Hilary Clinton

RobertCZ

Actually the average African American can not identify with Obama. His story is not one of overcoming odds. He was always went to good schools, lived in nice nieghborhoods, lived abroad, stable family, etc. For the average African American they have very little if anything in common. Plus the fact that his mother is caucasion also does not help minorities identify with him. While the press will mention his racial background I really do not think it will have any major effect on overall result.

Now for the Republican nomination we have a couple big names floating around, McCain, Rudy, Pataki, Jeb Bush. For the nomination just like with the Democrats the "Kingmakers" want a cannidate to the right. Unfortunately McCain, Rudy and Pataki are much more center that the Republican party would like. Especially for the single issue voters in the party. (i.e. Gun control, Abortion) Jeb is more to the right than those mentioned above but he I don't think he will run. Personally I think he would be a great VP. Plus he can deliver FL in the Election.

A ticket like Rudy/Jeb would probably be a hard one to beat. They would deliver NY, FL and probably take a few other marginal states due to Rudy's more central idealogy plus everyone remembers him during 9/11 one cool cumcumber under presure. Arnie would help them in CA. (I do not think they would win the state but they would cause the Dem to spend alot of money in California that could be used in more realistic battground states.)

As for the election the Democrats have a problem because to get elected you need to win the Electorial Points. Which is based how the majority votes in that state. (It is a little more complicated than that but I will not get into that.) If you look at the last election it is pretty clear that the Dems. have only a few very populous states. (NY, CA, MI, IL. In the 2004 election CA(55), NY(31), IL(21) and MI(17) accounted for 49% of the Dems. electoral votes.124 of the 252 Electoral Votes they recieved(you need 270 to win)) So if they lose one of these states they are in big trouble because that means they would have to win several smaller midwest/southern states which is not likely. Historically the Democrats have done very well the West Coast, New England, the South (Pre-Reagan era. But Southern Democrats tend to be much more conservative than their Northern counterparts.) But in recent elections they have lost their grrip on the south. Gore did not even win his home state in 2000 rare in presidential elections. Even Mondale won his state against Reagan in 1984.

I hope this election brings more central canidates but I fear it will be a battle of Idealogues.

Wurm

Most Dems do not like Hillary b/c she's seen as a pandering jack-ass. She doesn't have core Progressive values that go past being yet another corporate shill. Even Edwards said last night on Olberman that she hasn't admitted her vote for the Iraq invasion was wrong, and her subsequent cheerleading for the War on Terra. Basically, she's been a female Lieberman. Her health care scheme in the early 90's was an attempted handout to the insurance industry and a slap in the face to unions.

But, the mass media will continue to shove her down our throats, hoping that the constant exposure will change minds.

__________________
"Bush is the first President to admit to an impeachable offense."

- John Dean, former Counsel to the President (Nixon)

The aim of big corporations is to separate fools from their money all of the time and ordinary folks from their money most of the time. The rest of us must fend for ourselves.

Bro Deal

The nice thing about Obama is that he is not running as the black candidate. Jesse Jackson always ran as a special interest candidate, and people like Al Sharpton just used the federal matching funds and their party's money to live high on the hog for the duration of the election. There was never any chance they could get a significant number of white voters. Obama is running as just another candidate without concentration on race. I think that is a huge step forward.

Jeb Bush's presidential hopes need to be officially round filed. His brother has killed his chances. It is unfair since he appears to be much smarter than his brother and a much more deft politician, but I do not see independents willing to risk Dubya II. Dubya's problems are only beginning. He seems depressed now but wait until the Democrats start investigating the outright robbery that has gone on during Iraq's reconstruction. It takes political skill to speak out against a war and not get tarred with being soft on defense and security, but it takes no skill to go after war profiteers, especially when the war has been a complete cock up. There is no downside. Not only will it play to the Dems' base, it will play well with the independents and fiscal conservatives. If Jeb ever runs it would have to be long after 2008 and he has not got that kind of time.

