Cindy Sheehan for President
November 1, 2005 10:46 AM Subscribe
Cindy Sheehan for President Or Senate. The anti-war left seeks a challenger for Hillary Clinton
Passion doesn't qualify you for the office.
...on the other hand, I'd probably vote for any non-rich, white, male, protestant.
'Cept maybe for Coulter.
And it'd be nice to have a president who, y'know, gave a shit.
posted by Smedleyman at 10:50 AM on November 1, 2005
...on the other hand, I'd probably vote for any non-rich, white, male, protestant.
'Cept maybe for Coulter.
And it'd be nice to have a president who, y'know, gave a shit.
posted by Smedleyman at 10:50 AM on November 1, 2005
It is hard to imagine something more frightening this halloween season, except maybe Ann Coulter for President.
I saw a Coulter costume last night. Best costume of the year.
posted by mystyk at 10:52 AM on November 1, 2005
I saw a Coulter costume last night. Best costume of the year.
posted by mystyk at 10:52 AM on November 1, 2005
An inventive new way to have their asses handed to them on a platter. Next time, the Dems should worry about winning.
posted by jon_kill at 11:02 AM on November 1, 2005
posted by jon_kill at 11:02 AM on November 1, 2005
What's frightening? She'll make a fool of herself? I'm sick of invertebrate Dems. Sheehan has guts and she speaks from her heart, which counts for something.
posted by tula at 11:04 AM on November 1, 2005
posted by tula at 11:04 AM on November 1, 2005
Yeah because caring about your dead son makes you completely qualified to hold public office. Not that its made a difference for this administration but I'm hoping/expecting/demanding that the next group in the White House actually does their job.
posted by fenriq at 11:04 AM on November 1, 2005
posted by fenriq at 11:04 AM on November 1, 2005
mystyk, I'll see your best costume and raise you this pair.
posted by fenriq at 11:09 AM on November 1, 2005
posted by fenriq at 11:09 AM on November 1, 2005
Next time, the Dems should worry about winning.
dems have to clean house before they can hope of winning. holding feet to the fire might help, if it encourages those feet to leave the fray. reformed feet don't have the credibility to win anymore than feet toddling off in the wrong direction.
that said, cindy sheehan is an outspoken mom with less skill than harriet miers.
posted by 3.2.3 at 11:09 AM on November 1, 2005
dems have to clean house before they can hope of winning. holding feet to the fire might help, if it encourages those feet to leave the fray. reformed feet don't have the credibility to win anymore than feet toddling off in the wrong direction.
that said, cindy sheehan is an outspoken mom with less skill than harriet miers.
posted by 3.2.3 at 11:09 AM on November 1, 2005
I have a great deal of respect fot Chindy Sheehan. That said, that doesn't mean that she'd make a good president. She has no political experience, and apart from the Iraq issue I doubt that she has made public any real political positions. I think that if she wants to make a difference, she'd be better off forming some kind of broad political action group with herself as the head. That way she wouldn't actually be in power, but she might in time be able to exert leverage on who the Dems run for office. Her protesting against Hillary is actually a good move. She knows that the Republicans are never going to listen to her. So, she does the logical thing and attempts to force the Democrats to run someone acceptable to her.
posted by unreason at 11:11 AM on November 1, 2005
posted by unreason at 11:11 AM on November 1, 2005
I don't know but it doesn't speak very well for our common wisdom when we can't differentiate between the roles people play. Sheehan has inextricably tied herself to one issue, and while her message might need to be said right now, it's not the majority viewpoint that we need to be so peaceful. She has a 2 dimensional image which hardly represents middle America.
Hillary Clinton on the other hand, seems to be a nearly soul-less amalgam of political power, a la the Oprah Network. Although I would probably be happier in a world run by her than by many other politicians, she lacks all the great points about her husband that made him so endearing. The way he really actually seemed to be interested in people and care about them, for example. That measure of soul is what can bring together people who have different viewpoints and remind them of their commonality, and the goodness of life.
posted by nervousfritz at 11:11 AM on November 1, 2005
Hillary Clinton on the other hand, seems to be a nearly soul-less amalgam of political power, a la the Oprah Network. Although I would probably be happier in a world run by her than by many other politicians, she lacks all the great points about her husband that made him so endearing. The way he really actually seemed to be interested in people and care about them, for example. That measure of soul is what can bring together people who have different viewpoints and remind them of their commonality, and the goodness of life.
posted by nervousfritz at 11:11 AM on November 1, 2005
"She speaks from the gut" is not a qualification for any political position. We have a guy who claims that in office already. GWB. That should be all you need to know about voting on that particular "quality".
While it would be nice to see an anit-war candidate, Cindy ain't it.
posted by inthe80s at 11:18 AM on November 1, 2005
While it would be nice to see an anit-war candidate, Cindy ain't it.
posted by inthe80s at 11:18 AM on November 1, 2005
Go Cindy! Because clearly a woman entirely focused on self promotion and one issue is a better choice than a candidate who knows her role as a junior Senator and appeals to a broad cross-section of her constituency.
