NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, we've been discussing the Presidential prospects of the Republican party in the United States for a bit now on the "Condi for PREZ" thread. Now, I ask, what are the Democratic prospects for President in 2008 or possibly 2012? Who's maneuvering to make a run at the White House? Who has a chance, who doesn't? Who would you like to see?

To be frank, I am a bit disheartened by the field the Democrats have to pick from in this matter; the GOP has their superstars, their ideological and political paragons, yet I don't think the Dems do. Mebbe I'm wrong.

However, increasingly, I'd like to see Harry Reid make a go at it.

I like Obama.

I really liked him after hearing his talk about Slave reperations.

Well, we've been discussing the Presidential prospects of the Republican party in the United States for a bit now on the "Condi for PREZ" thread. Now, I ask, what are the Democratic prospects for President in 2008 or possibly 2012? Who's maneuvering to make a run at the White House? Who has a chance, who doesn't? Who would you like to see?

To be frank, I am a bit disheartened by the field the Democrats have to pick from in this matter; the GOP has their superstars, their ideological and political paragons, yet I don't think the Dems do. Mebbe I'm wrong.

However, increasingly, I'd like to see Harry Reid make a go at it.

Are you kidding? How can Hillary not be the clear choice? She'll say or do anything to get elected :rolleyes: :confused: :(

Does anyone really think that Democrats have a chance of winning in 2008 (assuming Bush doesn't do a Nixon or anything like that).

What a difficult question. This while Dean thing hasn't really shaken out the landscape yet, so no telling which canidates without a solid national base already are going to get party support. Clinton and Kennedey are the only real serious contenders currently but I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a Landeau or a Townsend running a serios campaign (and how about an all female Clinton/Townsend ticket?). It's not that there aren't democrats out there who could win or anything, it is that the party's new chair is a wildcard and there is no recognized general stratagy out there. Will Clinton be asked not to run in order to keep her senate seat? Of course, the general hysterical trend current in the party now ( Republicans are evil, evil I tell you, evil ) means the national party is likely to put up an unpalatable extremist canidate but they could change and seem to be doing so somewhat. Again Dean is the wildcard, and until (if?) he sets his tone and stratagy there is no way of telling who is really in the field.

The Dem prospects are dim at best.

Think on this:

Bush's popularity just now is the lowest it has ever been.

But Democrats are running two percent lower at the same time.

Dems are screwed to the wall.

Does anyone really think that Democrats have a chance of winning in 2008 (assuming Bush doesn't do a Nixon or anything like that).

With the way they keep screwing the pooch over this Schiavo thing, election 2006 may deal the Republicans a serious blow to their power. Bush may end up a very lame duck in his last 2 years.

With the way they keep screwing the pooch over this Schiavo thing, election 2006 may deal the Republicans a serious blow to their power. Bush may end up a very lame duck in his last 2 years.

If the Democrats nominate Harry Reid, the Democratic Party will cease to exist. You can't nominate someone whose picture appears next to the definition of the word "wuss" in the dictionary.

IMO, the nomination is already Barack Obama's for the asking, he's the shining star the Dems have been looking for for a long time.

Swimmingpool, Clinton went out on a high approval rating, but that didn't stop a Bush from succeeding him.

As a Dem, I definitely want Obama, but the darker part of me wants Hillary, since so many conservatives go berserker just when hearing her name. I don't think you can campaign too effectively against someone when all you can focus on is how much you hate them.

Even though Bush is in the minority with his opinions on Schiavo, I don't think this issue will have much traction with the Democrats in two years, unless he calls in the National Guard to reinstert her feeding tube, which he won't.

After she passes away, the next time we hear about Terri Schiavo is when VH1 comes out with "I Love The Aughts!" in 2011.

The Dem prospects are dim at best.

Think on this:

Bush's popularity just now is the lowest it has ever been.

But Democrats are running two percent lower at the same time.

Dems are screwed to the wall.
if I remember the data correctly it was democrating senator's, in that case comparing their satasfaction to the presidents is not really fair evaluation (if I am mistaken I apologise)

Does anyone really think that Democrats have a chance of winning in 2008 (assuming Bush doesn't do a Nixon or anything like that).
Sure. With a republican prez, congress and senate anything the people don't like can be laid squarely at the feet of the republican party in the comming elections. The only other realistic choice is the democrats, so they can't help but capitalize on every single republican mistake real or percieved.

IMO, the nomination is already Barack Obama's for the asking, he's the shining star the Dems have been looking for for a long time.

Swimmingpool, Clinton went out on a high approval rating, but that didn't stop a Bush from succeeding him.

As a Dem, I definitely want Obama, but the darker part of me wants Hillary, since so many conservatives go berserker just when hearing her name. I don't think you can campaign too effectively against someone when all you can focus on is how much you hate them.

