Monday, July 17, 2006

Preseason: 2008

Yeah, this is looking ahead, but everyone already knows who they're voting for in the Primary tomorrow. Today we'll start our prognostications for the big game, the 4 year American Championship, that Super Bowl of World Politics - the American Presidency!

We'll go over the Democratic Conference first.

We, of course, have everybody's pre-season favorite: Hillary Clinton. But is she too aloof to win a national election?

Out of the Southern States come two possible challengers: the dark horse would be former Vice Presidential Candidate, John Edwards as well as the man who is already casting himself as the anti-Hillary, Former Virginia Governor Mark Warner.

Aside from these three, and possibly New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, I just don't see any other Democrats with the clout to make it to the nomination.

What's your take on this?

10 comments:

RightOnPeachtree said...

Zell Miller!! Kidding, I know I don't have a meaningful opinion here since I'm a con(servative).

Still, as a conservative who has and would vote for a reasonable Democrat if my type of conservative is not running, I would say:

Hillary: Unequivocally no. She is the spawn of Satan. I'm not kidding.

John Edwards: He used to seem a little more reasonable, but appears to be running left. And he has that trial lawyer stigma to get over. So no.

Mark Warner: Don't know much about him yet, but he isn't immediately repulsive. He is a rare Dem who can comfortably speak about his faith, so he could pull some ostracized social conservatives over from the Repubs (IMO).

Bill Richardson: No way. He has the stink of Bill C on him and he can't be trusted on illegal immigration. His views on illegals are execrable (and yes, I know he is Hispanic).

Others:
John Kerry: Please! If you guys nominate him again, you deserve to lose.

Al Gore: See my comments on John Kerry. And Gore is now mentally unhinged.

Joe Biden: No. He's the Bob Dole of the Dems. He has "grumpy old man" syndrome and he's a smart aleck to boot. He not salable.

I keep hearing about some Southern gov'ners. Phil something in Tennessee. Seeing how the last two Dem prez's were Southern gov'ners, this wouldn't be a bad idea to investigate.

As much as I dislike Howie Dean, his 50-state strategy is smart -- even though he's been castigated for it by the Dem establishment. The Dems have abandoned the South and that's just plain moronic.

Dems in Georgia are just ignored step-children (the Jan Brady, if you will) of the national Dem machine. I think that's a shame because it deprives ALL Georgia voters of having better, broader choices. And it disenfranchises Georgia Dems at the national level.

Anyway, that's this conservative's two cents if anyone cares.

liberalandproud said...

BTW ROP, that Phil from Tennesse is Bredesen, just in case these Dawg fans were snickering about Coach Fulmer. I want to nip that sort of thing in the bud. I campaigned for Bredesen back when I lived in TN, but I think he might not be charismatic enough for a national campaign.
I like that you seem to find Dean infinitely saner than Gore. Hmmm.

RightOnPeachtree said...

liberalandproud,

I only said that Howie had (what I thought was) one smart idea. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes. Of course, it's not exactly rocket science to surmise that a national party shouldn't ignore a third of the country. :o)

Ultimately, I think Howie is net negative for Dems as long as he is a spokesperson. He just can't help but stick his foot in his mouth. He's sort of like Rick Santorum (or even Dubya, I suppose) in that he provides lots of bulletin-board material for the other side.

Speaking of the charisma-challenged, I really think that the Republicans are facing a charisma-void in 2008. My ideological favorite (as of now), George Allen, is a bit of a human yawn. And while Rudy G has some charisma, he's such a RINO that he should be in a zoo. Pataki? Not a chance. McCain? Another RINO and so wrong on illegal immigration that it's painful. Newt? No way. He's the poster-child for what is scummy about politicians. Romney? Maybe, but I think the Mormon thing would be a hard sell.

Speaking of Fulmer, I was a student at UT when he was hired as head coach. Those fans up there are nuts.

Jmac said...

I still hold to the belief that Hillary ain't running. I know I'm probably way wrong on this, something in me just thinks she'll look at the whole picture and realize her candidacy wouldn't be the best for the party.

Warner's my guy so far, though you omitted Wesley Clark. He's back in it this time around, and, if nothing else, I think he winds up as VP.

patsbrother said...

Whenever one of you conservative-types liken Hillary Clinton to the spawn of Satan or something similarly irrational (or, hell, affimatively stating Sen. Clinton is the spawn of Satan), I am reminded of one thing: you're all eye-bleeding crazy.

As a means of fleshing out such statements, I have encountered exactly three explications: either "Trust me" (cause that makes sense); "Because she's been positioning herself for this" (cause Presidencies happen by accident), or "She may have done this intelligent/bipartisan/beneficial thing for America...but we know what she's *really* thinking!"

