Next President

[Arc]

The Democratic ticket is all ready locked up—Clinton and Obama. The only question is what the split will be. Right now Clinton is in the lead but I predict Obama will end up as the nominee and the only thing to stop Clinton, as VP is if she doesn’t want it. (More likely than you might imagine.) Obama on the other hand if Clinton gets it will take the VP.

The GOP is in trouble. The only GOP team that has a chance of beating an Obama President, Clinton VP is a Giuliani president and a strong conservative VP. Thompson and Gingrich are the only two who fit that VP bill. Both have problems. Thompson has some baggage in the closet and it is unclear that his campaign persona and image can match or hold up to that of the current public perception of him that is largely derived from his acting roles. Gingrich has some baggage too and he turns some people off personally.

The sad truth is it is the moderates, independents, and the uncommitted or undecided that ultimately determine the election every time. And it that category easily the single biggest factor that make them vote for their choice is how well they like the candidate personally irrespective of most of their political views.

Each election that is demonstrated but the best example was the 1988 election where Reagan carried 49 states. Reagan a staunch conservative Republican carried all of the NE liberal states and the state of New York, he carried Oregon, Washington, California, will heck he won them all except Mondale’s home state.

In the above context Obama is really gathering steam in inspiring people who actively participate in voting. He is actually inspiring passion and connecting at the personal level as opposed to the professional politician level. He is doing with those who will vote. And it is only the people who vote that count for anything in determining who the next president will be.

I have a moderately strong negative opinion of Obama but have not a shred of evidence to back it up so I will let it publicly pass. The other leading Dem and GOP candidates we can make a pretty accurate assessment on who and what they really are. The evidence is everywhere and it goes back a long way.

In a little more than a year from now a new president will be elected. I wonder who it will be.

[jimeez]

In a little more than a year from now a new president will be elected. I wonder who it will be.Why Christopher Walken (http://www.walken2008.com/), of course. ;)

Seriously though, I am/was a self-proclaimed Bill Clinton fanboy, but I am not at all excited about the Mrs. possibly winning this election. She scares me for some reason. Additionally, I have become completely disillusioned/disgusted with both parties and would love nothing more than to have a viable non-Dem/Rep for which to vote. But that day is so very far away.

*sigh*

[ravital]

The sad truth is it is the moderates, independents, and the uncommitted or undecided that ultimately determine the election every time.

So true, but why is that sad?

I love the fact that they are unpredictable, that they thwart - or at least go against the grain of - the media's efforts to predict the outcome, that they are a wildcard that keeps politicians on their toes. It's a useful reminder that the people, not the party machines and not the media, determine the outcome of elections. Probably most of our disappointments with both parties stem from the fact that the unpredictable uncommitted undecided are dwindling in numbers. The more uncommitted until poll opening on election day, the better off all of us will be. :thumbsup:

[eakes]

I am not so sure there will be an Obama/Hillary ticket. I seem to recall that at some point early in his campaign Obama indicated he was in the hunt for president but had no interest in VP - of course if he actually got to that point he could change his mind! I am sure that Hillary would not accept the VP position, primarily because of ego.

I really believe the Democratic ticket will be Hillary and somebody (not Obama). I do not believe that Hillary is electable. Certainly she has her faithful among the democrats, but I don't think there are enough of those to get her beyond the primary. I talk to many people who wouldn't vote Hillary for dog catcher, so I don't place much stock in her appeal in a general election.

This should be a slam dunk for the Republicans (well, it will be close) if they have a combination of Thompson and another moderate. There will be the usual moaning of "no choice" and "vote third party", but at the end of the day the Republicans will take the spot.

[ethics]

but at the end of the day the Republicans will take the spot.

Eakes are you a Democrat?

[tke711]

Without a doubt, the next Presidential elections is the Democrats to lose. Which they very well might do if Obama or Clinton gets the nomination.

Thompson and Giuliani have one big thing going for them both, especially in a match up against Obama and/or Clinton. They are NOT currently part of a congress that has a lower approval rating then our President.

Beyond the race or gender issues, which will be tough for Clinton and Obama to overcome in many parts of the country, they have to overcome that they are currently part of the problem. A problem that people trust less then they trust a very untrusted President.

[Sir Joseph]

Does Obama have any qualifications to be president other than his skin color? I would not vote for him, and I certainly won't vote for Hillary. My vote would have to go to the GOP.
So I also see a GOP win if the above scenario pans out.

[Domh]

I have a feeling that our next President has not announced yet, waiting for this "first-of-its-kind lets all start campaigning 2 fucking years before the election" insanity to drive the American people to utterly despise every current choice and gladly vote for somebody (possibly more centrist?) who hasn't been irritating them for an entire year already.

The American attention span and patience both run famously short. There are many who could do well to take advantage of that.

[eakes]

No. I am not a democrat. Almost everyone else (cousins, uncles, aunts, etc) in my extended family is, but I had a philosophical parting of the ways with the democrats about the time I graduated high school in the 50's.

As to the coming election: Losing control of Congress was probably the best thing that could have happened for the Republicans. The Democrats, with their new found power, have decided to be obstructionists and paint Bush as the 'devil in all matters'. They have done a good job of this so far. Unfortunately for the Democrats, Bush is not running for any office next year. Thanks to the Democrats efforts to define Bush as totally evil, the Republicans have virtually a clean slate to work with as the Democrats focus on Bush and virtually ignore republicans in general.

If the present dissatisfaction with congress continues, there could be another blood letting next year on incumbents. It is not beyond probability that Republicans could regain control of congress. It certainly will be interesting to watch developments over the next year.

[Steve]

Lord! Wouldn't that be a refreshing change of pace!

[ravital]

This First-of-its-kind aspect is just about the worst thing the democrats can do. Remember Mondale? He simply said "I'll just put a woman on the ticket, that will be enough" and everybody thought that would get them the white house. And then everybody said "I don't know anyone who voted for Reagan, how come he won 49 states???" Same thing could happen here.

[joseftu]

Does Obama have any qualifications to be president other than his skin color?
This is a ridiculous question. Obama's a US Senator. Harvard Law, president of the law review. Eight years as an Illinois state senator.

What qualifications does Thompson have? Giuliani? What qualifications did our current president have? And I know you voted for him, Sir J. Would anyone be asking this question about Obama if not for his skin color?

[tke711]

I think the question of qualification has less to do with skin color, and has more to do with his relative "newcomer" status on the scene.

Given that he is a newcomer, I don't see the question as ridiculous at all, except maybe to his supporters.

[joseftu]

It's not so much the question that's the problem, it's the blatant inequity in the administration of the "newcomer" label. I'll say again--why is Giuliani not facing this question? Why did not our current president?