Even though Bush is in the minority with his opinions on Schiavo, I don't think this issue will have much traction with the Democrats in two years, unless he calls in the National Guard to reinstert her feeding tube, which he won't.

After she passes away, the next time we hear about Terri Schiavo is when VH1 comes out with "I Love The Aughts!" in 2011.


I dislike hillary and I am a dem lol

if I remember the data correctly it was democrating senator's, in that case comparing their satasfaction to the presidents is not really fair evaluation (if I am mistaken I apologise)

it's the only figure they have to compare with. Even so, it was good enough for Cokie Roberts.

I find it telling that the only person with balls in the Democratic party is Hillary.

it's the only figure they have to compare with. Even so, it was good enough for Cokie Roberts.

I find it telling that the only person with balls in the Democratic party is Hillary.
But I so dislike her! LOL and so many others do as well

If the Democrats nominate Harry Reid, the Democratic Party will cease to exist. You can't nominate someone whose picture appears next to the definition of the word "wuss" in the dictionary.

I seriously doubt Reid would get the ticket.

If we want to pull someone out of the air, I'd say Gen. Anthony Zinni may be duking it out in New Hampshire in 2008. However, I'll break down a potential list of possibilities:

New York Senator Hillary Clinton
Vice President Al Gore
New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson
Indiana Senator Evan Bayh
Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack
North Carolina Senator John Edwards
Illinois Senator-elect Barack Obama
Nevada Senator Harry Reid
Virginia Governor Mark Warner

The list of speculation can go on and on, though. At this time in 2000, nobody would have predicted Howard Dean would run in 2004. So ya just never, ever know.

it's the only figure they have to compare with. Even so, it was good enough for Cokie Roberts.

I find it telling that the only person with balls in the Democratic party is Hillary.
I like Dean. I think he's got balls. He's a democrat, yet he's not an anti-gunner. Standing up to a large segment of your own party takes balls. I also heard him speak on TV once about how to get more jobs here in America and start closing the trade deficit. Nobody else in either party seems to have the balls to address that. It's not just about balls though, it takes brains too. Dean's got both.

I support Russ Feingold for president in 2008.

What the Democrats need to do to stand a chance is not to move even further to the right, but to nominate someone who can explain to the people their opponent's positions!
John Kerry failed to explain that Bush was destroying the environment, letting corporations evade taxes, etc. All the Democratic Party's positions (except for gay marriage) are the popular ones. 55-60% of the population supports stricter gun laws,only 26% think abortion should be banned, etc. But for some strange reason, the public is not aware of Bush's positions- for example, 41% of the population think that Bush is doing a 'Good Job' in protecting the environment (How does that work?) And of Bush supporters, 74% thought Bush favored labor and environmental standards in trade agreements (which he opposes), 72% thought he favored the UN treaty banning land mines (which he opposes), 69% thought he favored a nuclear test ban treaty (which he opposes), 54% thought he favored participation in the International Criminal Court (which he opposes- I can't understand why they thought this after Bush repeatedly insulted it in the debates!) and 51% thought he favored participation in the Kyoto Protocol (which he opposes).

Russ Feingold can do this, and he stands for what he believes in.
He was the only member of Congress to vote against the Patriot Act.



"And, of course, there is no doubt that if we lived in a police state, it would be easier to catch terrorists. If we lived in a country that allowed the police to search your home at any time for any reason; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to open your mail, eavesdrop on your phone conversations, or intercept your email communications; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to hold people in jail indefinitely based on what they write or think, or based on mere suspicion that they are up to no good, then the government would no doubt discover and arrest more terrorists.
But that probably would not be a country in which we would want to live. That would not be a country for which we could, in good conscience, ask our young people to fight and die. In short, that would not be America."

-Russ Feingold, on why he voted against the Patriot Act.

The bigger question isn't who's going to run in 2008. The bigger question is whether it's going to matter when Bush refuses to step down. [ /conspiracy theory ]

No, seriously. It's going to be between two people we don't think will run right now. And if Bush refuses to step down, let the insanity ensue.

Sure. With a republican prez, congress and senate anything the people don't like can be laid squarely at the feet of the republican party in the comming elections. The only other realistic choice is the democrats, so they can't help but capitalize on every single republican mistake real or percieved.

What're you talking about? Everything bad that happens over the next 100 years will easily be able to be traced back to Clinton! :rolleyes:

And I was getting ready to list off all of the Democrats (Boxer, Pelosi, Dean, Obama, etc) with "balls" but I'm pretty sure Whispering Legs is just wants to snark about how f***ked she thinks the Dems are, not debate. So what's the point?

As a Dem, I definitely want Obama, but the darker part of me wants Hillary, since so many conservatives go berserker just when hearing her name. I don't think you can campaign too effectively against someone when all you can focus on is how much you hate them.
Worked for Republicans in 2004, why not in 2008 as well? Also, there is so much dirt in her past that Republicans would have to nominate Newt Gingrich against her to have any chance of losing.

