BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

U S Presidential Elections '08

  
 
Spyder Todd 2008
02:33 / 27.01.07
Well, since everyone else is doing it, I have decided I’ll weigh in on the ’08 crowd. Apparently, even though it's only January 2007, and elections aren't until November 2008, everyone is so fucking sick of Bush's bullshit that they want to ignore him and focus on the future. So I’ve put together my run down of the choices so far:

Senator Barack Obama, Democrat, Illinois-
Okay, I know I'm biased because he's from my state of origin, but I like Obama. I really like him. I'd buy the man ice cream without him asking. I've liked him since I first heard about him when he was running for Senator of Illinois. He says all the right things, pisses off all the right people, and looks damn good doing it. He's one of, if not the best speaker on the list of democrat nominees, and there's a sense of opportunity and optimism to his campaign that hasn't been seen in a president since Kennedy. The downside? He hasn't finished his first Senate term yet. He's young, inexperienced, and he's opposed to just about everything that the average Republican is for. Now that's good for me, but it's bad for him in red states. And he's going to have to deal with the more experienced contenders with their loyal guards of successful fundraisers if he's going to win the Democrat bid.

Senator John Edwards, Democrat, North Carolina-
I'm the first to admit that the Democrat candidates didn't overly thrill me initially for President and VP in 2004. But by about September, after they'd kicked their campaign up a notch and were starting to hit at Bush and Co real hard, they started to really gain my support, rather then simply being the lesser of two evils. I could see Edwards as President. I think he'd do a good job. Mind you, I'm still all gung-ho about Edwards from his debate with Cheney in 2004. Edwards is (so far) keeping out of the Obama/Clinton spectacle, which is probably the smartest thing for him to do right now.

Senator Hillary Clinton, Democrat, New York-
I know she's the number one choice on everyone else's list, but I'd really much rather have Obama or Edwards on the ticket than her. Do we really need a return to the Clinton White House? I know political dynasties are hard to avoid, but for 20 years of politics to be divided into the Bush family on the right and the Clintons on the left, it just seems kind of outlandish. And while Hillary has all the connections and is deeply rooted in the party, frankly she comes off as much more harsh and cold than either of the other two top three. I know she can do the job, I just would prefer someone else.

Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican, Nebraska-
Oh, if a Republican must become President in '08, let it be Chuck Hagel. Hagel has been against the Iraq war for a quite a long time. He's considering running as an Independent. He's getting lots of press because he is A.) a Republican and B.) opposed to the war. He doesn't stand a chance, of course, but there you have it.

Senator John McCain, Republican, Arizona-
In 2004 if you had asked me would I support a John McCain presidency over a Democrat who I consider weak or unqualified, the answer would have quickly been yes. McCain was a moderate, he was pro-prisoner rights, vehemently opposed to Guantanamo Bay, and he wasn't afraid to piss off the Christian Right. He was a good moderate, and by all accounts one of the few voices of reason that the GOP had left during the heyday of Bush's first term. Oh, how the world has changed. First off, I think the odds of the Democrats putting forth a candidate I consider "weak" next year are pretty much slim to none. Second of all, the John McCain of 2007 is not the John McCain of 2004. In his efforts to woo the public's support, McCain has gone from being a vocal critic of the Bush administration to being one of its biggest supporters in Iraq. By becoming more conservative, McCain is hoping to take back the voters he lost to Bush in 2000. He's also lost some of respect, I'm afraid.

Ex-Mayor Rudy Giuliani
Ex-Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Republican, New York City-
There are things about Rudy Giuliani that I like, and things I really don't like. But the really important question for him, I think, is just how qualified is he? I realize that New York is the biggest city in the country, but it's still just a city. He has virtually no experience in Washington, or even as a governor. I personally think he needs to pursue one of those two choices before he tries to bite off more than he can chew.

