snopes.com Post new topic  New Poll  Post a reply
search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hello snopes.com » SLC Central » Soapbox Derby » Joe Biden will seek presidency in '08

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Joe Biden will seek presidency in '08
Echinodermata Q. Taft
It Came Upon a Midnight Clearance


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Echinodermata Q. Taft   Author's Homepage     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Not a particular surprise.
Biden says intends to run for president

Assumning Clinton and Obama both run, and with Edwards in the race, I think Biden has a pretty big hill to climb. Throw in Kerry and/or Gore, and it's even steeper. But at age 64, he may figure it's his last good shot at it.

--------------------
http://eqtaft.blogspot.com

Hope for the future! http://www.runobama.com

Posts: 3218 | From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
snopes
Return! Return! Return!


Icon 14 posted      Profile for snopes   Author's Homepage   E-mail snopes       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Message to Joe: You're 20 years too late.

- snopes

Posts: 36029 | From: Admin | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
patriot1
I'm Dreaming of a White Sale


Icon 1 posted      Profile for patriot1   Author's Homepage     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Great, I hope he wins the nomination. It will make it that much easier for the Republican candidate (John McCain? Rudy G.?) to win.

Really, I believe Hillary will win the nomination, then will flip flop on her views worse than John Kerry ever did, and lose the election. So in the end, all will still be well, we'll still have a Republican President. Just my personal view.

--------------------
"Pray....one for another." JAMES 5:16 NKJV

Posts: 26 | From: Wayne, Michigan | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Ramblin' Dave, quietly making noise
Markdown, the Herald Angels Sing


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ramblin' Dave, quietly making noise   Author's Homepage   E-mail Ramblin' Dave, quietly making noise   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Patriot1, I think your attitude is exactly why the Democrats will never nominate Sen. Clinton. We're not stupid, you see. [Wink]

--------------------
Another lifetime I'd have fallen in love with you
Swept away by my feelings, ashamed and confused
But just now it's enough to be walking with you
Let the mystery play as it will! -Lui Collins

Posts: 2669 | From: Jouy en Josas, France | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Sara at home
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Sara at home   E-mail Sara at home   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Hillary's biggest supporters are Republicans. They keep telling us she will be our candidate. They keep telling us how strong a candidate she weill be. But the real spokespeople for the Republican party don't add the part that she will be a sitting duck for there Hit Squad. When you Republicans talk about Hillary being the candidate, you aren't suppose to add the part about how easy it will be for you guys to beat her.

Let's see, Hillary will make it easy for the Republicans to win, Biden will make it easy for the Republicans to win.

Oh, btw, flip-flopping (which use to be known as reevaluating a situation based on new information) is looking like an asset these days when compared to stubbornly sticking to ones guns because of pride or sheer stubborness, or worse, stupidity.

--------------------
Assume that all my posts will be edited at least once. Dyslexic -- can't spell, can't type, can't proofread.

Posts: 8317 | From: Reading, PA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Lainie
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Lainie   E-mail Lainie   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by patriot1:
Great, I hope he wins the nomination. It will make it that much easier for the Republican candidate (John McCain? Rudy G.?) to win.

Rudy Giuliani would be a very tough sell in the Republican primaries.

--------------------
How homophobic do you have to be to have penguin gaydar? - Lewis Black

Posts: 8322 | From: Columbus, OH | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
desertdweller
I'm Dreaming of a White Sale


Icon 1 posted      Profile for desertdweller   E-mail desertdweller   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Maybe I am getting old but, I have to hold my nose to pull the lever the last few elections and I don't see that changing any time soon with the potential candidates that are throwing their hats into the ring. The phrase "2 cheeks on the same butt" comes to mind.

Seems that people that would make a good president want nothing to do with the process. General Powell comes to mind. Attacks from both sides seem to be centered on the person and not the policies. I remember from being on the debating team in high school, one of the things we were taught was, when someone stops attacking the argument and they start attacking the person, the argument is lost, at least academically.

--------------------
Just singin' in the Bahrain

Posts: 49 | From: Manama, Bahrain | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
LeaflessMapleTree
The twelve shopping days 'til Christmas


Icon 1 posted      Profile for LeaflessMapleTree   E-mail LeaflessMapleTree   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
The Democrats need a REAL left-winger for '08. Not a centrist to appeal to the right. Then, at least, no one will have to hold their noses.