Question- I don't see much talk about John Edwards, and none at all about Wesley Clark. Are they both out of the picture?

i would like to see a Feingold/Obama ticket in '08

when they win, Obama can run for prez in '12 with a little more experience than he has now.

i don't know who his vice would be for '12 any ideas?

[edit:] upon reading an above post, i have replaced 'hilary in 08' with 'feingold in 08'

Question- I don't see much talk about John Edwards, and none at all about Wesley Clark. Are they both out of the picture?


Edwards yes. i read a Reader's Digest interview where he said he's either going to stay out of politics completely, or just do small stuff (mayor of something or stuff like that)

And if Bush refuses to step down, let the insanity ensue.

And why wouldn't Bush step down at the end of his term? Do you have any objective evidence that he plans to stay?

Question- I don't see much talk about John Edwards, and none at all about Wesley Clark. Are they both out of the picture?


I personally think its a little too early to make an educated guess. The thought of Hillary running for president gives me the slick willys. I dont like her and dont feel she really has the country's best interests in mind. She has a clear pattern of a selfish pursuit of power. Maybe its true of most politicians, but she is very transparent to me.

Edwards yes. i read a Reader's Digest interview where he said he's either going to stay out of politics completely, or just do small stuff (mayor of something or stuff like that)

I'm surprised. He didn't exactly disgrace himself last campaign. In fact, I thought the VP debate was better than any of the Presidential ones.

I think Wes Clark could really pull through for the Dems, if he ran in 08. Bush can't touch him on defense/foreign policy, and efforts to paint him as a stereotypical weak/whiny/wuss liberal will fail miserably.

Social issues are the wildcard here: Clark's fairly liberal there, and I think he could enunciate it well, but if the American people keep up the socially conservative trend they're in right now, that could clinch it for Bush. It all depends on whether this whole "Moral Values" business will be de-emphasized and dropped by the public in the next few years.

find it telling that the only person with balls in the Democratic party is Hillary.If the Democrats nominate Harry Reid, the Democratic Party will cease to exist. You can't nominate someone whose picture appears next to the definition of the word "wuss" in the dictionary.He looks like a wuss, I'll give you that, but he's tough as nails in the Senate, WL. Don't judge a book by the cover. I guarantee he'll be a thorn in the side of the Republican Congress. Hell, he already is.

IMO, the nomination is already Barack Obama's for the asking, he's the shining star the Dems have been looking for for a long time.The thing is, this Democratic reliance on Obama as their only true hope seems a little ridiculous and desperate to me. Is one inexperienced Senator from Illinois the ONLY PERSON that can bring the Democrats back to the White house in the next decade? What, because he's black? No, no, he's not ready. He won't be ready for awhile. Just like how Edwards wasn't ready.

I support Russ Feingold for president in 2008.Now there is a choice I can respect. He's actually quite bipartisan, too; moreso than a certain compassionate conservative I will not name at this time. He could get a lot done, if he could throw together a good campaign. Oh, and win.

Question- I don't see much talk about John Edwards, and none at all about Wesley Clark. Are they both out of the picture?Like Kerry, Clark is talking like he's going to run again in '08. Clark says that he understands Presidential and Democratic politics better now; that now he knows what he needs to know to win, whereas he was something of a late-coming amateur in '04. Kerry, of course, is making excuses for losing. Pfeh.

I think Wes Clark could really pull through for the Dems, if he ran in 08. Bush can't touch him on defense/foreign policy, and efforts to paint him as a stereotypical weak/whiny/wuss liberal will fail miserably.

Social issues are the wildcard here: Clark's fairly liberal there, and I think he could enunciate it well, but if the American people keep up the socially conservative trend they're in right now, that could clinch it for Bush. It all depends on whether this whole "Moral Values" business will be de-emphasized and dropped by the public in the next few years.

I'd actually like to see Clark as a VP candidate. I thought what his major problem last election was simply a lack of time/money/polish, all of which are correctable.
But please, not Hillary as prez.

He looks like a wuss, I'll give you that, but he's tough as nails in the Senate, WL. Don't judge a book by the cover. I guarantee he'll be a thorn in the side of the Republican Congress. Hell, he already is.


The problem is that if you look like a wuss, you lose the Presidency. Look at Adlai Stevenson, or better yet, Dukakis and his wussy photo op in a tank.

The problem is that if you look like a wuss, you lose the Presidency. Look at Adlai Stevenson, or better yet, Dukakis and his wussy photo op in a tank.Yeah, that's true. Too bad, too. Part of the reason I like the British system so much. Leaders don't have to be pretty to be in power. Just intelligent and skillful.

I voted Democrats in the last election, but I'm not going to do that again. The last election showed that my opinion makes no difference in the elections, so I'm voting Green from now on. The bi-party system is a near death-blow to American Democracy and I'm no longer willing to support it.