Senator Sam Brownback, Republican, Kansas-
I don't care for Brownback, and never have. I find his views on things like "family values" and reproductive rights to be positively medieval. And he's very loud about what he thinks. But he's setting himself in opposition to McCain on Iraq, and just as McCain has tried to get closer to Christian Conservatives, Brownback is trying to come off as more moderate. The thing is, I don't fall for it for a second. Brownback’s official Presidential Entry speech brought up his belief that America needed to become more religious and less secular, and I know all about Brownback's breed of religion.

There are a whole bunch of other candidates, on both sides, but I honestly don't know enough about most of them to comment yet. Of the Democrats I haven't mentioned, Joe Biden (Delaware Senator) probably is the name most frequently heard, with Christopher Dodd (Connecticut Senator) and Tom Vilsack (ex-Governor of Iowa) after that. On the Republican side, Mitt Romney (ex-Massachusetts Governor) is getting some press, but I haven't looked into him at all yet. With any luck, Newt Gingrich (ex-House Speaker and World Class Jerkwad) will just keep his mouth shot. If there's one person I disdain more than Dick Cheney and George Bush…

So, what do other Barbeliods (US-based or otherwise) think about the choices? Does anyone know much about the candidates I don’t?
 
 
Jared Louderback
03:58 / 29.01.07
My money is on Edwards for the democrats. He was the one good thing about the Kerry/Edwards campaign, at least in my opinion. And he did very well in the vp debates with Cheney, definatly a whole lot better than Kerry did in the Presidential debates. I actually remeber talking in one of my classes with espcially bright teacher about how he was probably going to use the failed kerry/edwards run as a launching pad for him on the ticket in '08.

I know almost nothing about the Rebulican side of things, although a friend of mine holds that they will try to run Jeb Bush (HAH). Hagel would be interesting. I believe it was him I saw the other day basically calling all the the other republicans spinless toad swine. It's refreshing to see that there is at least one person in the senate who is not completely swayed by partisan bullshit.
 
 
diz
05:18 / 29.01.07
I realize that New York is the biggest city in the country, but it's still just a city.

Please bear in mind that if New York City were a state, it would be the 12th biggest state in the US by population, just below North Carolina and just above Viriginia. That's just the city proper, not the extended metro area. The extended metro area would be third biggest after California and Texas. If the New York metro area were a separate country, it would have the 10th largest economy in the world, after Spain and ahead of Brazil. It is the home of the UN, and diplomats from every country on Earth live there, and the mayor's office has to deal with that to no small extent. It's also crucially tied up with the government of the state of NY, the SEC, the Federal Reserve, the NASD, the NYSE, and a host of other major regulatory agencies, important financial institutions, etc. Very few governors or senators have anywhere near the breadth and magnitude of responsibilities that the mayor of NYC has.

That said, Giuliani has no chance in hell of securing the Republican nomination. He's divorced, and the reason he's divorced was because he was nailing his assistant. When his wife kicked him out, he moved in with a couple he was close friends with... a gay couple. He's got very good relations with the gay community in NYC in general, having championed domestic partner benefits for city employees back in the 90s and marching in the Pride parade every year he was mayor. To say that the evangelical Christian base of the party will rally to destroy his candidacy is the understatement of the year.

The big player you're missing in the Republican matchups is Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. He was consistently polling among the top contenders a few months ago, but he hit a few stumbling blocks when reports came out about some of his past positions, which were more liberal than he had been letting on as he jockeyed for the spot of the anti-McCain/Giuliani candidate by courting the religious right.

For a while, it looked like he was the man to beat, but then once questions about his record started coming up, background issues about his religious beliefs moved into the foreground. Specifically, Romney is a Mormon, and conservative evangelical Christians tend to regard Mormonism as an anti-Christian cult.
 
 
Blake Head
13:47 / 29.01.07
That was a very helpful summary Spyder.

I’m most interested in Senator Obama’s potential candidacy, and whether the momentum he’s gained recently as a fresh political face is going to be, firstly, enough of an advantage to overcome significant party competition and the strategic obstacles he will have in any national Presidential campaign, and secondly whether that momentum is representative of an authentically more innovative style of politics and an engaged candidate.