I, for one, am tired of candidates who pander to both sides. Pick a side and see if the people want you. That goes for the left and the right.

--------------------
"For me, religion is like a rhinoceros: I don't have one, and I'd really prefer not to be trampled by yours. But it is impressive, and even beautiful, and, to be honest, the world would be slightly worse off if there weren't any."
-Silas Sparkhammer

Posts: 3239 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Sara at home
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Sara at home   E-mail Sara at home   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, at least the Republicans are talking about a centrist -- Giuliani (as well as the incorrectly perceived centrist, McCain) -- instead of demanding that the Dems nominate someone in the middle to counter the right wingers who took control of the Republican Party.

--------------------
Assume that all my posts will be edited at least once. Dyslexic -- can't spell, can't type, can't proofread.

Posts: 8317 | From: Reading, PA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
keokuk
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for keokuk     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sara Claus at home:
Hillary's biggest supporters are Republicans. They keep telling us she will be our candidate. They keep telling us how strong a candidate she weill be. But the real spokespeople for the Republican party don't add the part that she will be a sitting duck for there Hit Squad. When you Republicans talk about Hillary being the candidate, you aren't suppose to add the part about how easy it will be for you guys to beat her.

See, I've heard very much the opposite. A lot of my Republican friends who work on campaigns and on the hill are very much of the opinion that Clinton's biggest obstacle to the presidency is the primary. She's been under intense scrutiny ever since she first took office, and has been extremely careful not to take any actions that could intentionally inflame opposition or risk a scandal. Try to think of any speeches she's ever made. There are no memorable lines, no strong statements; they're very calculated and executed perfectly for what she needs to do from her position. So if she wins the nomination, then she is suddenly in a position where there is nothing new to attack her with. (Yes, they can make things up, but that's true of any Democratic candidate.) Meanwhile, as the Republican candidate steps into the limelight, the press will begin giving him the amount of scrutiny that Clinton previously received. Every prospective Republican candidate has some sort of scandal in his past that will come to light and will take up time in the news while Clinton can only be attacked with things from years ago. (Think McCain with the Keating Five, Guiliani's police issues inside New York along with his personal life, and Romney's religion and historic flip-flopping.)

Also, ideologically, Clinton has set herself up brilliantly for general election. By governing from the right as a senator, being pro-war, moderating herself on abortion, and the like, she has made herself unpalatable to more left-leaning members of the Democratic Party. So while most people now consider her to be very left-leaning, she's going to spend her full primary season fending off attacks from the left. Other candidates like Obama, Biden, and Kucinich, who are left of her current positions, will target her , as the frontrunner, early and often. By the time she emerges from the primary, she will look like a bona fide moderate.

This is just the logic that I've been told, but I think it's very true. I don't think that Clinton will win the nomination, but if she does, I think the general election becomes a victory lap. She's much stronger than anyone that the Republicans have to offer.

Posts: 345 | From: Washington, DC | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Sara at home
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Sara at home   E-mail Sara at home   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by keokuk:
quote:
Originally posted by Sara Claus at home:
Hillary's biggest supporters are Republicans. They keep telling us she will be our candidate. They keep telling us how strong a candidate she will be. But the real spokespeople for the Republican party don't add the part that she will be a sitting duck for there Hit Squad. When you Republicans talk about Hillary being the candidate, you aren't suppose to add the part about how easy it will be for you guys to beat her.

See, I've heard very much the opposite. A lot of my Republican friends who work on campaigns and on the hill are very much of the opinion that Clinton's biggest obstacle to the presidency is the primary.
Your friends are insiders not speaking publically. The spinners are talking as if her nomination is a done deal, trying to convince the average voter that she's going to be the winner. And we all know how many people love to back the winner. Once she gets the nomination, it doesn't matter what she's said or what she's done; alls they gotta do is smear her as Clinton's wife. There are still enough people who won't vote for her because she's a woman, she didn't kick Bill out, was such a cold fish she caused him to turn to other women, wasn't a real wife, didn't take his name, supported national health insurance, had to have done something wrong in that whole Whitewater thing, had an affair with or murdered Foster, is a lesbian, blah, blah, blah that she won't win.

Hell, if they can smear Kerry with his own war record while he's running against a guy who couldn't even show up for his National Guard meetings, dealing with her will be a walk in the park.

