Who's great in 2008

[No truth]

I have to admit, last year I was really hoping for my dream U.S. election. Hilary Clinton vs. Condoleezza Rice. A lesbian democrat vs. a Black Republican. The whites in the south would probably abstain. Now I'm thinking maybe still Hilary, but probably McCain or Frist, depending upon who's willing to sell his soul to the Christian Right in order to get the nomination.

It's too bad the Americans can't have their conventions work the way they're supposed to - picking the candidate based on sleazy backroom negotiations and soul destroying betrayals. Like we do in Canada. It would make them much more fun to watch. Actually, it would make them watchable.

So, who do you like?

[lost&outofcontrol]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the only difference between a republican and a democrat is that one is in power and the other one isn't.

[No truth]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the only difference between a republican and a democrat is that one is in power and the other one isn't.

Well, if you're a poor woman in 2009 who wants an abortion, there's a great deal of difference.

[shoop]

Come on. Hillary a lesbian?

Puh lease. There is enough stuff that is actually true about her that you don't have to go making stuff up.

Could be interesting maybe a Hillary-Barak Obama ticket versus McCain would be a hell of a battle.

[No truth]

Come on. Hillary a lesbian?

Puh lease. There is enough stuff that is actually true about her that you don't have to go making stuff up.

Could be interesting maybe a Hillary-Barak Obama ticket versus McCain would be a hell of a battle.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Don't know that Obama has paid his dues enough for a VP slot, or that he'd be willing to leave before the end of his first senate term, but it would be an interesting choice. Maybe against McCain/Rice? Rice has a lot of currency being the world's only black republican.

[Liam]

The parties' nominees won't be clear till after the mid-term elections this November.

If the Democrats retake one or both houses of Congress, you can expect the GOP to nominate a perceived outsider, someone like Mike Huckabee from Arkansas or George Allen from Virginia. I could see Colin Powell making a run, but not getting too far in the primaries. I am going to go out on a limb and say that McCain will not, under any circumstances, be the GOP nominee in 2008. I just don't think he's going to make it through the GOP primaries. He's sucking up to the current power-base of the GOP, which is a risky move since the power-base is incredibly unpopular among the electorate. He has lost his "maverick" stance by being such a suck up to Bush. And he appears sycophantic at every turn. I feel the same will be true with Giuliani. He's far too liberal for GOP primary voters and has *soooo* much baggage. His pre-9/11 reputation was lower than dirt and he's had some shady dealings that have roiled some GOP insiders (e.g., the Bernie McKerrick nomination to head Homeland Security practically blew up in Rudy's face). The Dems will only need to remind voters that Rudy was publicly humiliating his wife by having an openly adulterous affair while mayor of NYC and that he didn't even have the decency to call off his marriage face-to-face. His wife only found out they were "done" when she watched Rudy dump her via a televised interview.

I also can't see Condi heading a ticket now or ever. She's a terrible public speaker, has never run for political office, and is a co-architect of most of Bush's disastrous policy decisions. Colin Powell essentially ended her political future as a frontrunner last week. I could see her as a VP candidate, but not a very compelling one. My prediction for the GOP ticket is Allen/Huckabee.

On the Dem side, I think Mark Warner of Virginia is the one to beat. Hillary has the cash and the name recognition, but I think she will see the writing on the wall and will see that she can't "flip" many red states to blue. Clintons want to win and only fight to win, but when polls show that only 28% would vote for Hillary, I think they'll recognize that not running in 2008 is better than trying and falling short. I see a Mark Warner/Wesley Clark ticket as being pretty potent.

[America1]

I have to admit, last year I was really hoping for my dream U.S. election. Hilary Clinton vs. Condoleezza Rice. A lesbian democrat vs. a Black Republican. The whites in the south would probably abstain. Now I'm thinking maybe still Hilary, but probably McCain or Frist, depending upon who's willing to sell his soul to the Christian Right in order to get the nomination.

It's too bad the Americans can't have their conventions work the way they're supposed to - picking the candidate based on sleazy backroom negotiations and soul destroying betrayals. Like we do in Canada. It would make them much more fun to watch. Actually, it would make them watchable.

So, who do you like?

