did your job, the way Edwards performed as Senator, do you think he would he advocate that you get a big promotion?
Or do you think he would he have sued you and taken you to the cleaners?
I’m going to work my ass off in the 2008 general election for anyone with a D after their name. With that in mind, my only concern in the primaries is that we not chew each other up. Sure, personally I’d rather see Edwards than Sen. Clinton, but I’d work just as hard for her in the general. Or Sen. Obama or Gore or Clark or Vilsack or whoever. Let’s keep our eyes on the prize here and not get too caught up at this early stage in going ga-ga over one candidate or trashing another.
I agree with earlier posters – wouldn’t it be nice for our Senators to be concentrating on stopping the escalation, rather than showboating, and looking for money and votes.
“Now how about Senator Russ Feingold as a candidate?” Neil
A fine man he is, but he’s said he’s not running.
Gore and Clark have strong affinities.
I think hard times are ahead (2008-2011 in particular) and imo Gore has the gravitas and the experience to be Potus during turbulent times.
Crazy Horse and Rumi – I just checked back. damn.
A flat beer belated toast to Jane and all her pups.
*salute*
Steve,
Thanks for offering your criticisms of Edwards. Neither the education vote nor the China vote would sway my opinion of Edwards, by themselves.
I’m curious about the vote on trade with China, because Edwards is somewhat in the anti-globalization crowd today, it seems.
Edwards’ current stance makes up for his earlier support of the war, IMO, but I would like to know what his view of the Patriot Act is today.
John Edwards = yawn. He had his shot. move on.
O8ama is the guy. It’s easy when you don’t have a job to critique and make noise but, when you do have a job in the Senate, you have to work with your co-workers. And sometimes you have to talk the party line on subjects. You go in front of the cameras and have to say what they want you to so you don’t rile the other side when you need some of them to make a majority for any resolution.
If we had a 61 majority he would be freer to speak out. But, needing the repubs to work with them, he has to be mindful of that so his doesn’t piss off those the dems are working with on the other side to convince them to vote with them.
Obama has worked hard, is very smart and has a deep understanding of the issues. He has something none of the others have. He is destiny. he is the future.
O8ama!!!!!!!
…”But Obama did strongly push back against escalation after Mr. Bush’s speech last week. Certainly the fact that Obama was against the Iraq war from the start helps, but he wasn’t in the Senate, so it’s difficult to know what he’d have done if he were.”
It’s not too difficult to imagine what Obama would have done.had he been in the Senate. He was against the war before he won the Illinois primary election. After that, he never mentioned his anti-war position. In fact, he nearly did sommersaults to back away from his “anti-war position”. He’d have done as most of the Senate and voted to give Bush the power that he, in fact, abused. Durbin, OTOH, voted against giving Bush the power to attack. He’s the strong Senator from Illinois.
Edwards, Clark, Feingold, Gore. They are all better qualified that Obama. And all, except Edwards either would have voted against this war, or have spoken out against it from the onset. Edwards has been honest about his change in positions. Obama has not. I’d vote for Obama if I had to, but he’d not be my choice.
Gore is the one, if he will go for it. We need someone of truly presidential timber after GWB. And it would be poetic justice. After Reuters said he was out, you had to wonder, who else is there? Maybe, just maybe, Bill Richardson — lots of experience. Not sure he’s electable though. It’s hard not to like Obama, but it’s not his time yet. Ditto for John Edwards, but he has great potential. As for Hillary, she has been wrong on Iraq for years. What a disappointment. My dream ticket is Gore/Feingold (if they would both run).
I just can not forget Obama during the congressional hearings having to do with the selection of Condi Rice and John Bolton for their spots. Obama did not ask hard driving questions of either of them, he rolled over and played it down the middle. He voted for Rice and I believe he voted for Bolton.
However Kerry asked the most hard driving, direct questions of anyone. He voted against both of them. Biden, Boxer, Dodd and Lincoln Chaffee ( I was very sad to see him go) also asked pointed questions of both Rice and Bolton.
OBAMA ROLLED OVER ….
If the Democrats do not hold anyone accountable for the false pre-war intelligence. If they fail as the Republican controlled congress did in the completion of Phase II of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. If the Democrats and Republicans confirm that the reasons for the “crisis in confidence” that permeates Americans attitudes towards our representatives and this system are not going be remedied. If they let us know once and for all that it was more important to them to hold a President accountable for lying under oath about a BLOWJOB and they do not plan to hold anyone accountable for the INTELLIGENCE SNOWJOB that has resulted in the loss of tens of thousands of lives. Then I believe our country is ultimately doomed. This is their last chance..the ship is going down!
If they do not INVESTIGATE—DE-ESCALATE..THEY ARE BLOWING THE DOORS OPEN FOR AN INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE IN 2008!