--------------------
Assume that all my posts will be edited at least once. Dyslexic -- can't spell, can't type, can't proofread.

Posts: 8317 | From: Reading, PA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
keokuk
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for keokuk     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sara Claus at home:
Once she gets the nomination, it doesn't matter what she's said or what she's done; alls they gotta do is smear her as Clinton's wife. There are still enough people who won't vote for her because she's a woman, she didn't kick Bill out, was such a cold fish she caused him to turn to other women, wasn't a real wife, didn't take his name, supported national health insurance, had to have done something wrong in that whole Whitewater thing, had an affair with or murdered Foster, is a lesbian, blah, blah, blah that she won't win.

Hell, if they can smear Kerry with his own war record while he's running against a guy who couldn't even show up for his National Guard meetings, dealing with her will be a walk in the park.

See, I disagree with that big time. You're talking about things that will be 8-16 years old by the time the election comes along. People are already aware of them and, judging from the popularity of Bill Clinton after he left office, have come to terms with them. The people who won't vote for her because she's a woman fall in the same category as people who wouldn't vote for Obama because he's black -- I don't see them voting for any Democrat anyway. The only people who will hold Whitewater against her or assume that she was responsible for Vince Foster's suicide are hardcore Republican partisans who the first Clinton succeeded without anyway.

As for that national health insurance, I think it ends up helping her now. She was ripped for it in 1994, but the public debate has shifted a lot in the past 12 years. Increased government intervention on health matters is now seen as a positive to a lot of people, and if her people manage it right, Clinton can paint herself as a pioneer who was ahead of her time back in the day.

I think that there is a ceiling for attacks. We saw it with Kerry. We'll see it again in 2008 whether it is Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Biden, Vilsack, or anyone. The difference is that all the dirt on Clinton has been out there for years and years. Any attacks on things that took place during her tenure as First Lady are going to look like sour grapes against Bill Clinton and lack the stinging edge that new attacks like the Swift Boat ads did.

In order for any attack campaign against Clinton to be successful, they will need to find something to hold against her from her time in the Senate. Can they fabricate something? Probably. But I think she's been very careful to keep herself clean, and as long as her campaign doesn't fall asleep at the wheel like Kerry's did, she can beat any of the current Republican candidates.

If you're going to use the "If they used Kerry's war record against him..." standard, then no Democrat can ever win. It wasn't particularly masterful attack by the Republicans; the only reason it worked is because the Kerry campaign rolled over and took it, allowed it to be blown out of proportion, and didn't fight back early like they should have. No Democrat will make that mistake again.

Posts: 345 | From: Washington, DC | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Lainie
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Lainie   E-mail Lainie   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
keokuk, I think you underestimate the depth of hostility, some of it irrational, toward Hillary Clinton.

--------------------
How homophobic do you have to be to have penguin gaydar? - Lewis Black

Posts: 8322 | From: Columbus, OH | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Sara at home
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Sara at home   E-mail Sara at home   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lainie:
keokuk, I think you underestimate the depth of hostility, some of it irrational, toward Hillary Clinton.

I think he also overestimates the intelligence of a significant number of American voters.

--------------------
Assume that all my posts will be edited at least once. Dyslexic -- can't spell, can't type, can't proofread.

Posts: 8317 | From: Reading, PA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Aimee Evilpixie
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Aimee Evilpixie   Author's Homepage   E-mail Aimee Evilpixie   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I personally would prefer not to vote for Hillary, though I would love to see a female president, because she wants to legislate against video games. I don't think this needs to be done, I think the premise is based on faulty data, and I don't want the government trying to control what my industry produces when there are more important things for them to be worrying about.

--------------------
Ugg want you find JESUS!

My website!

Posts: 1853 | From: Washington (The State) | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Echinodermata Q. Taft
It Came Upon a Midnight Clearance


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Echinodermata Q. Taft   Author's Homepage     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Hillary faces one big obstacle in the primaries, which may hurt her in the general election as well: she didn't oppose the Iraq war early enough, or question it strongly enough. Democrats weren't thrilled with Kerry on that issue, no matter how he tried to explain himself, and they'll be less happy now with any candidate who wasn't critical of the war from the beginning. And frankly, I think independents will feel much the same way -- or at least be suspicious of anyone who tries to play both sides. They'll be happier with someone like McCain (who has supported the cause while being critical of the execution) or Obama (who said from the start it was a dumb idea), who will at least look like they are saying what they believe rather than basing their position on a political calculation.