Ms. Clinton, while continuing to sow fear and loathing across a broad swath of the Republican party, has actually proven to be an effective Senator. A look at legislation she has recently sponsored reveals a clear grounding in the liberal tradition while at the same time providing support for her mostly conservative upstate constituency.
Possibly of more importance in the next few years is the way she got elected in the first place. Historically upstate NY goes Republican while the city tends a little more to the left. Ms. Clinton, by taking her campaign into all the rural burgs buried in the woods, managed to break the Republican stranglehold in the agriculture dependent rural counties. This is a model the party as a whole must follow if we ever expect to win a national election -- we simply can no longer afford to write off the red states and have to show up in all fifty.
Sheehan couldn't get herself elected Dairy Queen of Washington County. If you think Hillary is polarizing imagine a candidate whose sole campaign stand is, "Bush lied, Casey died."
The middle is where all the work gets done and Hillary has done a remarkable job, especially considering her history, of straddling the line.
posted by cedar at 11:19 AM on November 1, 2005
Ms. Clinton, while continuing to sow fear and loathing across a broad swath of the Republican party, has actually proven to be an effective Senator. A look at legislation she has recently sponsored reveals a clear grounding in the liberal tradition while at the same time providing support for her mostly conservative upstate constituency.
Possibly of more importance in the next few years is the way she got elected in the first place. Historically upstate NY goes Republican while the city tends a little more to the left. Ms. Clinton, by taking her campaign into all the rural burgs buried in the woods, managed to break the Republican stranglehold in the agriculture dependent rural counties. This is a model the party as a whole must follow if we ever expect to win a national election -- we simply can no longer afford to write off the red states and have to show up in all fifty.
Sheehan couldn't get herself elected Dairy Queen of Washington County. If you think Hillary is polarizing imagine a candidate whose sole campaign stand is, "Bush lied, Casey died."
The middle is where all the work gets done and Hillary has done a remarkable job, especially considering her history, of straddling the line.
posted by cedar at 11:19 AM on November 1, 2005
Nervousfritz, good point on Sheehan being a single issue "celebrity". As for Hilary being a soul-less amalgam of political power, I'll just have to respectfully disagree with you.
I think Cindy Sheehan would be better served by creating a task force of citizen's action group as was noted above. She's got no credibility outside of her single issue.
posted by fenriq at 11:20 AM on November 1, 2005
I think Cindy Sheehan would be better served by creating a task force of citizen's action group as was noted above. She's got no credibility outside of her single issue.
posted by fenriq at 11:20 AM on November 1, 2005
She's got no credibility outside of her single issue.
And, some feel, not even that much.
posted by S.C. at 11:22 AM on November 1, 2005
And, some feel, not even that much.
posted by S.C. at 11:22 AM on November 1, 2005
Cindy would be the Harriet Miers nominee. All the dems need to do is develop a more centrist platform (that means move right, not left) field a credible candidate, and they win in '08. To the point here: notice how similar the word 'credible' is to the word 'credentials'.
posted by scheptech at 11:23 AM on November 1, 2005
posted by scheptech at 11:23 AM on November 1, 2005
Ms. Clinton, while continuing to sow fear and loathing across a broad swath of the Republican party...
The loathing, I'll agree with, but the fear? Is Hillary's viability as a candidate a myth in the making (similar to John Kerry's "electability")? As much as I think any Democrat in higher office today would be a better president than Bush, I have serious doubts that Mrs. Clinton has a prayer to beat any Republican nominee for the Presidency short of Scooter Libby.
I worked on her campaign in 2000 in upstate New York, and Ic couldn't believe the spite we were subjected to. If her very name gets people to spit tacks in her own (adopted) state, I shudder to think of how well she'd do in the so-called swing states.
posted by psmealey at 11:27 AM on November 1, 2005
The loathing, I'll agree with, but the fear? Is Hillary's viability as a candidate a myth in the making (similar to John Kerry's "electability")? As much as I think any Democrat in higher office today would be a better president than Bush, I have serious doubts that Mrs. Clinton has a prayer to beat any Republican nominee for the Presidency short of Scooter Libby.
I worked on her campaign in 2000 in upstate New York, and Ic couldn't believe the spite we were subjected to. If her very name gets people to spit tacks in her own (adopted) state, I shudder to think of how well she'd do in the so-called swing states.
posted by psmealey at 11:27 AM on November 1, 2005
As for Hillary being a soul-less amalgam of political power, I'll just have to respectfully disagree with you.
Seems like a pretty good way to describe her to me. Anyone who calls video games a "disease" but has no problem with the iraq war (in principle) is going to have to work pretty hard for my vote.
I just hope she dosn't get the nod.
posted by delmoi at 11:28 AM on November 1, 2005
Seems like a pretty good way to describe her to me. Anyone who calls video games a "disease" but has no problem with the iraq war (in principle) is going to have to work pretty hard for my vote.
I just hope she dosn't get the nod.
posted by delmoi at 11:28 AM on November 1, 2005
Hillary Clinton [...] lacks all the great points about her husband that made him so endearing
I doubt if she was elected that ol' Pasty Thighs would be sitting around the White House all day in his house coat eating pork rinds. At least not all day.
posted by CynicalKnight at 11:31 AM on November 1, 2005
I doubt if she was elected that ol' Pasty Thighs would be sitting around the White House all day in his house coat eating pork rinds. At least not all day.
posted by CynicalKnight at 11:31 AM on November 1, 2005
All the dems need to do is develop a more centrist platform (that means move right, not left) field a credible candidate, and they win in '08.