From a distant UK perspective, his early press has been highly positive, while I think Edwards would presently struggle for recognition amongst those not politically inclined. Whether it’s fair or not, Edwards seems to have done little to instantly identify himself as more than a strong, worthy, traditional Democratic politician. That all being said without the benefit of close observation during the last presidential campaign and the next one – yet. If I’m taking huge liberties with Edwards here please do correct my perspective on the matter.

But… speculatively, which I realise a lot of this is, I can’t see Edwards admitting something like Obama’s unashamed revelation that he’d previously used cocaine, if for no other reason that he would seem to follow the now-familiar style of politics of assessing the worth of each position or admission of personal information before releasing an opinion on it e.g. his views on same-sex marriage. Not that drug taking per se is necessarily a prerequisite for seeking office, but calculatedly or not, Obama’s admission offers at least the outline of a politics which has genuine candour without it seeming ludicrous or alienating.

Is there scope for the relatively untested Senator Obama being joined by an older, more experienced Democrat as nominee for the vice-presidency (last two seasons of West Wing anyone)? The Wikipedia article above suggests that he’s already put together a heavyweight Senate staff. I think the remaining question is whether or not by the time any campaign is in full swing he would have, or be perceived to have, enough content to back up the Kennedy-like optimism that surrounds his coverage.

I’m sure I’m not alone in being drawn to his positive, idealistic image and projecting an idea of who in global terms I’d want running the U.S. but without feeling that there’s enough readily assimilable information on record to accurately assess his views on all of the major issues. He so far doesn’t seem to have done anything to mar his image as a genuinely thoughtful, conscientious individual – can those closer to the action confirm that his policies and voting record match up with his image so far?

Can I ask what people think Obama’s second-best option is personally if he doesn’t gain the Democratic nomination? Presumably it’s too early to tell, depending on the negativity of the full campaign, whether he himself could join the ticket as VP. But would Edwards/Obama be the hypothetical dream-ticket? How well do the candidates play with others? Or would Obama be better placed to try and parlay his so-far positive media coverage this time around into a fresh 2012 attempt when he has more senatorial experience?
 
 
Tryphena Absent
22:27 / 29.01.07
Out of curiosity does anyone think that Obama can actually win the presidential bid? If he does do you think he stands a hope in hell of winning the presidency?

You have to understand that I would very much like him to leap over every hurdle as if there were mini trampolines attached to his feet (I would probably cry actually) but in a country that elected Bush twice (vote fixing or not) that seems as likely as a dragon snoring in the 7-11 on a Saturday night.
 
 
Lagrange's Nightmare
01:28 / 30.01.07
I don't know, I could definitely see him managing to win the presidential bid, but not sure if he could win the entire election, atleast from my relatively naive australian perspective of the american system.

It would be great if he could win, but i also think he would make a pretty ace VP. The question is who for edwards or clinton?
 
 
grant
02:02 / 30.01.07
Yes, Obama has a chance. I don't *think* it's a great chance, but it's a chance.

Item 1: He's already raised *Democratic* hackles by reaching out to religious communities and talking about faith.

Item 2: Thus far, the stabs at criticism/smearing that I've heard have revolved around the fact that his name sounds like "Osama" (therefore, he must be suspect) and, well, Limbaugh and others have started calling him "Halfrican." So, pretty weak stuff. Although the basis of the "Osama" thing could evolve into something more politically lethal, I suppose.
 
 
diz
06:29 / 30.01.07
Thus far, the stabs at criticism/smearing that I've heard have revolved around the fact that his name sounds like "Osama" (therefore, he must be suspect) and, well, Limbaugh and others have started calling him "Halfrican." So, pretty weak stuff. Although the basis of the "Osama" thing could evolve into something more politically lethal, I suppose.