Posts like this are why many Americans can't stand Canadians anymore.

Can someone remind me what Canada/Canadians have done to make them think that are superior to USA/Americans?

[Shakeyhands]

I have to admit, last year I was really hoping for my dream U.S. election. Hilary Clinton vs. Condoleezza Rice. A lesbian democrat vs. a Black Republican. The whites in the south would probably abstain. Now I'm thinking maybe still Hilary, but probably McCain or Frist, depending upon who's willing to sell his soul to the Christian Right in order to get the nomination.

It's too bad the Americans can't have their conventions work the way they're supposed to - picking the candidate based on sleazy backroom negotiations and soul destroying betrayals. Like we do in Canada. It would make them much more fun to watch. Actually, it would make them watchable.

So, who do you like?

Posts like this are why many Americans can't stand Canadians anymore.

Can someone remind me what Canada/Canadians have done to make them think that are superior to USA/Americans?

hahaha .....

[No truth]

Posts like this are why many Americans can't stand Canadians anymore.

Can someone remind me what Canada/Canadians have done to make them think that are superior to USA/Americans?

hahaha .....

Are you kidding? This is the country that elects Liberals time after time, knowing they're going to screw us and steal our money and give it all to Quebec. Nobody said anything about being superior. I've always admired parts of the U.S. system, just as I think parts of ours are superior. Don't read into the thread what's not there.

[sharkman]

I have to admit, last year I was really hoping for my dream U.S. election. Hilary Clinton vs. Condoleezza Rice. A lesbian democrat vs. a Black Republican. The whites in the south would probably abstain. Now I'm thinking maybe still Hilary, but probably McCain or Frist, depending upon who's willing to sell his soul to the Christian Right in order to get the nomination.

It's too bad the Americans can't have their conventions work the way they're supposed to - picking the candidate based on sleazy backroom negotiations and soul destroying betrayals. Like we do in Canada. It would make them much more fun to watch. Actually, it would make them watchable.

So, who do you like?

Posts like this are why many Americans can't stand Canadians anymore.

Can someone remind me what Canada/Canadians have done to make them think that are superior to USA/Americans?

Pay no mind America1, you must understand that the majority of urban Canadians are sheep that believe everything they hear or read from our leftist media. It's in our schools, universities and even some churches. Liberal dogma permeates our society.

It's the rare person who's learned to anayze what they hear and not just accept it as truth. There's still lots of us around, they mostly just don't waste time on forums.

[Riverwind]

Pay no mind America1, you must understand that the majority of urban Canadians are sheep that believe everything they hear or read from our leftist media.

And the stereotypical gun toting, republican red neck is supposedly better informed? I don't think so. The right wing in the US has its own set of illusions and fantasies that it clings to with the fervour of a religious zealot.

[BHS]

The parties' nominees won't be clear till after the mid-term elections this November.

If the Democrats retake one or both houses of Congress, you can expect the GOP to nominate a perceived outsider, someone like Mike Huckabee from Arkansas or George Allen from Virginia. I could see Colin Powell making a run, but not getting too far in the primaries. I am going to go out on a limb and say that McCain will not, under any circumstances, be the GOP nominee in 2008. I just don't think he's going to make it through the GOP primaries. He's sucking up to the current power-base of the GOP, which is a risky move since the power-base is incredibly unpopular among the electorate. He has lost his "maverick" stance by being such a suck up to Bush. And he appears sycophantic at every turn. I feel the same will be true with Giuliani. He's far too liberal for GOP primary voters and has *soooo* much baggage. His pre-9/11 reputation was lower than dirt and he's had some shady dealings that have roiled some GOP insiders (e.g., the Bernie McKerrick nomination to head Homeland Security practically blew up in Rudy's face). The Dems will only need to remind voters that Rudy was publicly humiliating his wife by having an openly adulterous affair while mayor of NYC and that he didn't even have the decency to call off his marriage face-to-face. His wife only found out they were "done" when she watched Rudy dump her via a televised interview.

I also can't see Condi heading a ticket now or ever. She's a terrible public speaker, has never run for political office, and is a co-architect of most of Bush's disastrous policy decisions. Colin Powell essentially ended her political future as a frontrunner last week. I could see her as a VP candidate, but not a very compelling one. My prediction for the GOP ticket is Allen/Huckabee.