And, did anyone notice how quickly the thread moved away from Biden? I suspect this is a pretty fair predictor of his chances....

--------------------
http://eqtaft.blogspot.com

Hope for the future! http://www.runobama.com

Posts: 3218 | From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Publius
Happy Holly Days


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Publius     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sara Claus at home:
Well, at least the Republicans are talking about a centrist -- Giuliani

Giuliani isn't much better than McCain on foreign policy. He hasn't been forced to take a stand on as many issues as McCain has, of course, but when he has taken a stand he's come down firmly on the hard neoconservative right. He's Richard Perle's favorite Republican.

He's more liberal than McCain on issues like abortion and gay marriage. These issues don't matter very much to most neoconservatives. They also don't matter very much in selecting a president. The most significant the President has over either issue is through his judicial appointments; these days, judicial appointments are more likely to be swayed (and ought to be swayed) by questions of executive authority and the rule of law during wartime.

So-called "centrists" like Giuliani, McCain, and Lieberman don't really seem to at the center of anything: they're on the far, far right on the issues that have been important for the last five years. If these guys really do represent the American "center," that's a pretty stunning indictment of the center.

Posts: 1640 | From: New Haven, CT | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
keokuk
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for keokuk     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lainie:
keokuk, I think you underestimate the depth of hostility, some of it irrational, toward Hillary Clinton.

That could be true. But I feel that a lot of the hostility against Clinton comes from an extremely vocal minority on the right who would not be likely to vote for her anyway.

I could very well be wrong. But I think that people are way too quick to write off her off already. Looking at it from an electoral college standpoint, she can easily carry every state that Kerry took, and has potential to take back Colorado, Nevada, Ohio, Florida, Missouri and/or Virginia. This is true of practically any Democratic candidate, but I'm not convinced that she is as unelectable as some seem to believe.

Posts: 345 | From: Washington, DC | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
keokuk
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for keokuk     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Echinodermata Q. Taft:
Hillary faces one big obstacle in the primaries, which may hurt her in the general election as well: she didn't oppose the Iraq war early enough, or question it strongly enough. Democrats weren't thrilled with Kerry on that issue, no matter how he tried to explain himself, and they'll be less happy now with any candidate who wasn't critical of the war from the beginning. And frankly, I think independents will feel much the same way -- or at least be suspicious of anyone who tries to play both sides. They'll be happier with someone like McCain (who has supported the cause while being critical of the execution) or Obama (who said from the start it was a dumb idea), who will at least look like they are saying what they believe rather than basing their position on a political calculation.

I think that if she plays it right, she can play both sides without being seen as flip-flopping. If she says that she originally supported the war and thinks that it could have worked if it were not hopelessly botched in execution, then she not only assumes the position that a majority of Americans now hold, but will also be to the right of most Democratic candidates in the primaries. If she wins, she'll come out looking more moderate for having been attacked from the left.

McCain has a somewhat similar position to her, just on a different end. He supported the war but thinks that it has been hopelessly botched because there aren't enough troops. The only way this ends up helping him is if Bush maintains the status quo and there is no success. If, as it now seems, Bush actually goes ahead and adds more troops, and it fails to help the situation, then McCain's entire basis for opposition to the execution collapses and he is immediately susceptible to massive criticism for it. Also, he's not exactly been a straight shooter. He's cozied up to the religious right a lot in recent months, and his approval rating among independents has taken a 15-point nosedive because of it.

Right now, Obama, who opposed the war from the start, and Edwards, who voted for it but has publicly conceded that the vote itself was a mistake, are the only candidates that are free of hypocrisy on the war front.

Posts: 345 | From: Washington, DC | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Publius
Happy Holly Days


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Publius     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by keokuk:
McCain has a somewhat similar position to her, just on a different end. He supported the war but thinks that it has been hopelessly botched because there aren't enough troops. The only way this ends up helping him is if Bush maintains the status quo and there is no success. If, as it now seems, Bush actually goes ahead and adds more troops, and it fails to help the situation, then McCain's entire basis for opposition to the execution collapses and he is immediately susceptible to massive criticism for it.