There is a lot of noise on the right-wing blogs about his middle name being "Hussein," the fact that both his biological father and his stepfather are Muslims, and his early years in Indonesia. He spent a few of his formative years there as a child, where he was educated at a Muslim school, which, of course, is being referred to as a "Wahabbi madrassa" and which is allegedly tied to sinister Saudi donors. He also attended a Catholic school while he was there, and someone somewhere has the application form he filled out for that school, and apparently he or his parents checked the box marked "Muslim." Obama is a member of a Christian church in Chicago, but it has been noted that he attends services less frequently than some people think is appropriate, and so the argument is that this is a cover to hide his true loyalties.

It has been argued that he was then, and possibly may secretly still be, a Muslim, and on the more crackpot end of that it has been not-so-subtly implied, or even outright stated, that his loyalties are in question and that he may be a Muslim sleeper agent using his political career as a scheme by which to gain access to our society.

It has even been suggested that his confession that he has experimented with cocaine in the past was disinformation intended to set enterprising investigators off on the wrong trail so they wouldn't look too deeply into his religious convictions or his past.

I had some faith that he might have had a chance before this, but after seeing what was done to McCain in 2000, and Max Cleland and John Kerry in '04, if he gets too far I fully expect these allegations to pop up as a smear campaign later on, and I think they will sink him. Dirty fuckers.

Even outside of that, he's got a formidable fight with H. Clinton on his hands, and given her experience, financial backing, and network of loyalists in the party apparatus, I wouldn't rate his chances too highly. Clinton is playing her hand well, and momentum seems to be shifting back her way.

However, depending on what happens with any "He's a Muslim sleeper agent" smear campaign and the possibility of some huge public snafu between now and the middle of next year, I would think that he would have to be the person most likely to get the VP nod no matter who wins if it's not him.
 
 
Slim
09:24 / 30.01.07
Obama's situation reminds me of the one Colin Powell was in- most people seem to like him without actually knowing what his stances on the issues are.
 
 
*
14:35 / 30.01.07
He spent a few of his formative years there as a child, where he was educated at a Muslim school, which, of course, is being referred to as a "Wahabbi madrassa" and which is allegedly tied to sinister Saudi donors.

It was a secular public school, as all people who get their news from sources other than the Moonies ought to know by now, if mainstream news agencies were doing their job. If the only people carrying the story are anonymous reporters working from anonymous sources writing for a conservative online magazine owned by the Moonies who claim they can't afford to do research but that simply accepting the word of school officials that it was a secular public school doesn't meet their stringent standards for research (oh and Fox news, lookie that), it's probably not a true story.
 
 
Jake, Colossus of Clout
15:15 / 30.01.07
it's probably not a true story.

Well, no, but that doesn't really matter, does it? John McCain does not have illegitimate black children, and neither is his wife a junkie, but that didn't stop Karl Rove from encouraging both of those stories in 2000, and they sunk McCain's campaign. Same thing with Kerry and that Swift Boat garbage in 2004.

Whether it's a "true story" or not doesn't necessarily matter. However, Obama comes across as such a nice guy that those kinds of tactics might backfire. He doesn't engage in smear politics, and those trying to smear him might find themselves looking like a bunch of vindictive cocks in the public eye. It's a very well-thought-out campaign strategy, and I'm interested to see whether it will work out for him or not. He's so far pulled off the "breath of fresh air" image very well. Hell, I've come around to it. Come the primaries, I'll be voting for Obama.
 
 
*
05:18 / 31.01.07
Yeah, sorry, just frustration from seeing it again here, and repeated without disclaimer.

Any ideas about California's consideration of moving our primaries to February?
 
 
*
05:23 / 31.01.07
Edwards sinking in the public opinion poll of my braims.
 
 
Jake, Colossus of Clout
19:51 / 31.01.07
Well, that link was depressing.

I realize that any candidate who doesn't kiss Israel's ass is doomed (it's one of the things I hate the most about American politics), but did he have to play right into the Bush adminstration's hands? By basically validating their fake-ass Iran scare tactics?

What the fuck, Edwards?
 
 
diz
20:34 / 31.01.07
many ravishing idperfections:

Yeah, sorry, just frustration from seeing it again here, and repeated without disclaimer.