On the Dem side, I think Mark Warner of Virginia is the one to beat. Hillary has the cash and the name recognition, but I think she will see the writing on the wall and will see that she can't "flip" many red states to blue. Clintons want to win and only fight to win, but when polls show that only 28% would vote for Hillary, I think they'll recognize that not running in 2008 is better than trying and falling short. I see a Mark Warner/Wesley Clark ticket as being pretty potent.

I disagree with almost every statement you've made, except the parts right at the beginning and the end about the Republicans running an outsider, which is at least plausible.

Colin Powell won't run, because he'd never make it above 5% support in the primaries and everybody knows it including him. It's not a questions of race. It's that he has zero electoral experience and walked out on the administration before the end of the first term, and in the middle of a war that he played a large part in justifying. (Before you object, let me qualify that by acknowledging that he stayed through to the end of the administration but publicly declared his intention to leave before a contentious election, which is as good as leaving.) If he takes another job with a future administration (even a Democratic one) he stands a shot of rebuilding his public image. There's absolutely no hope for the guy in 2008.

I don't have any idea where you get this notion that John McCain is sucking up to the Bush people. You don't cite a single example, and I certainly can't think of anything that qualifies. Maybe it's because he hasn't been in the news trying to rip the President a new orafice over foreign policy in the past couple of months, and that's confused you into believing he's gone soft. You're right in that McCain won't make it through the primaries, but for exactly the wrong reason. It's not that he's a liability because of any recent moves he might have made to support a struggling administration. It's that the Republican base despise him on a national level. He's essentially the Ted Kennedy of the Republicans - a loudmouth ass who's willing to sabotage party platforms and unity for personal prestige, and who's therefore popular enough on his home turf that he can maintain a senate seat. (And too, I don't get where the Republican base is "incredibly unpopular" among the nation as a whole. The Republican core is certainly more popular and representative of the average American than the enraged lefties currently driving policy for the Democrats.)

There's plenty of dirt on Giuliani, including things you haven't mentioned from his days as a prosecutor. Doesn't really matter. All of that stuff goes out the window when people recall the stuff they love him for. He made some bad calls on nomintations? So what, he told the Saudi Prince to take his cheque and shove it. He had an affair? (By the way, I'd love to see a Clinton campaign try to use this smear. Really.) So what, he led the charge against public funding for sacreligious artwork. I don't think Rudy has enough electoral experience to run as a presidential candidate, but he could easily slide through as a VP. As a matter of fact, I'd be surprised if he isn't asked in 2008.

Like Powell and Giuliani, Rice doesn't have the electoral experience to run as a presidential candidate. (Really, name one Secretary of State or one Mayor who've successfully made the jump to President.) You're right in that she's almost as poor at public speaking as Bush himself. And the venom the Dems have cast her way indicates she almost certainly wouldn't pull any soft Democratic votes as a VP. I'd say she's an unlikely player in 2008.

So your prediction about an outsider to the current adminstration is highly likely.

IMHO the Democrats have three options: predictable, reckless or winning.

Predictable is nominating Hillary. I don't have a clue who she'd select as a running mate, but it won't be anyone from the reckless category. It will be some relative unknown with a clean past, because the Democrats don't need superstars to beat the Republicans in 2008 and the Clinton people are too smart to have a VP stealing Hillary's thunder. Barak Obama's name pops up, but he's a neophyte in federal politics and he's still quite young, too young to end his Senate career by moving to the White House. Hillary's been positioning herself very carefully for a 2008 run since early 2005, and I'd say she's the most likely candidate for nomination. (Hillary also falls into the winning category as explained below.)

Reckless is running any of the slate of losers who vied for the job in 2000 or 2004, or any new candidate who could have fit in nicely with that lot. This isn't to say they won't all try again, just that they won't succeed. I can't believe that people still think highly of Wesley Clark. All I can say is, it ain't gonna happen. No matter how hard the dead enders on the Democratic online talkshops push, the reliably sane folks who make up the bulk of the Democratic supporters aren't going to go there again. They picked the likliest winner from a lousy lineup last time, and he was just terrible. And he continues to prove how terrible he was every time he opens his mouth, to this very day. Talk about dodging a bullet. If the Democrats manage to nominate another one of these losers all hope is lost for them. By all rights they should win the Presidency in 2008. The surest way to fail is to be overconfident and reckless.