Brilliant. They ought to develop a kind of Demcratic Leadership Council to take over and move the party to the right. Perhaps they could even get a president elected with this "DLC". They could oppose a universal single-payer health care system to avoid the ire of the insurance industry, support the invasion of Iraq, and get behind NAFTA and CAFTA. Let's hope they get right on it.
posted by mullingitover at 11:33 AM on November 1, 2005
Brilliant. They ought to develop a kind of Demcratic Leadership Council to take over and move the party to the right. Perhaps they could even get a president elected with this "DLC". They could oppose a universal single-payer health care system to avoid the ire of the insurance industry, support the invasion of Iraq, and get behind NAFTA and CAFTA. Let's hope they get right on it.
posted by mullingitover at 11:33 AM on November 1, 2005
psmealey, I too worked for the Clinton campaign upstate (Hamilton and Warren counties, primarily) and it really was remarkable how much this woman was hated.
However, a few years later many of her most vocal detractors are willing to grudgingly admit that she hasn't done a bad job.
Also, while not really relevant to the discussion I want to mention that I am far from certain that I would support her for President. I think that she would be grist for the Republican smear machine and is unelectable at the national level. While she may have helped create a model for Democratic victory she is not the candidate to use it.
On the other hand, I will happily donate my time if she chooses to run for the Senate again.
posted by cedar at 11:39 AM on November 1, 2005
However, a few years later many of her most vocal detractors are willing to grudgingly admit that she hasn't done a bad job.
Also, while not really relevant to the discussion I want to mention that I am far from certain that I would support her for President. I think that she would be grist for the Republican smear machine and is unelectable at the national level. While she may have helped create a model for Democratic victory she is not the candidate to use it.
On the other hand, I will happily donate my time if she chooses to run for the Senate again.
posted by cedar at 11:39 AM on November 1, 2005
Any numbers to this point would be meaningless, XQU. I'm happy to be proven dead wrong about this, but I find myself incredulous at the thought that Hillary can win in states like New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania and New Jersey (let alone Ohio) just based on what I saw in New York state in 2000, and knowing how much track record there is out there waiting to be swift-boated.
Unless there is a real groundswell of support for Hillary that no one is yet talking about, it seems unlikely that she can even carry the states that Kerry won. If Hillary gets the nod, I really hope that I'm wrong, as I think, policy-wise, she'd be a decent president.
posted by psmealey at 11:42 AM on November 1, 2005
Unless there is a real groundswell of support for Hillary that no one is yet talking about, it seems unlikely that she can even carry the states that Kerry won. If Hillary gets the nod, I really hope that I'm wrong, as I think, policy-wise, she'd be a decent president.
posted by psmealey at 11:42 AM on November 1, 2005
Look, the thing about Hillary is that regardless of her talents, everyone hates her. Seriously. I've talked to a number of middle of the road folks who usually vote Democrat, and a lot of them are already saying that they won't vote for Hillary, regardless of who the other guy is. When you factor in the fact that her opponent will probably be a better campaigner than the Shrub, you're looking at a tough election. The Republicans I know aren't quaking in fear of Hillary. They're praying that she gets the nomination because they believe that she'll be very beatable.
posted by unreason at 11:44 AM on November 1, 2005
posted by unreason at 11:44 AM on November 1, 2005
anyone else, however, Clinton can beat with the right campaign.
I think you're underestimating how many Bible-hugging troglodytes will drag themselves out from under their rocks, quivering with orgasmic ecstasy at the thought of voting against that woman.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:00 PM on November 1, 2005
I think you're underestimating how many Bible-hugging troglodytes will drag themselves out from under their rocks, quivering with orgasmic ecstasy at the thought of voting against that woman.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:00 PM on November 1, 2005
Sheehan has guts and she speaks from her heart, which counts for something.
But does it count for anything in a President? I mean that quite seriously. The basis of our governmental system is distrust of individual holders of power, and I think the obsession with "character" is actually a big part of what's broken in American politics.
posted by freebird at 12:02 PM on November 1, 2005
But does it count for anything in a President? I mean that quite seriously. The basis of our governmental system is distrust of individual holders of power, and I think the obsession with "character" is actually a big part of what's broken in American politics.
posted by freebird at 12:02 PM on November 1, 2005
Brilliant.
Heh, I don't think they'd have to move very far right to get it done. Anything resembling reasonable (non-extremist) in the current climate would be appealing to a lot. Main point is moving further left won't help.
Hillary is a polarizing figure just by dint of who she is but she was put in an impossible no-win position (ahem) by her husbands lack of smarts regarding the Monica. Too many people dislike her for standing by him, and too many would have hated her for not standing by him. In chess there's this concept of a 'fork' where a player stands to lose either of two important pieces in the next move, they're reduced to chosing which of the two losses to take. Hillary was 'forked' by this thing with Monica.
posted by scheptech at 12:03 PM on November 1, 2005
Heh, I don't think they'd have to move very far right to get it done. Anything resembling reasonable (non-extremist) in the current climate would be appealing to a lot. Main point is moving further left won't help.