Sorry, I didn't put in the disclaimer because:

1) It's so obviously a crock of insane horseshit I didn't think it needed to be said, but...
2) ... as Jake noted, it doesn't matter if it's true or not.

Jake:

However, Obama comes across as such a nice guy that those kinds of tactics might backfire. He doesn't engage in smear politics, and those trying to smear him might find themselves looking like a bunch of vindictive cocks in the public eye. It's a very well-thought-out campaign strategy, and I'm interested to see whether it will work out for him or not. He's so far pulled off the "breath of fresh air" image very well.

I would like to believe that that's true. However, I worry that this might make it even worse.

Basically, Obama's a blank slate upon which people have been projecting their hopes and dreams for political renewal. However, I worry that that blank slate could function just as well for people who want to project their paranoid nightmares onto someone. The fact that he's charming, eloquent, seemingly perfect, and apparently appeared out of nowhere could be made to seem very sinister with the right spin.

I realize that any candidate who doesn't kiss Israel's ass is doomed (it's one of the things I hate the most about American politics), but did he have to play right into the Bush adminstration's hands? By basically validating their fake-ass Iran scare tactics?

What the fuck, Edwards?

This seems to be taken from the same playbook as the Dubai Ports World affair, namely the one marked How to Convince Middle America You're Tough on Security Issues Through the Magic of Paranoia and Race-Baiting!
 
 
Keith, like a scientist
21:14 / 31.01.07
I must have seen a different VP debate, but I thought Edwards did terrible against Cheney, who remained calm and collected as he ran over Edwards the entire time.

I could really get behind a Clinton/Obama ticket... Obama seems like a good VP, but not really Presidental material yet. If Bush has taught us one thing, experience counts. Clinton has that covered fairly well, if not spectacularly.

Joe Biden is a notably good Democrat, who has a extremely good reputation for truly being one of the good guys in Washington. I admire him a lot, but I tend to favor the 'experience' quotient in this coming election.
 
 
Hieronymus
21:59 / 31.01.07
The 'experience' argument against Obama is just a bit weak in my opinion, as it's the politically cogent doublespeak Democrats that I fundamentally have grown tired and exhausted by.

I like Obama precisely because he's a non-DLC Democrat. Witness his shutdown of access to FOX after they fellated that 'Obama went to a maddrassa' bullshit.

These are chilly days on Capitol Hill ... and on the campaign trail for Fox News journalists -- at least when they're anywhere near Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.)

Sources tell The Sleuth that the Obama camp has "frozen out" Fox News reporters and producers in the wake of the network's major screw-up in running with the erroneous Obama-the-jihadist story reported by Insight magazine.

He knows how to kneecap the peddlers of his political destruction and without hesitation. And his ability to toy with the media, like his Go Bears ad that played with the possibility of his candidacy announcement, is exactly the kind of media savvy that few Democrats have a grasp on.

Hillary has the best poll numbers over Obama but every time I see her I see the same hemming and hawing I have seen from old school, progressively-terrified Democrats for the past 20 some odd years. She looks like she'd rather talk about something else when asked about Iraq. That's not the Democrat I want to vote on. Edwards either for that matter. As they're both cut from the same politically-safe cloth.
 
 
Tsuga
10:44 / 01.02.07
It is so far out and so much can happen during a campaign, there's no way of knowing who can come out on top. But it is very interesting. I'm fond of Hilary, but even if she got the primary, I don't think she could ever win the whole shooting match, with too much baggage from her husband and too much antipathy among many non-democrats. Joe Biden is very smart but obviously shoots his mouth off inappropriately, and often comes off like a dick, really.
The argument against Obama's inexperience may be weak, but that doesn't mean it won't matter significantly in the race. He is the most likeable and polished without being at all teflon about it; and he always seems sincere, which I think is what resonates with people. He is very diplomatic, so he probably won't ever say anything so harsh against his opponents that they would never consider him for VP. They're all too afraid of him to say anything harsh yet, which I love.
John Edwards always seems a little too contrived in his delivery, but I think he's getting better about not feeling that it is so important to stay stiffly on message. His comments about Iraq are probably the same kind of calculated positioning that have made McCain seem so much less appealing lately, Edwards is trying to make himself palatable to the more right-leaning constituencies to broaden his base and show his toughness, and McCain is sucking up to the hard right base to try and get the nomination. I suppose it's pragmatic, but that kind of calculated bullshit is always disappointing. I doubt Giuliani would do that nearly as much, and that combined with his more moderate stances and personal past, will probably lose him any chance at the nomination, as has been mentioned. He's not defending the American Family enough. But enough of my razor-sharp insight. There is a long time to go, and alot can happen. All I know is that it's going to be a different president, and it would be hard to find anyone worse than our current prez.
 