What makes Obama different from these other candidates is not level of experience or qualifications.

You called him a relative "newcomer," and I think that there has to be a lot of emphasis on relative, and on the scare quotes you put on "newcomer."

Eight years as a state senator. Two as a US Senator. We've had many presidents (some of them excellent) throughout history with far less experience, and far more limited qualifications.

[tke711]

Until just a little while ago, very few people outside of Illinois even knew the man existed. That's what I meant by "newcomer" and why I put it in quotes. In reality he's no more a newcomer then many past and present candidates when it comes to experience, but when it comes to nationwide identity, he is.

Obama has quite literally came out of nowhere on the national scene, which is a compliment to his ability. However, that also will open him up for experience questions simply because people just don't know who he is, or where he came from, regardless of his skin color.

[MNeedham73]

His track record as a state senator is the exact reason I will never, EVER, vote for him. Not even if he were running for the Antioch, IL dogcatcher ;)

[Domh]

I'll say again--why is Giuliani not facing this question? Why did not our current president?

From Wiki with comments sprinkled in:

Giuliani - Born in 1944.

Mayor of NYC for two terms, 8 years. First known as the mayor who successfully "cleaned up" NYC, the most famous and well known city in the world. Later internationally famous as "Americas Mayor" after the attacks on 9/11.

Time Magazine Person of the Year, 2001.


Very long public law and public service career. In 1970, Giuliani joined the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. In 1973, he was named Chief of the Narcotics Unit and was eventually appointed United States Attorney. In 1975, Giuliani was recruited to Washington, D.C. during the Ford administration, where he was named Associate Deputy Attorney General and chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Harold "Ace" Tyler. His first high-profile prosecution was of U.S. Representative Bertram L. Podell (NY-13), who was convicted of corruption.


In 1981, Giuliani was named Associate Attorney General in the Reagan administration, the third-highest position in the Department of Justice. As Associate Attorney General, Giuliani supervised the U.S. Attorney Offices' federal law enforcement agencies, the Department of Corrections, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the United States Marshals Service.In 1983, Giuliani was appointed U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. It was in this position that he first gained national prominence by prosecuting numerous high-profile cases, resulting in the convictions of Wall Street figures Ivan Boesky and Michael Milken for insider trading.

Thompson - Born in 1942.

US Senator for two terms, 8 years. Long public law career. Worked as an assistant U.S. attorney from 1969 to 1972.He was the campaign manager for Republican U.S. Senator Howard Baker's successful re-election campaign in 1972, which led to a close personal friendship with Baker. He later served as co-chief counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee in its investigation of the Watergate scandal, (1973–1974), and afterwards wrote a book about it.

George W. Bush - Born in 1946.

Governor of Texas for 6 years prior to 2 terms as POTUS.

I will say that being the Governor of one of the largest states in the union is a job of some considerable consequence requiring attendance in DC and extensive exposure to federal and union wide politics... much more so than a state senator would need to have.

Also, one should consider his family and its long political career. Upon going in to politics as Governor of Texas, George was already well exposed to national politics.

However, in my opinion, considering how long Thompson and Giuliani worked in public service before their positions as, respectively, Senator and Mayor I do think that Bush comes out showing less overall experience in DC politics than either Thompson or Giuliani.

Barack Obama - Born in 1961

8 years STATE senate experience.

2 years in DC as a Senator.

He completed his J.D. degree magna cum laude in 1991.On returning to Chicago, Obama directed a voter registration drive.As an associate attorney with Miner, Barnhill & Galland from 1993 to 1996, he represented community organizers, discrimination claims, and voting rights He was a lecturer of constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1993 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004. cases.

Now... to be fair, if you look at the 4 as I have listed them, Obama certainly is the newcomer. He simply has less experience in national politics than any of the other gentlemen.

Rudy has the most experience in public service as well as national politics with Fred second and George third. Barack, due to his age more than anything... is a newcomer when compared to the other fellows.

If he had another 15 years on him and was a peer of the other gents the conversation would be totally different, especially considering how young he became a US Senator.

But he don't.

So it ain't.

[Sir Joseph]

Big Whoop! Eight years as a state senator means nothing. His reason for being a media darling is because he's black. It's a simple fact. If he were white he would have nothing going for him. Like it was mentioned before, I never heard of him before.

[joseftu]

Domh, I find it hard to believe that you would even suggest that Giuliani has the most experience. He's been a prosecutor--an entirely different job--and he has no national political experience, not even any state-wide experience. Sure, he was a mayor (not a particularly good one). Sure he didn't run screaming in tears after 9/11.

He's a media darling--that title applies to him far more than it does to Obama. Thompson didn't belong in my list--certainly. But you're not realistically giving credit to Bush for his family? My father's a doctor, and my brother's a marine biologist. The next time you meet a sick dolphin, feel free to call me. I've got it covered.

MNeedham's reasons for rejecting Obama are well-informed and reasonable. Even though I don't share them, I respect them. Rejecting him for his youth or some imagined lack of qualification, while still accepting Giuliani...that's not worthy of a bit of respect. And Sir J, "I've never heard of him before" is just a species of argumentum ad ignorantiam. If you've been living under a rock, or in a little conservative bubble, for the past years, you really shouldn't be voting at all!

[Domh]

He's a media darling--that title applies to him far more than it does to Obama. Thompson didn't belong in my list--certainly. But you're not realistically giving credit to Bush for his family? My father's a doctor, and my brother's a marine biologist. The next time you meet a sick dolphin, feel free to call me. I've got it covered.

:lol:

Dude... go spend some time at 2F. You are getting way too riled up lately.

:tantrum:

[joseftu]

Say that when your poor Flipper is suffering!
:)

[Stiofán]

I just don't think Obama can win the south, it's necessary to take the Presidency. Powell showed interest in running and was scared off by the death threats. Can't overlook this factor. There are those in our country who will never vote for a black man for the top job. They are dying out, but there's quite enough of them at this point.

Hillary has the same problem, but this time with men in general. But with her it's not merely the "being a woman thing", she might overcome that but her negatives are just too high. When even Dems in the middle (such as Jim above) join the Republicans, how is she going to get elected. Pairing her with Obama adds nothing but insures even more defections because of his "problem".

I know people like to step around the elephant in the room, but it's there and real hard to miss.

[Sir Joseph]

Have you heard of him before he became senator, or let me rephrase, have you heard of him before he became the first black senator?