A winning candidate would be either [a] a known commodity like Hillary who's had dung flung at her by the masochists at Kos that didn't stick or a lower profile candidate like Phil Bredesen (Governor of Tennesee) who's managed to stay clear of the internacine warfare that occupies most of the Kos crowd's time. In either case, the winning Democratic candidate has to have appeal among independants and soft Republicans. Hillary has been working on pushing her rhetoric to the right side of the Democratic spectrum. Bredesen already has cred among Bush supporting bloggers like Glenn Reynolds. Unfortunately for the Dems, I think that Wesley Clark has a better shot than Bredesen does at this point. Maybe a few more losing election cycles will clue them in to what needs to be changed.

[Liam]

I disagree with almost every statement you've made, except the parts right at the beginning and the end about the Republicans running an outsider, which is at least plausible... I don't have any idea where you get this notion that John McCain is sucking up to the Bush people. You don't cite a single example, and I certainly can't think of anything that qualifies. Maybe it's because he hasn't been in the news trying to rip the President a new orafice over foreign policy in the past couple of months, and that's confused you into believing he's gone soft...

There's plenty of dirt on Giuliani, including things you haven't mentioned from his days as a prosecutor. Doesn't really matter. All of that stuff goes out the window when people recall the stuff they love him for. He made some bad calls on nomintations? So what, he told the Saudi Prince to take his cheque and shove it. He had an affair? (By the way, I'd love to see a Clinton campaign try to use this smear. Really.) So what, he led the charge against public funding for sacreligious artwork. I don't think Rudy has enough electoral experience to run as a presidential candidate, but he could easily slide through as a VP. As a matter of fact, I'd be surprised if he isn't asked in 2008...

Well, I agree with some of what you say and disagree with other parts. We are each entitled to our opinions and points of view.

I didn't cite a McCain example because I didn't think it necessary to do so. OK, here's one: in the straw poll in Tennessee a few months ago, McCain asked the voters in the straw poll to not vote for him, but to cast their votes as write-ins for Bush to show the president that the people still support him. Suck. Up. Another one? How about McCain's recent 180 on the religious right? In 2000 they were "agents of intolerance", particularly after smearing McCain in the South Carolina primary (the whole Rovian/Falwellian push polling asking GOP voters if they'd still support McCain if they knew he had "a black baby"). Today, McCain seems to be a fan of Falwell's. Clandestine meetings with Falwell in DC. Speaking at Liberty University. Suck. Up.

Re: Giuliani -- I should have been more clear. I think the infidelity thing (and other issues) could be used against him in the primaries. And he is simply way too liberal for the right wingers who make up the base of the GOP party apparatus and primary voters. I would not discount him as a VP candidate, though.

[No truth]

Thinking about what's been said, I might discount McCain for the same reasons you gave for Giuliani - too centrist to win the nomination. Unfortunately for him, the very things which make him a bankable presidential candidate might doom him in the nomination process. I think Frist might be the dark horse here, although he's going to have a tough time winning over the Kristian Krazies Klub, given his stance on stem cell research.

[apollo19]

The people I would like to see in the race, disregarding the parties, would be Clinton, McCain, or Huckabee (Governor of Arkansas). Clinton has had some problems lately IMV with her stance on things like censorship and "national security" (ports deal). I just hope the 2008 election doesn't have its lame duck like Kerry was in '04.

[Black Dog]

A winning candidate would be either [a] a known commodity like Hillary who's had dung flung at her by the masochists at Kos that didn't stick or a lower profile candidate like Phil Bredesen (Governor of Tennesee) who's managed to stay clear of the internacine warfare that occupies most of the Kos crowd's time. In either case, the winning Democratic candidate has to have appeal among independants and soft Republicans. Hillary has been working on pushing her rhetoric to the right side of the Democratic spectrum. Bredesen already has cred among Bush supporting bloggers like Glenn Reynolds. Unfortunately for the Dems, I think that Wesley Clark has a better shot than Bredesen does at this point. Maybe a few more losing election cycles will clue them in to what needs to be changed.