 
diz
06:58 / 02.02.07
Joe Biden is a notably good Democrat, who has a extremely good reputation for truly being one of the good guys in Washington.

Aside from the whole racist thing.

I can't stand Biden. Posturing asshole with a tendency to say very revealingly condescending things about minorities.
 
 
Keith, like a scientist
15:16 / 02.02.07
Yeah, damn, for some reason, Biden's past racist tendencies completely escaped my attention until this most recent statement of his about Obama.

Well, he's out in my mind now...
 
 
calgodot
19:02 / 04.02.07
Joe Biden. Because he's not afraid of looking or sounding like an idiot.

Seriously: How sad is it that the top contenders for the Democratic nomination are inexperienced Senators?

Of course, one could argue that the longer a person remains in the Senate, the more likely s/he is corrupt, on the payroll or or beholden to some corporation, or little more than a puppet controlled by lobbyists. In that respect, one might loooooove Obama - until you find that he's heavily indebted to the coal industry, and is currently proposing we increase our dependency on said fuel, particularly by converting coal to gas, an expensive and inefficient process at best, but something sure to line the pockets of his coal industry cronies. (Not to pick on Obama: just examine any Senator closely enough and you'll find the dirty handprints of a corporate lobbyist.)

I have a rule: I don't vote for Senators. My favorite Presidential candidates are governors - people who have actually governed, as opposed to sitting/standing around a room making speeches. My favorite Presidents were previously governors.

As much as Giuliani makes me want to retch, I have to agree with the above assessments of his experience in governing NYC. His reign was controversial and memorable. Most New Yorkers I know credit him with "saving the city," "cleaning up the city," etc. He developed a high national profile post-9/11. It's true that his gay-friendly credentials won't help him with the Christian right, but they turned a blind eye to Bush's previous womanizing, coke-snorting, and shirking of military duty. Give them a fire-breathing God-fearing VP to dance with Rudy and the Christian Right will follow the lead. Plus, he's the anti-Hillary, and the Jesus freaks hate Hillary like nobody's business.

Besides, the influence of the religious right in the next election is likely to be less important than in the past. It's the war and the domestic economy that will occupy the minds of voters in the next election. With the way the war threatens to break the American economy into tiny little pieces (which will then be imported to China), most voters will have "social issues" on the down-low.

Giuliani has the benefit of his 9/11 aura to carry him through most dialog on the "war on terror," and he can safely criticize the Iraq War, as he clearly had nothing to do with it. His fiscal management of NYC can easily be spun to his credit. Having actually governed, Giuliani is in my view the best candidate for the Republican Party.

Would I vote for Rudy? Shit, no. The guy is batshit crazy, almost as much as McCain (who is what I call a "Dead Zone" candidate, the Everyman who if elected will push the button and cry, "Hallelujah, hallelujah, the missiles are flying"). Rudy is also conjoined with Corporate America, the mob and the national security apparatus, essentially making him our very own Putin. The only guy in politics scarier than Rudy Giuliani is Dick Cheney.

I wish Howard Dean was running for the Democratic nomination again. Man, do we need a hyper-intelligent nutcase running in the 2008 election, someone with that sense of nothing-to-lose, who'll speak certain truths and admit to not having all the answers. But alas, the US is doomed to its dark totalitarian proto-fascist phase, and so smart guys who ask us to think for ourselves are definitely not popular.

