2008 Presidential Election

[Ther]

Well guys, since this is being talked about constantly in the media, I figure I'd post something about it.

With the U.S. Presidential Election in 2008 less then 24 months away, do you have a favorite candidate that you hope wins their party's nomination and who you'd want to vote for in the general election? Also, do you have a prediction on who will win their party's nomination?

Here's a short list of the Democratic and Republican contenders (feel free to add to the list if you like, I'm just posting the top 4 of each party):

Democratic -

Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama
John Edwards
Tom Vilsack

Republican -

John McCain
Rudy Giuliani
Mitt Romney
Newt Gingrich

[Leon Adalbert]

Personally, I like this Obama guy. He's smart, he's charismatic, he doesn't seem to have any skeletons in his closet, and he's not Hillary Clinton. Hillary, in my opinion, doesn't stand a chance. It's not because she's a woman, either. It's because she is Hillary Clinton. Bill was a good president, no doubt to that, but he ruined her political aspiration of being president with his actions as far as the impeachment went. She also damaged herself badly, in my opinion, with the attacks on the videogame industry, distracting from a real issue (the war in Iraq) that could have earned her some votes.

Basically, as far as I'm concerned, Obama is in. Hillary is old news.

Even if Obama doesn't win, he still will have made a difference by running.

[Koran]

I think MaCain has a nice shot at presidency.

Clinton probably doesn't. Despite all the up brings of women in our nations government it still doesn't look like we're all that ready for a woman president. If MaCain wasn't running I'd probably vote for her, but unfortunately, he is, so, that's where my vote lies.

[Empyrean]

Despite all the up brings of women in our nations government it still doesn't look like we're all that ready for a woman president.


I think we're plenty ready for a woman president. I don't get the fuss everyone is making. What, suddenly the world as we know it would come to an end were the new leader of the U.S. to be wearing a skirt rather than a suit? However, I don't think we NEED a female president, nor should one be elected just so we'll have a female president. That's one of the things that bugs me about the Hilary fans - they're always moaning about how there should be a woman president purely so there will be a woman in the presidency.

That's a stupid reason, if you ask me. The president should be elected because he/she is an intelligent, good, capable leader with the welfare of the country and the world in mind. Not because that person will strike a blow for some organizational group, or so someone can prove a point and sneer in the opponent's face with a "HAH!"

Anyway, I hope to God it won't be Hilary. I'd like it to be John Edwards, whom I think has both a good shot and the capability to be the U.S. president. I haven't read much on Obama yet, so I'll have to do that before I can make an opinion on him.

[Max Dirks]

I'm pretty confident that we'll have a moderate Republican president in 2008. That means either McCain or Guiliani has a shot. I'm not sure that the south, which represents a large portion of the electorate, will vote for such liberal candidates (even those within the party), thus no Hillary or Obama. The United States is certainly ready for a minority president, but it most certainly will NOT be Hillary, and I think that Obama needs to get his feet wet with politics a bit more before he can stage a successful candidacy.

It will be Edwards/Vilsack vs. Guiliani/Unknown Candidate for President and Vice President respectively. The Guiliani camp will win.

[Bearded Gnome]

My choices would be

Democrat: Barack Obama

and

Republican: Rudy Giuliani

[Reiko]

I'm pretty sure that John Edwards will be the front runner for the democrats, mostly because he has the best chance to win. Hilary doesn't seem as bad as some people say, though I'm not really sure if the country should have another Clinton, we've had one too many Bushes as president. Obama seems to have a strong start though his presence is waning and there is some dirt on him already, which isn't good. I don't think any of the three would be a bad choice for president.

I do like the possible front runners for the republicans too. McCain really should have been the front runner instead of Bush. So there's no way it can get any worse. And Giuliani doesn't seem bad either. Of coarse after Bush II anything would be better.

[Nymph and Dragon]

I think Giuliani has the best chance, so far, given how popular he is and how little crap there is tied to his image. Edwards kinda got pwned during the last election campaign, and I think that running with Kerry did something to hurt his chances for next time. Association is subconscious and all.

Hillary? Not a chance. If she gets picked even by the Democrats I think I will personally put out my eyes with a mechanical pencil. Wouldn't want to risk having to see what would happen to the country if it was in her hands.

Go ahead, admire my wittiness.:D

[Max Dirks]

Nymph, can we date?

[Rajani Aishwara]

I think it's awsome that my Sociology course is doing wonders for me. Just by your language I can tell who's a Dem or Repub, and don't try to reverse it now! Here's what I would like to see although it's not likely.