Yeah, that's true. Too bad, too. Part of the reason I like the British system so much. Leaders don't have to be pretty to be in power. Just intelligent and skillful.

Tony Blair makes ANY American President look like a complete moron.

If you had a three-way debate with Bush, Kerry, and Blair, Blair would make them look like ignorant schoolchildren who didn't know how to speak English.

Yeah, that's true. Too bad, too. Part of the reason I like the British system so much. Leaders don't have to be pretty to be in power. Just intelligent and skillful.

Just another example of why the Canadian system is better than either US or UK. Our leaders don't have to be pretty, intelligent, or skillful. They just need to wear Liberal red. :)

so here's how it should go:

'08- Feingold/Obama
'12- Obama/Reid


Feingold/Obama because Feingold is a good ghoice naturally, and Obama is going to need the experience if we want him at the top spot. Most of the people keeping up with Democratic nominees already know he's good for the spot, but if he tries to run on his own, he's going to get blasted for lack of experience (see edwards this last election)

Obama/Reid because with the experience from the last four years, Obama can stand on his own in the top spot, and Reid because if he can handle a republican Congress as well as trammwerk ways he can, he's going to have a feild day as VP handling them.


now, if i had my way, the '12 ticket would be Obama/McCain unfortunately, nobody's going to stand for a mixed ticket, which is sad because McCain and Powell are the only Republicans i can take, and McCain is better looking for the spot than most of the Dems out there.

The problem is that if you look like a wuss, you lose the Presidency. Look at Adlai Stevenson, or better yet, Dukakis and his wussy photo op in a tank.
So if say, Ahnuld, as the most "macho" Republican ever, ran, he would get the biggest majority in history?

So if say, Ahnuld, as the most "macho" Republican ever, ran, he would get the biggest majority in history?

Probably. The Presidency is the male version of the Miss America contest.

So if say, Ahnuld, as the most "macho" Republican ever, ran, he would get the biggest majority in history?

I really doubt he could tackle Nixon's 70+% win. That was a landslide if there ever was one.

in all honestly, and a sad truth this is, i think (R)John McCain is the democrats best choice for prez. Now if he can get on the republican ticket and win then we can move back to a moderate executive and the dems will have a chance from there. But unless there is a reactionary backlash to this strong conservative movement, i dont really see a chance other than that. I personally will register as a republican before the next election for the sole purpose of promaoting McCain. Now theres a strategy, all democrats register republican, and vote for moderates, we'll get them from the inside

There is no way of telling at this moment. Many candidates will "test the water" before the strong campaigning starts.

No sitting senator has won a Presidential election since 1960 (Kennedy), but that doesn't mean that it's not possible. It's hard for senators to win because of their long voting records. That helped ruin Kerry's campaign.

It won't be hard to figure out what will happen once we hit the med term elections. That is when the primary season opens and it will give us a better idea of how the union is being ran. The Republicans are in a dangerous position now. In 1994 when there was the historic takeover by the republicans the democrats held both the house, the senate and the presidency. Newt Gingrich, the master political strategist, used this against the democrats (among other things) and won. The republicans have been pushing their luck for the last 2 years. Who knows, bush could end up popular, and his popularity will reflect on the Republicans.

I say all that because until the midterm elections come about it's hard to know how popular one party is compared to the other. It's hard to know what issues will be on the people's minds. If some issues are being stressed more than other's it will make some politicians more appealing. It's hard to know if Bush's popularity will affect the party. It's impossible to know if the legislature can force Bush to become a lame duck and this will all greatly affect who can run and win.

I wouldn’t count any Democrat out right now, but I wouldn’t count on any democrat either.

Note: Harry Reid could never get the nomination because of his stance on abortion. Edwards has said things both ways on his political aspirations. I don’t think he will run in 4 years but he may eventually.

I really doubt he could tackle Nixon's 70+% win. That was a landslide if there ever was one.
Umm, Nixon only managed some 60% and change of the popular vote (and yes the largest margin of victory). Nixon did however get 520 out of 538 electoral votes which was topped only by Reagans 525 out of 538. Actually, percentagewise LBJ beat him by a few fractions of a percent, but due to higher 3rd party turn out in 1972 Nixon had a higher margin of victory.

but the darker part of me wants Hillary, since so many conservatives go berserker just when hearing her name. I don't think you can campaign too effectively against someone when all you can focus on is how much you hate them.


NO LIE!

I can hear the rage if she got elected and they realise that Bill is in the White House again! :D

Probably. The Presidency is the male version of the Miss America contest.
You are cool.

I see you like Chris Hitchens. He's an interesting character, and probably the only communist in the world who likes Bush!

Does anyone really think that Democrats have a chance of winning in 2008 (assuming Bush doesn't do a Nixon or anything like that).
Yes. The political pendulum in this country swings infrequently, but when it does, it is sudden and violent. The last time it happened was probably the 1994 "Republican Revolution".

