Pajiba

I resent this race. Not for the usual complaints about how early it's starting and how no one of principle seems to be coming forward. No what I resent is that I, as a card-carrying liberal, have to make a distinction between the two top Democratic candidates. Why is that not fair? Because the ascension of Barack Obama would make US History as the first black president. But Hillary Clinton would also make history as the first female president. I don't think it is fair to have one historical first have to cancel out the other.

This is of course a purely superficial, whiny point, having nothing to do with the issues. I know better than to get into the issues with THIS crowd.

I hope everyone is having a sunshine and puppy filled day.

I'd love to see an Edwards/Obama ticket.

I had a nightmare about a coup resulting in some bizarre theocratic monarchy headed by Kirk Cameron. /whimper

Since Al Gore's not on the list, I had to go with Barack. But I think Gore's going to run. And he's going to sweep. Gore/Obama 2008. It's the future, people.

People keep telling me that it's too late for Gore to come in. In fact, I think for everyday he waits, the better his chances are. He's very likely up for a Nobel Prize for his environmentalism. After he wins it, he'll come into the election in the fall/late summer. At this point, everyone will be fatigued. They'll be sick of Obama. They'll be Clinton. They'll be sick of McCain. Giuliani. Etc.

Gore's going through what Nixon did. He lost the first time on (including a contested election for both) what's been called some image problems. He was stiff. Lock box stuff. Nixon looked terrible compared to the boyish charms of JFK. In 1968, Nixon comes back against Johnson. He's more relaxed. He's got a new conviction. People like him. He's up against a President that a lot of people feel should never have been there in the first place (sort of pushing the last one, but go with me.) And then he wins. I'm sure you're seeing where this is going. Let's just hope that Gore doesn't spy on anyone.

So I'd say Gore takes Obama or Richardson for VP. He can't take Hillary. The Clinton train only has seating for one. Richardson might be safer, but I think Obama can finally get the college vote/18-21 vote.

Oh, and he's going to be against Fred Thompson. I mean, who else will get the nomination?

Kiku-heeee. Ann Coulter could be his court jester.

For the record, I voted for Obama.

Ron Paul

I need me some Dennis Kucinich.

Jen, McCain? Honest?

http://therealmccain.com/

Check that shit out. Although, arguably, you could find this shit for any candidate. But for someone who's running on honesty, it's really frustrating how much he's (dare I say it) flip flopped.

Even though Obama is somewhat inexperienced, I still feel if we can have this guy in office, he could just about make it.
And personally, I think that some of what Hilary has to say, but would I vote for her??
I'm really hoping for Al Gore to step up and run.
That would be my Christmas in July.

Dude, where's the love for Bill Richardson?

Zuh? There are people who think Obama can win the general election?!

Whatever trouble Obama would have in the general election is nothing compared to Clinton. Nominating her would be the final proof I'd ever need that the Democrats actively don't want to win elections. To have something set up so well in the wake of Bush's disasters, and then to nominate a figure as divisive as Clinton...that would be astounding. And yet somehow perfect.

Socalled,

I actually saw an analyst mention something about a Gore "weight-watch." That if he starts to lose weight and get in shape, it's a sign he'll run...if he stays chunky, we can expect he won't get into the ring.

Sheesh. It's one thing to subject vapid starlets to it. Now were collectively watching the waistlines of our political candidates. I guess this shows that it's not just Hillary's ankles, and not (entirely) just b/c she's a she.

I voted Obama in the poll but am in full agreement that a Gore/Obama ticket for 2008 would be unstoppable and position a wiser, more mature and experienced Obama for the top job in 2016.

Y'all are full of it - Obama is a fantasy vote; no one is really going to plug their ticket for him in the real world. He is like having a white leather couch: looks good, sounds modern and chic, but we all have pets and kids that will mess it up, so we succumb to something more dirt-friendly and that will withstand the wear and tear. Case in point, I will vote for Rudy.

Ahh - Pajiba, wandering into where my blog tastes also run!

I have severe issues with Obama's voting record, rhetoric (particularly his framing in religious contexts), and his inexperience in national and foreign matters. I think he's capable, he needs to get out from under the centrist Democrats wet dreaming of a new Clinton-ism, and really become the agent of change we so desperately need. I'd vote for him as VP.

