American Democratic Presidential Primary Race

[Don Corleone]

Well, I missed the debate last night. I try not to read the soundbyte reviews of things like debates, because here, more than anywhere else, do journalists heavily editorialize and selectively filter or allow content from candidates they or their publication favor. I'm sure it'll be rebroadcast over the weekend. In any case, it did get me thinking about who was carrying the .Org vote. :2thumbsup:

Okay, the odds of me voting Democrat in the next Presidential election aren't that great (better than they have been in the past 3 however). Even so, I do have a vested interest. And I approached this the way I think you SHOULD, I look for a candidate that I would actually vote for, not the one I'd like to see the Republican contender have to face.

So, I'm actually favoring Bill Richardson. Yeah, he's a former Clintonista, but so is half the Democratic party these days, and nobody is more Clintonista than ole Hillary herself. Besides, despite what many Republicans might happen to think, the Clintonista, well Democratic Leadership Council in general, tends to be moderate to conservative Democrats (note: I said Democrats, not moderate or conservative with regards to the entire body politic). If you want a true Lefty, check out some of the stances espoused by John Edwards or Dennis Kucinich.

What's more, Richardson shows some common sense approaches. He cut the personal income tax while governor of New Mexico sharply. He's entered New Mexico into several corporate/state government partnerships to help his local economy. And when he has to be, he can be a tough foreign policy negotiator (before everyone gets on him about North Korea, let me simply ask why George and Condi have him on their North Korean negotiating team, yes, he still is in there...).

He favors vouches for helping working poor get medical insurance, as opposed to a universal health care system, an approach I commend him on. He might be a little too concerned with what the Europeans think about us for my tastes, but let's face it, our next president is going to have do some fence mending. :oops:

Anyway, I posted the 8 Democratic candidates, plus the requisite Gah! I'm curious if Obama and Hillary own the Org the same way they own the media coverage right now. If you do pick one of these two, beyond "charisma" or "first African-American; first woman", please state why. By the way, Richardson, at 3/4 Mexican, would be the first Latino President, so you quota-philes can soothe your consciences with that. You may vote for more than one, but please post and advise which of your choices would be your top choice, and why.

By the way, in the interests of fair disclosure, in a 2 way race between Richardson and my currently preferred Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, I would vote Romney.

[Ice]

GAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

That about sums it up.

[Lemur]

Gah! Can't be bothered yet, too early in the game.

[edit]

But here's some early polling (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=ba1ebc70-a734-4185-8532-2e4a9ba45d96). Not that it means much this far out, but at least it's something tangible.

[Goofball]

I like Obama and Edwards, but I fear there will be no stopping the Clinton steamroller.

[Pindar]

So this is kind of a poll from the Inferno, where after being cast into the pit, one must choose from among the damned or possessed?

Note: I watched the "Debate". Gravel and Kucinich were the most entertaining. I thought Biden was the most rhetorically aware by which I mean comfortable in the format, and controlled in his answers. Obama was the most underwhelming. I think Clinton came out the best, by the simple fact of not being upstaged or not seeming 'to lose' as it were.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The Gahs have it just like they will for all these nerds at election tiime :laugh4:

[Don Corleone]

I like Obama and Edwards, but I fear there will be no stopping the Clinton steamroller.

Why? You didn't offer any reasons for either of your two pros or your con.

[Don Corleone]

So this is kind of an Inferno type of poll where, after being cast into the pit, one must choose one from among the damned or possessed? That's exactly what this is. Once the Republicans organize their first debate, I'll start a companion thread for that crew.


Note: I watched the "Debate". Gravel and Kucinich were the most entertaining. I thought Biden was the most rhetorically aware by which I mean comfortable in the format, and controlled in his answers. Obama was the most underwhelming. I think Clinton came out the best, by the simple fact of not being upstaged or not seeming 'to lose' as it were. Isn't Gravel the one that wants to pass all sorts of legislation that it would be a felony not to be a Socialist? Basically, you have to agree with him or go to jail? I guess he's going for the Hugo Chavez vote. Maybe he should get himself featured on that Citgo tanker with Joe Kennedy. :clown:

[Marshal Murat]

I like Obama.
I can't back it up with anything (yet)

I actually like the Richardson argument, could see it happening.