I'm not a Democrat, but I would say, besides Hillary, your gonna need a candidate from the "red states", someone who may be a social conservative, or at least doesn't have liberal voting record or statements that would lead to voters thinking that your candidate is liberal and thay should be, at least in appearance, distant from the Hollywood left.

Now regarding my party's candidate, I see a toss-up maybe between Tom Delay, Condi Rice, but after reading his latest book, my personal pick would be Newt Gingrich, if he could get the ideas in his book to become reality, he probably would do an excellent job as Pres.

Lieberman is okay, I wouldn't mind him as a Dem prez.

Lieberman is okay, I wouldn't mind him as a Dem prez.

Everyone, it's time for some "Joe-mentum"!
Seriously, he has the personality of a dog biscuit. People think Kerry was boring, this guy makes John Kerry look like Jim Carrey.

The thing is, this Democratic reliance on Obama as their only true hope seems a little ridiculous and desperate to me. Is one inexperienced Senator from Illinois the ONLY PERSON that can bring the Democrats back to the White house in the next decade? What, because he's black? No, no, he's not ready. He won't be ready for awhile. Just like how Edwards wasn't ready.



I never said he was the only person that can bring the Dems back to the white house, and it would be a stretch to even infer that's what I meant. What I DID mean was, he is the first Democrat in awhile that a) I've been excited about, and b) unlike anyone else, gave a speech and showed himself to be someone that gave a lot of Dems optimism for once. If you lean Democrat, it's hard to even read the transcipt of one of his speeches and not want to hitch your star to his wagon. But you're right, he may indeed not be ready in 08, and I am hopeful of other Dems that I can rally behind if he's not ready.

Everyone, it's time for some "Joe-mentum"!
Seriously, he has the personality of a dog biscuit. People think Kerry was boring, this guy makes John Kerry look like Jim Carrey.

How bout the Lieberman/Kim Jung Il ticket? oh wait. . . They would look great standing together though!! Great!!

I personally think its a little too early to make an educated guess. The thought of Hillary running for president gives me the slick willys. I dont like her and dont feel she really has the country's best interests in mind. She has a clear pattern of a selfish pursuit of power. Maybe its true of most politicians, but she is very transparent to me.

It's interesting how, if you read the 3 or 4 anti-Hillary posts in this thread, no one bothers to quantify their feelings against her with examples. Why is that? Why do I have to ask for that?

To be fair, this is not unlike alot of leftists and Bush.

So I would like three examples where she has demonstrated a "CLEAR pattern of selfish pursuit of power." and I'll even spot you the carpetbagging.

Really, I don't think a lot of this country is ready for a female president who doesn't drip ice cream smiles like Elizabeth Dole.

And you can write a book vilifying Hilary, I still maintain that most who stand against her are dealing with perceptions and surface judgments, not reality.

Hilary (obviously), Clark, possily Edwards, and maybe later we'll see Obama.

John Edwards would give the party the best chance to win

Well, I'd like to see Hillary in the Oval Office (maybe because I like the idea of Billy-Boy becoming First Hubby :D )

Besides: Is the term "to do the Nixon" an 'official' vocabulary term?

Well, I'd like to see Hillary in the Oval Office (maybe because I like the idea of Billy-Boy becoming First Hubby :D )

Besides: Is the term "to do the Nixon" an 'official' vocabulary term?

Hillary has an Oval Office. So does Monica. Bill's been in all of them.

I like Obama.

I really liked him after hearing his talk about Slave reperations.


LOL that is some funny stuff. Good luck winning an election on that platform.

John Edwards would give the party the best chance to win


He is still a lawyer. Lawyers=scum. Most Americans have this view. Would be a bigger loss if he was the lead candidate.

How bout the Lieberman/Kim Jung Il ticket? oh wait. . . They would look great standing together though!! Great!!


Lieberman is one the only sane Democrats. He should be seriously considered.

Lieberman is one the only sane Democrats. He should be seriously considered.

Lieberman is as much a Democrat as I am a Republican. We've been trying to give the GOP Lieberman for years, but they seem to have a "No Jews" policy.

Now regarding my party's candidate, I see a toss-up maybe between Tom Delay, Condi Rice, but after reading his latest book, my personal pick would be Newt Gingrich, if he could get the ideas in his book to become reality, he probably would do an excellent job as Pres.As a Presidential candidate, DeLay would be a liability, not an asset.

LOL that is some funny stuff. Good luck winning an election on that platform.Obama is opposed to slave reparations, saying it's an impractical idea. Your man Keyes is the one who proposed it. You know, the black reactionary hypocritcal nut that the honorable Republican party shipped to Illinois? They must be able to win if they have their own colored person!