Ever wonder why the people putting forward the idea that, to win, the Dems need to be more like Republicans are usually Republicans themselves? Hmmmm....

[BHS]

Thanks Liam. Those were good examples of McCain being a suck up. Both examples are pretty obviously transparent attempts to gain support among the people who've already written him off and I don't think they made much of an impact. It's going to take more than that to get him through the primaries and nominated this election cycle.

Thinking about what's been said, I might discount McCain for the same reasons you gave for Giuliani - too centrist to win the nomination. Unfortunately for him, the very things which make him a bankable presidential candidate might doom him in the nomination process. I think Frist might be the dark horse here, although he's going to have a tough time winning over the Kristian Krazies Klub, given his stance on stem cell research.

It's hard to say what the GOP will do this year. After two terms of the Bush administration their political capital is pretty much spent. The party's leadership might decide that 2008 is a right-off, and maybe they'll push to nominate McCain afterall, if only to see him lose the election and retire as a politically spent force.

Same for Frist. If he'd taken the tough stand against judicial filibusters, and even used the nukular option, he might have a shot. As it is, it seems to me that he's wasted the current senate majority and he looks weak. I don't think he's well regarded outside of Tennessee.

I think that if the Democrats were working from a strong (proactive) policy platform the Republicans would be in real trouble this November. But the Dems have spent the past five years reacting to Bush without offering any solutions of their own devising other than "the opposite of what Bush / the Republicans is / are doing". The most eggregious example of this phenonmenon was the Kerry campaing in 2004. Kerry's approach to every single major policy issue was to say Bush was doing everything wrong and then take both sides of the argument. And really, if you parsed his too-long oratory down, he didn't seem to be proposing much different from what Bush was already doing, while claiming to be dead against all of it.

[BHS]

A winning candidate would be either [a] a known commodity like Hillary who's had dung flung at her by the masochists at Kos that didn't stick or a lower profile candidate like Phil Bredesen (Governor of Tennesee) who's managed to stay clear of the internacine warfare that occupies most of the Kos crowd's time. In either case, the winning Democratic candidate has to have appeal among independants and soft Republicans. Hillary has been working on pushing her rhetoric to the right side of the Democratic spectrum. Bredesen already has cred among Bush supporting bloggers like Glenn Reynolds. Unfortunately for the Dems, I think that Wesley Clark has a better shot than Bredesen does at this point. Maybe a few more losing election cycles will clue them in to what needs to be changed.

Ever wonder why the people putting forward the idea that, to win, the Dems need to be more like Republicans are usually Republicans themselves? Hmmmm....

Not necessarily more like Republicans, just less like the Kos crowd. There simply aren't shrill reactionary voters in America to carry the Electoral College, or if you prefer, a majority vote. The Dems need some sort of consistent philosophy that holds a broad spectrum of party supporters together. It's needn't be a right wing philosophy, just something that a hefty majority of the party can buy into and that looks reasonably presentable to the entire American body politic. The Kossites do the opposite, breaking supporters into tiny, marginalized identity clusters. As long as they continue to exert their current level of influence on the party, the party will fail.

[shoop]

In this respect Canada and the US are mirror images of each other.

Harper didn't have to become *Liberal* to win. He just had to moderate.

I find great humour in the Canadian Left's embracing of Bill Clinton. He ran a far more right-wing Government than anything Mulroney ever did, or Harper has done to date.

I find no contradiction in supporting the Democratic Party in the U.S. and the Conservative Party in Canada.

But, I am foolish enough to read platforms and follow what politicians actually do once in office...

Not necessarily more like Republicans, just less like the Kos crowd. There simply aren't shrill reactionary voters in America to carry the Electoral College, or if you prefer, a majority vote. The Dems need some sort of consistent philosophy that holds a broad spectrum of party supporters together. It's needn't be a right wing philosophy, just something that a hefty majority of the party can buy into and that looks reasonably presentable to the entire American body politic. The Kossites do the opposite, breaking supporters into tiny, marginalized identity clusters. As long as they continue to exert their current level of influence on the party, the party will fail.