My problems with Obama are magnified by 10 with Sen. Clinton. Add to it that her election would mean that the US has become a Bush-Clinton dynasty for at least 24 years.

Edwards is still a little rough, but I think he's the most transformational - he's going to be an agent of a change in politics that we so desperately need. His work on poverty closely mirrors the reconnection of both mainline and evangelical churches back to issues of the poor. If the housing market's slow collapse accelerates like many economists predict, 2008 will see a massive recession and Americans will be looking for domestic poverty reform and economic changes. He is my favorite candidate by far right now.

On Gore - until he runs, he's off the radar. I really respect him, I think that both he and Edwards have the potential to become some of the greatest leaders this time will produce. If we and the world ever get global warming on a corrective path, it will become Al Gore's place in history for leading us to it. I'm not sure his best place is on the Democratic Presidential ticket, however. I think the issue is far more important than party politics.

Lastly, on the GOP field: Guiliani? Can you say inept and incompetent, not to mention serial infidelities & now sucking up to conservative social rightists? McCain? Too old, too hypocritical, mired in an inept campaign, and just the wrong damn person to chart a new course. Romney - not a chance, Mitt. You alienated just about everyone with those flip-flops to conservative social policies. Thompson - another actor?? Pluheeze. Not to mention his bimbo wife will scare everyone that hyperventilated over Teresa Heinz Kerry. I might vote for Ron Paul if he wasn't such a bigoted and evil man . . both he and Pat Buchanan see the issues more clearly than most Republicans. Which scares me and it ought to scare the rest of ya.

And - I'm one of those Iowa caucus voters. See you January, folks!

Ron Paul...

There probably are really smart people out there that would make a great President. The thing is these people are smart enough to know that if they ran for President, they would have to completely give up on everything they believe in and sell out in order to get there.

Which is why I think Al Gore knows he's insane if he runs. Particularly since the media (as a whole) panned his book and sneered at his weight and bookish tendencies, and conveniently ignored his whole thrust that media interests are disinclined to promote change or rational investigation of scientific issues.

I put my vote in for Obama. If Hilary runs, we Dems might as well hand over the elections to the Republicans before it even gets started. The fact that the polls are showing her ahead scares me to death.

A Gore/Obama ticket would be fantastic. But since Gore hasn't cast himself into the fray yet, my hard earned money and time are going to Obama. He's like Obi Wan - our only hope.

I voted for McCain (or McBaine- either way) and I am a died in the wool dem. I hate Hilary, I think Barak is great but a black man won't win the presidency yet in America and I like Edwards but I feel if he ran the Dems might run into a more photogenic Kerry and we all know how that turned out. That leaves me with Republicans and the only one tolerable in my book is "The Maverick" although I am depressed that he is such in the pocket of the Christian Right. I guess this leaves me with wishing Gore was running.

Obama (I'm an Illinoisan, what do you expect? I was there in Springfield the day he announced his candidacy. It was awesome. Freezing, but awesome.). An Obama/Gore or Gore/Obama ticket would be great. It doesn't bother me that Obama is relatively young and inexperienced. It means he's had less time to be corrupted by Washington politics. But once it gets closer to the elections I'll have to weigh the situation a little more carefully.

Ron Paul all the way. If he's not the candidate, then I'll write him in. The two parties be damned.

What about Ron Paul?? He is the only candidate that is truly speaking truth to power - and a republican at that!!!!

I don't like her much personally because I think she was the one Dem who had the stature to stand up to Bush in 2002 and 2003, but she didn't; if anything, she put her finger in the wind and then bunkered down to wait for the war to go bad.

Amen. That and the voters who will get out of their LaZBoys just to vote against her...No, no, no.

I might have considered McCain at one time, but his eight-year blowjob on Bush changed that, and no amount of dancing-bear bullshit on "The Daily Show" will convince me.

Amen again.

Ron Paul? Intriguing, but not a chance in hell. Also, too anti-choice for me.

