Originally posted by Devil King
What you're talking about is race and gender being a set back. I'm talking about it being an advantage.
Originally posted by Alliance
It is an advantage...its still not going to be an issue.
You are delusional if you think this is not going to be an issue. As King said, you do not have to say it.
Even if your everyday Joe was fine with that, the top brass surely are not for it. The top brass get what they want if they try hard enough. We have a man in office today who got into office when he did not win the electoral vote and then failed to win the popular vote on reelection.
If people actually went to the polls (please understand I mean in a general sense), then unfair play would not concern me in the least - too many numbers to offset bullshit. As is, I am concerned that it is not a fair race for Obama or Clinton.
An article and a column from this week's Newsweek:
Here's the Official List of Candidates, I may put in a request to change the poll
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY)
Sen. Barack Obama (IL)
Sen. Christopher Dodd (CT)
Sen. Joe Biden (DE)
Fmr. Sen. John Edwards (NC)
Fmr. Sen. Mike Gravel (AK)
Gov. Bill Richardson (NM)
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (OH)
And of course, there's always Al Gore
Originally posted by Strangelove
Here's the Official List of Candidates, I may put in a request to change the pollSen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY)
Sen. Barack Obama (IL)
Sen. Christopher Dodd (CT)
Sen. Joe Biden (DE)
Fmr. Sen. John Edwards (NC)
Fmr. Sen. Mike Gravel (AK)
Gov. Bill Richardson (NM)
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (OH)And of course, there's always Al Gore
Yeah I was watching larry king live with al gore as a guest
and they had a segment of him saying that he is nothing going to run for office, I mean how many times does the guy have to say that?
Alright, I finished watching the debate and two hours of coverage following the debate, and now I'm going to give my assessment of the proceedings. Once it becomes available, I'll post the entire debate here online.
The debate was in two parts, the first with questions from CNN's Wolf Blitzer and New Hamphire politicos, with the second half in a "town hall" format with questions from the New Hampshire primary electorate. New Hampshire, of course, is the first primary in the nation for both parties.
People who performed well: Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Joe Biden
People who could've done better: Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd
...Oh lord: Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich
The coverage by political strategists confirmed my own thoughts: Clinton, being the frontrunner, was trying to stay "above" the fray, show leadership, and start prepping for the general election. Which in my opinion, is a good thing. #1 on Democrats' lists should be beating the Republicans next fall, and #2 should be who does it. And Clinton showed real resolve and guile in this debate. She got a laugh when making a crack about Dick Cheney as a diplomat. She defended herself admirably about her initial support for the war in 2002, and overall she handled herself well.
Obama too, was looking to next summer and fall instead of participating in the in-fighting, but he got in a good shot at John Edwards about the war: "I've been opposed to this war from the start: you're 4½ behind on leadership." He did well, but he didn't really shine.
John Edwards was really combative, especially towards Clinton and Obama. He's desperately trying to fight past the #3 spot, and apparently he thinks he can do that by running to the far left and attempting to drag the other two with him, and every time he tries, he turns me off. Of course, I know that primary voters are more to the "base" that the general electorate, but these days the positions of the Democratic Party are those of the country, and Edwards is doing the country a disservice by running for President, in my opinion.
Lemme say, if I wasn't for Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden would be my guy. He has great credentials, especially in foreign policy (he's the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee), and he's passionate. I know that voters don't really like "angry" in a candidate, but I see it as a sign of passion and commitment. He voted for the emergency funding bill the other day, and when that question came up in the debate, he firmly defended that vote. And he got points for it in my book.
Bill Richardson is a good candidate, and he'd be a good President, but if he changes the subject in a speech one more time, I'm going to scream. Richardson rarely finished a thought in the minute he was given, and he often digressed and was stressing his resumé as Governor of New Mexico, Congressman, U.N. Ambassador, and Secretary of Energy all the while. I'm of the opinion that presidential elections are more about the future than the past, so stressing a resume over vision tends to bug me.
Chris Dodd was not given much chance to speak. He had a "time clock" on his website, and next to Gravel, he spoke the least of all the candidates. That said, I think that Chris has great positions and his service on the Senate Banking & Housing Affairs Committee impresses me. Bu he could've done better.
Oh, Dennis Kucinich. He and Mike Gravel stake out the obligatory wingnut(s) in a presidential election, whose sole purpose is to stir up the candidates and say outlandish things. Kucinich is the more level-headed of the two, but he still has a big head for ideas without really considering the consequences of his plans.
Mike Gravel is a crazy old man. He makes the most "nutty old coot" sound bites I've ever heard. His angry stabs at his fellow Democratic candidates will get him nowhere.
I know this will make me unpopular, but to hell with it. Clinton is the candidate with the most substance. What has Barack Obama done except do the whole "I'm handsome, charismatic, and a minority" routine? Edwards, similarly, has put forth little concrete ideas except to go to the far left. Everyone else is either improbable, crazy, or too left wing to work.
[list]Specifics
[*]Dennis Kucinich's claim that the midterm elections made the Iraq Civil War the Democratic Congress's problem is flat-out wrong. And in general, the liberal wing of the Democratic Party expects too much of the Congress. They have a relatively small majority in both Houses, and people can't expect there to be instant progress. It's irrational.
[*]People need to get over Hillary's Clinton's refusal to apologize for her 2002 vote. Now the story that she didn't read the National Intelligence Estimate before the vote is a dangerous implication. She was fully briefed by higher-ups in the intelligence community about the NIE, so just saying that "she didn't read it" isn't the whole story.
Something that I think Clinton should continue to emphasize is that she voted yes under the assumption that there would be more diplomacy, not that Bush would yank the U.N. inspector's out and go straight to war. What she should do is say: "I do not regret my vote authorizing military force in Iraq. I made the vote based on the information available, and it was a judgment call. I do, however regret the consequences of that authorization." There ya go
[*]I agree that English should not be the "official" language of the United States.
[*]Gays should be allowed to serve openly in the military.[/list]
I'll have more later.....hmm
Originally posted by YmirNot unpopular with me, buddy 😄
I know this will make me unpopular, but to hell with it. Clinton is the candidate with the most substance. What has Barack Obama done except do the whole "I'm handsome, charismatic, and a minority" routine? Edwards, similarly, has put forth little concrete ideas except to go to the far left. Everyone else is either improbable, crazy, or too left wing to work.
I consider myself to be one of the quote unquote "political elite" of the GDF, and I support Clinton 🙂
If I was actually able to watch the debate, I'm sure you'd be wrong...
Originally posted by Ymir
What has Barack Obama done except do the whole "I'm handsome, charismatic, and a minority" routine?
Maybe if you pulled your head out of your ass, you would know.
Worst of all, Obama has NEVER pushed his race....EVER. So, when you actually know something about candidates...come back and talk.