[SixofNine]

His reason for being a media darling is because he's black.
Well, he's young and he's handsome, too. JFK! JFK! The only thing that would disqualify him from fulfilling some Democrats' dreams of a return to Camelot is that he seems to be faithful to his wife. :)

His academic credentials are off the scale. That impressed me immensely in the case of Roberts's nomination to the Supreme Court. It hasn't necessarily been a leading indicator of success in the campaign for the presidency or in the White House itself (smarties: Carter, Dukakis, Gore, etc. Alleged dummies: Reagan, Bush 43).

Shucks, I guess I'll have to figure out what his political positions are and go from there (fearless prediction: he wants to move the country forward).

[joseftu]

Have you heard of him before he became senator, or let me rephrase, have you heard of him before he became the first black senator?
Can I ask if you were paying any attention at all during the 2004 Democratic National Convention? That was the first time I heard of him (and it was before he was a senator)--and it had nothing to do with his race, and everything to do with the brilliance of his oratory, and the quality of his ideas. That speech is what brought him onto the national stage. I certainly had never heard of him before that, and most people hadn't, but the attention he got from that speech was because of what he said and how he said it, not the color of his skin. A pasty-pale white person or even a purple man, if he could have given a speech like that, would have got the same attention.

[drntdrtydg]

Trancredo still gets my vote.

[Sir Joseph]

Why was he picked to speak?
He's the DNC's token black guy, and he's the current media darling.

[joseftu]

Well, you're obviously going to see it how you want to. He was picked to speak because he's a brilliant speaker, smart as hell, with exactly the message the DNC wanted the country to hear.

I'm being awfully polite in this thread, so far (even if Domh doesn't think so), but even if I'm accused of mounting the same old holier-than-thou horse again, I have to call this one like I see it. This is racism, Sir J.

[tke711]

Can I ask if you were paying any attention at all during the 2004 Democratic National Convention? That was the first time I heard of him (and it was before he was a senator)--and it had nothing to do with his race, and everything to do with the brilliance of his oratory, and the quality of his ideas. That speech is what brought him onto the national stage. I certainly had never heard of him before that, and most people hadn't, but the attention he got from that speech was because of what he said and how he said it, not the color of his skin. A pasty-pale white person or even a purple man, if he could have given a speech like that, would have got the same attention.

Had you heard of all the other major contenders prior to 2004? I'm willing to bet you had, which would make Obama a newcomer compared to the rest.

Given that, I don't think we need to make something like the name "newcomer" into a race issue, unless one looking to make race an issue to begin with.

[joseftu]

"Newcomer" is not what Sir J. said. "Newcomer" in itself is not at all racist, and I didn't mean to imply any such thing. I don't see anything objectionable in that designation, or in your posts.

These statements, however:
Does Obama have any qualifications to be president other than his skin color?
His reason for being a media darling is because he's black. It's a simple fact. If he were white he would have nothing going for him.
Why was he picked to speak?
He's the DNC's token black guyreduce the man and his accomplishments to his skin color.

I don't mean to pick on Sir J (although I know he can take it!), but racism is racism.

[Sir Joseph]

I don't think it's racist. A white man in the same situation would never have gotten the nod to speak at the DNC, nor would he be getting the same media attention Obama is getting.
Just for fun, it's racist to give him this much attention; one can say, "Look, here's a black man who knows how to speak well!"
I don't like him, I don't like his policies, but it's clear as day that the (or the main) reason why people are paying attention to him is his skin color.

[joseftu]

I think you're wrong. There's a lot more there than his skin color--and I think anyone with an open mind, like him or his policies or not, would have to admit that.

I'll drop it there.

[Lovehound]

Good OP and good comments from DomH! :)

I agree that it's unlikely the Hillary would take the VP backseat to Obama (but not the reverse). Uh, call me racist/sexist but I'm not ready to vote for either a woman or black as president, and I believe a lot of people feel this way but may not want the disapproval that comes from saying it.

I might consider voting for Hillary if Bill ran as her VP... Uh, heh, no maybe not. ;)

I feel that I'm a non-Republican, non-Democrat middle of the roader, and every election I have to choose between a whacko conservative and a whacko liberal. I'm getting damned sick and tired of the extremists co-opting the process, but I'm not expecting changes any time soon.

I hope DomH is right. It would be great if this 2-year campaign cycle ended up poisoning the waters for all the current candidates. We need fresh ideas and IMO none of the candidates have any fresh ideas that appeal to me.

[joseftu]

I'm not ready to vote for either a woman or black as president
Can you say why? I'm honestly curious. I can't think of any reasonable reason for such a statement, and I consider you to be a reasonable person. So if you can, please explain. What does "not ready" mean? What reason is there to judge a person's ability to be president based on their race or gender?

[Lovehound]

I might be ready some day, but not now. I hope nobody will be offended by my honesty. Maybe I would vote for a different woman today, maybe I would vote for a different black today, but not Clinton and not Obama.

My point was that there are huge numbers of voters who feel the same, or more strongly. Way too many IMO for either Clinton or Obama to win.

[joseftu]

I'm not offended, hound, just trying to understand. I hear "not ready" pretty frequently, and I don't know what it means. If you would vote for a different woman, or a different black person, then that's a very different thing. But if you're not ready (now) to vote for any black person, or any woman, I really would like to understand, and really don't understand, why that is.

I value your honesty, and appreciate it, and if you'd rather not explain, of course you're under no compulsion to do so. But even if you can only give more insight into these huge number of other voters who aren't you who feel this way, that would be helpful.

Why wouldn't someone be "ready" to vote for a black person or a woman? What explains that? What does "not ready" mean?

(Mods, should this maybe be a separate thread?)

[jfcjrus]

I'm not offended, hound, just trying to understand. I hear "not ready" pretty frequently, and I don't know what it means. If you would vote for a different woman, or a different black person, then that's a very different thing. But if you're not ready (now) to vote for any black person, or any woman, I really would like to understand, and really don't understand, why that is. {/snip}
Ok, let's start with me.

Hillary, offers no credentials other than a familiar name, and a Senator of a State that she didn't even live in until she decided to run for that position.
So, you New Yorkers, tell me how has she distinguished herself as your Senator?
Evidently she's been so damn outstanding in that regard that ya'll now think she's ready to lead this country, is that right?
Enlighten me, please, because I just don't see it!

Obama, offers no credentials other than he's been recently elected to the Senate, and he's one smooth talking son of a gun.
So, what's he done in the Senate that prompts anyone to suggest that he's now ready to lead this country?
(He reminds me of the current Governor Of MA, who smoothed talked his way to election and is now a poster child for the 'Peter Principle'. He screws up <i>every day</i>, because he's a good man that just doesn't have a clue.
So much for smooth talking.)

I simply don't think either of these candidates for President possess the quality of <i>Statesman</i> that I'm looking for, to lead and represent my Country.
I can't argue that they're certainly 'in the news' and they're collecting a shitload of money, but I really have no idea what makes ANYONE think either of these people is qualified to lead this great USofA!

