DEM Primaries/Candidates thread

[Rex Kickass]

Bill Richardson is the guy poised to jump out of the second tier IMO.

 

He went to North Korea and fixed Bush's six year problem in six days.

 

This guy has executive experience and the foreign policy smarts to do well for us.

[southsider2k5]

Because it foreshadows how they plan on framing each candidate through the rest of the campaign. And it's always interesting to see Chris Matthews' and friends giggle over the trivial crap sent out in these press releases.

 

Do you seriously believe that only the RNC does this to its opposition?

[Rex Kickass]

The RNC is just better at it.

[southsider2k5]

Bill Richardson is the guy poised to jump out of the second tier IMO.

 

He went to North Korea and fixed Bush's six year problem in six days.

 

This guy has executive experience and the foreign policy smarts to do well for us.

 

Richardson is one of the few Dems that intreagues me. I am sick of Hillary and Barack already, and everytime I have seen something from John Edwards, it makes me wonder why I thought so highly of him in 2004. The rest of the Dems around don't seem viable at all to even consider at this time.

[BigSqwert]

Richardson is one of the few Dems that intreagues me. I am sick of Hillary and Barack already, and everytime I have seen something from John Edwards, it makes me wonder why I thought so highly of him in 2004. The rest of the Dems around don't seem viable at all to even consider at this time.

Wow, I'd hate to hear your opinion on the list of crap nominees on the other side of the aisle.

[southsider2k5]

Wow, I'd hate to hear your opinion on the list of crap nominees on the other side of the aisle.

 

I know most people won't consider anyone who doesn't have their preferred letter after the candidates name, but I do. Personally I am not excited about anyone on the Republician side of the slate at this time either. To be honest, I haven't been that excited about a Presidential candidate, post primaries, since about 1992.

[kapkomet]

Wow, I'd hate to hear your opinion on the list of crap nominees on the other side of the aisle.

BS, you and I banter back and forth quite a bit - but I'll jump in here and say that all the Republican candidates are complete jokes. Right now, based on what I know about all of the candidates, I would vote for Bill Richardson for president.

 

[StrangeSox]

I haven't heard too muhc about Richardson, but I like what I have (so far). Anyone have a good website with a comprehensive summary on the different candidates' positions?

 

edit: I found this site. Anyone know if its any good?

http://www.ontheissues.org/Bill_Richardson.htm

 

I still like what I see on an overwhelming majority of issues.

Edited April 26, 2007 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

I haven't heard too muhc about Richardson, but I like what I have (so far). Anyone have a good website with a comprehensive summary on the different candidates' positions?

 

edit: I found this site. Anyone know if its any good?

http://www.ontheissues.org/Bill_Richardson.htm

 

I still like what I see on an overwhelming majority of issues.

Part of the problem with this whole discussion about stances on issues is that we're still what, a year and a half from the general, and at least 9 months from even the first primaries? This process has become so bloody drawn-out that things which take time, like developing detailed policy reccomendations that go beyond the simple "Get out of Iraq" or "Universal health care" sentiments just haven't had time to be fully developed and vetted...by almost any of the candidates. And even if they have developed full plans, its entirely possible things will change from the details currently written down before the votes start coming in.

 

So right now, all we really have to evaluate most of these guys is the way they carry themselves, their speaking abilities, and roughly one or two moderate policy differences (i.e. do we withdraw totally from Iraq or do we keep a rapid-action force of some sort nearby, etc.).

[kapkomet]

Part of the problem with this whole discussion about stances on issues is that we're still what, a year and a half from the general, and at least 9 months from even the first primaries? This process has become so bloody drawn-out that things which take time, like developing detailed policy reccomendations that go beyond the simple "Get out of Iraq" or "Universal health care" sentiments just haven't had time to be fully developed and vetted...by almost any of the candidates. And even if they have developed full plans, its entirely possible things will change from the details currently written down before the votes start coming in.

 

So right now, all we really have to evaluate most of these guys is the way they carry themselves, their speaking abilities, and roughly one or two moderate policy differences (i.e. do we withdraw totally from Iraq or do we keep a rapid-action force of some sort nearby, etc.).

You're right. I agree, but as I said, based on where we are TODAY, Richardson is the guy who is the best candidate in my opinion.

[Chet Lemon]

Here is some of Richardson's job experience:

Seven-term U.S. Representative for New Mexico

U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.

U.S. Secretary of Energy

Two-term Governor of New Mexico

[Texsox]

This election is the Dems to lose. Bush's approval rating is a stench that will stick to every GOP candidate that is currently out there. So the Dems can either think

 

Now we can elect a "barrier breaker: in Obama or Clinton

 

or

 

Don't f*** this up by nominating an unelectable candidate.

 

Hillary is about as unelectable as anyone in the field. Obama is approaching that level. Hillary has too much negative baggage.

 

Edwards would win in a cakewalk.

[NorthSideSox72]

Part of the problem with this whole discussion about stances on issues is that we're still what, a year and a half from the general, and at least 9 months from even the first primaries? This process has become so bloody drawn-out that things which take time, like developing detailed policy reccomendations that go beyond the simple "Get out of Iraq" or "Universal health care" sentiments just haven't had time to be fully developed and vetted...by almost any of the candidates. And even if they have developed full plans, its entirely possible things will change from the details currently written down before the votes start coming in.

 

So right now, all we really have to evaluate most of these guys is the way they carry themselves, their speaking abilities, and roughly one or two moderate policy differences (i.e. do we withdraw totally from Iraq or do we keep a rapid-action force of some sort nearby, etc.).

You are leaving out the biggest thing we have at this point - their histories (resumes if you will).

[StrangeSox]

If they give Hillary the nomination, she'll get destroyed in the general election. I really, really hope they realize this.

[southsider2k5]

This election is the Dems to lose. Bush's approval rating is a stench that will stick to every GOP candidate that is currently out there. So the Dems can either think

 

Now we can elect a "barrier breaker: in Obama or Clinton

 

or

 

Don't f*** this up by nominating an unelectable candidate.

 

Hillary is about as unelectable as anyone in the field. Obama is approaching that level. Hillary has too much negative baggage.

 

Edwards would win in a cakewalk.

 

I wouldn't bet on Edwards just yet. He would be the second easiest candidate for the Repubs to demonize, next to Hillary. The work has done, the positions he has had, and the stances he has take will be very easy to fire up a Republician base with, and potentially scare some moderates. Believe it or not, I think the hardest person for the Repubs to go after would actually be Barrack, because they risk looking like racists if the attacks are too harsh.

[StrangeSox]

You are leaving out the biggest thing we have at this point - their histories (resumes if you will).

 

 

That's more what I was thinking of -- legislative or executive actions in the past can indicate where they stand and how the feel on some issues. I'm not looking for expansive plans for foreign policy or the economy at this point, just where these candidates stand on issues like free trade, gun control, Iraq, health care, etc.

 

This thread is the most thought I've put into the 2008 elections so far, and I probably won't put much more though in until the end of this year. This is just way too early to start serious campaigning and consideration of candidates.

[kapkomet]

And right now, that's why Barak is the candidate that gets it... the attack machine that is the Clinton machine has to do the damage. If he survives that, he's our next president.

[BigSqwert]

I for one look forward to tonight's debate. It will be my first time hearing Richardson speak. Will have to follow the Sox on Gameday.

[Texsox]

I wouldn't bet on Edwards just yet. He would be the second easiest candidate for the Repubs to demonize, next to Hillary. The work has done, the positions he has had, and the stances he has take will be very easy to fire up a Republician base with, and potentially scare some moderates. Believe it or not, I think the hardest person for the Repubs to go after would actually be Barrack, because they risk looking like racists if the attacks are too harsh.

 

They don't have to go after him. That's the really sad part. The other issue is we love Governors, not Senators.

[BigSqwert]

And right now, that's why Barak is the candidate that gets it... the attack machine that is the Clinton machine has to do the damage. If he survives that, he's our next president.

I agree. I also find it amazing how much support he is getting from the grass roots level. All the $100 or less donations have added up to quite a large sum in Q1. He really has a huge buzz and feel-good aura about him that few politicians ever get. He also seems to be quite liked by moderates even though his voting record has been quite left-leaning.

[NorthSideSox72]

I for one look forward to tonight's debate. It will be my first time hearing Richardson speak. Will have to follow the Sox on Gameday.

Then you will see the 2nd of his big disadvantages (1st being lack of name recognition). Richardson speaks alright, his speeches are solid. But he doesn't have anything like the charisma or affect that Obama or Edwards have. He's nothing to write home about as a public speaker - he just kind of says what needs to be said.

[BigSqwert]

Then you will see the 2nd of his big disadvantages (1st being lack of name recognition). Richardson speaks alright, his speeches are solid. But he doesn't have anything like the charisma or affect that Obama or Edwards have. He's nothing to write home about as a public speaker - he just kind of says what needs to be said.

Based on what you said I predict he has no chance. We are in the multimedia age. The days of FDR are long gone. People want the "presidential look" as well as someone who sounds "presidential".

 

Oh wait....how did the current boob get elected for 2 terms if that's the case??? Never mind.

[StrangeSox]

Based on what you said I predict he has no chance. We are in the multimedia age. The days of FDR are long gone. People want the "presidential look" as well as someone who sounds "presidential".

 

Oh wait....how did the current boob get elected for 2 terms if that's the case??? Never mind.

 

Didn't FDR get in on the whole multimedia thing with his fireside chats?

 

As far as Bush, what's that BS the media and the RNC were parroting? "He sounds like the common man" or "doesn't speak above our heads and use big words."

Edited April 26, 2007 by StrangeSox

[BigSqwert]

Didn't FDR get in on the whole multimedia thing with his fireside chats?

You might be right but the guy had polio and looked terrible. Someone like that couldn't be re-elected these days.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Here is some of Richardson's job experience:

Seven-term U.S. Representative for New Mexico

U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.

U.S. Secretary of Energy

Two-term Governor of New Mexico

 

What? No experience as head of an Arabian horse association?!?

 

What a hack.