I think McCain has played out his welcome. He was good at using what I think of as the Lieberman ploy. When Clinton was impeached, Lieberman used his conscience of the Senate schtick to get media exposure, telling everyone how troubled he was about the president's acts and intimating he might support removal, but when the time came he voted the party line. McCain has used his status as a fringe Repub the same way. His problem is that he is no longer the revolutionary fighting The Man. He is The Man. With his support for the war, he not only sounds like Dick Cheney, he looks like him.

As for Rudy, I cannot put my finger on it but he seems like a lightweight to me. I think of him as a regional candidate who will be unable to parlay that into nationwide support. Pataki might be a good V.P. If he could deliver NY and the candidate at the top of the ticket could deliver the South then you have a hard to beat combination.

I think the conclusion of the electoral mathematics you pointed out is that the Dems cannot afford to put up a left wing nominee. They have to have someone near to the center; and back to the original topic, I don't see Hillary as being in that position.

__________________
"I'm completely fu**ed up. Even the speed of the bus was almost too fast for me." -- Gert Steegmans

Bro Deal

The interesting thing is that the Repubs now have the exact opposite problem. They have moved steadily away from their usual partnership of Wallstreeters, blue bloods, libertarian leaning reactionaries, and moral majority types to become a party of religious nutters. The inclusive ship that ferried Reagan to power has been hit by the iceberg of Bush's inflexibility. Judging by the last election the boat is taking on water and the Repubs had better start plugging the leaks.

__________________
"I'm completely fu**ed up. Even the speed of the bus was almost too fast for me." -- Gert Steegmans

limerickman

As and outsider and for what it's worth - I think that the USA needs someone who can unite, rather than divide, the country.
Right now, the US is polarised - like no other (modern) time.

I think this Bush administration has told untold harm to the country.
Economically, I predict that whatever administration comes in will be left with a huge, massive economic problem.
Current budget deficits/trade deficits/balance of payments deficits exist now.
Between 2009-2015, moritoriums given to Bush under Acts passed in the early 2002 will ensure that these positions crumble.
$344 billion in tax cuts is due to mature in 2011 for example.
Sheer recklessness. How is the country meant to fund this in three years time?
Compounded by the Iraq expenditure - Americans will be left with a domestic fiscal basketcase of an economy.

In terms of foreign affairs - Bush's policies have polarised internal US politics also to Vietnam levels.
The State of the Union address showed just how isolated Bush is - lukewarm acknowledgement from his audience spoke volumes.


So, in 2009, America will need to have a leader who can bring together the country.
Personally, I think Hilary Clinton is a very smart, accomplished person.
From what i read she has done a great job in NY - her hard work and her ability has been recognised.
However, she is viewed by her opponents as a polarising figure (not to the same degree as Bush).
Therefore I don't think that she will be given the opportunity to lead the USA.

McCain's support of Bush throughout Iraq may make him unpalatable.

John Edwards seems to be a bright guy - but I don't know enough about him to comment either way.

Suffice to say - whoever gets the job, they will have been placed in an invidious position by the current incumbents policies.

__________________
.."But finally the last thing I’ll say to the people who don’t believe in cycling, the cynics and the sceptics. I'm sorry for you. I’m sorry that you can’t dream big. [I]I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles. You should believe in these athletes, and you should believe in these people. I'll be a fan of the Tour de France for as long as I live. And there are no secrets" - this is a hard sporting event and hard work wins it - Armstrong 2005 TDF
morelike hypocrisy.

Wurm

Lim, if you lived in NY as I do, you might not see things that way. I guess it depends on where/who you're getting your info from.

The poll I saw last night from Iowa of Dem contenders had Edwards at 23%, with Obama 13%, Vilsack & Clinton both at 12%. That tells me the neo-liberal, faux-conservative Clinton is not getting much traction even in a somewhat conservative place like Iowa. Maybe she should stop talking in platitudes.

My grandfather used to say, "You don't get much from straddling the fence but a sore backside."

__________________
"Bush is the first President to admit to an impeachable offense."

- John Dean, former Counsel to the President (Nixon)

The aim of big corporations is to separate fools from their money all of the time and ordinary folks from their money most of the time. The rest of us must fend for ourselves.