And, please note that I talk about 'qualities to lead this Country', and could care less about woman or black or ..... etc.
I think these two canditates are LIGHTWEIGHTS, and I can only hope that there's something a bit more substantial on the ballot come November, next year.
I'm not ready to vote for either of these media/political party darlings.

Regards,

[joseftu]

Thanks, Joe--but that's not what I was asking. I understand all that (although I don't agree with all of it).

What I don't understand is the people (unlike you) who do care about race or gender, who do say that they are "not ready" to vote for any woman or any black person. Lovehound isn't quite saying that, as I understand it (at least not with the amplification of his second post). But he does seem to be saying that there are lots of voters who feel that way (and maybe won't admit it?).

Those are the people I'm trying (and failing) to understand. Lovehound (or anybody) if you know anything about how those people think, I'd love to learn about it.

[Arc]

I might be ready some day, but not now.

LH, I'm right with joseftu on this one. I am not at all offended or put off by your opinion or perspective but I'm curious as to why you are "not ready" to vote for as I understand your position a black person or a woman. Or do you mean you just are not ready to vote for Obama or Clinton as opposed to their race and gender specifically. If it were a different black man and a different woman you would depending upon their character and political positions vote for them?

Please elaborate.

Sir J you are so way off on Obama IMO--re that its just because he is black argument.

After the last debate I watched the FoxNews political analysis which was surprisingly in depth, intelligent, and in depth. (Not to mention revealing.) The most persuasive were the interview of the focus groups afterward.

As you probably know these are registered voters who are actively interested in the political process and follow and participate in the political process. In this particular focus group there were about I would guess about 30 or maybe 40 people.

Some high lights. They were asked how many in the room were for Clinton before the debate. X amount raised their hands--a large segment of the group. Who before the debate were for Obama. A much smaller number of hands went up. Then they were asked who had changed their minds, (I am condensing methods and words here), and a huge percentage of the people who had been for Clinton had switch to Obama. They all were asked why they like Obama and almost to a person was that he stood alone in connecting with them on a personal level instead of a political talking head. Inspiring or some derivative or synonym were used almost unanimously. It was often mention how naturally sounding and articulate he was or how he seemed to naturally be able to think on his feet and react to "surprises."

They then showed an active real time graph that, (sorry I missed the exact explanation of it) but it registered in real time how people were reacting to what the candidate was saying--with the measurement being a positive or negative based upon the scale.

In terms of overall rating Obama was the clear winner.

The analyst also pointed out that Obama was racially able to appeal to black without alienating whites or eroding his white support which has rapidly been statistically growing.

These are just what I remember off hand as I was listening and working on something on the computer at the same time--probably that stinking Fire Fox! :)

[Steve]

There is one consideration I can understand. Not one with which I agree but I can understand the concern.

I could understand people not willing to vote for a minority or a female for President because of the perception that they will experience discrimination both active and passive while in office and thus be less effective at their duties.

I'm not saying this would be the case, nor am I denying it's possible. Racism and, to a lesser extent I think, sexism are inherently insidious and invidious behaviors and any President facing one or the other of those would be at a clear disadvantage in the execution of his/her duties.

So, besides the obvious bigots, there could be a large group of people unwilling to vote for a female or black President because of such concerns.

[Stiofán]

I don't think it hard to understand at all, and I'm surprised both you and Joe can't figure it out.

This is not a colorblind, genderblind society. It's just not. 40-50 years ago when many of us were just youngins' much of society was openly racist and sexist, and for decades after it remained privately so. Even today, most whites would not choose to move into a predominately black neighborhood, and visa versa if housing was similar in both. Why, because they would be uncomfortable living there. But if you think society hasn't changed, think back on how things were in the 1930s. Most women didn't even drive, that was for men. Heck, by and large most women didn't work out of the house then. Things are changing, but it takes generations to make people comfortable with something they were raised to resist or question.

Everybody is subject to their upbringing, and most importantly the values of society, however good or bad, when they were young.

There was a time when class was an important separater of the populace. Probably much more in Europe than here. Religion is still used today, mostly by "traditional families" who insist a child marries in the same religion.

Most of it occurs because people are generally uncomfortable with change.

Let me ask both of you something, to help illustrate my point above that Obama can't win.

How many black Senators have ever been elected, and of those 5 (;)) how many from a state in the south since 1900 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Americans_in_the_United_States_Congress)?

[Arc]

I don't think it hard to understand at all, and I'm surprised both you and Joe can't figure it out.



You should re-read my post. All I did was ask Lovehound why he could not vote for a black or a woman and to clarify his individual position.

I didn't get into any of that other stuff on that topic.

As to Obama's electability I simply reported the facts of the FoxNews focus groups, polls, and "approval meter" readings. I took no personal position on Obama or his chances.

[Lovehound]

LH, I'm right with joseftu on this one. I am not at all offended or put off by your opinion or perspective but I'm curious as to why you are "not ready" to vote for as I understand your position a black person or a woman. Or do you mean you just are not ready to vote for Obama or Clinton as opposed to their race and gender specifically. If it were a different black man and a different woman you would depending upon their character and political positions vote for them?
This answer will serve for all intervening posts.

I'm not saying I would never vote for a woman or a black for President. I'm just saying that Clinton is not the woman, and Obama is not the black. I can see the day where I would vote for a woman Pres, or vote for a black Pres, but today is not the day and these are not the candidates. I'm not a bigot, I'm just picky.

I suspect that many more would say never a woman and never a black. Add their anti-votes in too. This campaign is a non-starter for me.

I hasten to add that I believe that Clinton will gain the Democratic nomination. Perhaps Obama will be her Veep.

Maybe Colin Powell might be a good presidential candidate. I haven't heard his platform yet, if any.

[Arc]

LH, you trouble maker, you are not answering the question! :)

So...

Would you refuse to vote for a person solely on the basis of their race, if they were black, yes or no?

Would you refuse to vote for a person solely on the basis of their gender if they were female, yes or no?

[Lovehound]

LH, you trouble maker, you are not answering the question! :)

So...

Would you refuse to vote for a person solely on the basis of their race, if they were black, yes or no?

Would you refuse to vote for a person solely on the basis of their gender if they were female, yes or no?
Hell, I'd vote for the right president if she were black, okay? The choices we got ain't right, not in my opinion. I haven't said that much about blacks at GA but surely I have a record for supporting equality for women, and that includes the possibility of presidential office (in my own mind). I feel the same about blacks but haven't said much on the subject.