Maybe, but don't underestimate the degree to which True Believers on the right have made themselves immune to reality. Note, for example, what Fred Kagan said today: that, apparently, a truly successful "surge" would have to last 18 months, which is of course even less practical than the original conception of the so-called "surge."

It's natural to believe that, if we let the hawks enact their agenda now, the inevitable failure of that agenda will persuade the hawks to change their minds. The problem with this idea is, of course, that we always could have done more. Fighting in South Vietnam for eight years didn't work? We should've committed ourselves indefinitely, and invaded the North while we were there. The "surge" in Iraq didn't work? Obviously, treacherous anti-war liberals at home prevented the military from surging long or hard enough.

This also sheds light on the current attempt (utterly divorced from reality) to blame Iran for attacks on the very "Iraqi security forces" allied with Tehran. If there's no war against Tehran (and such a war would be absolutely insane even by Bush's standards), it simply provides another convenient excuse for failure in Iraq: we could've won the war if only the gutless American people had been willing to fight our enemies in Iraq at their source in Iran. See, the problem was that we didn't do enough!

See also: dolchstosslegende.

Posts: 1640 | From: New Haven, CT | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Lainie
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Lainie   E-mail Lainie   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Publius said:
He's (Giuliani's) more liberal than McCain on issues like abortion and gay marriage. These issues don't matter very much to most neoconservatives. They also don't matter very much in selecting a president.

They matter a great deal in Republican primaries, especially in the Bible Belt. Neoconservatives didn't elect George W. Bush without help from the "values voters."

--------------------
How homophobic do you have to be to have penguin gaydar? - Lewis Black

Posts: 8322 | From: Columbus, OH | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Publius
Happy Holly Days


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Publius     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lainie:
quote:
Publius said:
He's (Giuliani's) more liberal than McCain on issues like abortion and gay marriage. These issues don't matter very much to most neoconservatives. They also don't matter very much in selecting a president.

They matter a great deal in Republican primaries, especially in the Bible Belt. Neoconservatives didn't elect George W. Bush without help from the "values voters."
Right. I'm not sure how Giulani would do in the Republican primaries; I'm saying, in practical terms, he's not much more of a centrist than McCain.
Posts: 1640 | From: New Haven, CT | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Ramblin' Dave, quietly making noise
Markdown, the Herald Angels Sing


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ramblin' Dave, quietly making noise   Author's Homepage   E-mail Ramblin' Dave, quietly making noise   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
If Giuliani does even marginally well in Iowa and/or New Hampshire, you can count on the right wing s**t machine to swing into high gear on behalf of whoever has emerged as the most plausible far-right alternative (perhaps Sen. Brownback) just as it did for Bush against McCain in 2000. Ought to be fun to watch, for some of us.

--------------------
Another lifetime I'd have fallen in love with you
Swept away by my feelings, ashamed and confused
But just now it's enough to be walking with you
Let the mystery play as it will! -Lui Collins

Posts: 2669 | From: Jouy en Josas, France | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Sara at home
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Sara at home   E-mail Sara at home   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Do you think it will be business as usual for the Dirty Tricksters? Do you think the media will be less passive in covering dirty tricks? Has anything changed?

--------------------
Assume that all my posts will be edited at least once. Dyslexic -- can't spell, can't type, can't proofread.

Posts: 8317 | From: Reading, PA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Ramblin' Dave, quietly making noise
Markdown, the Herald Angels Sing


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ramblin' Dave, quietly making noise   Author's Homepage   E-mail Ramblin' Dave, quietly making noise   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Judging from 2004 - when the mainstream media let Bush get away with painting Kerry as the one with the bad war record, I'd say nothing has changed. I don't know what the tricksters will pull next time, but I fully expect it to leave the media shaking its collective head and saying "I can't believe Karl did that!" when by now they have no business being surprised at the right sinking to any level.

--------------------
Another lifetime I'd have fallen in love with you
Swept away by my feelings, ashamed and confused
But just now it's enough to be walking with you
Let the mystery play as it will! -Lui Collins

Posts: 2669 | From: Jouy en Josas, France | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Sara at home
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Sara at home   E-mail Sara at home   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Worse, will they do the "That Karl is such a political genius!" thing again?

--------------------
Assume that all my posts will be edited at least once. Dyslexic -- can't spell, can't type, can't proofread.