[Louis VI the Fat]

The papers said Clinton pwnd all. :jumping:

Nobody is going to stop her, she's simply too talented (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaDQ1vIuvZI&mode=related&search=).

[Ironside]

So this is kind of an Inferno type of poll where, after being cast into the pit, one must choose one from among the damned or possessed?


Not to worry, after one has been chosen from Caïna, that person will be against someone from Antenora. :laugh4:

On the susbject at hand, I can't say that I know the candidates good enough to make a decision.

[Gregoshi]

You know there are more Democrats running for President than there were men claiming to be the father of Anna Nicole Smith's baby. Gah, indeed!

[ICantSpellDawg]

the one most likely to lose to a republican. Kucinich? Gravel?

[Xehh II]

Gah! I'm not even American.

[Goofball]

Why? You didn't offer any reasons for either of your two pros or your con.

I like Edwards and Obama because they seem to have the most character out of all of the candidates. I dislike Clinton because I think the best way to ensure a Republican president in '08 is for her to be the Democrat candidate. She is simply too hated.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I like Richardson out of these choices. Probably the most centrist of the bunch, plus he's not a gun hater.


I dislike Clinton because I think the best way to ensure a Republican president in '08 is for her to be the Democrat candidate. She is simply too hated.

Heeheehee. The dem front-runners are 1) A woman half the country hates 2) An inexperienced first term Senator 3) A pretty faced hypocrite.

Course, can't brag too much bout the GOP - until Thompson gets in.

CR

[KafirChobee]

The only give me is that the next prez has a high probability of being a Dem.

The Republicanists just have the same old programs and agendas they have been holding onto since the 50's. One thing that is for sure, they will fall back on insisting the budget be balanced - not that they much cared about it the past +6 years, allowing a surplus they assisted in creating to be turned into the largest deficit since Reagan. Reagan insisted on a balanced budget when he ran - our debt was $1trillion when he entered office and $4trillion when he left. They will also call for smaller government - which has nearly doubled under their tutelgage. They are hypocrits, and everyone but the blind in their party know it.

I like Obama, it is time for real substance and integrity - I mean to get as much money as Hillary and for 70% of it to come in $50< contributions is no small feat. He also doesn't seem to participate in the double talk we have allowed ourselves to be accustom to - the do as I say, not as I do.

There seems to be a great fear of Edwards, or such a fuss about a haircut would not have occurred. Hillary, just scares the bejesus out of the GOPists - so she really doesn't have a real shot, but still may steal the candidacy with her lobbyists and wealthy interests. Still a long time to go - so we will see.

:balloon2:

[Pindar]

Isn't Gravel the one that wants to pass all sorts of legislation that it would be a felony not to be a Socialist?

The fellow is quite insane. The benefit is the more air time he has the more the loons that live in the Demo fever swamp will be galvanized and it will pull the other candidates in that direction. The same is the case with Kucinich.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The only give me is that the next prez has a high probability of being a Dem.

There is no way any of these democratic candidates stand a snowballs chance in hell of getting elected in 08. There will be a repubican president and a democratic congress just as there is now. I doubt the country will make the mistake of giving all the power to one party again soon. Most of the republican canidates are moderate republicans and social libs. Its going to be a runaway.


The Republicanists just have the same old programs and agendas they have been holding onto since the 50's.

At least they have programs other than I dont support the other parties programs. Or just give us your money cause your too stupid to know how to spend it. Bill Clinton said that himself.

[Lemur]

Wow, feel the love in this thread. Gentlemen, isn't it a little bit early to demonize the candidates? Why the rush?

[Blodrast]

Wow, feel the love in this thread. Gentlemen, isn't it a little bit early to demonize the candidates? Why the rush?

Just warming up, Lemur - gotta practice to keep in shape. ~D

[drone]

Wow, feel the love in this thread. Gentlemen, isn't it a little bit early to demonize the candidates? Why the rush?
It's too early for any of this nonsense. What is it, 9 months, until the first primary? We need to shorten the election process, not drag it out to almost 2 years. With modern communications, I fail to see any practical reason why we couldn't have the run-up, primaries, nominations, and final election within 4-5 months. This constant campaigning is just mind-numbing to the citizenry, trivial news cycle filler, and just a colossal waste of money.