Hillary is a polarizing figure just by dint of who she is but she was put in an impossible no-win position (ahem) by her husbands lack of smarts regarding the Monica. Too many people dislike her for standing by him, and too many would have hated her for not standing by him. In chess there's this concept of a 'fork' where a player stands to lose either of two important pieces in the next move, they're reduced to chosing which of the two losses to take. Hillary was 'forked' by this thing with Monica.
posted by scheptech at 12:03 PM on November 1, 2005
I don't understand why anyone wouldn't vote for Hillary. Given the choice I'd probably vote for her over even McCain, if only because of the non-male factor. That and health care.
Any vote won't beat Diebold's numbers though.
And of course, it's all moot point once Bushco declares martial law.
/cynicfilter
XQUZYPHYR, isn't the 'anti-Nader' the one with the goatee?
posted by Smedleyman at 12:04 PM on November 1, 2005
Any vote won't beat Diebold's numbers though.
And of course, it's all moot point once Bushco declares martial law.
/cynicfilter
XQUZYPHYR, isn't the 'anti-Nader' the one with the goatee?
posted by Smedleyman at 12:04 PM on November 1, 2005
Remember when Cindy Sheehan was the "begriming of the end" for the Bush administration? Remember when she was the vanguard to turn the tide and lead the anti-war upswell in outrage against Bush's Iraq war bringing down the administration? Well, none of that happened. So this - if Sheehan is serious - could have the net effect of Nader in 2000.
Yeah we have a majority in country now finally unhappy with the war and it's progress. But that's because of Bush's incompetency and the Iraqi insurgency— not Sheehan. I don't think this majority is questioning the MORALITY of this war. Which they SHOULD. If they did they would have to admit their complicity in it.
PS. I don't get why people hate Hillary. Somebody explain it. because I LIKE her.
posted by tkchrist at 12:07 PM on November 1, 2005
Yeah we have a majority in country now finally unhappy with the war and it's progress. But that's because of Bush's incompetency and the Iraqi insurgency— not Sheehan. I don't think this majority is questioning the MORALITY of this war. Which they SHOULD. If they did they would have to admit their complicity in it.
PS. I don't get why people hate Hillary. Somebody explain it. because I LIKE her.
posted by tkchrist at 12:07 PM on November 1, 2005
Some of us basically just don't like her. I've always gotten this bad Red-Queen "Off, OFF with their heads!" vibe from her, whether that's fair or not.
posted by alumshubby at 12:08 PM on November 1, 2005
posted by alumshubby at 12:08 PM on November 1, 2005
I think the obsession with "character" is actually a big part of what's broken in American politics
No. Not at all. I think we have lowered the bar as to what REAL character is. People just don't know. They think it has to do with blow-jobs and the bible.
posted by tkchrist at 12:09 PM on November 1, 2005
No. Not at all. I think we have lowered the bar as to what REAL character is. People just don't know. They think it has to do with blow-jobs and the bible.
posted by tkchrist at 12:09 PM on November 1, 2005
Hillary is a very polarizing figure (on preview: good question, tkchrist. I don't know why. I don't think people trust her much). I don't think she's progressive enough for the Democratic base (especially all the new activists Dean brought in) to make it through the primaries.
I think Senator Russ Feingold would be a better candidate than Hillary. (There's some home state bias on my part, I admit.)
One of my friends likes this guy Mark Warner, Virginia's governor, who dug the state out of a huge financial hole.
And let's not forget about a certain former vice president.
posted by gohlkus at 12:13 PM on November 1, 2005
I think Senator Russ Feingold would be a better candidate than Hillary. (There's some home state bias on my part, I admit.)
One of my friends likes this guy Mark Warner, Virginia's governor, who dug the state out of a huge financial hole.
And let's not forget about a certain former vice president.
posted by gohlkus at 12:13 PM on November 1, 2005
Can anyone, just once, run this apparently-embedded idea by me with actual numbers? Everyone makes it sound like the only way a Democrat can win is with a Carter-like streak through the south. Nonsense. Hillary, and for that matter any Democrat, needs the Kerry states, plus Ohio
Sure, and Kerry just needed to win the gore states + FL, or OH, or a couple of smaller ones.
Anyway, the way things are going pretty much any major dem could be anyone but Guliani, Rice, or McCain. (or someone like that) The republicans will be dead in the water if they pick one of their wingnuts this time around (IMO)
Too many people dislike her for standing by him, and too many would have hated her for not standing by him.
The right-wingers always hated her, from the moment bush took office untill today. It has nothing to do with monica. It's just crazy, really. To be honest I wouldn't mind hillary winning so much just because I'd love to rub that in the winger's faces. But, I really don't like her much personaly.
For those of you who say the democrats need to move further to the right, what spesific issues do you think the democrats are on the wrong side of? Abortion?
posted by delmoi at 12:15 PM on November 1, 2005
Sure, and Kerry just needed to win the gore states + FL, or OH, or a couple of smaller ones.
Anyway, the way things are going pretty much any major dem could be anyone but Guliani, Rice, or McCain. (or someone like that) The republicans will be dead in the water if they pick one of their wingnuts this time around (IMO)
Too many people dislike her for standing by him, and too many would have hated her for not standing by him.
The right-wingers always hated her, from the moment bush took office untill today. It has nothing to do with monica. It's just crazy, really. To be honest I wouldn't mind hillary winning so much just because I'd love to rub that in the winger's faces. But, I really don't like her much personaly.
For those of you who say the democrats need to move further to the right, what spesific issues do you think the democrats are on the wrong side of? Abortion?
posted by delmoi at 12:15 PM on November 1, 2005
FWIW, H. Clinton's numbers of of nowadays. Pretty close to 1/3 will vote for her 1/3 will not and an undecided 1/3. (as of now)
posted by edgeways at 12:16 PM on November 1, 2005
posted by edgeways at 12:16 PM on November 1, 2005
I think we have lowered the bar as to what REAL character is. People just don't know.
Exactly. You will never really know whether the person you elect is truly as "good" a person as they seem. So you build a system that assumes they are not. Then you avoid stupid arguments about what this "REAL character" is, and base you politics on what people DO and how well it WORKS - not on what they say, not on how they make you FEEL, and not on how likeable they are.
This was actually all figured out a while back, and got called the "Constitution". Neat, huh?
posted by freebird at 12:16 PM on November 1, 2005
Exactly. You will never really know whether the person you elect is truly as "good" a person as they seem. So you build a system that assumes they are not. Then you avoid stupid arguments about what this "REAL character" is, and base you politics on what people DO and how well it WORKS - not on what they say, not on how they make you FEEL, and not on how likeable they are.
This was actually all figured out a while back, and got called the "Constitution". Neat, huh?
posted by freebird at 12:16 PM on November 1, 2005
Rice won't get the nod, period.
McCain might.
Guliani has some cred, but his politics seem wrong for many of the conservative base.
I'd be amused if Frist or Santorum won the nod.
posted by edgeways at 12:21 PM on November 1, 2005
McCain might.
Guliani has some cred, but his politics seem wrong for many of the conservative base.
I'd be amused if Frist or Santorum won the nod.
posted by edgeways at 12:21 PM on November 1, 2005
I would vote for hillary, but I think it would be idiotic to nominate her. She is irritating and dull, and at least as important, it is really hard to imagine that she would be where she were today if not for having married bill. Do we really want our first female president to be someone who basically "married into" the job? I mean, our current prez obviously got his position through family connections as well, but let's not encourage the tradition.
posted by mdn at 12:24 PM on November 1, 2005
posted by mdn at 12:24 PM on November 1, 2005
In fact, I'll trundle out an old favorite of mine: this concern with the "character" of politicians is a thinly disguised nostalgia for Monarchy. And as far as it goes, that's fine: if I really trusted someone to not get corrupted by power; and if I really believed they would know the right decisions to make; and if I knew they would make them - then then having them as absolute monarch would clearly be the best possible political system.
Those are three big hairy ifs though, and that's why we don't really go for monarchy these days. And why we shouldn't spend so much time worrying about "character" in our politicians.
posted by freebird at 12:25 PM on November 1, 2005
Those are three big hairy ifs though, and that's why we don't really go for monarchy these days. And why we shouldn't spend so much time worrying about "character" in our politicians.
posted by freebird at 12:25 PM on November 1, 2005
what specific issues do you think the democrats are on the wrong side of?
It's not what platform the dems ACTUALLY endorse - it's how people perceive them. And in that case: Guns. definitely guns. And maybe some parts of Affirmative Action type stuff.
posted by tkchrist at 12:29 PM on November 1, 2005
It's not what platform the dems ACTUALLY endorse - it's how people perceive them. And in that case: Guns. definitely guns. And maybe some parts of Affirmative Action type stuff.
posted by tkchrist at 12:29 PM on November 1, 2005
thinly disguised nostalgia for Monarchy
You are the only other person BESIDES ME I have ever heard express this. So of obviously you must be right. Yay us!
posted by tkchrist at 12:31 PM on November 1, 2005
You are the only other person BESIDES ME I have ever heard express this. So of obviously you must be right. Yay us!
posted by tkchrist at 12:31 PM on November 1, 2005
XQUZYPHYR writes "John McCain will trounce any nominee should he get the GOP nomination- anyone else, however, Clinton can beat with the right campaign."
Has J. Bush already taken himself out of the running? He'd be tough to beat.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:32 PM on November 1, 2005
Has J. Bush already taken himself out of the running? He'd be tough to beat.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:32 PM on November 1, 2005
You are the only other person BESIDES ME I have ever heard express this.
But we disagree! Don't we? I'm saying monarchy BAD, character-based politics BAD! You can't go switching up on me, you big tease!
posted by freebird at 12:36 PM on November 1, 2005
But we disagree! Don't we? I'm saying monarchy BAD, character-based politics BAD! You can't go switching up on me, you big tease!
posted by freebird at 12:36 PM on November 1, 2005
we don't really go for monarchy these days
You're sure? How did the current guy get the nomination of the Republican party for 2000? Out of 295 million people, George II just happend to be the right person for the job? Really? So who's gonna be the first female president, Jenna or Barb?
posted by scheptech at 12:36 PM on November 1, 2005
You're sure? How did the current guy get the nomination of the Republican party for 2000? Out of 295 million people, George II just happend to be the right person for the job? Really? So who's gonna be the first female president, Jenna or Barb?
posted by scheptech at 12:36 PM on November 1, 2005
delmoi - Hillary sucks.
Well, if she did, Bill probably wouldn't have had to turn to Monica.
posted by PurplePorpoise at 12:39 PM on November 1, 2005
Well, if she did, Bill probably wouldn't have had to turn to Monica.
posted by PurplePorpoise at 12:39 PM on November 1, 2005
For those of you who say the democrats need to move further to the right, what spesific issues do you think the democrats are on the wrong side of?
Don't know if this answers your question, but I wouldn't phrase it that way. I would say that the Democrats need to do two things: (1) not move further to the left than Clinton, and (2) field a candidate who is capable of articulating a consistent position in a manner that is understood by the average voter (note that I say this strictly on the issue of winning a Presidential election). I think Kerry may have satisfied the first prong, but failed miserably at the second. I think the notion that the Democrats would fare better if they moved further to the left is sheer fantasy of those on the left, and does not understand the nature of the people who swing elections.
Sheehan couldn't get herself elected Dairy Queen of Washington County.
I'd vote for her.
posted by pardonyou? at 12:42 PM on November 1, 2005
Don't know if this answers your question, but I wouldn't phrase it that way. I would say that the Democrats need to do two things: (1) not move further to the left than Clinton, and (2) field a candidate who is capable of articulating a consistent position in a manner that is understood by the average voter (note that I say this strictly on the issue of winning a Presidential election). I think Kerry may have satisfied the first prong, but failed miserably at the second. I think the notion that the Democrats would fare better if they moved further to the left is sheer fantasy of those on the left, and does not understand the nature of the people who swing elections.
Sheehan couldn't get herself elected Dairy Queen of Washington County.
I'd vote for her.
posted by pardonyou? at 12:42 PM on November 1, 2005
Right sheptech - that's my point. The system is breaking because people are losing sight of the Good Ideas behind the system. Like the reasons monarchy is a Bad Idea.
posted by freebird at 12:44 PM on November 1, 2005
posted by freebird at 12:44 PM on November 1, 2005
what spesific issues do you think the democrats are on the wrong side of?
Good question and something for the Great Minds running the party to chew on but I suspect mentioning anything at this point would derail this thread pretty effectively. Like asking which of your loved ones you would toss out of a overloaded boat.
posted by scheptech at 12:54 PM on November 1, 2005
Good question and something for the Great Minds running the party to chew on but I suspect mentioning anything at this point would derail this thread pretty effectively. Like asking which of your loved ones you would toss out of a overloaded boat.
posted by scheptech at 12:54 PM on November 1, 2005
incidentally, Jeb has said he wouldn't run in '08. lord knows he has enough time to change his mind, but as of now he isn't in it. (I would not be surprised if he did end up running)
1972 was the last time a Bush or Dole was not on the Pres/VP ticket... that is a long time.
Someone was talking about monocracy?
(incidentally I think the most effective form of government would be a benevolent dictatorship, but that damn corruption thing would get in the way)
posted by edgeways at 12:56 PM on November 1, 2005
1972 was the last time a Bush or Dole was not on the Pres/VP ticket... that is a long time.
Someone was talking about monocracy?
(incidentally I think the most effective form of government would be a benevolent dictatorship, but that damn corruption thing would get in the way)
posted by edgeways at 12:56 PM on November 1, 2005
monarchy, not monocracy. Although i like that term
posted by edgeways at 12:58 PM on November 1, 2005
posted by edgeways at 12:58 PM on November 1, 2005
Even Sheehan's detractors have gotta admit that the woman stands on her principles and that she's got bigger balls than the entire Dem Senate combined.
posted by nofundy at 1:01 PM on November 1, 2005
posted by nofundy at 1:01 PM on November 1, 2005
monarchy is a Bad Idea
And what happened with George II was, for all purposes, hereditary succession of power. Just like what happens in non-democratic countries around the world. It was not a great day for the cause of democracy when the Republicans pulled this exceptionally cynical stunt back in '98 or whenever they picked him.
posted by scheptech at 1:02 PM on November 1, 2005
And what happened with George II was, for all purposes, hereditary succession of power. Just like what happens in non-democratic countries around the world. It was not a great day for the cause of democracy when the Republicans pulled this exceptionally cynical stunt back in '98 or whenever they picked him.
posted by scheptech at 1:02 PM on November 1, 2005
And what happened with George II was, for all purposes, hereditary succession of power
Err, hereditary succession of power didn't start with W. In case you haven't noticed, there have been several politicians with the last name of Kennedy. I would suggest that it is unlikely that it is mere chance that has caused this family to produce so many politicians.
posted by unreason at 1:08 PM on November 1, 2005
Err, hereditary succession of power didn't start with W. In case you haven't noticed, there have been several politicians with the last name of Kennedy. I would suggest that it is unlikely that it is mere chance that has caused this family to produce so many politicians.
posted by unreason at 1:08 PM on November 1, 2005
Being principled isn't necessarily the best qualification to be the leader of a superpower. The reality is, you want a shark, just not an overly nasty one. Keeping the shark on task and under control is what modern particapatory democracy is all about. Cindy's a minnow. A very principled, passionate, honest minnow, but still a minnow.
posted by slatternus at 1:15 PM on November 1, 2005
posted by slatternus at 1:15 PM on November 1, 2005
And just to cover my ass, yes, the shark you have is not on task, and is out of control.
posted by slatternus at 1:16 PM on November 1, 2005
posted by slatternus at 1:16 PM on November 1, 2005
let's not forget about the potential of NEWT 08
OR - what about, the first ever modern bipartisan administration?
NEWT/HILLARY 08 - they have been palling around as of late...
I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.
posted by stenseng at 1:35 PM on November 1, 2005
OR - what about, the first ever modern bipartisan administration?
NEWT/HILLARY 08 - they have been palling around as of late...
I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.
posted by stenseng at 1:35 PM on November 1, 2005
What a childish country this is. "I like this person I saw on TV... so she should be president!" Yeah, well, my pal Mike is all antiwar and everything, plus he tips waitresses really well, so he should be president.
And Hillary? She'd be a complete disaster. But the Dems don't seem to have any impressive candidates in the wings, so I'll predict the Republicans are going to get away with the complete wreckage they've made of every single thing they've touched since taking control of all branches of government.
posted by languagehat at 1:39 PM on November 1, 2005
And Hillary? She'd be a complete disaster. But the Dems don't seem to have any impressive candidates in the wings, so I'll predict the Republicans are going to get away with the complete wreckage they've made of every single thing they've touched since taking control of all branches of government.
posted by languagehat at 1:39 PM on November 1, 2005
Being principled isn't necessarily the best qualification to be the leader of a superpower.
No, but it's a really good idea for a sitcom or a reality teevee show. I can see it now: Tonight! On UPN: "President for a Day, starring Cindy Sheehan!"
Btw, Cindy Sheehan's intergrity and earnestness notwithstanding, how can anyone take the idea of a single-issue candidate seriously? "Anti-war President"? If elected, would she stop this war in Iraq, or all wars? Civil war in Darfur, the War over Kashmir; could she end these? Would she stop the War on Drugs? Would she call for the emprisonment of 70s proto-disco-funk band War? Would propose a resolution to recall of U2's second album?
posted by psmealey at 1:52 PM on November 1, 2005
No, but it's a really good idea for a sitcom or a reality teevee show. I can see it now: Tonight! On UPN: "President for a Day, starring Cindy Sheehan!"
Btw, Cindy Sheehan's intergrity and earnestness notwithstanding, how can anyone take the idea of a single-issue candidate seriously? "Anti-war President"? If elected, would she stop this war in Iraq, or all wars? Civil war in Darfur, the War over Kashmir; could she end these? Would she stop the War on Drugs? Would she call for the emprisonment of 70s proto-disco-funk band War? Would propose a resolution to recall of U2's second album?
posted by psmealey at 1:52 PM on November 1, 2005
Sorry, that's to the idea of Sheehan as a candidate in general. I didn't read all the comments.
posted by OmieWise at 1:57 PM on November 1, 2005
posted by OmieWise at 1:57 PM on November 1, 2005
Would propose a resolution to recall of U2's second album?
Third (if by album you mean LP)
posted by pardonyou? at 2:10 PM on November 1, 2005
Third (if by album you mean LP)
posted by pardonyou? at 2:10 PM on November 1, 2005
nofundy: Even Sheehan's detractors have gotta admit that the woman stands on her principles and that she's got bigger balls than the entire Dem Senate combined.
It's easy to stand by your principles when you have nothing to lose and everything to gain. Anyway, what principles, aside from, "this is a bad war" ?
The entire Dem Senate has to deal with a slew of other issues; tax reform, education, corporate accountability, medical care, tort reform... the list is endless and somewhere near the top is keeping their jobs.
Myself, as a proud member of the newly poor, I am concerned about my local economy, health care for my children and the quality of their education. I haven't heard much from Sheehan about this stuff.
posted by cedar at 3:02 PM on November 1, 2005
It's easy to stand by your principles when you have nothing to lose and everything to gain. Anyway, what principles, aside from, "this is a bad war" ?
The entire Dem Senate has to deal with a slew of other issues; tax reform, education, corporate accountability, medical care, tort reform... the list is endless and somewhere near the top is keeping their jobs.
Myself, as a proud member of the newly poor, I am concerned about my local economy, health care for my children and the quality of their education. I haven't heard much from Sheehan about this stuff.
posted by cedar at 3:02 PM on November 1, 2005
The left in New York doesn't even have enough power to elect a democrat to be mayor of their own city. What a waste of ink. She's at best a house candidate, they're allowed to just have one issue.
posted by my sock puppet account at 3:41 PM on November 1, 2005
posted by my sock puppet account at 3:41 PM on November 1, 2005
The left in New York doesn't even have enough power to elect a democrat to be mayor of their own city.
You might want to rephrase this to read, the left in New York City....
Grab up a map. New York is a big state and aside from being home to the Big Apple is also the third largest dairy producing state, the second largest wine producing state and host to a state park nearly the size of Vermont and New Hampshire combined.
For the bulk of this discussion a simple fact has been glossed over -- Clinton beat a well funded Republican (Lazio) by a million votes. I guess not everybody hates her.
posted by cedar at 3:56 PM on November 1, 2005
You might want to rephrase this to read, the left in New York City....
Grab up a map. New York is a big state and aside from being home to the Big Apple is also the third largest dairy producing state, the second largest wine producing state and host to a state park nearly the size of Vermont and New Hampshire combined.
For the bulk of this discussion a simple fact has been glossed over -- Clinton beat a well funded Republican (Lazio) by a million votes. I guess not everybody hates her.
posted by cedar at 3:56 PM on November 1, 2005
Wait! Wasn't this a Frank Capra movie?
Seriously, in comparison to George W. Bush, Cindy should look electable.
Bush:
Former alchoholic and possible drug user
No record of service in the armed forces
Bankrupted 3 companies
Made millions by using eminant domain and local tax money
Probably used insider information in stock sales
"C" grade student in college
Born with a silver spoon in his mouth
Born Again Christian who never goes to church
What she lacks is a family connection and a Karl Rove.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:57 PM on November 1, 2005
Seriously, in comparison to George W. Bush, Cindy should look electable.
Bush:
Former alchoholic and possible drug user
No record of service in the armed forces
Bankrupted 3 companies
Made millions by using eminant domain and local tax money
Probably used insider information in stock sales
"C" grade student in college
Born with a silver spoon in his mouth
Born Again Christian who never goes to church
What she lacks is a family connection and a Karl Rove.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:57 PM on November 1, 2005
What a childish country this is. "I like this person I saw on TV... so she should be president!" Yeah, well, my pal Mike is all antiwar and everything, plus he tips waitresses really well, so he should be president.
Well so he tips and all, but how does he look on TV?
Unfortunately, I think that's the biggest issue nowadays - I think one's projection of personality on TV matters more than anything else in a Presidential election. I don't see how, say, Abe Lincoln or FDR would be electable if they were here today.
posted by me & my monkey at 4:04 PM on November 1, 2005
Well so he tips and all, but how does he look on TV?
Unfortunately, I think that's the biggest issue nowadays - I think one's projection of personality on TV matters more than anything else in a Presidential election. I don't see how, say, Abe Lincoln or FDR would be electable if they were here today.
posted by me & my monkey at 4:04 PM on November 1, 2005
I'm sorry, but who really thinks that anyone will seriously try to nominate Cindy Sheehan.
This article is more about dissatisfaction with Hillary. The headline is grossly misleading.
posted by papakwanz at 4:08 PM on November 1, 2005
This article is more about dissatisfaction with Hillary. The headline is grossly misleading.
posted by papakwanz at 4:08 PM on November 1, 2005
I don't see how, say, Abe Lincoln or FDR would be electable if they were here today.
Too true.
posted by languagehat at 4:49 PM on November 1, 2005
Too true.
posted by languagehat at 4:49 PM on November 1, 2005
I don't see how, say, Abe Lincoln or FDR would be electable if they were here today.
Too true.
You know, I just finished Vidal's "Lincoln" and if you think that politics were any less dirty, any less full of bullshit and spin, any less ignoble...well, you may have a small point. But only a very small one, involving exceptions that prove the rule.
Do you know how they shipped soldiers around to affect the vote and stay in power? Do you know how they arrested journalists with no charge to keep them from editorializing negatively? Do you know how little information the average voter based his decision on?
Enough of this Golden Age of Yesteryear crap. It's politics. It's always been dirty and deceitful, probably of neccesity.
posted by freebird at 4:57 PM on November 1, 2005
Too true.
You know, I just finished Vidal's "Lincoln" and if you think that politics were any less dirty, any less full of bullshit and spin, any less ignoble...well, you may have a small point. But only a very small one, involving exceptions that prove the rule.
Do you know how they shipped soldiers around to affect the vote and stay in power? Do you know how they arrested journalists with no charge to keep them from editorializing negatively? Do you know how little information the average voter based his decision on?
Enough of this Golden Age of Yesteryear crap. It's politics. It's always been dirty and deceitful, probably of neccesity.
posted by freebird at 4:57 PM on November 1, 2005
Yeah, and to add on to what Freebird said, if lincoln or FDR ran today they'd hire people to make them "look" good, landing on aircraft carriers and such, just like current politicians do.
And you think current people look good on tv? Seriously? I may be looking at the past through rose tinted glasses, but I think Lincoln could probably at least be coherent...
posted by SomeOneElse at 6:45 PM on November 1, 2005
And you think current people look good on tv? Seriously? I may be looking at the past through rose tinted glasses, but I think Lincoln could probably at least be coherent...
posted by SomeOneElse at 6:45 PM on November 1, 2005
« Older I for one welcome... | Semapedia Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by billysumday at 10:48 AM on November 1, 2005