I voted Obama (though I'd love Gore/Obama). Any Democratic President is going to have an unbelievably difficult job because of the damage that has been done to this country in the previous eight years. Restoring Consitutional protections, restoring our image in the world, protecting us while doing those first two things? Dealing with environment and health care crises, purging the government of unqualified hacks? No one is qualified -- but someone with charisma and someone whose face and background say something different about this country might just have a chance.

I hate hate hate voting on image and charisma -- but I'm not sure I'll have a choice.

Alright, this is going to come off as patronizing but as the oldest living Pajibian (yes, I add the second 'i' and do not pronounce it with a long i) and as someone who made a great deal of money betting on the last election and called it 100% correct in all Senate and House races, here is my most likely scenario:
1. The conservative Repub base will not nominate Rudy McRomney.
2. Rudy has a vowel at the end of his name, is too ethnic, has too many really messy divorces (including one from his first cousin)and, probably most offensively to the Repub base (who actually vote in the primaries) supports abortion and gay rights (he lived with a gay couple when his second wife refused to move out of the Mayor's mansion when she was forced to admit his public squiring of his mistress [now third wife]).
3. Romney is a Mormon. End of story. The Repub base considers mormonism a cult that doesn't really believe in the "Jayzus" whose story is told "in The Babble". Add to that his continuing behaviour as the consummate fip-flopper. His "evolving" position on gun ownership alone cancels out his candidacy with the base.
4. McCain has never been a favorite of the far right and by kissing up to Falwell et al. he lost the independents who carried him last time without gaining any new conservative votes from the base. In addition, he is viewed as too old and too unpredictable (read: unstable) and has a wife who was addicted to pills and an adopted daughter who is East Indian. The base will not swallow any one of these much less the whole package.
5. That leaves Thompson. He will be the last one standing after a very divisive primary season. He appeals to the base because he is nominally conservative but has very little paper trail with which to attack him. He also will receive financial support from the Repub "Eagles" who are anxious to win, and get their money's worth, after the dismal fiscal performance (to them the most important issue) they received from W.
6.Hillary is simply too polarizing. She has a core old generation good ol' girl network that will vote for her no matter what but she never breaks above ~35% nationally. Younger and well-educated professional women generally loath her for sticking by that Hounddog Bill. She is seen as cold, elitist and patronizing (in other words as a female John Kerry). She is a terrible campaigner: frosty, insincere, and aloof. The more people that meet her in person, the more people dislike her. She is the anti-Bill (Clinton) and he cannot save her. She gets the money from Hollywood but also carries their cultural baggage into the national election. Lastly, this country will not elect a female president while the country is at war (and we still will be, unfortunately).
7. Obama: There is simply no way that this country will elect a president named "Hussein" (even if that is his middle name). Despite what people tell the pollsters, there is enough residual prejudice remaining in the U.S. that people will go into the voting booth and vote against the black candidate. He is also viewed as too inexperienced. Obama has the Dean-ites and the MoveOn dot fools but they would rather be right and lose, so they will get their wish during the primaries.
8. John Edwards is yesterday's news. His attempt to re-ignite a class struggle campaign will play to the true believers but not in the country at large. He is also viewed by too many as a pretty boy without the gravitas to be president. Just go to Youtube and watch him fluff his hair for a full five minutes while peering into a women's compact. That is the only commercial the Repubs need to run against him. He also loses the sympathy vote because many people view his running for president as overwhelming selfish ambition while his wife is dying of cancer (that is reality folks, she is going to die of cancer within the next couple of years). Interestingly, it is probably Elizabeth who told John to keep campaigning but the effect of her "abandoning" her children to campaign for her husband in the very little time she has left to live will not be viewed positively by many voters.
9. That leaves Big Al. After a very messy primary (led by Hillary who plays balls-to-the-wall bare knuckle politics) cooler heads are likely to seize control of the party machinery, i.e., those Dems who actually want to win rather than be philosophically pure will prevail upon a not hard to convince Al Gore that he could be the saviour of the party and the nation. By then Al will have a Nobel Peace Prize to complement his Academy Award. He will campaign as someone who has already won a national election for the presidency (popular vote, anyway). Unfortunately, my die-hard Democratic Aunts will--again--not vote for Al Gore. They simply do not like him and I know many others who feel the same way. Gore will buy off Hillary with the promise of an appointment to the Supremes. Although she would like to be Chief Justice (and the people in Hell would like ice water, some with a straw) that post is not open so HRC will settle for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court where she can pursue her liberal/socialist agenda.
10. As for the others in both parties, they will not break above ~5% nationally. Bill Richardson's commercials are very entertaining but will not enable him to get the top slot. (I suspect he is really running for VP but Hillary hates him because he was her husband's pimp and enabler, e.g., he got Monica a job after blowjobgate. Brownback is viewed as a right-wing nut job. Biden is a blowhard who bores people to death. Shake the others in a bag and you still do not get above 10%.
Well, too long a post but so is the primary season. For political junkies, this extended electoral season will be very entertaining. For the great majority, this will be death by a thousand cuts.