[Crazed Rabbit]

There seems to be a great fear of Edwards, or such a fuss about a haircut would not have occurred.

Right....or, we just think it's funny. He wasn't the biggest threat in 2004, and he's a smaller one now - he's more leftist, more hypocritical, and less centrist.

CR

[Pindar]

Wow, feel the love in this thread. Gentlemen, isn't it a little bit early to demonize the candidates? Why the rush?

With the change in so many of the state primaries: the nominee for both parties will basically be decided in 10 months.

[Lemur]

A gentle reminder to our Republican orgahs: It was exactly through this process -- demonizing the oposition candidates -- that you managed to vote for Bush twice. With the results as you see.

Think on this before you slash and burn every candidate who doesn't fit into your exact specifications. By hating everyone else, you may wind up voting for a terrible candidate.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Think on this before you slash and burn every candidate who doesn't fit into your exact specifications. By hating everyone else, you may wind up voting for a terrible candidate.

Ive seen little slashing and burning of them here. It may shock you that many of us if not most, stillbelieve we were better off with Bush than either of the last two democratic cadidates. Bush isnt the best president ever but he sure isnt as bad as many here make him out to be.

Maybe you should think a little before you vote as well. At least im at ease knowing I wont vote for anyone from either of these parties or is it party?

[KukriKhan]

My next president (and VP) must:

a) fix Iraq
b) Get Europe, Asia & Africa on our side (and work on South & Central Am).
c) fix my Army
d) make a firm, informed decision on immigration
e) handle the next terrorist attack on US soil
e1) find, arrest and try OBL
f) secure my borders and ports
g) close Gitmo


There's more, but 7 items on the "Kukri Mandate" are plenty for the winners' first 200 days.

None of those people seem up to the task(s). In the Bizarro universe where that group represents the only available choices, I pick Richardson for POTUS and Obama his VP.

Richardson for his breadth of experience. Obama for his lack of it.

Richardson knows how DC works, has no fear of dealing with bad guys, knows how to organize, direct, and motivate an executive office, and (I think) will stop being a Democrat 2 seconds after he takes the oath, and start being the people's Prez.

Obama doesn't yet know what is impossible, so will try to achieve the impossible, and succeed a few times, to his and our amazement. If he pays attention to how his Prez works, he'll make a good replacement, should something untoward happen to Richardson.

Finally, Gawain has a good point; I think the US voters are gonna want to return to Exec v Legis gridlock, fearing the bad effects of one-party rule we tried the past 6 years.

[JimBob]

I like Richardson or Obama. The next few months will tell who exactly. Exact opposite reasons for either, that's the choice I'll have to make. Obama is young and has the potential to help revitalize American politics and to maybe make the country hope again. Richardson is an experienced old warhorse. He's pretty much towards the center and most people will be able to stomach him. He's dealt with foreign leaders. And he seems in favor of compromise, which is sorely needed. I mean he has negotiated with Saddam Hussein, I think John Boehner and Mitch McConnell will be a little less hostile.

[doc_bean]

Anyone but Hilary !


I personnally hope you'll get a financially conservatieve republican who's willing to 'fight' terorism like it should be done and end that dumb Iraq war.

I'd really like someone who has to guts to put the current administration on trial for treason and supports an end to the presidential pardon....

[Xiahou]

Apparently Richardson decided to run to the left of the other candidates and now advocates a complete and total withdrawal of all forces from Iraq by years end. So... cross him off my list then. Really, there's virtually nothing that I like about the positions of any of the Democrat candidates- but, if I had to choose one of them it'd probably be Hillary at the moment. We know she's tough, shrewd, and is comparatively strong on defense next to the other candidates. In the debate, she was about the only one who answered the question about their theoretical response to another terror attack with any competency at all. Obama and Edwards completely whiffed on that question and showed their lack of experience.