Posts: 8317 | From: Reading, PA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
MaxKaladin
The First USA Noel


Icon 1 posted      Profile for MaxKaladin   E-mail MaxKaladin   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm not real crazy about any of the "favorites" people keep talking about on either side. If both parties end up nominating one of the current favorites, I may cast my vote for whoever the Libertarian candidate is as sort of a protest vote.
Posts: 716 | From: San Antonio, TX | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Steve Eisenberg
The "Was on Sale" Song


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Steve Eisenberg   E-mail Steve Eisenberg   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Echinodermata Q. Taft:
Hillary faces one big obstacle in the primaries, which may hurt her in the general election as well: she didn't oppose the Iraq war early enough, or question it strongly enough.

Is this so different from what McGovern supporters said about Vietnam in denying to nomination to the mainstream candidates (Muskie and Humphrey)?

I know that's going back a while, but the US was a slightly right of center country then, and it still is.

In the primaries, Democrats are going to be looking for a candidate who will give swing voters the impression of being a moderate, but is really deep down a liberal. However, when it comes to winning in November, the Democratic nominee needs to be a real centrist (and centrist by US standards!), not just a nice guy who says he's bipartisan (as they all do).

As always, the caveat is that if the economy in the summer of 2008 should be in the worst portion of a recession, any Democrat, even the kind that will have no chance of reelection, can indeed win.

--------------------
"Hillel says yes, naturally, and Shammai says no, and Maimonides is perplexed, and what do I know?"
Julius Lester

Posts: 5780 | From: Suburban Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Sara at home
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Sara at home   E-mail Sara at home   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Eisenberg:
Is this so different from what McGovern supporters said about Vietnam in denying to nomination to the mainstream candidates (Muskie and Humphrey)?

IIRC, Humphrey didn't win because he was LBJ's VP. Guilt by association, or at least Democratic fear of guilt by association on the part of voters come election time. Muskie lost it when he got choked up and seemed to cry when he was defending his wife from the attacks by the Manchester Union Leader. His campaign collapsed after that because he was seen as weak. I don't recall a whole lot of too-little-too-late rhetoric, but it's been a long time.

--------------------
Assume that all my posts will be edited at least once. Dyslexic -- can't spell, can't type, can't proofread.

Posts: 8317 | From: Reading, PA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
GenYus
Away in a Manager's Special


Icon 1 posted      Profile for GenYus   E-mail GenYus   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by keokuk:
I think that if she plays it right, she can play both sides without being seen as flip-flopping. If she says that she originally supported the war and thinks that it could have worked if it were not hopelessly botched in execution, then she not only assumes the position that a majority of Americans now hold, but will also be to the right of most Democratic candidates in the primaries. If she wins, she'll come out looking more moderate for having been attacked from the left.

But that tactic will leave her wide open to claims that she is blaming the troops.

--------------------
IIRC, it wasn't the shoe bomber's loud prayers that sparked the takedown by the other passengers; it was that he was trying to light his shoe on fire. Very, very different. Canuckistan

Posts: 3694 | From: Arizona | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Echinodermata Q. Taft
It Came Upon a Midnight Clearance


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Echinodermata Q. Taft   Author's Homepage     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Eisenberg:
I know that's going back a while, but the US was a slightly right of center country then, and it still is.



Poassibly. But I think that "staying the course" in Iraq is no longer a viable centrist position. I could be wrong -- Viet Nam wasn't greatly popular in 1972, either, after all.

quote:
However, when it comes to winning in November, the Democratic nominee needs to be a real centrist (and centrist by US standards!), not just a nice guy who says he's bipartisan (as they all do).
...by which of course you mean Obama, which further convinces me that you don't understand his positions. I also think you misundersand where the "center" position is, but that's not surprising -- I don't think most Americans in the center understand where it is. When you really survey a lot of American attitudes, you find many of them are surprisingly liberal -- but most people still don't like being called liberals. But that's something for another thread, which I may start one of these days.

--------------------
http://eqtaft.blogspot.com

Hope for the future! http://www.runobama.com

Posts: 3218 | From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Steve Eisenberg
The "Was on Sale" Song


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Steve Eisenberg   E-mail Steve Eisenberg   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Echinodermata Q. Taft:
...by which of course you mean Obama, which further convinces me that you don't understand his positions.