[Arc]

Hell, I'd vote for the right president if she were black, okay? The choices we got ain't right, not in my opinion. I haven't said that much about blacks at GA but surely I have a record for supporting equality for women, and that includes the possibility of presidential office (in my own mind). I feel the same about blacks but haven't said much on the subject.

I have no more questions for this witness your honor. ;)

[Lovehound]

I've been a strong supporter for women's equality since the '60s. I can't say I have any record for blacks, although I always try to be the first person to welcome black employees into my work environment (electronics) which admittedly has few blacks, although quite a few women (engineers) these days. (I want to make it clear that I have actually gone out of my way to make friends with blacks because I feel that others have shunned them, and that is just not right. I want to make up for the prejudice of others in some small way, my own way.) I like to think I make up for whites who are prejudiced against blacks. I identify with the under-dogs and in the workplace women and blacks are the under-dogs, and shouldn't be.

Twenty-five years ago engineering was almost exclusively just for white men. It's great to have women in the workforce now. I don't know that more blacks would change the equation, but if they want in I welcome them. Same for politics, as long as I feel the women or blacks represent my interests in government.

From what I've seen Clinton and Obama have no concepts that I care to support.

[joseftu]

Hound, it's increasingly obvious that you're not the kind of person whose views I'm trying to dig into. I misinterpreted your original post, and I apologize.

The people I'm curious about are these people:
I suspect that many more would say never a woman and never a black.Those are the people I don't understand. Stiofan's explanation is what I assumed--they're racists. Bigots. I know about that (only an idiot would be able to live in America--or just about anywhere else--and not know about that). That's an irrational, unreasonable, contemptible, evil flaw in our culture, or maybe in human nature, but I definitely know that it exists.

I was more curious to see if there might be a reasonable explanation--not racism, not bigotry--why a rational person say "never a woman or never a black."

Steve presents one possible alternative--it hadn't occurred to me, and it makes some sense (not that I agree with it, or think that Steve agrees with it). Thanks for that, Steve.

[Domh]

Well... he isn't a black woman, but...

http://securingamerica.com/images/photos/general/nyt_070107.jpg

Interview By DEBORAH SOLOMON | New York Times Magazine (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/magazine/01wwln-Q4-t.html) | July 1, 2007

(Exceprt)
As a retired four-star general and former presidential candidate, you’re about to publish a memoir whose title, “A Time to Lead,” might seem to suggest you’re personally eager to lead this country. Is that an accurate reading?
“A Time to Lead” is a time for America to lead. That is the intention of the title. Certainly we are having a leadership crisis. We have an administration that has lost all sense of strategic purpose in the Mideast. I am very concerned that we have lost the foundation of America’s worldwide power and influence. It has been squandered.
Are you referring to our military strength?
The most important element of power is not the military. After World War II and through the end of the 20th century, we had a legitimacy that magnified our military strength and economic strength. We weren’t like other powers. We weren’t after an empire. We didn’t torture. What we’ve lost is our legitimacy. It’s time for every American to be a leader.
Is that practical? If every American were a leader, there would be no one left for them to boss around.
Leaders don’t boss. Not if they’re any good. They persuade. And I think America needs a whole lot more persuading and a lot less bossing.
It sounds as if you’re running for president again as a Democrat.
I haven’t said I won’t. I think about it every day.

I wont be surprised or disappointed if Clark takes another stab at it, entering in sometime late this year or early next year perhaps... when Americans EXPECT their candidates to start a run and bid so they do not over stay their welcome in our living rooms.

Granted, this would splinter the Dem field to the point where it most likely guarantee that Giuliani got the bid, but... I dont think it will play out like that and I do not think it will play out for Clark like it did last time around. I expect somebody like Clark learns from his mistakes, especially when they are whoppers. I do not think we will see the gaffes of 04.

And... the tone of the nation is VERY different now than then. It may be that a Centrist Democrat with very serious military experience and very extensive public service experience may come across as the one guy who can fix what America considers its number one problem.

Could be a good thing.

Start bashing me now!

:kissmy:

CLARK IN 2008!

:P

[joseftu]

No bashing here. I always thought Clark looked pretty OK last time--might have made a good candidate. And I never really understood why he didn't do very well. But I'd be very surprised to see him make any serious effort this time after what happened in '04.

[Lovehound]

I'm sorry about my overly-defensive earlier post which was entirely unnecessary, and off-topic.

I suspect that many more would say never a woman and never a black.
Well they're bigots. I believe that bigots lack self-confidence and blame their failures on others rather than accepting fault themselves. It's easiest to blame those people who are least like yourself: other races, other genders. Bigotry is alive and well, and not just in America. What's not to understand about bigotry?

The most important element of power is not the military. After World War II and through the end of the 20th century, we had a legitimacy that magnified our military strength and economic strength. We weren’t like other powers. We weren’t after an empire. We didn’t torture. What we’ve lost is our legitimacy. It’s time for every American to be a leader.
I was utterly fascinated by a possible Wes Clark run in the last election and disappointed when he dropped out. I'll be extremely pleased if by some means Clark can run this coming election and do it without running under a third party which I believe would have no chance of success.

I enjoyed two of Clark's books and evidently there's a third to read soon. From what I know at this point in time Clark is the only candidate I could whole-heartedly support. Of course it remains to be seen what his platform might be should he run, and I'd want to know that before I'll allow myself to become really enthusiastic.

I'm hoping that there are some really good candidates on both sides who are holding back from this insane 2-year campaign cycle, planning on coming out at a more sensible time. It could be a very smart thing to do, particularly if we are all totally jaded by the present candidates.

[Domh]

Of course it remains to be seen what his platform might be should he run, and I'd want to know that before I'll allow myself to become really enthusiastic.

He is a Democrat, would almost certainly run as one (hey... somebody charismatic, white and male for those Dems who want such) and his platform on the issues is all over the web. Google the fellow. Go to wespac.com - very cool site.

Fascinating fellow to be sure.

I think Obama and Hillary would shit their respective (or maybe not, eh?) pants if he popped in the race. There are SO many Democrats looking for somebody to run under the Dem flag who is NOT Hillary and NOT Obama.

[Lovehound]

Reading his books he certainly didn't seem like the other Democrats I'm familiar with. I recall last election there was some uncertainty as to which party he would run as.

Yes, indeed!!!! I don't exactly consider myself a Democrat but I' certainly looking for somebody other than the preset leading Democrats (or Republicans too, I have zero party loyalty). I'd love to see Hillibama shit! ;)

I'll look into Clark's platform at such time as it looks serious about him possibly running. I'm not one for window shopping...