President/Vice President

Republican - McCain/Giuliani

vs.

Democrat - Clinton/Obama

[Storm Veritas]

Clinton is way too much all over the map for me. She's a socialist, but an extreme conservative with the war effort. Her entire philosophy changes on a dime. No. Edwards is too vain and disconnected.

I love Obama, but the country is too racist to elect him. To make matters worse, the Republican propaganda machine has begun trying to falsely tie him to terrorism (see: Wolf Blitzer titling him "Osama"). The Republican party assassinates every opponent they face.

I would like to see either McCain or Guliani because of their moderate status (especially McCain because of his tremendous political balls), but I'd rather see a Democrat to discourage the cycle or obscene mudslinging that killed McCain in 2000.

[Sighter Tnailog]

It is absolutely implausible to suggest a Giuliani/Someone Else ticket. In order to do that, Giuliani would have to survive in South Carolina. When presented with a choice between McCain and Giuliani, voters in the south, South Carolina in particular, will go for a Western moderate Republican over a Yankee moderate Republican any day. Furthermore, McCain has all the money. Republican party politics works from money, which clusters around a frontrunner early and makes it exceedingly difficult to gain cash. McCain has all the backers right now, and for a Republican candidate to lose backers requires a major stumble, which McCain has not made. We're going to see a McCain/Someone ticket.

Also, to suggest that Giuliani would win is silly. People like to talk about the massive numbers of moderates in this country, but here's a news flash: they constitute only 20-40 percent of the population. The remaining 80-60 percent are about evenly split between the parties. Liberals won't vote for Giuliani because he's Giuliani. Conservatives will stay home because he's Giuliani. And moderates in the middle only swing his way if he's running against a candidate perceived as ideologically leftist, a brush you can't smear an Edwards/Vilsack campaign with.

For the record, the best possible Democratic ticket in the country is Warner/Richardson, meaning Mark Warner and Bill Richardson. But neither is running, so we won't see them for a while.

Obama or Edwards will only win the nomination if one of them drops out. Both of them capture folks in the third way camp, and the result will be a split vote with Hillary taking a lion's share of delegates. Even if she goes into the convention with only a plurality, time is on her side with Obama and Edwards running lower numbers. One would have to step down and deliver his delegates to the other in order for either to beat Hillary. Vilsack won't make a dent in the delegate total. He'll do better than Kucinich, but not enough to be a major player.

Also, on Giuliani. If you take even a cursory glance at Pre-9/11 New York, Giuliani was not well liked by large majorities of the citizenry. Even after 9/11, his approval ratings didn't skyrocket the way they should have within the city. Giuliani has a past about him that could be way too detrimental to the ticket, especially with the "Remember 9-11" canard fading in the public's consciousness. It's much more likely that we'll see a McCain/Graham ticket than a McCain/Giuliani ticket.

Also, here is my opinion on Mrs. Clinton: she is much more dangerous than you repos out there think. The "can you IMAGINE a world with HILLARY CLINTON" song-and-dance routine won't get you half as far as you think. The reason Republicans love to bash Hillary is that they are afraid she could be President, not because of what she'll do in office, but because they're actually afraid she could win. Don't count her out in the general. She's a tough campaigner, and she could clinch the thing.

A final note. Pay no attention to the media. Make up your own minds. The media, conservative, liberal, and moderate alike, is going to try to pretend like this thing is sewed up from the get-go, or that so-and-so won't win because they're too angry or too inexperienced or too flip-floppy. Well, get this: media only affects reality when you accept their judgment as reality. Don't let this thing get decided for you; decide for yourself.

EDIT: By the way, my course in reading is doing wonders for me. For instance, when you say "Anything is better than Bush," I can miraculously figure out what you think about George Bush! Man, that learning thing sure is interesting.

[Ithermoss]

I agree wholeheartedly with Madison's last statement. Pick someone you feel is best for the country, on your own terms.

In the end, I'm expecting McCain and Obama.

[Lou]

Very insightful post, Sighter.

I truly hope that Clinton does not get voted in; I'm afraid her interests are anything but those of the United States as a soveriegn and healthy country. It seems that it may come down to Clinton and McCain as the presidential candidates, though, and I don't know who is worse. I may just vote Republican in hopes of Clinton losing, though I am from Massachusetts, so I don't think it would make a difference whatsoever. First of all, I really, really dislike the idea of the executive branch being run solely by two families for over fifteen years, and to perpetuate that I think is unhealthy; secondly, if Bill was willing to pass NAFTA, what the hell will Hillary do? Trade indepedent US judicial authority for a regional North American Court?

