Who do you think should be elected in 2008?

[hectorberlioz]

Sis, tell me what you think about this opinion piece on Caucuses.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art..._caucuses.html

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Sis, tell me what you think about this opinion piece on Caucuses.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art..._caucuses.html

Well, I think it isn't accurate. State committees set the rules for caucuses. Ours were timely and polite. A couple of dozen people sat in a schoolroom getting instructions, then split into 2 groups. Then the groups discussed who would be a good delegate, then voted. Very poor planning, if they had shouting and pushing...and it wouldn't have been possible here, because every possible delegate was rsvp'd, as it were. Since the primary set the number of delegates, no candidate (or supporters) could alter the final number.

But really...if the Texas party wants to assign delegates based on rock paper scissors, whose business is it but theirs?

[hectorberlioz]

Interesting, Sis.

What's in store for Huckabee?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1204...w_and_outlooks

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Typical strawman argument. The absurdity is the examples he gives, not the actual thing in question.

The key to being a good president are your skills, not your experience. No one who takes the office for the first time really has the experience of being president of the most powerful country in the world, and that's the only experience that counts.

Consider the following extensions of Obama's argument: "The experienced CEO made a bad investment, so let's replace him with the least experienced guy at the company."

No, the extension of Obama's argument would be "The experienced CEO made a bad investment, so should we replace him with an experienced board member who not only encouraged that bad investment, but wanted him to push it more aggressively, or a young regional manager recently promoted to head office who warned at the time that it was a bad investment, and turned out to be totally correct?"

[Mari]

The newspapers here think that a Hillary-Obama combo won't happen: too much anger right now with Obama accusing Hilary of leaking some false statements before the voting a few days ago and more mud being thrown.
I read about it in 3 different papers, what do the American papers say?

[hectorberlioz]

My opinion: by the time the Convention happens in Denver, there may not be much choice for either of them, regardless of feelings.

Seriously now, this is supertight deadlock. With the Rezko land deal being talked about, Obama might not be so glamorous a ticket-lead as before, and Hillary has already walked through that furnace several times.

I'm seeing a forced Clinton-Obama ticket being very possible.

[Mari]

Hmm, a forced coalition between people who don't like each other... explosive.
Thanks for the info

[Insidious Rex]

Wouldnt be the first time.

The thing is it would take one of them stepping up and saying ok for the best of the party and the country Im going to step out of this race and support my opponent because he/she is a much better choice then McCain and doing this until August is too destructive. But considering the egos that usually run for president can you really see anyone doing that? There would have to be promises of sub-presidency level powers given. Not unlike Cheney I guess. Because your normal Vice President role wouldnt be a good enough consolation prize.

[hectorberlioz]

Well, being an automatic frontrunner for the nomination in 2016 is a pretty good prize unto itself.

[hectorberlioz]

Btw Rex, I do want to discuss with you the issue of race with regards to both parties.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Wouldnt be the first time.

The thing is it would take one of them stepping up and saying ok for the best of the party and the country Im going to step out of this race and support my opponent because he/she is a much better choice then McCain and doing this until August is too destructive. But considering the egos that usually run for president can you really see anyone doing that? There would have to be promises of sub-presidency level powers given. Not unlike Cheney I guess. Because your normal Vice President role wouldnt be a good enough consolation prize.

It's just speculation, but if Barak were in Hillary's position right now in delegate count, I think he would already be doing just that.

The real question: is a Obama-Clinton ticket possible?

[Mari]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

But considering the egos that usually run for president can you really see anyone doing that?

Would it be possible to win presidency if you do not have a big ego? If you are willing to search for the middle while still sticking to your own principles, people will often mistake you for being weak. People don't want watered down wine, they want it pure.

[hectorberlioz]

It's not about small or big egos, it's whether or not those egos are capable of directing their self-confidence in the right direction. (Or the left direction, as the case may be).

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

It's not about small or big egos, it's whether or not those egos are capable of directing their self-confidence in the right direction. (Or the left direction, as the case may be).

Nice. *applause*

[hectorberlioz]

It sounds kinda Zen doesn't it

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Well, being an automatic frontrunner for the nomination in 2016 is a pretty good prize unto itself.

Yeah but any old VP gets that. This would be an almost president VP.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Well, being an automatic frontrunner for the nomination in 2016 is a pretty good prize unto itself.

Obama would be 55 by then, so not so bad.

Hillary? 69, after eight years standing behind a younger pres.
Not so good.

[Nurvingiel]

Personally, I have no problem being VP to an excellent president.

I think that Clinton and Obama are both classy enough that if they did have a forced ticket, they would put their differences behind them (at least publicly). I would like to see them run together, I think it's a real shame that currently, one of them might be out altogether.

I keep wondering where they were four years ago though. John Kerry was deemed the best and brightest of the Democrats at the time. Then he managed to lose to George W. Bush, a man widely regarded as the worst president in the history of the USA. Wow.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I keep wondering where they were four years ago though. John Kerry was deemed the best and brightest of the Democrats at the time. Then he managed to lose to George W. Bush, a man widely regarded as the worst president in the history of the USA. Wow.

Well Bob Dole was miles better than Bill Clinton, but he lost to him because he possessed no charisma.

John Kerry was not, is not, and never will be the strongest Democrat personality. The Dem party just amped him up because they had to run him.

And GWB is only regarded as the worst by leftists. Sure, most righties would agree he isn't the greatest, but certainly not the worst.

[Nurvingiel]

Obama has won in Wyoming
Go Obama! He won by 61%. His campaign seems to have plateaued a bit; he's now only ahead by about a hundred delegates. Clinton won important primaries in Texas and Iowa.

Idiot resigns after shooting off mouth
This is what my dad calls a CLM (Career Limiting Move). I hope this doesn't hurt Obama's campaign.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Well Bob Dole was miles better than Bill Clinton, but he lost to him because he possessed no charisma.

I would argue that charisma is important for a leader, even if Dole had other superior qualities.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

John Kerry was not, is not, and never will be the strongest Democrat personality. The Dem party just amped him up because they had to run him.

Why did they have to run him?

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

And GWB is only regarded as the worst by leftists. Sure, most righties would agree he isn't the greatest, but certainly not the worst.

If I was conservative, I would not be impressed by GWB. For one thing, being conservative doesn't mean mismanagement (See: FEMA. See also: Iraq*). For another, running up trillions of dollars in debt is the exact opposite of conservatism.

Who do you think is the wost president ever? Harding? Reagan? Someone else?

*The lack of strategy and organisation in the invasion, not whether or not you should have gone.