Due to a personal connection, Bill Richardson is my personal favorite among those said to be interested in the Democratic nomination. I lived in New Mexico for many years, and was more than a little politically active. During my time there I had several encounters with Richardson, all of them positive. A funny, intelligent, charming, curious man, with definite strong leadership qualities - I used to teasingly call him "New Mexico's Bill Clinton," because everybody seemed to love the guy, even when they disagreed with him vehemently. Not that Bill has a chance of winning the nomination (we'd spend 30% of our campaign time convincing people New Mexico is a state), but he would make a fine President.

If Al Gore chose to run again, he'd have my support. 100%. I told him so personally when I ran into him at the Farmer's Market Starbucks in LA a couple of years ago. But since he is a very smart guy, and dumbed-down America doesn't like eggheads, he hasn't a prayer - and knows as much, so won't step in.

I'm happy that Russ Feingold isn't going to run. That way he can stand on the sidelines and throw war-flavored dungbombs at the candidates, particularly the Senators, most of whom are actively engaged in avoiding any accountability or action w/r/t the vicious circle of the quagmiric Iraq war.

Mostly I think about 2008 and, remembering Florida in 2000, Ohio in 2004, fear what will happen.

All in all, this election, and the current socio-political climate of the US in general, has got me convinced that Philip K. Dick was right:

THE EMPIRE NEVER ENDED

...
 
 
Tsuga
19:56 / 04.02.07
Besides, the influence of the religious right in the next election is likely to be less important than in the past.
I don't know about that one. The religious right is a machine as much as a movement, don't discount their organization. Just hope that Howard Dean's plan to organize the Democrats in a similar manner works to counter it. There's no telling what, besides Iraq, will be motivating factors inspiring people on both sides to work hard for their candidates and against the opposition. The more-distant-from-center elements are especially important in the primaries, as we all know, so what becomes most important may be the topics that are most important to the candidates.
 
 
diz
20:27 / 04.02.07
It's true that his gay-friendly credentials won't help him with the Christian right, but they turned a blind eye to Bush's previous womanizing, coke-snorting, and shirking of military duty.

Only because all that was before he found Jesus. They take the whole idea of being born again very seriously. He is literally a different person to them now.

Give them a fire-breathing God-fearing VP to dance with Rudy and the Christian Right will follow the lead.

I don't think they will. After 8 years in the big chair, a VP is not going to satisfy them.

Besides, the influence of the religious right in the next election is likely to be less important than in the past. It's the war and the domestic economy that will occupy the minds of voters in the next election.

In the next general election, yes. In the primaries, they will continue to be as strong as ever, and if he doesn't make it through the primaries the priorities of the broader electorate are pretty irrelevant.

He'll do OK in Iowa, he'll do very well in New Hampshire and probably in Nevada too, but once primary season passes through the South, he's toast.
 
 
Hieronymus
14:53 / 07.02.07
One more reason I like Obama.
 
 
grant
13:06 / 16.02.07
We were saying about that name....

Alexandre Batlle thought he had an idea that would make his friends laugh and make him rich.

But a U.S. government attorney wasn't laughing when she rejected the Miami Beach resident's application for a trademark on the name ``Obama bin Laden.''

''The examining attorney refuses registration because the mark consists of or comprises matter which may falsely suggest a connection with the individuals Osama bin Laden and Barack Obama,'' U.S. Patent and Trademark Office lawyer Karen Bush wrote in a Feb. 6 response.

Bush also said Batlle needs permission from Obama, a 2008 presidential candidate, and bin Laden, the fugitive terrorist, before a trademark can be approved. The idea also was rejected because it contained ''immoral or scandalous matter,'' Bush wrote.

Discouraged but not defeated, Batlle is still using the phrase to try to turn a quick dollar.

On his website, obamabinladen.net, Batlle is selling coffee mugs, refrigerator magnets and other kitsch from $3 to $23.