[Ashiakin]

Giuliani is going to get eaten alive in the Republican nomination process. The party is controlled by conservative Southerners and Westerners who won't much care for his stances on gay rights and abortion, 9/11 or not. I think McCain will win the nomination, but not without a fight from Romney (who I can also see winning, but the fact that he's a Massachusetts Republican makes that much less likely.)

I'm much less sure about the Democrats. Of the people that stand a chance of winning, I like Obama and Edwards the best. I'd rather Clinton not get nominated. Honestly, I'm still sad that Feingold dropped out because I was planning on supporting him in the primaries. And as far as the general election goes, I'd place my money on a close election going to McCain/Graham.

[Sighter Tnailog]

...if Bill was willing to pass NAFTA, what the hell will Hillary do? Trade indepedent US judicial authority for a regional North American Court?

International economic, security, and judicial cooperation will be central to solving nearly every problem in this world, from the environment to poverty. If a regional North American court upholds the rule of law, and does so for Belize as well as the USA, then it is nothing but good. Hiding behind walls of protection and the claim of national sovereignty will do no good for anybody.

[Lou]

International economic, security, and judicial cooperation will be central to solving nearly every problem in this world, from the environment to poverty. If a regional North American court upholds the rule of law, and does so for Belize as well as the USA, then it is nothing but good. Hiding behind walls of protection and the claim of national sovereignty will do no good for anybody.

I agree that international cooperation is the only way of saving humanity and earth from a very ugly future; however, I'm not sure if "international cooperation" is best served by a centralization of power, such as we see developing in the EU, which began as an economic agreement somewhat like NAFTA. I don't mean to portray myself as nationalist or isolationist, I am just worried with the direction of the evolution of States. Perhaps 1984 is just scaring me a bit. :D

[LordLeopold]

McCain is the likely Republican nominee. He’s got the money, name recognition, and experience. Madison's right about South Carolina - McCain has been working nonstop for the past year to sew up the support of all the major fundraisers and GOP party hacks in SC. I think that South Carolina will be spun in the media and by the national GOP as the most important primary state for Republicans outside of New Hampshire and Iowa. In a way that makes sense; Democrats can win without the South, but Republicans can't. McCain's major weakness is that he stands for a troop increase in Iraq beyond what 75 percent of Americans will allow. If we're still in Iraq in a big way during the campaign, he'll have a harder time then the media suggests.

Clinton is also a safer bet than most people admit they believe. Her unexpected and record-breaking fundraising success in the New York senate race - 40 million against someone who didn't stand a chance - shows she has the ability to raise a lot of money, which is something she'll need to do if Guiliani's fundraising goals are any indication of how much this race will cost. She's done well in upstate New York, which is as close an analogy to the West or South as you'll find above Maryland. In fact, she increased her margin of victory there in her re-election fight. She has an ability to energize her base beyond belief, and if George Bush taught us anything, it's that an energized base is vital to win an election. She has a master campaigner as a husband, and James Carville will probably be her campaign manager. These are all ingredients for victory.

Having said that, I don't think Hillary is the best candidate for the Democrats, partly because of Iraq, and partly because of the minuses that are arrayed beside her plusses. She may be able to energize the Democratic base, but her presence in the race will energize the Republican base just as much. A lot of people have bought the GOP fiction that she's a socialist, based on her healthcare reform platform from Bill Clinton's first term. To this I say that her platform is no more extreme than any other Democratic candidate's, but that fact is less important than the myth that surrounds it, which will taint public perceptions of her from the start. Basically, Clinton will be unable to create a new public persona on the campaign trail without serious effort. Lacking that luxury hurts her vis-a-vis her opponents on both sides of the aisle.

Among the other Democrats: There's some sort of hideous skeleton in Mark Warner's closet, or else he wouldn't have withdrawn from the race; Barack Obama might be a good choice in 2012 or 2016, but he hasn't had enough experience in serious campaigns or the federal government to make him a truly unbeatable candidate. I again agree with Madison that Bill Richardson would be a good candidate, but at the top of the ticket, not the bottom. Personally I support John Edwards - he's a lot less unctuous on the stump now, is a strong fighter for social justice issues I think are important, and stresses his knowledge of foreign policy enough to convince most people he knows a lot about it. John Kerry's bolt has been shot, and of Dennis Kucinich one can say nothing.