None of which explains squat. And waht is it that she's supposed to be thinking?

If she's done "just the right thing" all these years, what makes you think (a) she will cease to do so in the Office of the Presidency or (b) this is somehow bad for America?

I'd rather have a President with the rational thought and composure that goes into being a "calculating" politician shooting for the middle over a partisan-appeasing "wingnut" any day.

petallic said...

What I want isn't on the menu: Gore with a side of Clinton.

Equally delightful would be Clinton in charge, though I don't think we are yet civilized enough for that.

RightOnPeachtree said...

patsbrother:

you're all eye-bleeding crazy

Yeah, OK. And??? :o)

I have encountered exactly three explications: either "Trust me" (cause that makes sense); "Because she's been positioning herself for this" (cause Presidencies happen by accident), or "She may have done this intelligent/bipartisan/beneficial thing for America...but we know what she's *really* thinking!"


???What??? I just said she was the spawn of Satan. I don't see the connection from what I said to your response. If you don't get help at Charter, get help somewhere.

If she's done "just the right thing" all these years, what makes you think (a) she will cease to do so in the Office of the Presidency or (b) this is somehow bad for America?

Again, what? What "right thing" has she done? She's a poser, plain and simple.

I'd rather have a President with the rational thought and composure that goes into being a "calculating" politician shooting for the middle over a partisan-appeasing "wingnut" any day.

Finally. This is makes enough sense to respond to. Hillary Clinton is desperately trying to shoot for the middle (is this what your rant was about?). Hey, it worked for Bill. That's not who she is, though. She's the mean-spirited, bra-burning, women's-libbing senator of NY. I would rather vote for what someone really is rather than what they are pretending to be. And I REALLY don't like partisan-appeasing wingnuts, either, if his/her positions are only for pandering or political purposes.

Genuineness should be a requisite trait for all politicians -- regardless of ideology (a tall order, I know). And everyone knows Hillary is being a phony by running to the middle. A leopardess can't change her stripes.

But hey, I'm just an irrational, eye-bleeding conservative. What do I know?

S.A.W.B. said...

If the '04 crowd you guys ran to the primary pole was the '62 Mets of primaries, then this bunch is the '63 Mets.

I would like to take a moment now to congratulate the Dems for running off the only sane candidate in your party, Mr. Joe Lieberman!

As far as the Republican candidates go, my tea leaves are telling me that Guiliani will be a big name, but he's got the sense to back down. Romney might get the nod, but my dark horse is Newt Gingrich, especially if Hillary Clinton looks like she's getting the Democratic nod. I mean, who better to run against her than Newt? It'd be like beating up Superman with a kryptonite ugly-bat.

Oh, and, PB, I do wait with baited breath for the she-devil to seek and accept the Democratic nomination for President. Trust me. Because she's been positioning herself since about 1980 for her own run. And lemme know when you dig up any meaningful legislation she's sponsored, much less anything intelligent/bipartisan/or beneficial to the country that she hasn't flip-flopped on given half a second (i.e. the war).

patsbrother said...

ROP: you say Hillary Clinton is a poseur. Well, if she is, she has to at least attempt to do "just the right thing", or else she cannot attempt to pose. And SAWB implies she's been doing well at this since 1980. Because if she is a crazy nut, she would have to have successfully posed at something over the past 26 years to have fooled half the people half the time.

Also, the paragraph about explications was in regard to WHY you think she is spawn of Satan. Assume you are a man like Bush, and you like to "look a man (or woman) in the eye" to know their character, and you've looked Mrs. Clinton in the eye and seen all the firey wrath of hell tormenting the flesh-sered bones of sinners. That might be an explanation why you affirmatively state she is the spawn of Satan. But considering your answer, I will assume you merely fit into the "Trust me" category.

I agree on prizing genuineness. However, it is an office whose occupants for several decades have worn make-up, had handlers, and employed people to instruct them on their body language. At this late stage I opt more for effectiveness than for a cult of personality or someone who is going to "keep it real".

And SAWB: the Democratic party has not run Lieberman off. He has unequivocally stated he is not leaving the Democratic party nor will he leave. Incumbants face challengers. That's democracy. Live with it or move to China.

RightOnPeachtree said...

patsbro:

You don't have to trust me. Read 'em and weep:

http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc

Hillary has a 79.8% liberal rating. That's means she was more liberal than 79.8% percent of her Senate colleagues on key votes during 2005. Her attempt to run to the middle (50%) makes her a poseur. Heck, she's not even at the middle of the liberal pack ratings.

Yeesh, looking at the RINO's on that list just made me throw up in my mouth a little bit.