Sid asked a fair question:
So are you officially a Hillary fanboy? Haven’t kept up here for some time, but I believe you were of the “She can’t win, so why bother” persuasion when last we talked. I still don’t think she can win the general election; Obama, Edwards and Gore all have a shot. Hillary would do more to excite the GOP base than any of their own candidates.
I like all three Democratic candidates. (If there is a fourth, it’s Richardson, who is also good. Give up on Gore already. It’s not going to happen. It’s isn’t. Move on.) I think they’re all more or less in line with what I believe. I’d take any of them in a heartbeat. And they are all vastly superior to any of the pathetic Republican candidates. Obviously, I’m very anti-Bush, and all three of them are basically Bushies. McCain used to be a different breed, but that’s changed. Guliani is literally certifiable. Romney is an extremely polished liar.
So I’m not supporting any particular Democrat yet. Whoever wins the primary I will gladly support.
All that said, I’ve fallen in with John Edwards. I’m basically a progressive, and his policies are essentially progressive. Every time he announces a policy, it’s one I agree with. Every time there’s a difference between him and Obama or Hilary, I agree with him.
I used to drink the Rush and Sean coolaid back in the old days but no more. I realize that Hillary is not as liberal as most people think she is. I just don’t trust her at all. She is very smart, cunning, calculating… but seems void of any real convictions in her gut that I can believe anymore. Overall I believe she is a big government spender who looks to the government first to solve problems, not the people. Her answer to society’s problems is ‘It takes a village’. My answer is ‘It takes responcible parents to get off their ass, get a job, get involved in their kids school and stop watching Jerry Springer’. She also is pro-union and anti-business. She is weak on illegal immigration, wanting to give illegals the same gov’t benefits as US citizens get. The list goes on but I don’t have the time. Go ahead Aaron, nominate Hillary. Please!
Art: So what about Hillary’s policies don’t you like? I ask because I find that most voters don’t really know what her policies actually are, they are reacting to their image of her. An image, by the way, that has been shaped by the right wing radio you listen to for fifteen years now. You don’t really think you’re getting any kind of fair coverage from Rush and Sean do ya?
I know that I disagree with quite a few of her policies, but on balance she’s not too far off from my beliefs. Or most of America for that matter.
I think Rush and Sean would love to have Hillary win. They probably know that she would in fact be a better president than any of their guys, and they get so much raw meat for another 4 to 8 years. They had a rough time for a few years there, it’s hard to fill radio time complaining about the Dems when your team owns all the branches of government.
I like Aaron’s feistiness. It would be priceless to tune into Rush Limbaugh on the day after election day if President-elect Hillary was waiting in the wings.
But just listen to Art. I have heard gobs of people say exactly what he said. And hate is a pretty darn good motivator to vote. It’s gotta make one nervous, especially in this election that I really feel is just there for the taking for the Dems. I mean, we’ve got a prez with Nixon-like approval numbers — it soil ain’t gonna get much more fertile than that.
To be fair, the Republicans did just what Aaron suggested in 2000. They could have gone for a very electable McCain and won an electoral landslide. Instead, they shoved Bush down our throats, won by a hair, and then have rubbed it in our faces ever since.
If everyone who would vote for Hillary based on her politics and experience, but is afraid to vote for her because of that argument (that the right will unite against her and she will lose) would get over that fear and vote for her in the primary and general, she would win in a landslide. If you don’t, then we get stuck with a President who doesn;t know what they;re doing at the absolute worst time in history for that to happen. Instead of succumbing to the fear campaign that the right wing has been waging for decades against Hillary, Democrats should unite behind her and shove Hillary Clinton down their f*c*in’ throats next November.
Art shows exactly why Hillary can’t win the general election. Put up someone like Richardson, Gore, or even Obama, against say, Rudy or Frankenst … I mean, Romney, and a lot of the disgruntled Republicans stay home while the Dems coast to victory, along with gaining more seats in Congress. However, if Hillary wins the nomination, anyone who ever voted for Reagan, Dole, or either Bush will come out of the woodwork and cast an anti-Hillary vote, no matter who is on the ticket for the GOP. I think there are a ton of voters like Art.
Ever watch Hannity and Colmes on FNC? Hannity’s hard to take, but I watch sometimes on the treadmill at the gym. He’s running an anti-Hillary campaign already — everything he says, anyone he interviews, is anti-Hillary. This just shows the extent that the right will be motivated to defeat Hillary. It will be very unifying, particularly for a party that is splintered right now, as congressmen and senators throw Bush under the bus as they try to scramble for votes back in their home states. Just nominate someone other than Hillary, keep the right splintered, and waltz to victory (hopefully).