[joseftu]

Frankly, Hound and Domh, I kind of surprised that you guys support him. He's a Democrat through and through, in the best senses--he's way closer to me than what I have always figured you guys to believe. He supports a ban on assault weapons. Supports affirmative action. Supports earned citizenship for illegal immigrants. Sees global warming as a national security issue.

I don't see any of those positions as problematic--and a couple of them are distinct positives. But I wouldn't have thought you guys would feel the same!

Not only that, Michael Moore (of all people) said this about him in 2003, in asking him to run:
1. You oppose the Patriot Act and would fight the expansion of its powers.
2. You are firmly pro-choice.
3. You filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in support of the University of Michigan's affirmative action case.
4. You would get rid of the Bush tax "cut" and make the rich pay their fair share.
5. You respect the views of our allies and want to work with them and with the rest of the international community.
6. And you oppose war. You have said that war should always be the "last resort" and that it is military men such as yourself who are the most for peace because it is YOU and your soldiers who have to do the dying. You find something unsettling about a commander-in-chief who dons a flight suit and pretends to be Top Gun, a stunt that dishonored those who have died in that flight suit in the service of their country.

[Lovehound]

I'm not so hot about affirmative action, but selfishly speaking I'm too close to retirement for it to matter to me any more. I support banning assault weapons as long as they're really assault weapons and not just an ordinary plinker with a 12-magazine.

I completely and totally agree with your #1, 2, and 4-6. Some of it is bitter medicine but you have to take the medicine to get well. I'm beginning to like Clark all the more now that you've reminded me. :)

Joe, I like you, but our politics differ. I wish Wes Clark were our president right now.

[Domh]

Frankly, Hound and Domh, I kind of surprised that you guys support him. He's a Democrat through and through, in the best senses--he's way closer to me than what I have always figured you guys to believe.

Man... it was only 04 when I was here squealing in pubescent spasms over the guy. Your memory goin' old fella? :P

Yes I am sure you are surprised! See... you are a true-blue, blood- money-and-guts Democrat. You took the Blue Pill. I would be surprised to hear you say much of anything that wasn't precisely aligned with the slightly Left of left. I DO know, thankfully, you are not a supporter of the Radical Left... but man oh man are you a STEREOTYPICAL LEFTIE! Woot! :noworthy:

See... I am not. I am a Centrist which means I vote this way and that. I vote the issues. I find the candidate with the most OVERALL to offer on all fronts and support them. Clark hits it on a LOT of fronts, and his stance on the issues is just one of them. I do not support his issue stance across the board, but I do agree with him on a lot of things.

Besides I find "issue stances" to be a wash of red herring paste anyhow.

What are the HUGE issues facing the country currently and for the next 4 years? Figure em out, choose which are most important to you and then find the candidate who fits.

Americans are hysterical... and sort of dumb. They shop for a public servant as if the person was a car that simply had to have EVERYTHING they wanted AND THE PERFECT COLOR TOO!

Not happening.

It simply isn't a blue and red world.

:crazy:

[joseftu]

Maybe we don't differ so much after all! I'm in favor of 1-6. (And I don't really care about the assault weapons thing, either way).

[joseftu]

What are the HUGE issues facing the country currently and for the next 4 years? Figure em out, choose which are most important to you and then find the candidate who fits.
K.
Do that with Clark! Which are the issues where you agree? Maybe we're a lot closer than we both think.

Big issues for me:
End the war.
Protect choice.
Gay rights (and other civil rights--but it's in gay rights that we're lagging farthest behind).
Education.
The environment.
Protecting woman's right to choose
Immigration (meaning clear and easy paths to citizenship for all who want them)

Blahblabah about swallowing pills--name your issues! Clinton, Obama, Clark, all the Democrats, are OVERALL pretty good on those issues. Most of the Republicans are terrible. (Some only pretty bad).

It's not a matter of swallowing anything, it's a matter of thinking about what I believe is right for this country. The Republicans are OVERALL wrong on more issues than they are right. If a Republican could get the issues right, she'd have my vote in a second. But then she wouldn't be a Republican! :)

[Biker]

It's not a matter of swallowing anything, it's a matter of thinking about what I believe is right for this country. The Republicans are OVERALL wrong on more issues than they are right. If a Republican could get the issues right, she'd have my vote in a second. But then she wouldn't be a Republican! :)

In who's opinion is it wrong? The majority of the US doesn't agree with you, therefore they must be right and you must be................ Dare I say it? W R O N G ?

[Arc]

I'm not so hot about affirmative action, but selfishly speaking I'm too close to retirement for it to matter to me any more. I support banning assault weapons as long as they're really assault weapons and not just an ordinary plinker with a 12-magazine.

I completely and totally agree with your #1, 2, and 4-6. Some of it is bitter medicine but you have to take the medicine to get well. I'm beginning to like Clark all the more now that you've reminded me. :)

Joe, I like you, but our politics differ. I wish Wes Clark were our president right now.

If there is justice in this world Wes and Obama would be marooned on an island together.

Good posts in this thread on political positions and candidates. But when its comes to actually voting people don't vote politics or positions they vote based upon who they like the most at a personal level and all though political positions enter into that, they vote for who they most personally connect with or personally like, either without qualifications or because they like him better than the other guy.

IMO that is THE reason Bush won the last election. On a purely personal level they liked and trusted Bush more than Kerry.

[ethics]

. He supports a ban on assault weapons. Supports affirmative action. Supports earned citizenship for illegal immigrants. Sees global warming as a national security issue.The above is why he will never even see a nomination and if he does, it's a boon for anyone who opposes him. I've never seen a more unelectable stance.

Not sure if he is running for a UNITED STATES leader or United Nations.

[Copzilla]

Those are big reasons why I won't vote for him, but any one of those issues I could live with if the overall campaign were more moderate.

The guaranteed No-vote from me is socialized medicine. The second a candidate spouts off about it, I will rule them out.

I'm not too impressed by any candidate who plays on their race or sex as being a reason TO vote for them, as an equal turn-off as some saying it is a reason to NOT vote for them. That racist door swings both ways, and if anyone thinks that millions of voters will vote for Obama because he's black - strictly because he's black - then the obligation to call that racism as well exists.

There was a time when I though Hillary might make a good president, even bringing credibility back to international diplomacy. But she's back to ranting and promising everything to everyone at the expense of the taxpayer. Buh-bye. Socialized medicine? I'll vote for another Bush first.

[joseftu]

In who's opinion is it wrong? The majority of the US doesn't agree with you, therefore they must be right and you must be................ Dare I say it? W R O N G ?
For God's sake, Biker, I only changed my signature a few days ago, and you've already forgotten? In MY opinion it's wrong. That's whose opinion. MINE.

How many times have I said this? I always post my own opinion here. DUH.