He is still a lawyer. Lawyers=scum. Most Americans have this view. Would be a bigger loss if he was the lead candidate.The ironic thing about this is that he would probably be the only self-made man in the race. :(

Lieberman is as much a Democrat as I am a Republican. We've been trying to give the GOP Lieberman for years, but they seem to have a "No Jews" policy.Lieberman consistently breaks party ranks on a number of issues. Bush gave him the Kiss of Death a bit ago. He doesn't stand a chance in the Democratic party when it comes to the Presidential ticket.

dp

Question- I don't see much talk about John Edwards, and none at all about Wesley Clark. Are they both out of the picture?they are out of my picture...way out.

I like Dean. I think he's got balls.
exactamente..

Everyone, it's time for some "Joe-mentum"!
Seriously, he has the personality of a dog biscuit. People think Kerry was boring, this guy makes John Kerry look like Jim Carrey.First and off the main point is that Liberman could get the party nod IF the dems lose a lot of ground in the off year elections and some strategist convinces them that their only hope of winning the oval office is to move far to the right. I like Liberman and probably would have voted for him if he had run against Bush, but I am on the right and have never considered myself a member of the democratic party.

Second, there really is nothing wrong with blandness in a president. It is easier to get momentum for the primaries for a personality but when it comes to the actual election there is something about blandness which makes a person seem presidential. The president is a powerful office and gravitas is a charecteristic we (humans) like to asssociate with power, it makes us feel secure. Ike was probably the most boring president of the 20th century, but people felt secure with him as president. Kerry's problem with personality in the last election stemmed not so much from his wooden personality but from the fact that the efforts to make him seem more like a regular joe were unconvincing. I don't think the Dems should run a personalityless drone in the next election (at this point, is hard to say without knowing the Repubs field) and would probably be better off running a larger than life personality, but this is all up in the air.

He is still a lawyer. Lawyers=scum. Most Americans have this view. Would be a bigger loss if he was the lead candidate.

If I'm not mistaken wouldn't being a lawyer help in being a politician. Politicians, especially those in the legislative branch design and create laws. Law needs very specific wording and it only makes sense that someone who spent at least 3 years in a law school would design the nations laws... or does that just make too much sense?

Also I would like to make a list of a few famous lawyers:
Bill Clinton
Richard Nixon
FDR
Calvin Coolidge
Ford
Woodrow Wilson
Taft
Lincoln

There are more, but I could hardly give a damn. Some lawyers are bad, some are good.

No one cares if a lawyer is a politician or a president. No one cares if a candidate goes to law school or works in big oil. All that matters is the politicians personal characteristics not their careers.

Are you kidding? How can Hillary not be the clear choice? She'll say or do anything to get elected :rolleyes: :confused: :(

Even democrats wouldn't be foolish enough to run her.. while she is popular among democrats she is hated among even some moderate conservatives... and lets face it.. she is not her husband.. she lacks the charm and apeal. Though as a republican I pray they run her.. firstly.. that will get her out of my state and will all but garantee 4 more years of republican rule (especially with up and comming republican superstars)

and just to quanitfy my hatrid of her.. her utter failor on the healthcare issue during her husbands presidency shows her complete inability to deal with national issues... she had the audacity to enter a state she has no intersets in only because its a promient democratic state and there was an opening.. and since she got elected (Because Guliani had to drop out) she has proposed no meaningful legislation too busy getting her face on the media on issues unimportant to New York. She's left all the real work to her senior counterpart Schumer which is a shame.. she is wasting her seat and New Yorks representation.

Hilary (obviously), Clark, possily Edwards, and maybe later we'll see Obama.

Obama is still too young.. he was only just elected to the senate.. he has no experiance in anything. Maybe in 8 -10 years he will be ready to be a democatic heavy weight.. but the very fact democrats are looking to such a freshman politican as him show the great lack in appealing canidates they have at hand.

Obama is still too young.. he was only just elected to the senate.. he has no experiance in anything. Maybe in 8 -10 years he will be ready to be a democatic heavy weight.. but the very fact democrats are looking to such a freshman politican as him show the great lack in appealing canidates they have at hand.
that's why i think he should do VP in 08 and run for real in 12

As well Edwards prospective to be an appealing canidate went straight down the toilet in the kerry fiasco as he was prominently chosen for his southern influence. The democrats complete inability to capture even one southern state shows his ineffectiveness and to be perfectly honest.. he is far to soft to be the president we need in this age of daily threat

Well, we've been discussing the Presidential prospects of the Republican party in the United States for a bit now on the "Condi for PREZ" thread. Now, I ask, what are the Democratic prospects for President in 2008 or possibly 2012? Who's maneuvering to make a run at the White House? Who has a chance, who doesn't? Who would you like to see?

To be frank, I am a bit disheartened by the field the Democrats have to pick from in this matter; the GOP has their superstars, their ideological and political paragons, yet I don't think the Dems do. Mebbe I'm wrong.

However, increasingly, I'd like to see Harry Reid make a go at it.

