Kerry to run again in 2008? - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-09-2004, 09:30 AM   #16
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,404
Local Time: 08:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by verte76
No, Clinton did not come out of nowhere. He first attracted national attention in 1978 when he was elected Governor of Arkansas at the age of 32. As we all know, he screwed up and got thrown out of office, but came back to get back in in 1982. That attracted more attention, and he became prominent as a governor. I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of Edwards' candidacy, headache. The guy came out of complete obscurity to place second in the Iowa caucuses, ahead of favorite Howard Dean. It's true he only won one primary, but he probably learned a hell of alot during 2004 and will use it as a stepping stone. James Carville, no less, said he has the best stump speech he's ever heard, and this bloke was Bill Clinton's campaign manager. If it hadn't been for the "front-end loaded" primary schedule he might have won the nomination. This strategy was drafted by Terry McAuliffe, and his term as National Chairman of the DNC is about to end. It's rumored that Howard Dean may make a run at the position. Good point about Wesley Clark and lesser political office. Maybe he should run for Congress from Arkansas.
my out of no where comment on clinton was based on the fact that he was by no means the favorite to win the democratic nomination in 92, let alone the white house. he captivated the american audience with his charisma and just exploded. that's what i meant.

i think edwards also needs more polishing before running for the white house, and it's not gonna help that he's completely out of washington now. is north carolina's governor's job up soon? perhaps he should consider a run there first.

clark deffinetly needs some sort of political office just so he can get used to the ins and outs of it before he runs for president... he was probably the best candidate of all the guys who ran for the democratic nomination, but he was so over-matched due to his lack of experience that he never even made a serious dent.



and on to hill hill...

why do people dislike her so? frankly, she's percieved by many to be an absolute phoney... even faker than Kerry was percieved to be. They think she's a carpetbagger who used New York State for her own personal political gain... They think she in a fake marrage that she only stays in for her own personal political gain... They think she's so power hungry that she'll do or say just about anything to get elected... that she's more of a flip flopper than kerry who makes her opinions based on where the polls are. Add in her involvement in the aformentioned scandles... whitewater, vince foster, ron brown, etc. etc. and now you have a candidate that many people despise.

A lot of what I mentioned is simply perception... but the problem is there's enough reality mixed in there to make the perception all the more believable, be it true or not. frankly, as a resident of new york state, i think she's been a horrific senator. i think she IS using us for her own political gain. she cares more about national issues than she does about issues here at "home." and you could say "oh you're just saying that because you're a republican" all you want... and I'm sure some people will say that. but before you say that, let me add that I voted for democrat chuck schumer for senator, and voted for democrat tim bishop for the house.

and in 2006 her re-election is by no means a lock... she may be facing off against either governor george pataki or rudy giuliani... both of whom are very popular throughout the state.
__________________

__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 11-09-2004, 09:33 AM   #17
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 340
Local Time: 07:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Flying FuManchu


Hell, I think the Clintons by in large may have contributed to Gore's downfall in 2000, b/c of the controversies surrounding them.

A very thoughtful post, FFM, but I have to quibble with this one little bit, because I think almost the opposite happened. For most of the campaign, Gore chose not to emphasize the Clinton/Gore record for the very reason you put here. I think it was a very costly mistake, because it took away his single most important qualification for the office. I think it left the question of why people should vote for the guy, which he never really provided an answer for.

Just an opinion, and it's worth noting you may be right. But remember that Clinton had very high approval ratings when he left office. I think it's unlikely that people would have supported Clinton despite the scandals yet turned against Gore because of them.
__________________

__________________
strannix is offline  
Old 11-09-2004, 09:36 AM   #18
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 01:41 PM
I agree. You can't make a viable run for President when you already have a high negativity rating that's not going anywhere. If Hillary does run in 2008, and I actually have my doubts about this, she won't win the nomination. There's too much of a psychological barrier against a female candidate, any female candidate on either side of the aisle. It's been suggested that an African American male will win first. People are looking at Barack Obama. He's great, but he's just started his Senatorial career and he'll need experience before he can run for anything higher. I'm sure he won't do anything as a first term Senator aside from campaigning for the nominee.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 11-09-2004, 09:36 AM   #19
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 340
Local Time: 07:41 AM
Quote:
is north carolina's governor's job up soon? perhaps he should consider a run there first
No. Governor Easley (also a Democrat) was just reelected last week.
__________________
strannix is offline  
Old 11-09-2004, 09:42 AM   #20
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,404
Local Time: 08:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by strannix


No. Governor Easley (also a Democrat) was just reelected last week.
well there goes that then
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 11-09-2004, 09:56 AM   #21
New Yorker
 
Flying FuManchu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Used to live in Chambana. For now the Mid-South.
Posts: 3,149
Local Time: 08:41 AM
I'm just guessing on the thing with Gore losing b/c of the Clintons. At the most, IMO it contributed to his loss. IF you believe the whole moral values theory on this election, then its not much of stretch to say/ think the Clinton scandals (alah Monica-gate) contributed to the image of the Democratic party being "against" family values (guilt by association), thus mobilzing people to support Bush in 2000. I know it mobilized votes against Gore (it didn't help that Gore was pretty wishy washy about his connection with Clinton) where I was. Pollsters and campaign managers for the Gore campaign must have thought it very important considering the choice of Leiberman.

Gore, who was technically an incumbent with the good economic years during his VP-ship should have won pretty handily (in spite of the crappy image) b/c Bush to be honest wasn't that strong of candidate to me. But the repubs were able to mobilize and something had to mobilize them that was near and dear to them outside of their pocketbook and against relatively good times.

This election showed that its about mobilization and getting people out to vote, in spite of the environment, in order to win elections. Same case could be made of 2000 since Rove was the campaign strategist of that time.
__________________
Flying FuManchu is offline  
Old 11-09-2004, 10:53 AM   #22
Acrobat
 
pianorocker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: the cosmos
Posts: 339
Local Time: 08:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Headache in a Suitcase

if wesley clark is gonna run for president again, i sure hope he runs for some smaller office in the meantime in order to gain some political experience, which was his major problem this time around.
I agree...Clark was actually who I would have voted for in the primary if he hadn't dropped out a few weeks before. I thought his ideas were good, but the experience part was the problem.
__________________
pianorocker is offline  
Old 11-09-2004, 12:03 PM   #23
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 01:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by pianorocker


I agree...Clark was actually who I would have voted for in the primary if he hadn't dropped out a few weeks before. I thought his ideas were good, but the experience part was the problem.
Yeah.....I think he should run for Congress.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 11-09-2004, 02:19 PM   #24
ONE
love, blood, life
 
namkcuR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 10,290
Local Time: 08:41 AM
There's nothing wrong with Hillary except she's a woman. I have no problem with that, but guess what? A country that re-elects Bush, is NOT going to elect a woman. It's just not going to happen.

And Clark is the worst democrat ever. Or at least one of the most conservative democrats I've ever been familiar with. Anyway, I REALLY don't want a military lover in the white house again after Bush. I want a diplomat, NO MORE MILITARY LOVERS.
__________________
namkcuR is offline  
Old 11-09-2004, 02:23 PM   #25
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 05:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by namkcuR
There's nothing wrong with Hillary except she's a woman. I have no problem with that, but guess what? A country that re-elects Bush, is NOT going to elect a woman. It's just not going to happen.
You can't simply play the gender card with Hillary. There are plenty of thinking men and women who disagree with her politics.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 11-09-2004, 02:27 PM   #26
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2democrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: England by way of 'Murica.
Posts: 22,140
Local Time: 01:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


You can't simply play the gender card with Hillary. There are plenty of thinking men and women who disagree with her politics.
And that's exactly why i think she can't win. She might win the northeast and the west coast, but absolutely nothing else.
__________________
U2democrat is offline  
Old 11-09-2004, 02:33 PM   #27
ONE
love, blood, life
 
namkcuR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 10,290
Local Time: 08:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


You can't simply play the gender card with Hillary. There are plenty of thinking men and women who disagree with her politics.
I realize that, but I can't fathom that a man with the EXACT same politics as Hillary wouldn't get more electoral votes. Like I said, I myself have no problem with gender. But all the red states from Tuesday, these are the people who probably think gay people have cooties. My guess is they wouldn't take kindly to a female presidential candidate either.
__________________
namkcuR is offline  
Old 11-09-2004, 02:45 PM   #28
New Yorker
 
Flying FuManchu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Used to live in Chambana. For now the Mid-South.
Posts: 3,149
Local Time: 08:41 AM
Uhhhmmmmm did I not mention the other things in her past as First Lady and before. Its not JUST b/c she is a woman... it may contribute to the total package, but her being a female isn't the only reason. Hell, Elizabeth Dole was elected Senator of North Carolina= home state of Helms and a red state. A woman President is possible, even in red states.... however, Hillary just won't cut it...
__________________
Flying FuManchu is offline  
Old 11-09-2004, 02:48 PM   #29
New Yorker
 
Flying FuManchu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Used to live in Chambana. For now the Mid-South.
Posts: 3,149
Local Time: 08:41 AM
She is also a famous/ infamous public figure. She already has a "past" and reputation. She isn't an unknown factor like Clark, Edwards, and even Bill Clinton. That means she ain't surprising anyone. So any candidate with her "history" would get the same scrutiny.
__________________
Flying FuManchu is offline  
Old 11-09-2004, 02:53 PM   #30
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 01:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by namkcuR
And Clark is the worst democrat ever. Or at least one of the most conservative democrats I've ever been familiar with. Anyway, I REALLY don't want a military lover in the white house again after Bush. I want a diplomat, NO MORE MILITARY LOVERS.
The progressive wing of the Democratic Party wants to adopt a stronger anti-war platform. The thing is, 9/11 permanently changed the attitude of Americans towards national security, and, quite frankly, I'm not sure if pre-9/11 sentiments are what's going to win elections for the Democrats in the future. It's been suggested that that's why Kerry won the nomination with his Vietnam credentials. I'm sure when I start going to Democracy for America meetings next month, we'll get a mouthful of talk for a stronger anti-war platform. If Iraq crashes and burns, as I think it will, the party may take a turn away from the present attitudes about war and peace. We'll see.
__________________

__________________
verte76 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com