As regards the Republicans, I probably agree with Rudy Guiliani on most issues, but unless he wins both Iowa and New Hampshire convincingly, raises all the money he's hoping to, and really cashes in on being mayor during 9/11, I doubt he'll win the primary. Generally speaking, McCain is good on most issues except Iraq, but I'm withholding final judgment until he takes a strong stand on Bush's Constitution-subverting programs. Mitt Romney's Mormonism, universal healthcare scheme in Massachusetts and his history of disparaging Reaganism will hurt him in the primary. As far as I'm concerned he's either too conservative or too duplicitous to be a good president. I don't like Newt Gingrich, flat out, although his ideas on fiscal responsibility at least bear repeating. Chuck Hagel would be a refreshing choice, but I doubt he'll make a serious run. Sam Brownback is worthless.

In the general, a McCain candidacy is vulnerable on the Iraq issue. I predict that if the US still has 50,000+ troops in Iraq in November 2008, if the violence there continues on its current trend through '07 and '08, and if McCain maintains his current position on troop levels, he will most likely lose. If we get out of Iraq, however, I think McCain is very hard to beat, barring a surge in popularity for the Democrats in Congress.

[Skie and Avery]

The thing about politics is that it's a breeding ground for liars. We could sit around in a big circle jerk and say who is going to do what for the country and who would be best, and at the end of the day, anyone could get in there and either work completely against what they said they were going to do or have every positive thing they try get beaten down in Congress. Who needs sheperds when the only thing they do is lead their lambs to slaughter?

[Djakara]

I think its only a breeding ground for liars because people want liars in this country. Who wants to hear that rebuilding Iraq will take multiple years, or that the government can not provide programs without the funds to do them? Apparently not enough Americans. As long as people do not educate themselves enough to know when politicians make pie in the sky promises, we're going to get liars. However, we'd be better off blaming ourselves than blaming the politicians. I know people like Puffy tell you "vote or die" but if it were up to me, I would start pitching the slogan "are you stupid? don't vote!"

Anyhow, I am a registered independent and therefore can not vote in primaries. Just as good, seeing as I don't really see any candidates I want to support. Pretty much all I care about is Iraq, for everything else, I vote for Congress. Most of the democrats running either are towing the Republican line on Iraq or otherwise making this convoluted argument about how only if we leave the Iraqi government can fend for itself. Conversely, while some Republicans like McCain are willing to stay in Iraq even if its unpopular, I'm skeptical if their approach is particularly effective. Rebuilding Iraq will not be successful unless its a true multilateral effort at this point, and I can't see a Republican president willing to sacrifice some autonomy in Iraq in order to gain the support of more countries.

I guess if I had to endorse someone who is possibly running for President, it would be Chuck Hagel. If I could pick anyone who's a politician, it would be Lincoln Chafee. If I could pick anyone in the world, it would be Amanda Logan.

Chances are none of them will be president.

[Skie and Avery]

Yes! Manda for Prez! *throws up the two fingers* I am not a crook!

Here are my presidential promises: All big trucks would have a speed limit of 75 mph on major highways, and the people responsible for 55mph truck limits in California, Ohio, Illinois and Michigan would be shafted over and over again with the mallet that sits on the desk in the Oval Office. If they're dead, they would be dug up for this.

Every other Thursday would be a national holiday where clothing was optional with no threat of arrest.

As for the Iraq situation, I would send my uncle Ferridan over there as an envoy. Who cares if he's Iranian? Everyone loves Uncle Ferret Face. He's adorable, and he'll feed everyone sugar free yogurt that I'm pretty sure is laden with LSD.

The Manda has spoken, and there will be peace in the valley. Logan for Prez in ...
2020! ((Darn that stupid law about having to be 35.))

[Sighter Tnailog]

Here's an update, for you folks who get your news via Althanas (you really should find a better source, we're worse than the Daily Show).

Obama has formed an exploratory committee, which is code for "I'm running without a doubt."

Also, some of you may not follow South Carolina politics closely, but McCain got the endorsement of the Republican Speaker of the House today. This is huge. Even more, he's taking a prominent role with McCain's SC campaign. Barring a Foley-esque scandal, McCain is a shoo-in for SC's Republican primary, which is code for the general primary. SC, as a solid red state, has a wide variety of the Republican "types," from pro-business libertarian to social conservative evangelical, and so it is roughly a mirror of the general party base throughout the country. SC is a great weathervane for Republican politics.