It's hard to really find a good choice among the Democrats. (every election, I try to find one that doesn't scare me worse than the Republicans...)

Hillary seems like a front-runner, but I don't think she's electable.

Obama might swing it, and pick up a coup by being palatable enough to sway that all important 20% "Undecided" to the Democratic Camp.

I kind of wish Nighthorse-Campbell hadn't retired, he's a Moderate with credibility among the non-Democrat population.

One of the most obvious traps the Democrats need desperately to avoid, is putting a "Paper-War-Hero" up on the ballot. Clarke or another Kerry run would ruin their chances, and finding another guy of that stripe is likewise a bad idea... same with another Al Gore. Whoever the Democrats pick, needs to be kind of a "Truman Democrat", not a "Carter Democrat"... Dean is immensely powerful inside the Democrat party, but he's more akin to the powerbase represented in the GOP by guys like Buchanan-too far to the fringes for the general public to swallow.

The Democrats really need a "Defense Democrat"-stronger on Domestic issues, but not a demogogue on Foreign affairs (UN Worshippers need not apply if you want to win)

The Party needs to find a "Scoop Jackson" in their ranks, instead of a Lyndon Johnson or Jimmy Carter.

"Conservative" Dems aren't impossible to find, but they're getting rarer as the Party shifts more and more to the left-this is also losing them votes in middle-america, which is the base that won for Bush this time, and likely will continue... until the "Other Party" lays off pimping for the Machines in the Northeast and West Coast, and remembers there are people who need representation in the zone commonly referred to as "Flyover Country".

If I'm not mistaken wouldn't being a lawyer help in being a politician. Politicians, especially those in the legislative branch design and create laws. Law needs very specific wording and it only makes sense that someone who spent at least 3 years in a law school would design the nations laws... or does that just make too much sense?

Also I would like to make a list of a few famous lawyers:
Bill Clinton
Richard Nixon
FDR
Calvin Coolidge
Ford
Woodrow Wilson
Taft
Lincoln

There are more, but I could hardly give a damn. Some lawyers are bad, some are good.

No one cares if a lawyer is a politician or a president. No one cares if a candidate goes to law school or works in big oil. All that matters is the politicians personal characteristics not their careers.

Let's go over your list:

Calvin Coolidge: "Silent Cal" didn't do a lot as president.
Woodrow Wilson: got us into WW1 after running on a promise to keep the U.S. out.
Nixon... one of our more infamous presidential pestilences.
Bill Clinton: Changed the face of American Politics by almost single-handedly destroying the Democratic Lock on the U.S. Congress-a lock that lasted from the 1950's until the elections of 1994.

Jerry Ford: three fourths of a term, lost to Jimmy Carter, which brought on double-digit inflation, a stagnant economy, double-digit Interest rates, The Iran Hostage debacle, and a period of disarmament that left U.S. army units stealing parts to remain operational. He also brought us the double-nickel speed limits...

If I'm not mistaken wouldn't being a lawyer help in being a politician. Politicians, especially those in the legislative branch design and create laws. Law needs very specific wording and it only makes sense that someone who spent at least 3 years in a law school would design the nations laws... or does that just make too much sense?

Also I would like to make a list of a few famous lawyers:
Bill Clinton
Richard Nixon
FDR
Calvin Coolidge
Ford
Woodrow Wilson
Taft
Lincoln

There are more, but I could hardly give a damn. Some lawyers are bad, some are good.

No one cares if a lawyer is a politician or a president. No one cares if a candidate goes to law school or works in big oil. All that matters is the politicians personal characteristics not their careers.Yes, but they weren't trial lawyers that supposedly made millions on malpractice suits; that's how Edwards made his fortune. The public has a bad perception of trial lawyers, despite the fact that trial lawyers fight for THEIR rights. Heh. People are fickle.

Edit: I would also note that there is a difference between someone who practiced law as a lawyer and someone who simply has a law degree. A big difference.

Yes, but they weren't trial lawyers that supposedly made millions on malpractice suits; that's how Edwards made his fortune. The public has a bad perception of trial lawyers, despite the fact that trial lawyers fight for THEIR rights. Heh. People are fickle.

Edit: I would also note that there is a difference between someone who practiced law as a lawyer and someone who simply has a law degree. A big difference.

Lincoln was a trial lawyer. But I didn't post here to argue the point.

What I think is amusing reading this thread is all the Republicans, Libertarians and conservatives "advising" the Democrats on who to run. I'm suprised they haven't nominated Dick Cheney to be our candidate**.

Prognosticating the next nominee this early is mental masturbation. Clinton was hardly on the radar prior to 1992. We'll see how things shape up in a couple years. I'm not worried.

**Which reminds me, for all the superior attitude, who are the Republicans going to run? Condi has no campaign experience and has said she won't run. Dubya can't. Dubya already destroyed Colin Powell's credibility. Dick Cheney or Tom DeLay would be gifts to the Democrats. There is no clear sucessor.