I've read a bit about it since I last posted on him, so let me see if I understand. Here's a somewhat famous quotation from Sen. Obama's 2004 campaign:

quote:
"In light of the fact that we're now in Iraq, with all the problems in terms of perceptions about America that have been created, us launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in," he said.

"On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. ... And I hope it doesn't get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I'd be surprised if Iran blinked at this point."

So he's liable to attack Iran. And this from the same interview sounded even more hawkish -- astoundingly hawkish -- to my ear:

quote:
As for Pakistan, Obama said that if President Pervez Musharraf were to lose power in a coup*, the United States similarly might have to consider military action in that country to destroy nuclear weapons it already possesses. Musharraf's troops are battling hundreds of well-armed foreign militants and Pakistani tribesmen in increasingly violent confrontations.
Lately, Barak Obama is being more careful to avoid challenging Democratic primary voters; his latest statement on Iraq makes clear enough what he is against but not much more. However, just last month he seemed to be calling for shifting troops from Iraq to Afghanistan ("Perhaps most importantly, some of these [US troops in Iraq] could be redeployed to Afghanistan").

One part of his position I think I do understand:

quote:
I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
So he's thinking that his wars will be smarter than the other's guy's.

Most likely, if Obama is the next President, I would be found defending him here more often than not. He does seem to have a fair understanding of why a great power can't have a foreign policy like that of Norway or Sweden. But I think I have a right to grumble a bit along the way about throwing that Wolfowitz-bashing bone to his leftist supporters, and how he's leaning in favor of whichever muscular policy we aren't engaging in at the moment being adopted at some ill-defined time just over the horizon (2009?).

If elected, you'll see the same tensions between realism and idealism in a Obama administration just as you always do. Condemn North Korea for human rights abuses, or honor them with talks you hope against hope will move them just a tiny bit in our direction? There are easy answers on the internet, and during the campaign, but not in office.

___________________
* That is, lose power the same way he gained it.

--------------------
"Hillel says yes, naturally, and Shammai says no, and Maimonides is perplexed, and what do I know?"
Julius Lester

Posts: 5780 | From: Suburban Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Ramblin' Dave, quietly making noise
Markdown, the Herald Angels Sing


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ramblin' Dave, quietly making noise   Author's Homepage   E-mail Ramblin' Dave, quietly making noise   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GenYus:
quote:
Originally posted by keokuk:
I think that if she plays it right, she can play both sides without being seen as flip-flopping. If she says that she originally supported the war and thinks that it could have worked if it were not hopelessly botched in execution, then she not only assumes the position that a majority of Americans now hold, but will also be to the right of most Democratic candidates in the primaries. If she wins, she'll come out looking more moderate for having been attacked from the left.

But that tactic will leave her wide open to claims that she is blaming the troops.
Agreed; but I fully expect the Republicans* to use that argument against the Democratic nominee no matter who s/he is. It's one of their favorite and most effective tricks: anyone who suggests things could be better than they currently are is "blaming America."


*To be more exact, the Republicans usually don't do this directly. They leave it up to minions like Rush, Ann, and Swift Boat Veterans For The Draft Dodger. But the result is the same as if they did it themselves, which is why they almost never condemn the attacks no matter how venomous they are.

--------------------
Another lifetime I'd have fallen in love with you
Swept away by my feelings, ashamed and confused
But just now it's enough to be walking with you
Let the mystery play as it will! -Lui Collins

Posts: 2669 | From: Jouy en Josas, France | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
DemonWolf
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for DemonWolf     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GenYus:
quote:
Originally posted by keokuk:
I think that if she plays it right, she can play both sides without being seen as flip-flopping. If she says that she originally supported the war and thinks that it could have worked if it were not hopelessly botched in execution, then she not only assumes the position that a majority of Americans now hold, but will also be to the right of most Democratic candidates in the primaries. If she wins, she'll come out looking more moderate for having been attacked from the left.

But that tactic will leave her wide open to claims that she is blaming the troops.
It could, but if she words it carefully, she can make is clear the she is reffering to the Bush Administration's handing rather than the military's handling.

It'd be a tricky tightrope, but I think it'd be worth the payoff.

--------------------
Friends are like skittles: they come in many colors, and some are fruity!

IMJW-052804

Posts: 7224 | From: Massachusetts | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post new topic  New Poll  Post a reply Close topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Urban Legends Reference Pages

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2