Yes, in my opinion, the Republicans are wrong on these issues. If the majority of the US agrees with the Republicans (which has not been demonstrated, and which I don't believe, but let's stipulate), then I think that the majority of the US is also wrong. In my opinion.

In your opinion, I'm sure, the Democrats are wrong on these issues, and so am I. I'm not at all offended if you say so--you have every right in the world to believe that I'm wrong. That's why we call them "opinions," and that's why we have this thing called "disagreement."

But when its comes to actually voting people don't vote politics or positions they vote based upon who they like the most at a personal level and all though political positions enter into that, they vote for who they most personally connect with or personally like, either without qualifications or because they like him better than the other guy.

IMO that is THE reason Bush won the last election. On a purely personal level they liked and trusted Bush more than Kerry.
I'm afraid you're right. And look where that got us! :(

[mikepd]

In the latest ABC News poll that I saw, Clinton had 45% to Obama's 30% of voters if an election was held now.

Have you watched how Obama holds himself while Clinton is talking? Hilarious. 'I am Obama President-elect-by-the-media' so why must I suffer listening to these dolts.

The in-fighting between Clinton and Obama is letting Edwards get some points as he stays above the fray and on point with 'instead of in-fighting, we should be addressing plans to fight the nation's many problems'.

I've said it before about Obama when he called John Howard Bush's ally instead of America's ally- he needs to get back into the kitchen for more seasoning because he is not done qualified yet.

It's still a long way between now and November 2008 but these candidates better learn one thing, the American public will no longer tolerate political practice as usual.

I think I could vote for Edwards but would love to see a Rudy/Fred ticket.

[Arc]

Breck boy couldn't get elected if he was the only one running. He would be beaten by the write in vote. :haha:

[ethics]

How this man, this "General" sat at the Loony Left Yearly Kos convention (starts at 41:00, and yes, you can scroll to it right away) and allowed that asshole "Captain" to say what he did to his fellow soldier is beyond me. (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=26535_Video-_YearlyKos_Military_Panel_Moderator_Shouts_Down_Soldier&only)

I will say this, it will be a cold day in hell when someone like Clark is elected to run this country.

[ethics]

Guess I am going OT here with the fiasco at YearlyKos but it's too juicy (http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/08/jon_soltz_and_the_politics_of.php).

[Domh]

Captain Soltz fucked up real good and all on his own.

How is it Clarks "responsibility" to get involved?

It isnt. He chose to steer clear.

There isnt a story here about Clark. If you think he should have stepped in to stifle Stolz, fine. I think Clark probably considered that Stolz was speaking as a Civilian and was well within his rights to be a total douchebag.

For Clark to have stepped in on this would have been a political gaffe... something we have seen too much of already from Clark.

:shake:

[ethics]

If you think he should have stepped in to stifle Stolz, fine. I think Clark probably considered that Stolz was speaking as a Civilian and was well within his rights to be a total douchebag.

Stolz was speaking as a Captain, sir, watch the video please then tell me that Stolz didn't pull his rank. Clark sat there with his uniform on and said nothing. Speaks volumes to me about who and what Clark is.

But hey, we have people voting in douchebags all the time, why NOT Clark?

[Domh]

Stolz was speaking as a Captain, sir, watch the video please then tell me that Stolz didn't pull his rank. Clark sat there with his uniform on and said nothing. Speaks volumes to me about who and what Clark is.

But hey, we have people voting in douchebags all the time, why NOT Clark?

Dont call me "sir" Leon. It is totally gay. At least call me "honey" or "pookey" or "dahlin". :P

I think that Clark keeping quiet was him demonstrating clearly that he, RETIRED and a CIVILIAN was not willing to dip down to the Captains level. Sure he was wearing his uniform. That is his right. Doesnt change the fact he is a civilian and that to pull rank on the Captain would probably have made a bad situation even worse. We dont know. Never will.

As for voting in douchebags, we always do, always have and will again in 2008.

I have learned for certain that who gets the nod matters not a whit. It will always be business (bullshit) as usual.

I will write in from here on out, unless my choice at the last minute happens to (miracle) get nominated.

[Biker]

Sure he was wearing his uniform. That is his right. Doesnt change the fact he is a civilian and that to pull rank on the Captain would probably have made a bad situation even worse. We dont know. Never will.


Actually no. It is not his right. There are strict guidelines about wearing the uniform to political functions, even as a retiree.

[joseftu]

Clark was not wearing his uniform. He was wearing a civilian suit. He understands the rule that the sergeant who stood up was violating, explained that rule to the sergeant, and had already warned that sergeant the day before.

Stolz handled it very badly. But the only one breaking the military rules was the sergeant.

[ethics]

He understands the rule that the sergeant who stood up was violating, explained that rule to the sergeant, and had already warned that sergeant the day before.

As far as I can tell there IS no law for that. If Stoltz is active, even reserves, he's every bit as guilty of the same exact regs as that Sargent. Moreso, he's sitting on his high horse, with control of the mic.

Also, they saw the guy in the uniform, if it was against the regs, why did they allow it? Oh yah, gives them sort of legitimacy. "Hey, look, even soldiers share our whacked out Left agree with us." That is, until he opened his mouth to say something (which was squelched of course).

Freedom for me, and none for thee is alive and well.

[Biker]

There is a law, and it's called the UCMJ. I suspect all branches are getting a dressing down regarding uniform wear off base right now.

[MNeedham73]

Stolz handled it very badly. But the only one breaking the military rules was the sergeant.

I disagree. If Stolz is still attached to the military (I can't find a damn thing stating if he is or not), he could be violating Article 88 of the UCMJ (http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/ucmj/blart-88.htm) just by attending the YearlyKOS convention. Yeah, perhaps it's a stretch, but I think those charges would stick.

And there is a UCMJ article about attending political functions in uniform, I think. I just can't remember it. It might just fall under the catch-all Article 134, (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/l/blucmj134.htm) or it's a branch-specific regulation. The Navy definitely had rules about it.

[Biker]

Covered by regulation. Failure to follow said regulation is the UCMJ violation.

[MNeedham73]

Article 92. (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm92.htm) Gotcha.

[Domh]

He understands the rule that the sergeant who stood up was violating, explained that rule to the sergeant, and had already warned that sergeant the day before.

Source on this Joe?

Thanks.