[sapi]

Really a Gah! from me, but Clinton if i had to choose.

Experience has to count for something, especially with the foreign policy mess that America's in (and that, I'm sure, even the democratic cantidates know will be made wose by an Iraq withdrawal)

[AntiochusIII]

I think the US voters are gonna want to return to Exec v Legis gridlock, fearing the bad effects of one-party rule we tried the past 6 years.You misunderestimate partisanship :P

...and voter stupidity in general; even smart people vote stupid, for some reason. We shall be disappointed yet.

[Cataphract_Of_The_City]

and that, I'm sure, even the democratic cantidates know will be made wose by an Iraq withdrawal


How worse can it get? They 've even started firing artilery (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070429/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq) in populated areas.

[Banquo's Ghost]

and that, I'm sure, even the democratic cantidates know will be made wose by an Iraq withdrawal

How worse can it get? They 've even started firing artilery (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070429/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq) in populated areas.

Please don't derail the thread. Whereas Iraq has an important influence on policy, the thread is about the Democrat primary race.

:bow:

[Kralizec]

Not knowledgable enough about all the candidates to make a truly informed choice, but from the posts here I think I'd like Bill Richardson. Edwards seems like a decent guy but he's too left-wing econimcally for my taste. Obama is way too inexperienced to hold the highest public office and I don't like Clinton's persona or her style of politics.

[Don Corleone]

A gentle reminder to our Republican orgahs: It was exactly through this process -- demonizing the oposition candidates -- that you managed to vote for Bush twice. With the results as you see.

Think on this before you slash and burn every candidate who doesn't fit into your exact specifications. By hating everyone else, you may wind up voting for a terrible candidate.

I disagree with Edwards and Clinton on their policies, but I don't think I'm demonizing. I think Edwards and Obama need a lot more experience before they're ready for the reins. Again, I dont' think that's demonizing anybody.

But go read some of the stuff Gravel is on the record with. The guy is an out and out fruitbat. No way to soften the tone on that one. He wants everyone to be socialists, and he wants to make it a felony to disagree with him. Look it up, he really said that.

As for the rest of the Democratic field, you've got some strong choices there. Nobody I'd care to see in the White House, but they are intelligent and they do execute on their professed agenda well. I just don't care for their agenda.

[Major Robert Dump]

They all lost the debate.

They aren't even debates anymore, and they haven't been real debates for the past 4 terms.

[Tristrem]

Ok, first time backroom poster here so bear with me, I hope I don't offend anyone, but this is a topic I am quite interested in.

Really, I don't understand the attacks on Gravel, he seems like his heart is in the right place, only his words are a little out there. With such a comment, as making people socialist, I think that accusations like that should require some support, and I would like to see where he said that. Not to attack anyone, but I would like to see these claims back up with evidence, not just an opinion.

Personally, I think there is more to Gravel than meets the eye. He was the one who bargined to end the draft in during vietnam, and was a publisher of the pentagon papers. I think someone like that who saved many american lives, and showed the public proof of the lies of our gov't made, deserves a little more respect than a being called a fruitbat.

On the issues I liked his views, he thinks america should take it's place in the world, act as an equal, not like we are better than anyone. That in itself is enough to be elected in my opinion. He also supports the reduction of our nuclear arsenal. He wants to limit the influence of the military industral complex, which has grow out of control and is the main reason for the war in Iraq. To back this up I suggest watching https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xYeuzG24mo, it's called why we fight, a 4 part bbc story on the american military industral complex, very interesting and eye opening. Also interestingly he supports getting rid of the IRS and introducing a flat tax system. I hope he is given a chance, because he has some good ideas. With a little more money, and airtime, I think he would be able to gain many supporters. I would suggest visiting his site,
http://www.gravel2008.us/ for more information.
If he doesn't make it, well I also liked that guy from Ohio, I think his name was Kucinich.

Have a great day, and I hope to see some more interesting opinions:2thumbsup:

[KukriKhan]

Hello Tristrem, and welcome to the Backroom. :bow:

[Lemur]

Personally, I prefer divided government. The six years of all-Republican-all-the-time should make the danger of one-party governance obvious to even the most blinkered partisan.