The items have an image of the Democratic senator from Illinois dressed in a white robe and headcover and holding a machine gun.

Standing next to him is a cartoon image of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton wearing a black robe.

Sales have been slow, Batlle said.

''If Obama wins the presidency, I think there will be more of a market for this stuff,'' said Batlle, 28. ``Even if he doesn't win, he's still going to be a big-time political figure for the rest of my life.''

More at the link. You might have to register first, but it's free.
 
 
Eloi Tsabaoth
13:24 / 16.02.07
We can only hope the Republicans field a candidate named Stephen Hittler. Or, I don't know, Jim Starlin.
Hey!
 
 
Phex: Dorset Doom
20:31 / 18.02.07
Calgodot- Guilliani has mob connections? Are these like Obama's terrorist connections? As in a tiny-weeny-little bit of an ethnic sterotype?
 
 
bjacques
14:44 / 19.02.07
Giuliani is overrated. On September 10, Giuliani was remembered mostly for letting the NYPD abuse and/or gun down minorities. After 9/11, he didn't really do anything but pose as a leader. He paraded his mistress(es) in front of his wife and kids. The rightwingers who the GOP leadership have to appease hate Giuliani because he's "soft" on abortion. I think the mob stuff has more to do with his brother or something like that, but that's minor compared to the other things.

Mitt Romney is a Mormon. There's no way the evangelicals will put up with that. It's religious bigotry, but he's a right-winger, so I'm not too broken up over that.

John McCain is disgusting. He was torture in Vietnam, but eagerly went along with the Bush administration's campaign to make torture palatable to the American people.

Jeb Bush is unelectable after his brother turned the family name into a curse. The best Jeb can hope to do is hoep to put the Florida machine at the disposal of someone like Romney.

On the Democratic side...

Hillary Clinton is party-politicking like it's 1999. Non-stop calculation ("triangulation") that helped her husband win a second term pretty much wiped out the Democratic party. (Looks like Blair did the same thing, and I'm amazed Labour have hung on this long.) Hillary refuses to admit being wrong about Iraq. She also voted for the bankruptcy "reform" bill that made it harder for the little people to escape credit card debt, but allowed rich debtors to protect their assets. She is concerned about violence in video games. A big test will be (e.g.) whether she votes to give Bush authority to attack Iran. She has generous corporate campaign donors, but little voter enthusiasm.

John Edwards might be OK, if that little speech he gave in Israel, re Iran, about *all* options being on the table can be explained away as just ordinary pandering. He voted for the Iraq war but has since admitted he was wrong on that.

Barack Obama (B. Hussein Obama to the rightwingers) seems OK, but he'll have to be willing to take more risks. Obama was against the Iraq war, pretty much from the beginning, IIRC. That's a plus.

There's a bit of speculation on whether Al Gore will decide to run, although he's said he wouldn't.

Greens might pick up a few unimportant local races. Ralph Nader is a dead letter.

20-1/2 months to go.
 
 
diz
20:07 / 19.02.07
Giuliani is overrated. On September 10, Giuliani was remembered mostly for letting the NYPD abuse and/or gun down minorities.

That's not really accurate. Rightly or wrongly, he's generally credited with the revitalization of New York City in the wake of the crack epidemic. The transformation of Times Square from a seedy area of porno shops and prostitution into a glossy corporate playground is pretty much what Giuliani was best known for pre-9/11.

We could get into a whole debate about urban public space, demographic changes in New York City, police misconduct and blah blah blah, but that's the public perception. He's generally seen as the guy who transformed New York City in the 90s and then led it through its darkest hour on 9/11.
 
 
Baz Auckland
22:00 / 19.02.07
From what I've heard of Gulliani's term as mayor, I'm not a big fan, but he made his name convicting mob bosses in the years before, so it would seem odd if he had mob ties while mayor...
 
 
Phex: Dorset Doom
10:49 / 20.02.07
Again, without seeing hard evidence I'm willing to chalk it up to racial stereotyping.
 
  
Add Your Reply