[joseftu]

I hesitate to link to it, because it's on the DailyKos site, and the commenters there (and some of the posters) are total loons, but it's a first-hand report from someone who was actually there, on the panel (some of his report of the day before is second-hand, some is first-hand). But here it is:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/5/3940/86488
The sergeant immediately zeroed in on General Clark and engaged him in a conversation. Eventually, I noticed Clark pull the soldier aside and move away from the rest of the crowd. I could see that the General was getting agitated. I later learned that the soldier had been lecturing him, telling him that the U.S. military should stay in Iraq and that General Clark should support the President’s policies.
Clark is said to have told the sergeant that, while he respected the sergeant’s opinion, political activism while in uniform was both inappropriate and illegal—and to do it at the much-publicized YearlyKos Convention would put the soldier in an unnecessary and precarious legal position. He told the sergeant firmly but politely that it would be in the soldier’s best interest to leave. And that was the end of it until the next day.

Being an Army officer myself, I notice this kind of stuff immediately. My first thought was, "WTF is this guy doing? Has he lost his mind?" The thing is, every soldier knows that you don’t take part in politics while you’re in your uniform. It’s not only highly inappropriate—it’s also illegal. And there’s a good reason for it, too: When you wear the uniform, you are representing the military, and it is essential that the military never, ever wade into politics. That’s what banana republics do—and it causes all kinds problems with regard to democratic processes and corruption. Just look at these fine examples of mixing the uniform with politics and governance: Moammar Qaddafi, Fidel Castro, Saddam Hussein, Manuel Noreiga. It’s just not a good idea—and that’s why we don’t do it. Ever. Period.

Soltz is a captain in the Army Reserves. He was not in uniform. Totally acceptable. No breach of the rules (and it is a rule, as Biker and MNeedham point out).

[ethics]

Your source is Kos? Come on, like they would care about stating the truth.

[MNeedham73]

If Stolz is a reservist, then article 88 applies to him, in uniform or not, per UCMJ article 2, section 3. It also applies to Clark (Article 2, section 4) (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/a/ucmjart2.htm)

And judging by Stolz's blog entries here (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-soltz), he is definitely in violation.

Article 88 clearly states:

Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

[ethics]

Nice! That's what I am talking about, Mike. Nice research!

What have you to say for yourself, Joe? Should I make you go to your corner? ;)

[joseftu]

Separate articles, but yes, it looks like you're right. "Contemptuous words" seems quite accurate. Clark and Soltz (and thousands of others!) are probably in violation of that.

The sergeant's violation (political activity while in uniform) was a separate one.

[joseftu]

So we've got a lot of hypocrisy here, on both sides, at the Kos convention!

Why am I not surprised? :)

[Swamp Fox]

I hear Rudy has an edge over Thompson. I think Rudy will be the Republican candidate, but I'm not so sure that Hillary will get the Democratic nomination.

[tke711]

If the polls today were completely accurate, it would Rudi versus Hillary. However, we still have a very long way to go until the next election so there is plenty of time for that to change.

What I find most interesting is how well Thompson is doing and he still isn't even an official candidate.

[ethics]

So we've got a lot of hypocrisy here, on both sides, at the Kos convention!

Why am I not surprised? :)

Yah, when you have the true Left question DailyKos you have to wonder. Hell, I think even Matt hates DKos.

[ethics]

Looks like Stolz couldn't take on someone his own size, or higher rank. ;)

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wmMqhZY7wtY"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wmMqhZY7wtY" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[MNeedham73]

Patterson took Stolz to school... nice! :)

Stolz wouldn't answer the question about whether or not he was still collecting a DoD paycheck either...chickenshit.

[ethics]

Stolz wouldn't answer the question about whether or not he was still collecting a DoD paycheck either...chickenshit.

And notice the Extremists MO on debates (both sides use this, btw). Scream and yell and don't answer questions and disallow your opponent to speak.

[MNeedham73]

Yep, definitely noticed. Patterson would've shredded Stolz even worse if it weren't for all of that.

Patterson's take on Hillary caught my attention: "Socialist, anti-military, anti-American"

That might be a bit much...but having served in the military while her husband was in office and seeing first hand what his cutbacks did, I definitely can agree with the 'anti-military' if her husband's actions are any indication.

[ShinyTop]

I dislike Hilary very much. But Patterson's attack on Clinton for his reduction in the strength of divisions, fighter wings, and ships was quite disingenuous. The draw down of the cold war should have seen big reductions in the strength of the military. There were issues that Clinton fubarred such as money for spares and training of the military left but the three cited figures should make all aware he is as able to lie and color facts as anybody.

[MNeedham73]

I agree with you on that. IIRC, the draw downs started with Bush Sr.

But, seeing F-14's cannibalized at Miramar to keep other planes flying, knowing guys that bought parts out of pocket to keep our equipment operational, and knowing of several ships that weren't combat ready due to lack of money for maintenance....Clinton fucked the military over badly.

[Swamp Fox]

I think eight years is something, but I understand he's only served one term in the (federal) senate. He should serve at least two terms, ie, eight years.

I don't see President Obama getting elected in 2008, but I could see Hillary being the first female president, though not with Obama.

[Domh]

I smell the LOWEST turnout in history for a Presidential Election.

:sick:

[jfcjrus]

I smell the LOWEST turnout in history for a Presidential Election.

:sick:
You're probably right, but I hope for a BIG turnout where the voters turn their noses up at this major political party nonsense, and elect someone of honor from a third party.

Hey, one can hope. ;)

Regards,

[mikepd]

I don't see President Obama getting elected in 2008, but I could see Hillary being the first female president, though not with Obama.


With at least one poll that I saw showing 42% of Americans would never vote for her for any reason? She has a tough road to travel, let's face it, she is too damn divisive.

[SixofNine]

I think eight years is something, but I understand he's only served one term in the (federal) senate. He should serve at least two terms, ie, eight years.

Senate terms are six years, Stan. ;)

[jimeez]

I think it's safe to say we can write off Fred Thompson. He just blew (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/17/thompson-on-running-we%e2%80%99ll-be-in/) his chances of getting elected.

DES MOINES, Iowa (CNN) – Likely Republican White House hopeful Fred Thompson told CNN Friday that he would push for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and would work to overturn Roe v. Wade if elected president.

“I don’t think that one state ought to be able to pass a law requiring gay marriage or allowing gay marriage and have another state be required to follow along,” Thompson told CNN’s John King in an interview Friday.

[tke711]

The gay marriage comment will actually play well across most of America since most polls show the majority feel the same way.

However, the abortion comment could hurt him, but it would need further explanation either way. All he is quoted as saying is:
Thompson added that the U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion “was bad law and bad medicine.”

It doesn't say what he would actually do about it, if anything. It's just an opinion on the legal decision itself.

Granted....he's going to have a lot of explaining to do on the campaign trail now.

[Steve]

Thinking supporters of the law will admit that it's both bad law and bad medicine. We're just glad the law is there, for all its flaws.

[tke711]

Well said! :thumbsup: