Not too early is it? 2008 Presidential fun

[scaeagles]

A lot of announcements have come out already on the Dem side, but I'm starting a thread to dicuss all nominees.

Hillary - too polarizing, I think. If the dems want to be sure of a huge republican turnout, then they should nominate her. I think she has problems with the far left as well.

Obama - Don't know much about him, except that he was educated in a Madras for four years. Will America vote for someone who was? This will surely become an issue in the dem primaries.

Edwards - This man makes my stomach turn. He is so smarmy, so fake, I literally can't stand to hear one word from his mouth.

Richardson - Don't know too much about him, but he wasn't a bad governor of New Mexico.

Rudy - Not quite conservative enough for me, but he gets it (when I say gets it, I mean he and I agree on a lot of it) on foreign policy and terrorism.

McCain - Would be hard for me to vote for him, but if he were the nominee, he would definitely be the lesser of two evils. Like Rudy, I think he gets it.

Most important issues to me are tax policy, border policy, and how they will handle the war on terror.

Your thoughts?

[LSPoorEeyorick]

If you want to learn more about Obama, you should listen to his speech from the last Dem convention. I'm not sure if it's his time yet, but I want him to be president someday.

[tracilicious]

Originally Posted by LSPoorEeyorick

If you want to learn more about Obama, you should listen to his speech from the last Dem convention. I'm not sure if it's his time yet, but I want him to be president someday.

I agree. I quite like him. It may not be time for him to be pres yet. He may have to cook for four more years.

Honestly, I don't know much about the others. I'd like Hillary to be president solely because it would make me happy to have a woman president. I don't care too much who gets elected. I'm pretty sure none of these people will be half as bad as the current guy.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Obama - Don't know much about him, except that he was educated in a Madras for four years. Will America vote for someone who was? This will surely become an issue in the dem primaries.

I don't think it will, and anybody who tries to make a big deal out of it will come off looking like a dickhead. He also spent 7 years at one of the top schools in the country (Punohou, meaning he has lost the vote of the Kamehameha High block; but could provide the country with a connection for really good malasadas).

I am very intrigued by Obama. I need to know more about him on various positions, but it would be nice to have a serious candidate that both isn't a retard and inspires people (Dean, in my opinion, failed on one of those counts).

So far, of the accounced and likely candidates he is the only one I have much interest in.

[Snowflake]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

A lot of announcements have come out already on the Dem side, but I'm starting a thread to dicuss all nominees.

Your thoughts?

I agree, Hillary is way too polarizing. While I think there is much to admire about her and I fell she does have some chops, the thougt of all the mudslinging to come is already making my stomach turn. A woman president, yes, it's about time, will it be Hillary, I can't honestly say.

Obama has such charisma and is clearly can be a polarizing force, someone to rally behind. But I personally think he needs another term to get his feet wet.

Edwards, I don't know about him. He was the more appealing of the two on the Kerry ticket, but is this a reason for him to run now? I still don't know what his record is, frankly it's more because I've just not paid attention.

Richardson, not a clue about him.

Giuliani, McCain? Not for me, although I think McCain would be preferable.

I'm generalizing here and probably showing more about my ignorance than anything else, but I think whoever gets the White House in the next election is screwed before they even take the oath. There is so much mess to clean up, so much to try and fix, it's a no-win situation and whoever it is will be a single term election and get nothing but **** for whatever they do manage to accomplish.

Okay enough politics for me, time to consider the Oscar nominees

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Snowflake

but I think whoever gets the White House in the next election is screwed before they even take the oath. There is so much mess to clean up, so much to try and fix, it's a no-win situation and whoever it is will be a single term election and get nothing but **** for whatever they do manage to accomplish.

I actually see it the other way around. If whoever next gets the job is somewhat adroit at handling the Iraq/Afghanistan/Al Qaeda issue then they are in for an easy landing, particularly if they are a Democrat.

Domestically, things are actually pretty good and don't show any signs of looking horrible. National coverage of the economy tends to lag reality by a few years so by then everybody will be buying into the current good news. Yes, there are bad spots and troubled industries, but there are always bad spots and troubled industries.

The so-called "culture war" will rage, but I think that is, for most people a battle between the fringes.

The thing to keep in mind is that a president who sees 10% economic growth (that would have been 20% but for his interference) will be viewed as a genius while a president who sees 10% economic decline (that would have been 20% but for his interference) will be viewed as a failure.

When it is no longer necessary for the press to filter all economic news through its worst filter, suddenly things will seem rosy again and people will credit (wrongly, 95% of the time) whoever is in office.

[Scrooge McSam]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Obama - Don't know much about him, except that he was educated in a Madras for four years. Will America vote for someone who was? This will surely become an issue in the dem primaries.

I think you mean "madrassa".

If you do, that rumor, started by Insight Magazine, an organ of the same crazy bunch that runs the Washington Times, was debunked. That will not stop the republicans from trying to make it an issue in the dem primaries, so you are at least partially right.

If you're talking about the fabric, carry on.

[Nephythys]

Originally Posted by Scrooge McSam

I think you mean "madrassa".

If you do, that rumor, started by Insight Magazine, an organ of the same crazy bunch that runs the Washington Times, was debunked. That will not stop the republicans from trying to make it an issue in the dem primaries, so you are at least partially right.

If you're talking about the fabric, carry on.

According to Insight it was the Clinton campaign who dug up the info- so WHO is making an issue of it?

Yeah- not the republicans.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by Nephythys

According to Insight it was the Clinton campaign who dug up the info- so WHO is making an issue of it?

Yeah- not the republicans.

Even if that were true, and I highly doubt it is, why did Insight not do any fact checking before running with this false story? Is that the type of journalistic integrity we should always expect from them?

Then again, we are talking about a publication in which the owner considers himself to be the messiah.

Oh, and yes the republicans are making an issue of it. The right wing Fox News and their pundits ran with the story without doing any fact checking of their own. Wasn't this the same complaint that the right had with the CBS story about Bush's military service? Is it only wrong if CBS does it?

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

Is it only wrong if CBS does it?

If CBS does it....

Only wrong....no.

Probably wrong....yes