I REALLY want Al Gore to run. He's intelligent and dedicated. And he's been out of politics long enough that I think he's fresh for the very important struggle ahead.

Ha ha LS! John Edward is dreamy, but that's not why I'd vote for him. I like the way he speaks the truth too, not the polished machine rhetoric coming out of Hilary or Obama's mouths. Those two may give us a democratic president, but they'd also give us the same business as usual.

My favorite John Edwards moment was when he came to speak in my city during the 2004 campaign. The crowd was surrounding him, but he spent the whole time only facing one direction. He finally turned around to our side and we went crazy with cheers. It was the only time he broke character. He smiled and looked humbled. It was great.

And what's with the Ron Paul boomlet on this site? I admit, I'm surprised.

Alright, I'll be the one person to stand up and say I'd vote for Hillary, not because I like her personally or particularly agree with her politics or because she'd be the first woman president, but because she's about the only person running who has the experience, the intelligence, and the fucking cojones to fix the mess Bush is gonna leave his successor - and it's gonna be one helluva mess. I'll happily vote for Obama in 4-8 years, when things aren't so bleak, but I don't think he has the experience to do the job - if we were coming out of the Clinton years,sure, but with a war to pull out of, international goodwill to restore, New Orleans to put back together (still!) and a goddamn mountain of national debt, I just think he'd crash and burn within a year, and there goes a promising political career, never mind Bush is the one responsible. Gore isn't gonna run, and I don't blame him. He's much happier outside of politics. And Edwards....he makes my skin crawl for some reason. He just comes off as so plastic. And again, in terms of political experience I just don't think he stands up. Fine candidate for a country that's running strong, not up to rehabilitating the US in her current state. To bad my home state's candidate Evan Bayh dropped out. Any democrat who can carry Indiana would have been a good bet - and he can balance a budget!

Although she has her flaws, as a woman, I would love to see Hillary as president. Obama, to me, seems like he is going to fade away as elections near. The way he shot out of nowhere to this level of fame and popularity is a little worrying, he's starting to seem like he's all icing and no cake.

Having said this, however, I think it's waaayyy too early for this kind of talk. I mean the elections are still like 180 months away, and I don't think we need to be making any final, or even semi-final, decisions just yet.

While I would love to see a woman Prez--I think Hilary has too much baggage.

Plus as the Democratic Candidate, I am too afraid that there are too many Republicans that hate her and not enough Democrats to vote her in.

Then that we would have another 8 more motherf@#$ing years of motherf@#$ing Republicans. And then I think I would succomb to a xanax/vicadin/oxy induced coma until 20016 (if I were to survive.)

OBAMA? OYEAH!

Urm, CDell, yes. There are people who think Obama can win a general election. Like apparently 40% of Pajibans, and whole mess more progressive minded folks.

Now, I'm not going to criticize people who genuinely prefer Gore, or Richardson, or Edwards, or even Clinton. But for those who say that they will not support Obama because he is "unelectable" I submit that you display your own racism. Black=unelectable, eh? Do you need a list of black politicians to prove you wrong on that count?

Swing states:

New York: 16% Black
Illinois: 16% Black
Virginia: 21% Black
Florida: 16% Black
Ohio: 13% Black
Michigan: 15% Black

Etc. I'm saying, this is a big voting block, and given that the demographic has a lower-than-average turnout, a mobilization among Black voters (certainly not all but many of whom would vote for the first Black candidate of a major party), added to those larger-than-average group of people who will vote for any democrat who wins the primary this cycle, would swing a general without question.

Sure Obama has less experience than some other candidates, but in my book that equals less corrupt and/or less jaded. I think he's shown leadership in some very practical legislation.

As far as voting for him because he's Black is concerned, well....yes! That's *part* of it. I'm not black myself, but I'm deeply concerned about issues of inequality and disenfranchisement in our country. I care about them, whomever they may affect, but given that they affect Black people differentially, it makes sense to me that someone who has spent his career to-date addressing these issues would be my ideal candidate. Moreover, Obama puts his money where his mouth is. He still lives on the South side of Chicago. He is accepting no special interest campaign donations. Both of these things tell me that he of all the candidates is the least "glossy rhetoric."

Finally, presumably anyone critical of the way that Bushes pere and fils have further botched our relationships in the Middle East, is likely to be of the mind that our position is currently tenuous. Isn't it possible to think that a candidate with Muslim families, who has lived in the Muslim world, would be advantageous in repairing our extremely strained relationships some Middle Eastern countries? And wouldn't it just throw a wrench in Putin's plans to build a substitute axis out of anti-American sentiment in Eurasia and the Middle East to relive the glory of the motherland, this time with full control of the vast majority of oil, if we had a president with a Muslim father, who might, just might, convince them not to grant their loyalties so quickly?

Al Gore

And if he doesn't run, Edwards.

And if Edwards drops out, Obama.

Anyone but Clinton. PLEASE, god, ANYONE but Clinton.

I honestly don't know what the fuck I'm going to do if Clinton wins the Democratic nomination. I may write in Gore.

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

That's what I feel about politicians in general, at least on a national level. They may wear the veneer of a particular party or cause or idealism, but when you boil off all the trimmings, they're pretty much the same to me.

Excuse this politically averse cynic for saying so, but in terms of the human condition, there's really nothing new under the sun. Things are better than they were 100 or even 50 years ago. But then we've a multitude of new problems plaguing us. One person or party will not suddenly transform this nation or this world into the new utopia.

Keep on plugging away and doing the best you can in your family and community. Be kind, generous, and honest. Maybe if we all bucked up more in our own lives we could turn the world around instead of waiting for the policy wonks to pass a law.

But hey, that's just me. Kudos to everyone who have faith in the American government to turn the world around. I guess you're just better people than this crabby bitch. Tee hee.

What? No Sam Brownback?? Bwahahahahahaha!!

Gee, I wonder if this site has a predominantly Democrat readership?

Here, here on Feingold. If he was an option, my choice would be crystal clear.

I'm an Obamaniac. An Obama Mama, if you will. If you'll all refer to the "Celebrities we'd all do" list, he was number one on mine. I just saw him speak in Seattle on June 1st. I have my Obama bumper stickers and buttons. If he signed my boob, I'd tattoo it on there.

Plus I like his politics 'n stuff.

I voted for Hillary, but to tell the truth, I don't have a strong preference for either Democratic candidate. I think the Gore/Obama ticket is a solid idea -- and I kind of wish Hillary had waited till 2012, after two successful terms in the Senate. We shall see.

Read Obama's autobiography, describing his life before politics. Then compare it to Hilary's. Nuff said.
I'm all about Obama/Edwards.

^5 TK! The failure to vote has given us many "second choices" who went on to fail the country with ineptitude (no cites needed). Ineptitude and arrogance is a deadly combo that is rising like pond scum to the top of our national tickets. Maybe it is too early for many to engage in a protracted political dialogue but there is never any excuse not to vote. It is a privilege that must be exercised whenever extended. As TK said, "You forfeit all rights to complain about anything, ever, by not voting." Amen to that.

RON PAUL

WWW.RONPAUL2008.COM

The only legitimate limited governmnent candidate on either side...

Look at the voting records of your candidates, not the campgaign stump speeches...

Even as a resident of North Carolina, I can't vote for Edwards and still look at my reflection in the mirror every morning.

So I checked out this Ron Paul guy, and I like what he has to say about the issues he talks about. He seems consistent in his beliefs, and unswayed by popular (stupid) opinions and pet causes. Overall, from what I see on his website, I'm impressed. But where is there mention of health care, education, social security, etc? His party is republican, but his words are libertarian. Not that I don't agree with a lot of what libertarians stand for, but their lack of regard for necessary social programs are unrealistic, which is why they'll never gain any traction outside of local politics (with a few exceptions here and there).

And there is the main reason I align with the democrats, for better or for worse. I just wish there was more better to look to right now.

It's a shame that Hillary is so despised. This is mainly due to her being a strong woman. No one likes strong women. It's true. And also devastatingly sad.

However, I think either having her or Obama in the White House (or both!) would do a great service to this country.

Ron Paul. He does the least pandering the lowest common denominator. Candidates from both sides are PATHETIC. As a one issue voter, my vote goes to who ever is strong enough to say "my beliefs about the nature of the world and god have no place in the politics of this country or this election."

Ron Paul

Kolby, Take a chill pill. I assumed it was the Pajiba poll in which you did not bother to vote. You are waiting, according to your latest comment, for the candidates to be "confirmed". By whom? At what time? How will we lesser mortals know?

It is called a 'comment diversion,' i.e., an online discussion. If you choose not to participate, so be it. But if you post comments without a basis in corresponding action do not be surprised if others comment upon them (n.b., comment on your comments and on your behaviour as expressed therein; not commenting on you as a person).

Please continue to go to work EVERY DAY (emphasis yours). That is why you are paid.

Good that you are only a "little appalled" because my comment (I do not speak for TK but would be surprised if s/he differed) was in no way an effort to put you anywhere, much less "in your place". I do not know where that would be and, much to your apparent disappoinment, do not really care where that would be.

I am unsure for what you are asking to be given credit. I hope you do not look to comment threads on blogs for validation as a person. A comment on political acuity and activity should not cause you to question your sense of self or estimation of self-worth.

This thread is just a harmless diversion. Do not imbue it with such importance. These are opinions about political candidates, not judgment calls on the commenters.

Also, I just re-read the last sentence in your second post, Rudy. I'm wondering - isn't that exactly what you were doing when addressing me and my self-esteem?

Hmm... I don't want a candidate that supports the war. We should have never gone in the first place, and staying there any longer is only detrimental. I don't want a candidate that supports universal health care. That job is better left to the states. They would do it more efficiently. I don't want a candidate that is against gun rights. The people should be able to protect themselves. The government is not our savior. It never will be. I don't want someone inexperienced, so that leaves out the feel-good candidates on both sides, Thompson and Obama. I don't want a candidate that is overtly religious which cuts out a lot of the Republicans. I think I want Ron Paul. And no, he's not a racist. I've done the research on that. And no, he doesn't support federal legislation banning abortion. It's a state issue no matter how you look at it unless the Constitution is amended. I don't like a bunch of corporate subsidies. I like voting for freedom, so I'll vote for Ron Paul.

WHY IS RON PAUL NOT ON THIS POLL??????????

Kolby, my apologies. To be fair, your words were "I'm not going to vote" - in a forum about voting. No way for me to know that you meant in this diversion. So it was a simple mistake. I appreciate your clarifying. I obviously stand by what I said about not voting in elections in general - I just regret directing my vitriol at you. So again, apologies for the misunderstanding.

My vote is going to Obama at this point. I want to vote for Ron Paul so much, if it weren't for his stances on abortion and immigration. He's like our own twenty first century version of Thomas Jefferson (at least until TJ became president). He would make a fucking awesome secretary of state/defense.

HOW CAN YOU PUT (shudder) RUDY GIULIANI and not put the best and certainly most sane candidate RON PAUL???? Not only did he never support the war in Iraq, but he might be one of the only Conservative candidates to read the 911 Commission report.

While I might be a democrat/liberal, if you choose to include conservative candidates, you SHOULD include at least the MUCH lesser evil.

No Ron Paul? No Mike Grovel? Guess I'll go Obama then.