Hmm… Interesting question, but premature. I think much can (and will) happen between now and the primaries. Maybe to the point that some of our faves here will not even be in the running. Look at what’s happening to Obama in the polls lately. Look at McCain and the immigration bill. All Hillary or Rudy need is one uber-negative story to come out and they’re cooked. But because I had a rough week and I need a distraction, I’ll play along.
Right now, I don’t feel inclined to vote for any of these bastards. Certainly not Hillary or Obama. And none of the GOP contenders get me excited. The GOP party in general has gone way left in terms of uncontrolled spending and immigration, so I’m disgusted with most of the Washington establishment anyway. God! Am I becoming a libertarian?
Even with me being an ex-Bushie and disgruntled right-winger, I would turn out to vote for a GOP candidate if Hillary was the nominee on the left side. Her policies and personality are so polarizing that me and every other right-wing nut out there would be at the polls next year. No doubt about it. Of course, if her camp manages to register enough illegal migrant workers before the election, she has a good chance at winning. That’s at least a gain of 12 million votes. So I guess I’m giving up already… Hillary for president!
mghonch and I have had this discussion many times. Many, many, many times! We are in close to total agreement on the list of priorities, we just violently disagree on what candidates believe in those priorities.
For instance:
1. Al Gore proprosed the “lockbox” which would have gone a long way to addressing mghonch’s SS concerns. mghonch votes for Bush.
2. The Democrats are much more concerned with income equality than the GOP. mghonch votes for Bush.
3. Kerry had proposed a 50 cent gas tax as a senator.(The GOP raked him over the coals for it, and Kerry eventually dropped it on the election trail.) He’s also been at the forefront at trying to remove the SUV loopholes, and raise the MPG regulations. mghonch votes for Bush (holding his nose, but still doing it). (And Clinton’s BTU tax, which was a perfect market incentive solution, was shut down by the GOP in his first year in office.)
8. Edwards has proposed a health care system that I believe is a good one. (I have to depend on others for that opinion, I can’t follow all the arguments. I’ll take your expert word for it if you think it’s no good.) Clinton and Obama have also proposed serious improvements in health care. To the best of my knowledge, the Republicans spend so much time talking about how they will torture anyone who has heard of Islam that they don’t have any time for health care.
Also interestingly, Edwards has openly said that he would continue to run a deficit at about 2% of GDP to pay for the various programs he’s proposing. Agree or disagree, you have to give him credit for openly saying it, instead of pretending that you can balance the budget, cut taxes, fight wars and increase social spending simultaneoulsy.
I’ll be generous and say that reasonable people can disagree about what candidate or party would best address points 4-7. And that Mghonch has since repudiated his vote for Bush, at least in 2004.
So who are you planning to vote for?
Dukakis was definitely not a clown at the time. But I can never think about him without telling this story.
Mrs. Muttrox’s thesis advisor was in America for his first election. He had survived the Cultural Revolution in China, beat out millions of his countrymen to get a higher education instead of more labor in the rice paddies, and eventually came to America. He said to Mrs. Muttrox, “I read all the things this Mr. Bush and Mr. Dukakis said. And I watched the debates, and I said ‘This Mr. Dukakis is much smarter, surely he will win easily!’ He did not though, and I do not understand why.” Welcome to America.
Gore bet: You’re on, details to be worked out. Although, no matter how much they stink, Raiders paraphanelia is always cool.
I think it is important to outline the issues that willl consume the country in the next few years , assess how each candidate would address them and then go from there. So here goes
1 generational issues
Medicare-how control the costs and will rationing and/or means testing be required
Social security-someone needs to have the balls to increase the age of entitlement and to increase the base income which is taxed for SS
2Income inequality . While a simplistic solution is the tax code,we need more amd better education in this country. I refer to Robert Reich’s book whose name escapes me in which he basically predicted the commodization of much of the work done aby those at the lower incomes and talked about education as a way of avoiding this problem. Certainly I hope that protectionism of any sort is not the answer
3 Energy Who has the balls to increase the gas tax. He or she has my vote hands down. Rather than playing around with the multiple solutions now being banted around increase taxes and let the market then solve the problem. And guarantee a certain price of oil for tax or subsidy purposes for a number of years so that entrepreneurs can rationally plan energy saving devices and substitutes
Who has the balls to stare down the farm states in this crazyness with ethanol. I want to be sure that I will have enough food to eat and that the rest of the world has food at a reasonable price. Stop the tariff on ethanol and the subsidy on it.
4 Cooperation with the rest of the international community
5 Islam- or to be politically correct militant Islam
6 Terrorism what does each candidate suggest to protect me
7 How do we retain the dynamism in our economy. I fear that if the unions gain power we are in for trouble ( although that jerk Bush put a tariff on steel, remember)
8 Health care Who has the ovaries or balls to start looking at the demand side of the equation rather than looking at the supply side. We need a consensus on what we will pay for and under what conditions. We need to instill indivdual responsibility for yor own health. Should sociaty be responsible for paying for viagra and placing in the public water system?
To those whoe espouse the candidacy of the fair senator fron NY whose intelligence and appearance I admire how will she answer these problems. I fear too far a swing to the left when and if the Congress becomes more democratic and I ask doea that bother any of thereaders of this site that we might have a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress?
Re Romney- is he in thrall to the Mormon elders? Some Mormons I know think thtat he is and fear for him becoming President. Personally he is too wishy/washy for me
I will write more coherently at a later date- but how does the Blog reader react to the above mentioned issues.
I think that the average age of the readers of the Board is relatively young. Generational issues inter alia should be of major concern to you but are easy to push iout of sight. Unite against the greedy elderly and the AAPCC
Sidney slamming the pre-MTV generation. Ouch, that hurt. Halp, I’m getting old! At least I’m too young to remember Nixon!
Muttrox: On Hillary, I don’t hate her, and my opinion is not due to bad press. I said I’d vote for her over any Republican in the field. I just said that a) I prefer several other Dems over her, b) I said that I can’t listen to her in a debate because of her squawking speaking style, and c) I don’t think she will win a general election.
On Dukakis: I agree with Muttrox — he didn’t seem like a clown at the time. I remember well being in an albeit very left-biased university crowd cheering every line he said in a debate with Bush I, thinking this guy was mopping the floor with Georgie. Then I recall going back to see a friend of mine who had watched the debate by herself in her room, and her basically covering her face in her hands and telling me how the pundits said that Bush slaughtered Dukakis. I couldn’t believe we had watched the same debate! But, alas, the people voted, and Duke goes down in history as a clown. At least he won more states than Mondale.
On a Gore bet: yes to a bet, but no to high stakes. And keep them odds coming! Or, a simple Patriots shirt vs. Mets shirt bet would do (notice I didn’t say Raiders — even I wouldn’t subject you to that humiliation!).
Muttrox, you’ve definitely tapped into a good subject here. I like that the Democratic Muttroxia readership is in-tune politically and chomping at the bit to vote in 2008 — perhaps a good sign of things to come?
I didn’t put 1984 in there for precisely the reason you point out. It was experience -vs- experience and was therefore uninformative to the experience -vs- inexperience comparison.
With regard to 1988, only old men clearly remember that election. Since I was 11, I have to rely more on how history has portrayed him. For the most part, history has portrayed him like this.
Unfair? Perhaps.
Juan: One of the reasons I post media criticism about Hilary is that the negatives on her are mostly manufactured. She’s been the target of an unrelenting campaign against her since 1992. Yes, the vast right wing conspiracy does exist. It’s easy to see her as a manipulative bitch shrew opportunist when you’ve been exposed to 15 years or media telling you that’s what she is. It’s one thing if you hate her policies, but to just say you hate her viscerally is unfair.
Juan: I’d forgotten when we saw Jesse Jackson speak. He really was something. I have an inherent distrust of charismatic candidates. Maybe it’s because I’m an unfeeling robot of a voter, but somehow I feel like voting based on charisma is a lot of what got us Chimpy McBush pissing all over the planet for eight years. I agree with Aaron’s take on him, running a great rally ain’t enough. To me, it’s a sad commentary on the state of politics that merely being a fairly honest great speaker is enough to make a serious bid for the presidency.
Aaron: “McCain…opposed everything-Bush when Bush’s approval ratings were in the 70’s, and stands with him now that they’re in the 30’s.” Great line, and very true!
Gore commentary: So you think he might run? Let’s make this interesting. I will lay dollars down, with odds (2:1? 3:1?), that he does not. Put up or shut up.
I do have a couple Republican readers, I’ll goose them this way.
Sid:
1988: Dukakis may seem like a clown now, but he was now considered a clown at the time. Experienced Bush won that round handidly.
1984: Reagan beats Mondale, who had a lot of federal experience.
Not true. This one’s going great, but if you look over the history of this blog, many of my favorite posts on politics never got one comment. The reality is that dumb stories with me ranting about idiotic minutae is what the fans want. This hyar’s the perfect storm.
I think I agree that Hillary wins New York; I doubt her ability to win the country.
On experience: recent history shows it is over-rated and provides an assailable record come election time. Of the races over the last 30 years pitting Federal experience -vs- no Federal experience:
2000: Bush II wins w/no Federal experience against an experienced Gore
1992: Clinton wins w/no Federal experience against an incumbent
1988: Bush I beats a clown. Uninformative.
1980: Regan (no Federal experience) beats an incumbent
1976: Carter (no Federal experience) beats an incumbent
I like this surprisingly insightful quote from Newt Gingrich (a brilliant man, despite being a jerk) who, when asked on MTP about Barack Obama’s offered the following:
Touche!
BTW, Muttrox, observe….politics gets comments 🙂
This is awesome — presidential politics has made for some good feedback from the readers.
On Gore — I still say Gore is in play for ’08. I just think a) it’s obviously something he wants — he’s tried twice already to grab it, and b) it’s hard to come up with a reason why he won’t run. Sure, maybe he just selflessly wants to promote his very worthy cause, and that’s good enough for him. Or, more likely, he feels like he already won the presidency once and got it stolen away, he’s more popular than he’s ever been, and he what better way to work on environmental issues than being able to steer policy from the White House.
On Hillary vs. Rudy — I also say that Hillary wins NY. I think there is a lot of anti-Rudy sentiment in NY that will rear its ugly head if he wins the nomination. NY loves Hillary, loves Bill even more, and just elected an entire Democratic establishment, from governor on down, in the last election.
On Hillary — I still don’t like her, I’d rather have Obama, Edwards, Richardson, or Gore. But Aaron brings up a good point — she’s got more experience than the other Dem frontrunners, and she’s pretty damn tough. Plus, she’s going to get a lot of votes from women, who typically outnumber men at the polls.
On Muttrox’s readership — aren’t there any Republicans out there? C’mon, let’s have someone argue the case for Romney, just so we can hurl tomatoes at him!
Sidney: In a Hillary v. Giuliani race, I think Hillary wins New York. She’s been attentive to her constituents for the last 7 years, and he hasn’t had any constituents for over 5. Also, with the tide turning toward a democrat because of lingering anti-Bush sentiment, I can’t imagine New York going Republican, though he would come closer than any Republican has in a long time to winning NY. I think she could win the country as well. Last time it was a very conservative base of people who need motivation to vote who tipped the scales for Bush, and they won’t come out in nearly the same numbers for a pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control former Mayor from Brooklyn who has been married three times, once to his cousin, and dresses up in drag at fundraisers.
McCain’s timing is terrible: he opposed everything-Bush when Bush’s approval ratings were in the 70’s, and stands with him now that they’re in the 30’s.
Interesting that Gore has not unequivocally said that he is not running. My guess is that it’s because he draws more attention to himself, and thus to global warming by leaving the door open to a run.
I also think that Gore won’t run because now he can say and do the things he needs to. The same with Clinton ver 1.0.
here:
http://geektivist.blogspot.com/2007/06/al-gore-doesnt-take-lip-from-media.html
Personally, I’ll support any democrat who actually appaers to be interested in change, and not just trying to not offend anyone.
I want them to stand up like they brought a gun to a knife-fight.
If your opponant is lying, say so.
If your opponant is just plain old wrong, say so.
Skip the sugar.
Aaron, if I had my druthers, John Edwards would be prez. But I will take any Democrat over any Republican. I won’t say anything overly negative about any other Democrat besides Edwards. I won’t be unhappy at all if Edwards loses the primary, as long as the Democrats win the general election.
I’ll post more later, but a couple quick thoughts:
Romney – I had left the state before his time, so I don’t have first hand knowledge. Aaron pretty much summed it up.
Gore – I don’t think he’s running because (1) He has consistently said he’s not for a couple years now, (2) he hasn’t lost weight, that’s a prerequisite, (3) he has more influence right now than he’s had in a long time, but mostly (4) he hasn’t built a team of people or done any fundraising — all the money and workers and infrastructure needed to make it happen have committed to other candidates. It sounds nice to imagine that he doesn’t need that, that the popular will is enough, but it ain’t. He let the window slip by, so that’s it to me.
McCain. He sold his soul to Bush. See my previous post. And another one.
A few thoughts/questions on the comments:
@Juan Redondo: President Clinton the Former seems to think Gore might emerge as a candidate. If Obama continues his unfortunate slide, he might be able to join on a Gore ticket.
@Aaron: On a two New Yorker ticket (Hillary -v- Mr. Terror), who do you think wins?
I’m a little confused. You said you;re not supporting any Democrat yet, then a few lines later it says “John Edwards for President.”
There are a lot of people who fall into the “Too many people hate her, she can’t win, so I’m not going to vote for her” category. I want those people to ask themselves this: can you live with yourself knowing that by not voting for her just because of that, you’ve just given the right wing perpetrators of hate exactly what they want? Because if everyone who likes Hillary, but won’t vote for her because they think too many people hate her, just got over it and voted for her, the right wing haters would get exactly what they deserve: another President Clinton.
If you take the number of years that John Edwards and Barack Obama have spent preparing to be President of the United States, combined them, then multiplied that number by 3, it still wouldn’t equal the amount of time Hillary has spent preparing. The Bush presidency is proof enough (as is my curerent Governor) that experience does count, and it is too dangerous to vote for someone because they are a “Breath of fresh air.”
Romney is hands-down the biggest fraud I have ever seen. I had the misfortune of living through his tenure as Governor, and he is the biggest crock of shit known to man. Absolutely nothing he says can be trusted, and if he wins the nomination I will consider it a matter of national urgency that he be defeated.
Here’s the problem with Rudy: the Democratic nominee has to win every state John Kerry won, plus one. She/he can’t really afford to lose any of the states Kerry won, because there aren’t enough other states out there that she/he can win that Kerry didn’t, in order to make up those lost electoral votes. So…what if Rudy wins his home state of New York in the general election? That takes 31 EV’s out of the Democratic column, and it’s GAME OVER!!
Obama is interesting, but not nearly substantive or experienced enough. Cleaning up after 8 years of Bush takes someone who can do more than whip a crowd into a frenzy at and outdoor rally. I like Edwards, and he deserves a lot of credit for putting overty front and center, but he has no experience.
My vote is for the most well informed, most experienced, and toughest candidate on either side: Senator Hillary Clinton.
I just want to share a few thoughts and Q’s for Muttrox on presidential politics, while we’re on the subject:
1. What the hell happened to McCain? I’m not saying I would have, since I have never voted Republican in a national election, but I may have pulled the lever for him over Gore in 2000 (who ran an awful campaign). I can hardly imagine a less attractive candidate now, except for maybe Bush himself.
2. I’ve wanted to get Muttrox’s views on Romney, given that he presided over MA for a while. All I know is the high level stuff — filthy rich, successful businessman, looks like he could have a bolt in his neck, liar, etc.
3. I can’t take Hilllary. I’d vote for an empty Coke bottle over any of the Republican candidates, so she may very well get my vote. But I can’t stand listening to her in these debates. And, unless it’s a huge Democratic landslide in ’08 on all fronts (which it may be), I think she’ll lose the general election. Just too many people hate her guts.
4. Obama’s the man so far. The recent slip in the polls is a little discouraging, but it’s refreshing to have a candidate that people genuinely get excited about. Enough “safe” and “electable” candidates, please. No more Dukakis’s or Kerry’s. Give us someone who actually creates some buzz and excitement and passion. Remember when Dukakis came to UM in 1988 and gave a snoozer stump speech on the same steps where Kennedy once stood. Then Jesse Jackson brought down the house in a packed Crisler Arena. You may not like Jackson, but he was sure as hell a lot more electric a candidate than Dukakis. Same in ’08 — I don’t want Hillary, who monotones her way through vanilla speeches. Give me someone who generates some buzz, and maybe the Dems can pull off some of those purple states that they have been losing recently.
5. Finally … why do you simply assume that Gore is definitely not running in ’08? I heard a spin-meister put it very well recently — once someone runs for president, they cannot get it out of their system and will always want to be president. Kerry would have done it again in a second if he hadn’t told a bad joke. Hell, Dole would be out there again too if he was physically able. Gore is not blind — he must see that the tide is turning his way here, and a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity is arising. What’s stopping him from swooping in in the fall, huge name recognition, with enough media attention that people may forget about his warts and get caught up in the fever. It may not happen, but I don’t think it can get written off so easily. Thoughts, Muttrox?
I like him too. My Colbert sense (using my gut), however, tells me that when someone actually appeals directly to my own politics, they’re probably too far left of center to win the general election…This is unfortunate, because he is my favorite of the Democratic candidates. To me that leaves Obama. He’s definitely more left of center than he lets on and the fact that he speaks in complete, coherent sentences and skillfully uses polysyllabic words is, after Chimpy McBush, very appealing. I think he would end up being a pleasant surprise. You hit the nail on the head with the GOP candidates and that’s unfortunate; this election is important enough that it should at least result in an intelligent debate between competent, credible, and honest nominees. That being said, a Democratic landslide would work too.