Clinton, McCain, Obama, Giuliani – non of them will win. Who will?
Back to Main
January 20, 2007
Primaries
Comments
I just took my one day visit to atrios just now, they seem to be pretty “hard-on” about a HC run.
Me, Jim Webb.
Posted by: Cloned Poster | Jan 20 2007 23:21 utc | 3
I’m looking forward to what Webb has to say on Tuesday.
Round 2: DING!
Clinton lost me when she voted for war. I don’t care what she says now.
Posted by: beq | Jan 20 2007 23:28 utc | 4
My money is on Edwards. This is the extent of my analysis of this regular farce. I hope they all lose!
Posted by: Rowan | Jan 20 2007 23:41 utc | 5
my mother doesn’t think any of the dem candidates can pull it together to win. she has witnessed firsthand what romney pulled off in liberal massachusetts and lives in fear he will do it on a national level. me, i’m still hoping for a gore run, but these days edwards is looking better than i ever expected. he is saying all the right things so far. never thought i would find myself saying that, btw.
Posted by: conchita | Jan 21 2007 0:48 utc | 6
good point, mats. all the pieces are in place for total dictatorship and martial law (assuming the military will go along).
although, one of main reasons for the rethugs letting an election go will be to hand off the f*cking mess they’ve made of everything, give up the busted state and go back to running the world from the corporate bunkers.
Posted by: catlady | Jan 21 2007 1:32 utc | 8
If the Dems don’t get busy and act on the mandate the people gave them on Nov 7th and expose the Reptiles for their total disfunction then there will be another victory for Murdoch and the rest of the MSM and the Neocon smear machine.
Posted by: pb | Jan 21 2007 2:39 utc | 9
Who will?
Who is running on the Diebold ticket?
Posted by: a swedish kind of death | Jan 21 2007 3:24 utc | 11
@beq (#2)
My joy at seeing Dennis take the Democratic nomination would only be surpassed by my outrage when he got Wellstoned halfway through the campaign.
As long as we’re talking about fantasy scenarios, Ron Paul decided to shake off the mantle of “Libertarian Underdog” and announce his candidacy for POTUS as a Republican. It would never happen in a million years that he would get the nomination (and another Republican from Texas makes me kind of shudder anyway), but what kind of a dream ticket would it be to have Paul (Republican-Texas) take Kucinich (Democrat-Ohio)as a running mate in an organized “screw you!” to the endemic corruption of the two-party system (and to political parties in general)? Not sure what laws are on the books to prevent that kind of subversion of organized duopolistic gangsterism, but it would make me giddy enough to require a change of underwear to see it.
Posted by: Monolycus | Jan 21 2007 3:54 utc | 12
Gee, and I’ve been worried about Obama getting RFK’d, shudder.
Paul/Kucinich 2008: The Wash Out the Dirty Laundry Party
Moyers/Keillor??
Posted by: catlady | Jan 21 2007 4:16 utc | 13
barkeep, i’ll have some of what monolycus and catlady are drinking – make it a double.
Posted by: conchita | Jan 21 2007 5:17 utc | 14
how about gore/edwards with clark as sec of defence?
Posted by: Anonymous | Jan 21 2007 9:08 utc | 16
me, i’m still hoping for a gore run, but these days edwards is looking better than i ever expected. he is saying all the right things so far.
ditto
barkeep, i’ll have some of what monolycus and catlady are drinking – make it a double.
ditto
Posted by: annie | Jan 21 2007 10:24 utc | 18
Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton.
It would kind of complicate some of the myths. Even 1st graders would think that ‘anyone can be President’ is a silly thing to say.
Posted by: DM | Jan 21 2007 10:56 utc | 19
drifty does a nice rundown of how far to the right the rethug party has gone, so far in fact that their platform of 1976 is far too liberal for present day dems to even consider.
On Privacy:
We are alarmed by Washington’s growing collection of information. The number of federal data banks is now estimated at between 800 and 900 and more than 50 agencies are involved. We question the need for all these computers to be storing the records of our lives. Safeguards must protect us against this information being misused or disclosed. Major changes, for example, are needed to maintain the confidentiality of tax returns and Society Security records.
On Public Integrity:
Your elected officials, their appointees, and government workers are expected to perform their public acts with honesty, openness, diligence, and special integrity. At the heart of our system must be confidence that these people are always working for you.
this fits in well with oft quoted ratchet effect
Posted by: dan of steele | Jan 21 2007 11:56 utc | 20
I think Edwards is in the strongest position and has done the best job of figuring out who he really is. The populism he was exploring in ’04 has been fleshed out now and has some depth and strength these days. He is also the best communicator of the lot — other than Obama, maybe. While it might not be my personal choice, I think an Edwards-Richardson ticket might be interesting.
Can’t figure out what the heck is going on with the GOP but I agree that I can’t see any scenario that propels either McCain or Guilianni — and Romney is almost a sure melt down once the primaries start. The idea of Gingrich is laughable… though I can imagine a bizarro convention that nominates him. So do they go with milquetoast Huckabee or mad cow Brownback… or find some even longer shot?
The repubs problem right now is pretty fundamental … just about every likely candidate you can think of is inherently weak politically, has been discredited in some major way or would be unpalatable in the primaries (Hagel). I’m feeling no pity for them.
Posted by: Kay | Jan 21 2007 16:30 utc | 21
I am usually a lurker here, but can’t keep my mouth shut today. You as a group are among the most intelligent blog participants I have found. But today your comments suggest that at least some of you suffered a mental meltdown in Hamburg.
You-who-usually-think-outside-the- envelope seem to have bought the D.C. certainty that the President of all the People must be selected from a list of Americans who live & work in D.C. Not so. I would even vote for a Republican if my choice were a Republican governor vs. a Member of Congress or Senator.
Come to think of it, I’ll probably vote for Nader, even if I have to write in his name.
Marjie
Posted by: Marjie | Jan 21 2007 18:10 utc | 22
Who will?
Who is running on the Diebold ticket?
Posted by: a swedish kind of death | Jan 20, 2007 10:24:04 PM | 11
Chuck Hagel, of course.
Hagel is the former CEO of American Information Systems Inc. (AIS), which changed its name to Electronic Systems & Software (ES&S) in 1997. Voting machines made by AIS/EC&S have been the focus of intense scrutiny since the 2000 Presidential election due to their alleged susceptibility to fraud and tampering.
In 1996, Hagel became the first elected Republican Nebraska senator in 24 years when he did surprisingly well in an election where the votes were verified by the company he served as chairman and maintained a financial investment. In both the 1996 and 2002 elections, Hagel’s ES&S counted an estimated 80% of his winning votes. Due to the contracting out of services, confidentiality agreements between the State of Nebraska and the company kept this matter out of the public eye. Hagel’s first election victory was described as a “stunning upset” by one Nebraska newspaper.
Posted by: doug r | Jan 21 2007 19:00 utc | 24
Clinton, McCain, Obama, Giuliani – none of them will win. Who will?
The only one in the list who might obtain dark, consequent, neo-con, criminal or military-industrial-complex establishment support and enthusiastic endorsement from Israel is Giuliani.
Therefore, he is the only contender, the others don’t stand a chance. Hillary has tried hard but cannot be accepted by the PTB (the voters reflect that attitude), Obama is a light weight fluffy careerist, he looks good in the papers for Image America, etc. and will certainly make a pile of money one way or the other. McCain, posters here will know better than myself, but long standing spouting political figure. They are all people on the fringes. Giuliani is another cup of tea, they owe him bad. Who knows. But I wouldn’t expect him to win unless there was no one else. He is slavish but not popular enough, elderly, probably – certainly? – not tough enough.
Gore will not run. One can psych that different ways – either because he has been branded a loser and boy does that count; or because he made An Inconvenient Truth, which was an apology of sorts; or because he has some conscience, how could he participate further? Those memes fit neatly together. Moral loser, etc.
Edwards is a political hack riding a temporary wave.
Anyway it doesn’t matter much. Theater!
Posted by: Noirette | Jan 21 2007 19:45 utc | 25
fwiw I agree with Marjie and Noirette. Anyone selected as our candidate is most likely not worth a damn as they are already “owned”
it would be nice to see Dennis make a better showing this time. he has consistently been right and has consistently been ignored by corporate media.
many people want to hate Nader too though he has been a man of principle from what I know about him.
I have considered writing to Ms Clinton to beg her not to enter the race. she has no chance and will only help the republicans by taking away campaign money from the other democratic contestants. if she really cared about what is good for the country she would realize she can do more from behind the curtain than she could by trying to sit on the throne.
at the end of the day it is more important to keep congress than to gain the presidency. If a republican president is in office when it becomes impossible to ignore the deficit and the fact that social security has been cleaned out, so much the better. we certainly cannot risk having the republicans in charge of all 4 branches of government again. the dems have to keep at least one and focusing on the executive is damn expensive and way too risky.
Posted by: dan of steele | Jan 21 2007 21:03 utc | 26
If Kucinich is as great as y’all say, maybe he won’t throw his support to the war candidate who inevitably defeats him, as with Kerry in 2004. Just a thought.
Posted by: Rowan | Jan 21 2007 22:14 utc | 27
there’s a new docu coming out on nader which will likely help his appeal. noirette nails it though – this is wasted energy, cuz as mr. zappa observed long ago – politics is theatre for big business.
Posted by: b real | Jan 21 2007 22:16 utc | 28
Rowan, the greatest problem facing Kucinich is his stature. If he were a foot taller he would be much more popular.
sad but so very true.
Posted by: dan of steele | Jan 21 2007 22:25 utc | 29
george hw bush – yale
wm j clinton – yale
george w bush – yale
(bonus: john f kerry – yale)
were to be any more presidents in the republic, odds probably favor the plutocrat from yale
Posted by: b real | Jan 21 2007 22:30 utc | 30
dan- I don’t think it’s just Kucinich’s stature that’s a problem, but I do think it is a problem for Americans….the Dukakis-moment thing would get him, most likely, and I’d be willing to bet on that one.
However, I think he is labeled far left by republican talking heads…but they label anyone to the left of McCarthy (not the Eugene one) a “communist.” I heard Novakula call CARTER a communist, fer cryin’ out loud. Kucinich is a “labor” politician, which the south generally rejects.
I also hope Hillary decides to get out of the race early on. I don’t want dynasties in American politics, whether from the dems or repubs. Please, no Bush or Clinton forever more! Or Kennedy. Or Sunnunu.
McCain campaign hinges on the success of Bush’s surge.
If it’s Guiliani, at least he’s a divorced, pro-choice, northern Republican…almost like a southern democrat, but with a different accent.
Posted by: fauxreal | Jan 21 2007 23:00 utc | 31
rahul mahajan: Kucinich for President?
..if you are considering supporting him, I want to caution you.
Given the conservative-nationalistic populist refoundation of the Democratic Party, most likely Kucinich will stand out as the only even slightly anti-militarist and anti-imperialist Democratic candidate. Short of a run by Nader, Bill Moyers, or someone like that, he’ll probably also be the only worthy candidate with any public recognition.
Still, despite numerous fatuous proclamations of his, there’s absolutely no way he will win or even make a respectable showing, and so one must consider what is to be gained from supporting him.
Last time, his campaign spent $11 million — $11 million of activist money poured down a rat-hole, in my opinion, along with a great deal of time, effort, and enthusiasm.
His campaign was intellectually deficient on foreign policy, a crippling fault. His talks were long on platitudes about peace, but short on the specifics about real issues that might have spread the left message beyond the choir. So ignorant was he regarding the U.S.-backed coup against Aristide that, in a televised debate, he said what the U.S. was doing was good, but it needed to do more – it was left to John Kerry, oddly, to expose the extent of the Bush administration’s animus toward Aristide.
Although Kucinich’s “position” on Iraq was fine, he had very little to say about it and avoided the issue in favor of expansive visions on social programs that couldn’t possibly make any difference in a political campaign defined by Iraq.
What really stood out, though, was his behavior at the Democratic Convention. Although he had maintained his candidacy in order to hang onto his delegates, loyalty to the Party trumped the antiwar cause and he capitulated to the militarism of the Democratic leadership, instructing his delegates to back down on the question of an antiwar plank in the Democratic platform — even though an estimated 95% of all delegates to the convention were antiwar.
Even though he did speak there, he went with the flow and talked about Kerry the great war hero. Not a mention of the still-fresh Abu Ghraib/torture scandal, alluded to only by Jimmy Carter and Jesse Jackson
Last but hardly least, he did nothing to help build self-sustaining left organizationsul that could continue to exert influence after the campaign was over.
Those of you who want to work for Kucinich don’t need to rule it out right away. But make him accountable. He’s not going to win and the meaning or lack thereof of his campaign is going to be in relation to the antiwar movement. He needs to know if he runs again he’s working for us.
plus, ever notice how dennis rarely gives a straight answer to one of amy goodman’s questions whenever she has him on democracynow? instead, he goes off into some canned political speech-ifying, like he’s campaigning every time he’s got a camera on him. like a little talking doll – pull the string & get a stump speech.
Posted by: b real | Jan 22 2007 0:29 utc | 32
@b real,
before we get too caught up in Dennis-mania, yeah, it’s important to mention how he’s a kind of reverse Trojan horse to keep the anti-war left in the Democratic Party with nothing to show for it.
Also, I propose a preemptive moratorium on any use of the word “electable.” I’m sure most barflies don’t want to get into that, but presidential elections can turn even the smartest among us into morons.
Posted by: Rowan | Jan 22 2007 5:33 utc | 33
Pelosi.
First we impeach Bush and Cheney (which I suspect is the only way they will leave offic) and then Pelosi’s in…. and get re-elected in 2008.
Posted by: Susan | Jan 22 2007 6:00 utc | 34
Don’t miss this one — it is just hilariously funny and clever.
Saturday Night Live Lampoons Hilary Clinton
I am so glad that Raw Story posted a YouTube version of this segment.
Posted by: Bea | Jan 23 2007 0:55 utc | 36
rolling stone / why gore should run
Gore has carved out a public role for himself that’s usually reserved for rock stars and Tour de France winners. What Bono is to Third World debt and Lance Armstrong is to cancer, Gore is to global warming. “He’s the indispensable character in the drama of the climate crisis,” says Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club. “If it has a happy ending, he’ll be the hero. If it has a tragic ending, he’ll be the tragic hero.” And like Bono, Gore can pack a house, even in red-state America: In January, tickets for a Gore speech at a 10,000-seat stadium in Boise, Idaho, sold out in less than twenty-four hours.
“He has built an infrastructure that is impervious to traditional political calculations,” says Ron Klain, Gore’s former chief of staff. “His base of support is truly national — no matter what else happens, no matter who else is in the race.”
Posted by: annie | Jan 25 2007 21:30 utc | 37