[Michael Hardner]

I find great humour in the Canadian Left's embracing of Bill Clinton. He ran a far more right-wing Government than anything Mulroney ever did, or Harper has done to date.

I find no contradiction in supporting the Democratic Party in the U.S. and the Conservative Party in Canada.

But, I am foolish enough to read platforms and follow what politicians actually do once in office...

Shoop - you're one of those rare individuals that doesn't buy (ie. vote) based on brand names. You actually look at the ingredients. I find the left's general fawning over Clinton to be baffling, seeing as how he put the Contract with American into action.

Similarly, I find the Canadian right's branding of him as a leftist to be confusing, although his personal foibles might explain those particular reactions.

[sharkman]

I find the left's general fawning over Clinton to be baffling, seeing as how he put the Contract with American into action.

Similarly, I find the Canadian right's branding of him as a leftist to be confusing, although his personal foibles might explain those particular reactions.

Clinton's efforts regarding the gay issue and stem cell research are but a couple of reasons why the Canadian right found him to be a lefty.

[shoop]

It's interesting looking at the two examples you gave. I'm guessing you are talking about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" that Clinton instituted. Very interesting how Brian Mulroney's Progressive Conservative Government allowed homosexuals to serve openly in 1992, yet Clinton's half-arsed policy makes him a darling of the Canadian left. Bush's stem cell policy is actual more *liberal* than Clinton;s. I didn't believe it until I read this.

Don't get me wrong, I think Clinton was a very good President. But I also think that Mulroney was a very good Prime Minister.

Clinton's efforts regarding the gay issue and stem cell research are but a couple of reasons why the Canadian right found him to be a lefty.

[Black Dog]

Not necessarily more like Republicans, just less like the Kos crowd. There simply aren't shrill reactionary voters in America to carry the Electoral College, or if you prefer, a majority vote. The Dems need some sort of consistent philosophy that holds a broad spectrum of party supporters together. It's needn't be a right wing philosophy, just something that a hefty majority of the party can buy into and that looks reasonably presentable to the entire American body politic. The Kossites do the opposite, breaking supporters into tiny, marginalized identity clusters. As long as they continue to exert their current level of influence on the party, the party will fail.

Balls. First, the people you're talking about (aka the netroots) don't have the influence in the party that you give them. This phenomenon has been around for less than half a decade, so to chalk up the Dem's electoral faceplants to a handful of bloggers is simply wrong. The problem was, and remains, that the Democrats have tried so hard to appeal to everyone that they wind up appealling to no one. So, your assessmet of what the party needs to do is accurate, but how you got there is not.

Shoop - you're one of those rare individuals that doesn't buy (ie. vote) based on brand names. You actually look at the ingredients. I find the left's general fawning over Clinton to be baffling, seeing as how he put the Contract with American into action.

Not to defend Clinton, who I generally detest, but its not like he had a choice, given the fact that the Republicans held both the House and Senate. Much of the right-wing moves Clinton made can be traced to the G.O.P control over the legislative branch.

[newbie]

And with Clinton's hands tied by Congress he still managed this:

* longest economic boom in U.S. history

* lowest unemployment record in 30 years

* lowest crime rate in 30 years

* lowest poverty rate in 30 years

* created 22 million new jobs

* paid off 360 billion dollars of national debt, and

* created the largest budget deficit to the largest budget surplus in American history.

Now, compare that to Bush's legacy so far.

[Liam]

I am a Clinton fan (particularly moreso now that we have Chimpy McFlightsuit as the current president), but I don't think Clinton can take credit for all the good things that happened during his years in office. I give credit to the divided government we had at the time. The GOP-controlled Congress would pass a law and Clinton could either sign it or veto it. Likewise, he could champion some piece of legislation that the GOP could either squash in committee or pass it out to the entire body for a vote. The end result was more an exercise in consensus seeking and of finding common ground.

The problem with single-party government, as we have down here now, is that it leads to a breakdown in the checks and balances and bad legislation rarely meets with a presidential veto. Single party government can be good when they're on the right track, but there is nothing worse when they're on the wrong track as we see now.