Aussie Steve

In Australia, voting is compulsory. If you are on the electoral role, you must vote or you get a fine. We get a lot of informal voting where people just dont care, fill the ballot cards incorrectly, etc but at least they turn up to vote.
In the USA, I have been led to believe voting is optional, and apparently you have a turn-out of less than 50%? so if Hilary C gets voted in, you only have yourselves to blame.

__________________
I have never had a problem with Premature Ejac... it's my partners that had the problem

wolfix

The subject you brought up is one of the reasons we get so little middle of the roads canidates elected. We have the believers on the far right and we have the believers on the far left. They take this seriously....... And that is the type of canidate we end up with. A canidate that appeals to the extremists of either side.....
We have lost faith in the type of person that represents us. I believe the loss of faith in elected officials began with Johnson and then the Watergate scandal confirmed it. It's been down hill since. Any country that elects Arnie and Jessie Ventura, and keeps Ted Kennedy in office deserves what it gets. Maybe Arnie is trying though... I'm not sure what he stands for, but he seems to be working the office.

__________________
"Ethics are so annoying. I avoid them on principle."
Darby Conley

Bro Deal

Whoa, and I thought the U.S. had a bad democratic system. One thing we don't need is forcing people to vote. I think it was George Carlin who once said, "Think about how dumb the average American is then realize that half of them are dumber than that."

How much is the fine?

__________________
"I'm completely fu**ed up. Even the speed of the bus was almost too fast for me." -- Gert Steegmans

thebirdman

Before the last election it use to be $20.00, but I think it has now gone up to $50.00 or $100.00. That is unless you have a good excuse that the Electoral Office accepts.

As for informal votes, I have been a party scrutineer at several election counts and I can not remember any of our boothes being higher than 5% and that was at the very devisive late 2001 'Post 9/11, One Nation, Tampa, Immigration, Children Overboard' election where we elected 'the devil we knew'.

We still use pencil and paper for our votes so we are 'unlikely' to have a Florida fiasco.

Don't worry we still seem to vote in leaders that more than half of the country think are 'tosser's' like you guys do. But we do know that at least 50%+1 of our fellow sheep voted the ruling party in.

We vote in Laywers, Ancesteral Polititians (Daddy was a Politician) and Political Party Hacks, oh and I forgot... Journalists and Peter Garrett(a pop vocalist with unco-ordinated movements)

The last time we had, possibly, a ordinary bloke as a Prime Minster, was a train driver. But that was during WWII and he was still a Union Organiser.

You guys in the US are lucky your Presidents have a maximum of 2 terms. Howard has been Prime Minister for nearly 11 years and if the Labor Party or some other minor party don't get their acts together he could see out 20 years, if his health holds up(He is a very fit and healthy man, in his late 60s, and still does long power walks every morning before doing a long days work. It's funny seeing people 1/2 his age not being able to keep up with him.

jhuskey

Go on, tell me you wouldn't vote for this face.

Attached Thumbnails

 

__________________
Over 6 million squirrels attempt suicide each day.

Wurm

Eh, not bad, but I think these two are sexier:

Attached Thumbnails

 

__________________
"Bush is the first President to admit to an impeachable offense."

- John Dean, former Counsel to the President (Nixon)

The aim of big corporations is to separate fools from their money all of the time and ordinary folks from their money most of the time. The rest of us must fend for ourselves.

jhuskey

Hey,that's not fair. This is Hills' thread and you are trying to upstage her.
I cry foul!

__________________
Over 6 million squirrels attempt suicide each day.

lyotard

would i vote hillary, NO.
as for why, she is quite the generic characteristic choice that reflects the democrat party, for all their purported differences, the net result is they give bush 50%+, and this, along with their allegience to the special interests which supprt them, means a vote for hillary is in reality just a vote for your favorite pro-war, pro-billionaire, pro-bush candidate.

if anyone thinks this not the fact, have a go at convincing us in substantive rather than symbolic terms.

__________________
"i think it would be a good idea"

-mahatma gandhi, upon being posed the question
"what do you think of western civilization?"