To Don and the other Republicans whom I cautioned, I hope no permanent offense was given by the lemur. The first page of this thread, however, had that sort of joyous abandon that only occurs when a group of Republicans start trash-talking Democrats. There's an unrestrained glee that infuses such a dialog that I find unproductive. Comparing a slate of candidates with a "fever swamp" and Dante's Inferno is not exactly engaging or enlightening.

Weird Presidential endorsement news for the day: Bruce Bartlett thinks conservatives should consider backing Hillary. (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzgxMjNlMWMzNzQ1NjlhMWI5YzNiYTM5YzdmZDdiNTQ=) Because she will lose? No (says he), because she's the most conservative frontrunner. I am suspicious of his motives, frankly.


Here’s why. Although all the Democratic candidates are more liberal than all of the Republicans, they are not all equally liberal. Among the Democrats, some are more to the right and others more to the left. It is a grave mistake to assume, as most conservatives do, that they are all equally bad and that it makes no difference whatsoever which one is elected.

To right-wingers willing to look beneath what probably sounds to them like the same identical views of the Democratic candidates, it is pretty clear that Hillary Clinton is the most conservative. John Edwards is the most liberal, and Barack Obama is somewhere in between.

The hard-core right-wingers who kept reading past the point I told them to stop probably think I’ve lost my mind by now. But remember, I am talking about the politics within the Democratic Party, not the nation as a whole. Moreover, at this stage of the nominating process, all of the candidates in both parties are appealing mainly to their bases. These are well to the left of the country among Democrats and well to the right among Republicans.

It is in this context that one must evaluate Sen. Clinton’s position.

[Don Corleone]

Hi Tristem. Welcome to the backroom. Forgive me, I'm a touch given to hyperbolic projection in these threads, I meant no offense.

I was merely following Mr. Gravel's on-record statements about making it a felony to continue to prosecute the war in Iraq, a policy he clearly does not favor, with other policies he may not agree with. His calls for universal health care, allowing for social security funds to be passed on to heirs, etcetra all appear pretty far left (at least to me, and granted I'm a moderate-righty). His position that all individuals be barred from collectiving their political capital (ending political action committees), effectively granting the mainstream media a monopoly on issue advocacy, seems anti-first ammendment. It doesn't seem to me to be a big leap to see him criminalizing opposing viewpoints on these issues as he has suggested doing so on foreign policy. I don't agree with the war in Iraq, and I haven't since it started, but I think throwing people you disagree with in jail on felony counts is a bit too authoritarian for my tastes.

To his credit, I give Mr. Gavel a lot of credit for his adoption of the Fair Tax. I'm amazed that he of all people would, but bravo for him on it.

[Pindar]

Ok, first time backroom poster here so bear with me, I hope I don't offend anyone...

I'm offended. Give me a dollar.

[Tristrem]

Thank you Don,I'm glad to see where you are coming from, and I find your opinion very interesting. I think that during the debate he made himself appear ore to the left than normal, that way he could appear different from the other canidates. For a better view of his ideas, I think you should watch this interview with wolf blitzer in the situation room https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLWZd4BCCPo. He explains his comments a little better and talks a little policy. Overall I think he is a longshot, but he has the best chance amoung the lower tier canidates. Recently in response to a petition, he is going to be allowed to be included in the june 3rd debate, so will see him there

p.s. Sorry, my mom always taught me not to give money to strangers pindar

[Pindar]

p.s. Sorry, my mom always taught me not to give money to strangers pindar

Dang!

OK, welcome the Backroom, where shadows lie.

[Pindar]

To Don and the other Republicans whom I cautioned, I hope no permanent offense was given by the lemur. The first page of this thread, however, had that sort of joyous abandon that only occurs when a group of Republicans start trash-talking Democrats. There's an unrestrained glee that infuses such a dialog that I find unproductive. Comparing a slate of candidates with a "fever swamp" and Dante's Inferno is not exactly engaging or enlightening.


I speak truth to pathology.