Lincoln was a trial lawyer. But I didn't post here to argue the point.

What I think is amusing reading this thread is all the Republicans, Libertarians and conservatives "advising" the Democrats on who to run. I'm suprised they haven't nominated Dick Cheney to be our candidate**.

Prognosticating the next nominee this early is mental masturbation. Clinton was hardly on the radar prior to 1992. We'll see how things shape up in a couple years. I'm not worried.

**Which reminds me, for all the superior attitude, who are the Republicans going to run? Condi has no campaign experience and has said she won't run. Dubya can't. Dubya already destroyed Colin Powell's credibility. Dick Cheney or Tom DeLay would be gifts to the Democrats. There is no clear sucessor.Indeed, it is mental masturbation! Fun, no?

I know Lincoln was a trial lawyer. I was simply explaining the attacks used on Edwards during the '04 campaign as well as what I perceive to be public opinion on the matter.

I'm not worried either. I'm an Independent. I just want the best person to win.

Check out the Condi for Prez (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=407888&highlight=condi) thread to see some speculation as to who'll run for the GOP.

I like Obama.

I really liked him after hearing his talk about Slave reperations.


If a first-term senator that was unknown outside of Illinois until 2004 is our best hope, we're in trouble.

If a first-term senator that was unknown outside of Illinois until 2004 is our best hope, we're in trouble.

Yeah, if only we could find someone qualified, like a two-term govenor ...

Lincoln was a trial lawyer. But I didn't post here to argue the point.

What I think is amusing reading this thread is all the Republicans, Libertarians and conservatives "advising" the Democrats on who to run. I'm suprised they haven't nominated Dick Cheney to be our candidate**.

**Which reminds me, for all the superior attitude, who are the Republicans going to run? Condi has no campaign experience and has said she won't run. Dubya can't. Dubya already destroyed Colin Powell's credibility. Dick Cheney or Tom DeLay would be gifts to the Democrats. There is no clear sucessor.

But, you see, Bush won 52% of the vote, which proves that America embraces all things conservative and rejects all things liberal, and all those candidates are conservative, so those so-called problems with the above candidates are meaningless. That's why the majority of Americans want Terri Schiavo's feeding tube reinserted and abortion outlawed (I assume I'm right on those two points).

And remember: If a republican/conservative comes in here and says someone (Hillary, Edwards, Reid) is unelectable, they're unelectable. The reason the Republicans are in power is because, in addition to being the good guys (Democrats want the terrorists to WIN), they're smarter in general and more intelligent campaigners in particular.

That's why the majority of Americans want Terri Schiavo's feeding tube reinserted and abortion outlawed.

You are wrong. Bush's popularity has dropped because of the Terri Schiavo case to a low of 45%. http://www.pollingreport.com/news.htm And Polls show that the majority of americans agree with abortion. http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm But hey, keep making statements like that without reading a single polling report. Yes America embraces all things conservative...except what you just said apparently. May I point out that Kerry still got 48% of the popular vote. Out of 100 people only 51 though Bush would do a better job then Kerry, not necessarily that they embrace conservatism. Bush Won, good for him but if they really embraced ALL things conservative then wouldn't Bush be a popular president right now?

But, you see, Bush won 52% of the vote, which proves that America embraces all things conservative and rejects all things liberal, and all those candidates are conservative, so those so-called problems with the above candidates are meaningless. That's why the majority of Americans want Terri Schiavo's feeding tube reinserted and abortion outlawed (I assume I'm right on those two points).

And remember: If a republican/conservative comes in here and says someone (Hillary, Edwards, Reid) is unelectable, they're unelectable. The reason the Republicans are in power is because, in addition to being the good guys (Democrats want the terrorists to WIN), they're smarter in general and more intelligent campaigners in particular.


My god, I hope that was sarcasm.

My god, I hope that was sarcasm.
It was. I think... Even a casual look would tell you that while there may be a majority of Americans who aren't entirely on-board with the American Left, the right wing doesn't have a lock on anything. The big problem for Democrats, is finding a way to turn that into votes for their side. It's a matter of the Dems actually having to "WIN", rather than just waiting for the GOP to lose it.

My god, I hope that was sarcasm.


if it wasn't, then the only option left is extreme stupidity, and i would be embarrassed to be of the same species as that creature.

Lincoln was a trial lawyer.

I think the reason he didn't turn out to be an asshole was that
a) he never went to law school, and
b) he was not a plaintiff's lawyer

By trial lawyer, I think that people usually mean "plaintiff's lawyer". You know, like John Edwards.

Hum. I thought it was obvious that my previous post was sarcasm, or else I would've put those clever "</sarcasm>" tags on it. Caddillac, you get extra points for at least giving me the benefit of the doubt.

Now, go read that post again, this time keeping the word "satire" in mind, and I think you will find it more enjoyable. :)