[Don Corleone]

No offense taken at all Lemur. I did intend this as a serious discussion. And while I find your article interesting, I think the focus solely on so-called top-tier candidates this early in the race is one of the ways we allow the media establishment (and yes, National Review Online forms a part of that) to pick our candidates and frame the elections for us. I really like Bill Richardson and if I had to pick a Democrat to lead the country, he wins by a country mile. In fact, he'd have my vote over several of the Republican candidates. I'm going on record now... I know he hasn't entered the race yet, but if Newt Gingrich winds up with the nomination, my vote will definitely be in play for Democrats (should they select a more palatable candidate).

Sure, we tease and poke fun at some of your guys. But we can't have you rubbing your eyes and checking your pulse, thinking you're in an alternate reality. :laugh4:

I wonder if they ever do polls like that.... how bad the nominee from your own preferred party has to be versus how good the opposing party's candidate has to be before you'd crossover.

[Divinus Arma]

A Clinton-Obama ticket is inevitable.

And I grow sick to my stomach. I've been gone for a reason.:laugh4:


:flybye:

[Banquo's Ghost]

Dang!

OK, welcome the Backroom, where shadows lie.

Tsk, tsk.

I've told you before, we don't accuse members of lying because of a difference of substance, even if their arguments are ephemeral.

:wink:

[spmetla]

Will most likely vote for Obama. I don't really like any of the Demo canidates but I agree with him on the most issues. I don't really like his policy on the war or proposals to create more oversight commitees and such but I really don't want to support a republican again.

If I were to vote for a Republican it'd probably be Guliani, and he's not all that great a canidate either.

[Lemur]

If I were to vote for a Republican it'd probably be Guliani, and he's not all that great a canidate either.
You might want to talk to some New Yorkers (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/06/wolff200706?printable=true&currentPage=all) before voting for Rudy ...

[KukriKhan]

Update:

So, the Org's leading Dem contenders (Obama & Clinton), aside from the Gah! guy, pick up Secret Service Protection Details (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/03/us/politics/04Obamacnd.html?ref=politics), a year-and-a-half before the vote.


Generally, candidates are placed under security protection around the time they receive their party’s nomination. In the 2004 election, Senators John Kerry and John Edwards received their secret service detail in February of 2004, about eight months before the general election. from the NY Times.

[Tristrem]

Well tonight is the big night, the GOP is having their debate. I think I will watch, because I do not know who really is running for that party. My only hope is that we don't get the line "America will only be safe from evil/terrorism/iraq/whatever the next conflict is with a republican in the oval office". I think it is time for a democrat to stand up and say 9/11 happened on the Republican watch, with them being in control of 2 out 3 of the branches in our federal gov't. Sad no one ever brings that up.

[Don Corleone]

Well, to be fair, Tristem, this is the Democratic thread. I'll start a Republican one, poll included.

[Xiahou]

I really like Bill Richardson and if I had to pick a Democrat to lead the country, he wins by a country mile. You know that he's now advocating a full, complete retreat from Iraq along a timetable that's quicker than what any of the other mainstream Dem candidates are even advocating?

[Don Corleone]

You know that he's now advocating a full, complete retreat from Iraq along a timetable that's quicker than what any of the other mainstream Dem candidates are even advocating?

No, I didn't know that. I'll have to read his exact stance on the matter, as I find that characterization surprising, given that he was the only one of the Democrats that said he would use military force to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

[Xiahou]

This isn't the link (http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2007/01/bill_richardson.html) I was looking for- but it says the same thing.
How are you going to get us out of Iraq?

This is what I would do. It's clear, but it'll take a little while.

1) I would get us out of Iraq this calendar year. Without fail. When, I would let our military people decide that. But I would set a deadline determined by our military.

Number two, I would at the same time put it to the Maliki government that you've got to do three things: 1) You've got to convene a reconciliation conference of the three ethnic groups -- the Shia, the Sunni, Kurds -- and you develop a power transition of cabinet ministries, civil administration, and you use the leverage of a withdrawl to achieve that.

I would then convene a Persian Gulf Middle East peace conference that would deal with providing Iraq security, reconstruction, and their own transition.
My guess, he knows he's polling low, so he's pandering to the far left in hopes of some help. :shrug: