ABH?
October 12, 2006 7:21 AM   Subscribe

Mark Warner shermans? Who will this leave as the moderate Democratic not-Hillary favorite of the"netroots?"
posted by orthogonality (107 comments total)

 
I think Evan Bayh could be the guy.
posted by Mister_A at 7:25 AM on October 12, 2006


Bayh? Bah.
posted by orthogonality at 7:28 AM on October 12, 2006 [1 favorite]


A reason why
Evan Bayh
Might be the guy:
Washington, D.C. - U.S. Senator Evan Bayh today released the following statement in response to OPEC’s decision to lower oil production and increase oil prices. Bayh is the lead sponsor of the Vehicle and Fuel Choices for American Security Act (S.2025), comprehensive energy legislation designed to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil by 7 million barrels a day by 2026.
Plus, Evan Bayh is said to be fly.

I don't know where he is on abortion, gay marriage, etc. though. I just think he will be the next darling of FANAK liberal bloggers.

And seriously, I was not very excited about Warner - he'd have been a good caretaker prez, but I think we need someone a little more forceful at this moment.
posted by Mister_A at 7:32 AM on October 12, 2006


I don't think Bayh is a good choice. Sure he's got a good resume, but coming from Indiana, he's been one of the most conservative Democrats in the Senate. He only did an about-face and started supporting some more moderate positions a couple years ago when his name started getting floated as a possible presidential candidate. I used to live in Indiana, but I'm not going to support someone who just started voting on my side of issues that are important to me when it seemed politically expedient. There are better candidates.
posted by stopgap at 7:35 AM on October 12, 2006 [1 favorite]


My first reaction to this was "who did Warner kill, and which scout troop did he belong to?" But after thinking about it, this actually makes a lot of sense.

Warner knows he's popular and a great pick for a campaign, and as a potential running mate would be instantly the top talk for speculators in 2008. He also knows between Edwards and Clinton, he doesn't have a chance in hell of spending/gladhanding his way to beat both of those two, let alone one of them.

Hillary is going to make the 2008 race a bloodbath, and likely make any of the other candidates in the primary unpalatable as a running mate, regardless of who gets the nod. In other words, Warner's solidifying his position now to be the front-runner for VP.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:37 AM on October 12, 2006


Wouldn't we want to wait for the actual announcement -- coming a whopping 39 minutes after this post -- such that the discussion can be premised on something other than speculation?
posted by waldo at 7:51 AM on October 12, 2006


I've been pulling for Russ Feingold for quite some time now. He's got integrity and backbone -- something that's been decidedly lacking in the Democratic party the past five years. He voted against the Patriot Act, voted against the Iraq resolution, and lead a charge to censure the president for sidestepping the courts to wiretap us. Pretty much everytime he's in the news, it's for something that I totally agree with.
posted by icosahedral at 7:53 AM on October 12, 2006


All politics aside, Russ Feingold is jewish. Therefore, he can't be president.
posted by milarepa at 7:57 AM on October 12, 2006


It is way, way too early to even speculate who the dems will run in 2008.
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 8:01 AM on October 12, 2006


Feingold's too liberal; he could never win.
posted by caddis at 8:01 AM on October 12, 2006


I'd vote for a Russ Feingold/ Eliot Spitzer kick-ass and take names Jewish Super Duo ticket.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 8:05 AM on October 12, 2006


Feingold's too liberal; he could never win.

He's also, unfortunately, too short. He'd never be able to debate anyone, as we've already seen with Dukakis.
posted by thanotopsis at 8:06 AM on October 12, 2006


Feingold has the courage to make hard and unpopular decisions; that's a quality sorely lacking in many candidates. It's a quality that, stuck in Iraq, in debt to China, and on the brink of ecological disaster, we will need in the White House. Feingold for President!
posted by orthogonality at 8:06 AM on October 12, 2006


Obama's still the man.
posted by washburn at 8:06 AM on October 12, 2006


... paging Al Gore...
posted by mkultra at 8:15 AM on October 12, 2006


Wikipedia article rather than answers.com
posted by beerbajay at 8:16 AM on October 12, 2006


Obama's still the man.

fuckin' rights
posted by radiosig at 8:17 AM on October 12, 2006


As sad as it is, I don't believe America is ready to elect a female president, or a black president or a gay president. Ironically it is ready to elect a female, black, gay president, but Oprah apparently is not interested in running.
posted by The Bellman at 8:20 AM on October 12, 2006 [1 favorite]


beerbajay writes "Wikipedia article rather than answers.com"

answers.com is actually preferable for FPPs, because th elinked article won't change in the course of the discussion.
posted by orthogonality at 8:20 AM on October 12, 2006


Here's a thought, how about nominating someone that over 50% of the electorate won't actively dislike?

Feingold and Bayh are out for this reason, as is pretty much any democratic senator except hillary. People know who they are, and a lot of people have decided they don't like them. This makes the campaign about coming up with reasons to show up to vote against them, which is an easy campaign to run.

Bill Richardson anyone?
posted by Pastabagel at 8:24 AM on October 12, 2006


Um, what?

You think more people actively dislike Feingold & Bayh than Hillary Clinton? You think more than 50% of the electorate even know who Feingold & Bayh are?

Pass me some of that crack you're smoking.
posted by designbot at 8:27 AM on October 12, 2006 [2 favorites]


I'm planning on voting for a zombie Barry Goldwater.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 8:30 AM on October 12, 2006


From what I've heard about Richardson, he seems like a very good choice. The sad fact remains that since he is Latino, he faces an uphill battle in the bread basket and the south.
posted by Mister_A at 8:30 AM on October 12, 2006


I'd like to see a Hillary v. Santorum presidential race.

A Democrat that a large portion of sane Democrats wouldn't vote for and a Republican that a large portion of sane Republicans wouldn't vote for.

We could finally have a respectable 3rd party candidate win.
posted by dios at 8:33 AM on October 12, 2006 [2 favorites]


Umm...The Bellman?...when you said "(America) is ready to elect a female, black, gay president...", I thought you meant Condi.

Does that make me a bad person?
posted by the sobsister at 8:36 AM on October 12, 2006


Dammit, we are screwed. Only governors can win elections since it's way too easy to distort a legislator's voting record. Hell, even Ned Lamont "voted with Republicans on the Greenwich Town Council 90% of the time."

Richardson will get hammered by the GOP nutfringe for his support for medical marijuana and his reality-based stance on immigration. I like him a lot but there's too much baggage in being from a border state and even more baggage in being Hispanic.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 8:37 AM on October 12, 2006


For fuck's sake, can Al Gore just run already? I want Inaguration Day to be like the last episode of Newhart.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:37 AM on October 12, 2006 [2 favorites]


No, Sobsister, I actually had that same thought. Oprah vs. Condi -- that would be some race!
posted by The Bellman at 8:38 AM on October 12, 2006


designbot - no, that's not what I meant. HIllary is a special case. yes, over 50% hate her, but she has the money, connections and the brains to be able to triangualte and neutralize an opponent. She basically already has Wall Street in her pocket, and no one even knows who the other candidates are. Also, I suspect a lot of people don't like her because they assume she is unelectable. But image is malleable, and she and her team know more about that than anyone.

And she has the drive and can fight as ugly as any republican, I'm not sure even Richardson is willing to do that.

And let's not forget she doesn't have to win the popular vote, she just has to win the electoral vote. She needs the states kerry won, plus ohio which is doable. These other guys can't win what Kerry did.

I suspect Warner dropping out is a prelude to joining Hillary's camp.
posted by Pastabagel at 8:39 AM on October 12, 2006


I've never bought into the "electability" argument - it's like admitting defeat without even putting up a fight. The Democrats should field a Democrat, not some "liberal today, conservative tomorrow, which way is the wind blowing" chameleon (read Hillary). The Republicans don't run that way, and the Dems shouldn't either. With general discontent so high, the Dems should play their hand as aggressively as possible, IMHO.

We need a proud, loyal, articulate Democrat. Where's Bill Bradley when you need him?...
posted by Benny Andajetz at 8:39 AM on October 12, 2006


Hillary Clinton (along with John Kerry) was used as a guilt by association insult by George Allen in the Allen-Webb debate this week. So Hillary Clinton must be hated by a least 50% of the Virginians that Allen was shooting for.
posted by peeedro at 8:39 AM on October 12, 2006


Ezra Klein wrote a great piece on the Obama problem. Basically, the man got a free ride into the Senate -- from the State Senate -- due to Republican sex scandal and buffoonery. Now safely in office, he has nearly completely avoided taking any controversial position. The man is an excellent -- even inspiring -- public speaker, but I don't think he's ready for the presidential trail.

(The other Russ Feingold problem, possibly less important than his religion or politics, is that he's been divorced twice.)

Since Warner left the governor's office in January, he has busily toured key states in the Democratic nomination process, particularly New Hampshire and Iowa.

Translation: tried to find people who would give him money. Didn't find enough. It's usually that simple.
posted by dhartung at 8:40 AM on October 12, 2006 [1 favorite]


Pastabagel writes "Also, I suspect a lot of people don't like her because they assume she is unelectable."


No, people hate her because she doesn't stand for anything other than her own ambition.
posted by orthogonality at 8:40 AM on October 12, 2006


Yes, because personal ambition is completely irrelevant to someone running for president.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 8:42 AM on October 12, 2006


This guy right here.
posted by Mister_A at 8:43 AM on October 12, 2006


The Hispanic factor works for him, net net. The border state thing is a non issue (texas is a border state, and Bush couldn't come up with an immigration position), and may help him in the west. He's not a fringe candidate that can get the blood boiling over at places like Nat. Review or LGF. Guiliani has more liberal baggage then Richardson - didn't he live with a gay guy? How is that going to play in the Bible colleges of the south? The republicans are going to pick someone who has to run too far to the right to be able to reasonably pick up the center, which means the democrats need to get someone closer to the center than to the left, and Richardson fits the bill.

Imagine if McCain gets the Republican nod - I think he beats Hillary, Gore, and the other usual suspects. But I don't think he beats Richardson, because they are from the same kinds of states, have very similar politics, but on issues of finance and energy, Richardson has gone on record with clear positions whereas McCain has tried to cover his ass and hedge bets.

Just a thought though... Personally, I think Richardson is a bright guy who knows what needs to be focused on, and it couldn't hurt for everyone to learn a bit more about him.
posted by Pastabagel at 8:47 AM on October 12, 2006


A Democrat that a large portion of sane Democrats wouldn't vote for and a Republican that a large portion of sane Republicans wouldn't vote for.

nice try, dios, but there's nothing insane about supporting hillary, unless it's somehow insane to vote for a good, intelligent legislator as president.

there's no possible basis for stating she's somehow the dem version of santorum, other than the logic of false equivalency, which, well, that's your stock in trade, isn't it?
posted by Hat Maui at 8:49 AM on October 12, 2006


If Hillary runs, Guiliani wins NY. Game over.
posted by edverb at 8:50 AM on October 12, 2006


I'm actually starting to soften a bit about Hillary running. She gave a great anti-torture speech on the Senate floor, will surprise moderates and independents when they realize she isn't some uber-liberal, and she'll have Bill running the campaign.

If Hillary runs and if Rove doesn't retire and takes over the GOP nominee's campaign, we could have a rather entertaining clash of the titans. Sure, Tokyo would be a flaming wreck by the time the battle was over but it would definitely be worth it to see these two fight each other directly.

Gore is still my favorite though, as long as he stays in his current incarnation as the occasionally funny guy with the rightgeous anger and keeps the wonk in the closet.
posted by pandaharma at 8:51 AM on October 12, 2006



We need a proud, loyal, articulate Democrat. Where's Bill Bradley when you need him?...
posted by Benny Andajetz at 11:39 AM EST on October 12 [+] [!]


The problem is that the word democrat has no meaning. You mean a liberal like Feingold? Or a moderate like Webb? This is part of the problem, btw.


Hillary Clinton (along with John Kerry) was used as a guilt by association insult by George Allen in the Allen-Webb debate this week. So Hillary Clinton must be hated by a least 50% of the Virginians that Allen was shooting for.
posted by peeedro at 11:39 AM EST on October 12 [+] [!]


Write off Virginia, it is unwinnable for democrats. The redneck part of the state still dominates northern VA. Look how thoroughly Allen had to self-destruct before Webb became realistic.

Think about the election like you are trying to win ohio. Hillary can win in Ohio. Can Feingold? Can Gore? He didn't the last time. You don't need to sweep. Get what Kerry got, i.e. keep PA, and shoot for ohio or FL, and it's yours.
posted by Pastabagel at 8:53 AM on October 12, 2006


If Hillary runs, Guiliani wins NY. Game over.
posted by edverb at 11:50 AM EST on October 12 [+] [!]


What makes you think republicans are picking Guiliani? He's pro-choice. He's a nonstarter. How does she fare against Romney in NY? I think she takes both NY, and MA.
posted by Pastabagel at 8:55 AM on October 12, 2006


I would be all for Bill Richardson. As a former (21 year) resident of New Mexico, I would have to say the state has never been better. He's charming, down-to-earth, can work that cowboy aesthetic that for some strange reason people enjoy, and his foreign policy cred is top-notch.
posted by carlitos at 8:55 AM on October 12, 2006


Richardson would still need to win a couple of states in Jesusland, no? Latino is not a bad thing in Florida, but I don't look at FL as an easy win for him. He could deliver AZ and NW, but still needs to swing one more state, without losing anything that Kerry won in 2004. Maybe Missouri or even Virginia?

I think Richardson would get blown out in TN, AL, MS, etc. - but so would the other candidates mentioned up above. I would love to see him make a run, he seems like a grown-up.
posted by Mister_A at 8:55 AM on October 12, 2006


No, Gore is Roger Maris* forever. Plus, he's got years and years of late-night jokes and a crap image to overcome. Sympathy for 2000 will not win him swing voters.

Hill, on the other hand, is a rapacious, opportunistic carpetbagger who ate shit for eight years just because she couldn't run for president as a divorcée. She's unquestionably intelligent. But I'd really, really like to vote for someone who has actual principles that are not dictated by political expediency. You know, courage of their convictions, that sort of thing.
posted by the sobsister at 8:58 AM on October 12, 2006 [1 favorite]


He could deliver AZ and NW

That's AZ and NM, folks. NW is a lost cause.
posted by Mister_A at 9:00 AM on October 12, 2006


No, you don't need to win Jesusland, and from a historical perspective that part of the country (whites who swapped their failed racial pride for religious pride) needs to be marginalized. Write off the south. Get ohio. You lose without ohio.

Can someone find one of those electoral map generator thingies?

Here's the 2004 map
posted by Pastabagel at 9:01 AM on October 12, 2006


But I'd really, really like to vote for someone who has actual principles that are not dictated by political expediency. You know, courage of their convictions, that sort of thing.
posted by the sobsister at 11:58 AM EST on October 12 [+] [!]


I'm going to second this. She might win, but I'm not voting for her, and I'm not sure her winning would be such a good thing.
posted by Pastabagel at 9:02 AM on October 12, 2006


Come on...the only thing that could possibly get Hillary off the Dem ballot in '08 is if there is a candidate who has the confidence of the Dems' corporate backers as solidly as she does and seems to have a better chance of winning. She is the "obvious frontrunner" because she is linked so strongly to her husband, under whom those same backers clearly did so damned well. The primaries, like the elections themselves, are mostly about who can spend and market the best and not much at all about principle or democratic control.
posted by graymouser at 9:02 AM on October 12, 2006


Didn't most of the same criticisms of Hillary Clinton (she's divisive, people don't like her, inconsistent positions) apply to President Bush in 2004?

And Warner sounds good on paper, but he alternates between goofy-looking and weird-looking.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:04 AM on October 12, 2006


Write off Virginia, it is unwinnable for democrats. The redneck part of the state still dominates northern VA. Look how thoroughly Allen had to self-destruct before Webb became realistic.

Think about the election like you are trying to win ohio. Hillary can win in Ohio. Can Feingold? Can Gore? He didn't the last time. You don't need to sweep. Get what Kerry got, i.e. keep PA, and shoot for ohio or FL, and it's yours.


Pastabagel...that is terrible strategy and based on false assumptions.

As for Virginia, it is eminently winnable for Democrats. Tim Kaine did it, and Warner before him. It's trending D. As for Allen, he is not losing his luster in a vacuum...Webb (and his campaign team of Jarding and Saunders) are throwing him anvils.

As for the Presidential strategy of winning what Kerry won plus Ohio...this is EXACTLY the failed strategy of the previous two losing Dem presidential campaigns. That's been the conventional wisdom, and it's utterly wrong (as the CW usually is.) Writing off ANY state is a mistake.

The winning strategy is to challenge every state, at every level, in every race. Take NOTHING for granted, and don't let the GOP run unopposed anywhere, ever.
posted by edverb at 9:05 AM on October 12, 2006


You don't need to win ALL of Jesusland, but you do need to pick up one big state or a few little ones. I was being a little glib, throwing NM and AZ into Jesusland like that. FL, however, is definitely Jesusland.

graymouser, sure things have a way of falling apart. Mario Cuomo, anyone?
posted by Mister_A at 9:08 AM on October 12, 2006


The other Russ Feingold problem, possibly less important than his religion or politics, is that he's been divorced twice.

Is the divorced twice the problem? McCain been divorced. Giuliani's been divorced. Reagan had been divorced.

Al Gore's currently in a commercial endorsing California's Prop 87.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:13 AM on October 12, 2006


What makes you think republicans are picking Guiliani?

What makes you think they value ideology over victory?
posted by edverb at 9:14 AM on October 12, 2006


Forgive my political naiveté pastabagel; but I think that the Hillary hating "rednecks" are not confined to Virginia. I know Hillary can't please all the people all the time, but it seems to me that she can displease all of the people some of the time.
posted by peeedro at 9:16 AM on October 12, 2006


Write off Virginia, it is unwinnable for democrats. The redneck part of the state still dominates northern VA.

I have (unfortunately) lived in Virginia my whole life, and that's not true. Virginians are conservative, but have always ( in my 30 years as a voter) entertained pragmatic, conservative Democrats. And if there is any region in VA that leans blue, it's NoVa. It's highly educated population (Arlington has the highest per capita education level in the country)combined with the large, and ballooning, immigrant population, give it perfect Democratic demographics. Virginia is slowly, but surely, moving left.

The problem is that the word democrat has no meaning.

No different than Republicans - a lot of "real" Republicans don't claim Bush anymore.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 9:18 AM on October 12, 2006


I'm going out on a very safe, low-to-the-ground limb here: Hillary Clinton will not win the 2008 nomination. The value of Hillary is her role as bogey-woman, goading the Republicans into shaping their campaign around her. Many of the tactics that would succeed vs Hillary will fail vs a Richardson, or even a Bayh.
posted by Mister_A at 9:21 AM on October 12, 2006


No, you don't need to win Jesusland, and from a historical perspective that part of the country (whites who swapped their failed racial pride for religious pride) needs to be marginalized. Write off the south. Get ohio. You lose without ohio.

Show me one Dem presidential win since WWII that didn't carry a large swath of the South.

Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton...all took southern states. Won.

Kerry, Gore, Dukakis didn't. Lost.
One of Mudcat's [laments] is that his party can't count. "Politics is about addition, that's all it is. It's not difficult," he says, giving me a primer on Mudcat math. "If I go get a white male," he asks, "how many votes do I get?" One, I reply. "No," he says impatiently, "I get two. Because I just took one away from Republicans."

link
posted by edverb at 9:23 AM on October 12, 2006


As for the Presidential strategy of winning what Kerry won plus Ohio...this is EXACTLY the failed strategy of the previous two losing Dem presidential campaigns. That's been the conventional wisdom, and it's utterly wrong (as the CW usually is.) Writing off ANY state is a mistake.

The winning strategy is to challenge every state, at every level, in every race. Take NOTHING for granted, and don't let the GOP run unopposed anywhere, ever.
posted by edverb at 12:05 PM EST on October 12 [+] [!]


And they almost won both times. You don't have infinite resources. Look at the margins of victory in the south, incl. VA, and then look at the margin of victory in OH. The objective is not to go down fighting, it's not to go down. Also, but going after the ex-bush OH voter who is now on the fence, you are at the same time capturing similar people in other states. But take the OH voter as a model, becasue they are in fact a good model for the averge voter everywhere else. The republican strategy of basically writing off NY and CA as little more than feints worked extremely well.
posted by Pastabagel at 9:28 AM on October 12, 2006


maybe it's C-SPAN's fault, but Bayh always looks like a cold, cold fish to me (and he totally looks like a bland TV actor whose name at the moment escapes me). that cannot be a good thing in a post-1960 world.

and I can understand my liberal friends' impossible dream of a Feingold/Spitzer ticket. I used to have similar dreams, too, but they involved Monica Bellucci (and politics wasn't really relevant ). I wish you guys better luck with Feingold/Spitzer than I had with Bellucci

but as long as the other side keeps counting the votes it all seems pretty moot to me.

and seriously, dhartung is spot-on on Obama -- the most untested "major" politician in America, really. I've never understood his fans, really.
posted by matteo at 9:35 AM on October 12, 2006


Giuliani may run, but he will NOt win the GOP nomination. Repugnicans will not vote for a:

Pro choice...
pro gay rights (he signed NYC's first domestic partnership law)...
3-times married...
widely acknowledged adulterer...
Catholic...
from New York City.

He simply has NO chance. None. Nada. Zilch. Zip.
posted by deadmessenger at 9:40 AM on October 12, 2006


And they almost won

They lost. Almost winning isn't winning, it's losing.

You're absolutely right about not having unlimited resources. I want the GOP spending their (limited) funds trying to hold on to what they've got instead of plowing new ground.

Similar to Mudcat math...what happens when the Republicans spend a dollar on a BS conventional wisdom-annointed "safe state" like Tenessee? That's money they're not spending in PA, or RI, or MT.

Link:
The National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee has not reserved any ad time in Virginia, although the committee is using coordinate cash, which can be donated directly to the Allen campaign, to fund a hefty direct-mail effort.

At the moment the NRSC, in conjunction with the Republican National Committee, is funding ads in only three states -- Missouri, Ohio and Tennessee. The DSCC, on the other hand, is matching the NRSC in those three states and is on the air in Rhode Island, Montana and Virginia.

The two Senate committees' ad buys are telling on several levels.

First, the fact that national Republicans are not funding ads in either Pennsylvania or Montana shows that Sens. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) and Conrad Burns (R-Mont.) may be beyond saving. Polling shows both men lagging behind their Democratic challengers; Republican strategists admit privately that the two incumbents are real long shots.

Second, Senate Democrats' sustained financial dominance over their Republican rivals is coming to bear in the final weeks of the election. At the end of August, the DSCC showed $29.8 million cash on hand compared with $18.6 million for the NRSC.

Take the financial advantage enjoyed by the DSCC, couple it with the fact that most competitive Senate races are being fought on Republican territory, then factor in the current national political climate -- and it's not surprising that the Senate is more in play today than it has been in months.

That's the Senate...the situation facing Republicans in the House is very similar. They are dumping money into "safe seats" that turn out not to be so safe, and that was before Foley.
posted by edverb at 9:43 AM on October 12, 2006


After Bush, how hard could it be for any democrat to look good?

Who cares if we elect Evan Bayh, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, Russ Feingold, Barack Obama, John Kerry, or even Homer Simpson?

Hopefully we’ll eventually wind up with adults in charge again. The sooner we drive the neocons off to enjoy our stolen treasury, the better it will be for all of us.

Thinking of Bush in a Shermanesque light: Dubya was nominated, he accepted, and ran.

Yet we all know, The Sparky Decider was more selected than elected. Sadly he became president, and the entire world assumed the position. Wow, were we poorly served, or what?

I suppose historians we’ll forevermore call screwing the planet a Bushesque thing.
posted by BillyElmore at 9:49 AM on October 12, 2006


Is the divorced twice the problem? McCain been divorced. Giuliani's been divorced. Reagan had been divorced.

Being divorced twice is a problem? Giuliani married his cousin!
posted by clearlynuts at 9:57 AM on October 12, 2006


Here's the biggest reason I was supporting Warner over Clinton (and it's not that I'm proud that Virginia can turn out a politician who's sane):

SENATORS DON'T WIN PRESIDENCIES.

(oh, and New Yorkers can't win the south.)
posted by thecaddy at 10:01 AM on October 12, 2006


(And before anyone mentions it, yes, I know that Clinton isn't actually from New York, but she's certainly been very strongly identified with it over the last six years and there's two more to go before 2008.)
posted by thecaddy at 10:03 AM on October 12, 2006


thecaddy,

she'll rediscover those Illinois roots soon enough. Plenty a years in Arkansas, too. She'll also make sure everyone knows how popular she is upstate.

I'm gonna take a close at Richardson for sure, though my heart is with Feingold.

Speaking of the Feingold thing, sorta, is it also the serial divorcing thing that's keeping Gingrich from serious contention, or do people think he's nuts, or what?
posted by hackly_fracture at 10:05 AM on October 12, 2006


Good, I hated warner. Not that it was his fault the "leaders" of the "netroots" were a bunch of sycophants who sucked up to anyone who paid tribute, but it wasn't fun watching it take place.
posted by delmoi at 10:08 AM on October 12, 2006


Obama's still the man.

Obama is an idiot. The man hasn't taken a single stand beyond "go with the flow" since getting to the senate. Then he runs around and disses democrats for not kowtowing to the rightwing base, which is idiotic.
posted by delmoi at 10:11 AM on October 12, 2006


Giuliani may run, but he will NOt win the GOP nomination....He simply has NO chance. None. Nada. Zilch. Zip. Guiliani leads all of them. He beats McCain, he beats Condi, and he beats Hillary head to head. If I kept looking, I'm fairly sure he leads across the board, of any likely candidate in either party.

And as soon as the GOP kingmakers see Guiliani's competitiveness with Hillary in NY he'll get a nice airbrushing by the GOP media. If they can make cokesnorting, fortunate son, failed businessman Dubya seems like a war hero who sits to the right of Jesus, they can and will make Guiliani palatable to the base. Count on it. He's already (more than) palatable to the moderates, and his appeal crosses party lines.
posted by edverb at 10:12 AM on October 12, 2006


If Hillary wants my vote, she needs to shed the whole Kyle's Mom "Video Gamez Are Killing Our Children!" bit really, really fast. I took notice of it at first because I like video games, but the more I thought about it the more it appeared to me as a symptom of a "Do Anything To Win Short Term" scummy affliction that I'd like kept far, far away from the White House.

But then, what do I know? I voted for Vinick.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 10:17 AM on October 12, 2006


The Democrats should field a Democrat, not some "liberal today, conservative tomorrow, which way is the wind blowing" chameleon (read Hillary).

... or Bill. And it worked pretty well for him. Bill was all about the triangulation.

But I'd really, really like to vote for someone who has actual principles that are not dictated by political expediency. You know, courage of their convictions, that sort of thing.

I would too, as long as their principles and convictions match mine pretty closely. I think Bush has actual principles, and he's certainly not doing the politically expedient thing, what with Iraq and all, but that doesn't help me much, since I disagree with those principles.

But other than that, yeah, the principles and convictions thing would be nice. But I would also really, really like to vote for someone who's somewhat pragmatic, and not incompetent or obviously corrupt, and have that someone actually win the election. I'll take that over voting for someone who I really like and admire, who doesn't stand a chance of winning.

After Bush, how hard could it be for any democrat to look good?

That democrat will have to deal with all the problems created by Bush. It's hard to look good when you're saddled with a bunch of failures. Some of these failures will take decades or more to repair.

Obama is an idiot. The man hasn't taken a single stand beyond "go with the flow" since getting to the senate. Then he runs around and disses democrats for not kowtowing to the rightwing base, which is idiotic.

That doesn't make him an idiot. I suspect it makes him more electable, as well as placing him squarely in the New Democrat camp.

And as soon as the GOP kingmakers see Guiliani's competitiveness with Hillary in NY he'll get a nice airbrushing by the GOP media.

There was an interesting article in the Washington Post Magazine a while back about how he's "learning the language" of evangelicals. Unfortunately, I couldn't find it, but ran into this instead.
posted by me & my monkey at 10:22 AM on October 12, 2006


Add to your list, deadmessenger, Giuliani's slight lisp.
posted by Beefheart at 10:24 AM on October 12, 2006


Bill Richardson anyone?

Bill Richardson is believed to be the guy who leaked the Wen Ho Lee documents to the press, in order to smear a guy who turned out to be totally innocent. The newspaper companies had to pay Lee hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep their reporters out of jail in order to protect whoever that person was (and it was most likely Richardson).

Richardson is a clintonite hack.

designbot - no, that's not what I meant. HIllary is a special case. yes, over 50% hate her, but she has the money, connections and the brains to be able to triangualte and neutralize an opponent.

Plus, many of the people who would say they hate her are actually liberals who will hold their nose and vote for her in the general. Also she recently got a 52% approval rating. And fox news has been saying nice things about her (Don't think Rupert Murdoch is going to go down with the republican ship)

Guiliani has more liberal baggage then Richardson - didn't he live with a gay guy? How is that going to play in the Bible colleges of the south?

Guiliani polls better then any other republican candidate out there today, although he's not doing much campaigning or anything. I think McCain got way to close to bush in the past few years, but amazingly most people don't seem to notice at all. It's very annoying.

They lost. Almost winning isn't winning, it's losing.

Gore got more votes in Florida then Bush, IIRC. Kathryn Harris lied and cheated before the election and afterward, and in the official count bush won by 500 votes.

What the dems need to do is pick up some western states, and then dump the south.
posted by delmoi at 10:30 AM on October 12, 2006


Giuliani is already more popular than McCain with every strain of movement conservative. He can cement that popularity by doing a reverse Cuomo on social issues: saying that he is personally liberal on matters of sexuality but regards them as matters subject to the democratic decision of individual states, and pledging to apoint federal judges who will see things that way, too.
posted by MattD at 10:33 AM on October 12, 2006


Obama's still the man.

Let's look at important aspects of his voting record:

Obama supports illegal surveillance and random interrogations of citizens.

Obama supports a bureaucrat who has a history of enabling depotism and torture around the world.

Obama supports the promotion of incompetent federal employees who allowed 9/11 on their watch.

Obama funnels tax dollars to further a religious agenda of sexual abstinence which is statistically useless in preventing pregancies and STDs.

Obama is a curious choice for liberals and progressives alike.

He's charismatic, for sure, and being black helps with the guilty-white vote, but his record belies his fascist, cronyist, theocratic ideals.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:39 AM on October 12, 2006 [4 favorites]


If we're gonna go semite, go all the way: a rich New York Jew with a Jew-y name. I give you Michael Bloomberg.

His speech on the Lidle thing yesterday was (old-skool) Presidential: cool, calm, articulate, and ended with a prayer. And zero mention of Osama -- even NPR brought OBL up. And like Warner, Bloomie doesn't appear to have the deep-seated emotional problems that make pols crave the top job. Which may be while he'll never run.
posted by turducken at 10:55 AM on October 12, 2006


And as long as there's YouTube and Jesus, Rudy will never win. He's done this more than once -- not that there's anything wrong with it.
posted by turducken at 11:05 AM on October 12, 2006 [1 favorite]


I think 2008 will be a wild card year, like Carter in 76. It will be someone who is right now off the radar.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 11:09 AM on October 12, 2006


So is Wes Clark not running anymore? I liked him.
posted by jtron at 11:10 AM on October 12, 2006


Senators don't win Presidencies?
posted by grabbingsand at 11:24 AM on October 12, 2006


I mean, really ... they don't?
posted by grabbingsand at 11:25 AM on October 12, 2006


Remember that Hilliary will likely be running against McCain--a guy who's simultaneously managed to put some distance between himself and the Bush White House, and ingratiate himself with Evangelicals. This will not be an easy match-up for Hillary, despite her support of anti flag-burning amendments and such. She will not "energize the base" of the Democratic party (which wants change, and not merely a return to the general inaction of the Clinton years), but will delight Rush Limbaugh and the conservative media.

Obama represents real change and is a capable and charismatic figure. Anyone who thinks Obama's made it through his political career unchallenged is mistaken. Obama's road to the state senate was not easy, and while it is true that he faced only the laughable Alan Keyes in the general election to the US senate, Obama won the Democratic primary by defeating Dan Hynes, who was not only the chosen son of the Chicago Democratic political machine, but who was also (unlike some other machine creations) a pretty compelling candidate in his own right.

Obama's recent legislation requiring that the process of awarding government contracts be make transparent to the public is a great achievement.--the sort of thing that saves money by generating real efficiency.

I'm not sure whether to defend Obama from the charge of being a leftist radical or a centrist quisling--perhaps he's a bit of both. But he has all the experience he needs, and it's doubtful that many more years in the Senate will make him any more electable, as they give his enemies opportunities to distort his record, or point to compromises he's made. Moreover, the Senate probably does tend to somehow corrupt those who are in for too long. (the prospect of a Biden-ized Obama cannot be too appealing to most of us).

I suggest that people consider the possibility of supporting a genuinely inspiring candidate with solid progressive credentials (you wouldn't be alone). Three cheers for Barak Obama!
posted by washburn at 11:27 AM on October 12, 2006


Wen Ho Lee was totally innocent? Not quite:
Lee reported that he had been approached ten years earlier on his second visit to the PRC by two scientists who requested that he assist them and the PRC with the development of nuclear missiles. Lee further admitted that he failed to report this contact and approach by individuals requesting classified information as required by security regulations. Lee was polygraphed by the Department of Energy, and gave indicators of deception regarding questions about providing individuals with classified information. Lee was then polygraphed by the FBI, and gave indicators of deception regarding providing classified information to individuals, as well as providing information regarding the W-88 to individuals not authorized to receive it.

The examination of Lee's computer determined that he had taken classified work documents, deleted the security classification headers, and then transferred these files from a system used for processing classified data onto another protected but unclassified network. After the FBI discovered Lee's transfer, they revoked his badge access and clearance, including his ability to access the data from the unclassified but secure network. Lee then requested from a colleague in another part of Los Alamos that he be allowed to use his computer, at which time he transferred the data to a third unclassified computer network. FBI analysts later examined the unclassified computer and noted that the files that Lee had transferred had been accessed from a computer at the Student Union of the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) on over forty occasions.
As far as I know, those facts aren't in dispute. Richardson is only believed to be the source of the leak, but given what Lee indisputably did, I'm not shedding any tears.
posted by Pastabagel at 11:30 AM on October 12, 2006


Blazecock Pileon writes: "[Obama's] being black helps with the guilty-white vote, but his record belies his fascist, cronyist, theocratic ideals.

A senate voting record is easy to distort, as it's not always clear how compromises were reached, or what the alternatives were in any given voting situation. This list is only a hint of how much more difficult running will be for Obama if he waits until 2012 to run.

Question for Blazecock Pileon: the OP asked the question: "Who will this leave as the moderate Democratic not-Hillary favorite of the"netroots?" What's your answer to this? To which viable candidate do you point, who could not be the target of a similar list of votes that are or appear objectionable?
posted by washburn at 11:35 AM on October 12, 2006


grabbingsand: Sitting senators don't win presidencies. (Unless your name is Harding or Kennedy.) But these are odd times, so all bets are off.
posted by turducken at 11:41 AM on October 12, 2006


It'll either be Obama in '08, or Obama in '12.
posted by spilon at 11:44 AM on October 12, 2006


What's your answer to this?

It's not Obama, that's for sure.

His voting record makes him right-of-Hillary (as hard as that is to accomplish), no matter that Oprah apologizes for it or that there are people who go to such lengthy efforts to sanitize or dismiss his record.

A senate voting record is easy to distort, as it's not always clear how compromises were reached, or what the alternatives were in any given voting situation.

It's depressing that American democracy has sunk so low, that we apologize for our tyrants before we willingly vote for them.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:48 AM on October 12, 2006 [1 favorite]


me & my monkey: ... or Bill. And it worked pretty well for him. Bill was all about the triangulation.

He certainly was, but he was also really ridiculously charismatic, and I think that's what let him win: not just that he had a very carefully calculated centrism, but that he could really sell it. I don't think Hillary has that. The calculation is just too obvious, and the charm is missing. Plus she won't have Perot helping her.

Obama, now, he might have a chance. He's totally empty politically, as far as I can tell, but by God, he makes people feel like they're believing in something.
posted by moss at 12:02 PM on October 12, 2006


Hilary apologists, please give it a rest.

I know that you're just trying to make the best of a bad situation, as the candidate who's likely to attract the most money is totally unqualified, has a completely unremarkable senate record, and is hated by more then half the country. However, her nomination is not a foregone conclusion. We can still fight! We still have a chance!

Please, let's not concede to losing yet another election two years before it starts. I hope to have kids some day, and I want there to be a country left for them to live in.
posted by Afroblanco at 12:33 PM on October 12, 2006


I could vote for Richardson or Bradley. Speaking of Bradley, what's he been up to lately?
posted by neuron at 12:39 PM on October 12, 2006


Afroblanco - you need to ask why, if everything you say is true, she's still getting all the money.

The people giving her the money must not think she's those things. She is certainly qualified. If anyone can wrangle the oval office power brokers, she can. Her unremarkable Seante record means she isn't a liberal (at least according to the record), and it also means she didn't make any enemies there.

Her nomination isn't a foregon conclusion, but she can play this game better than any of the other names tossed around here. IT's doesn't matter if she's hated by more than half the country, as long as most of the people who hater her are concentrated in states a democrat wouldn't win anyway.
posted by Pastabagel at 12:40 PM on October 12, 2006


The people giving her the money must not think she's those things.

She has the support of the Democratic establishment. You know, those people who have been losing elections for us for the last 6 years.

She is certainly qualified

Really? And what, may I ask, are those qualifications? How is she more qualified then other potential candidates?

Her unremarkable Seante record means she isn't a liberal

It also means she hasn't taken a stand on a damned thing. She's a gutless partisan hack just like the rest of her DLC-associated pals.

... and it also means she didn't make any enemies there

Nonsense. She has plenty of enemies there. However, she made all of those enemies long before she held elected office.

IT's doesn't matter if she's hated by more than half the country, as long as most of the people who hater her are concentrated in states a democrat wouldn't win anyway.

It's 2006 and we still have people who think this way? This strategy has served us poorly. I'm far more likely to agree with the "every state, every office matters" camp.

Hillary won't win a national election. Nominating her is tantamount to admitting defeat.
posted by Afroblanco at 12:50 PM on October 12, 2006


After Bush, how hard could it be for any democrat to look good?Who cares if we elect ... John Kerry,

Looks like Kerry doesn't look all THAT good.

What with the guy who's in charge these days.
posted by rough ashlar at 12:55 PM on October 12, 2006


Guiliani leads all of them. He beats McCain, he beats Condi, and he beats Hillary head to head. If I kept looking, I'm fairly sure he leads across the board, of any likely candidate in either party.


I agree, but you don't get the nominations by winning media polls, you get it by winning primaries. can anyone win enough GOP primaries to be nominated without carrying the evangelical vote?

and what about the GOP's Southern primaries? can you really lose a lot of them and still be nominated? that's why a pro-choice pro-gay-rights philandering Catholic with a wop name and a zillion ex-wives and a NY accent and even a few Cage Aux Folles photos in his past does not look like the favorite candidate of the Jesus/Fetus Folk whose votes the GOP is so addicted to

keep in mind the treatment McCain got in the South in 2000. and he's not pro-choice, not gay-friendly, not a wop, not a New Yorker, and has no tranny pictures in his past
posted by matteo at 12:56 PM on October 12, 2006


Speaking of Bradley, what's he been up to lately?

He got fed up with the system and retired from politics, unfortunately. He's a businessman and has a talk show on Sirius.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 1:02 PM on October 12, 2006


Obama's recent legislation requiring that the process of awarding government contracts be make transparent to the public is a great achievement.--the sort of thing that saves money by generating real efficiency.

Yeah, legislation cosigned by Tom Coburn, one of the craziest right-wingers in the senate. Coburn seems to have principles, and I like his stand on spending, but make no mistake he is one of the craziest right wingers out there. I'm not saying this makes Obama a crazy right winger, just that his ideas are so "good" that they'll appeal to everyone (the bill passed the senate unanimously). That's exactly the kind of milquetoast nonsense that the Clintons and the DNC yammer on a bout. Stuff that sounds good, is agreeable to everyone, and solves no real problem.

In fact, private organizations had already built similar databases (all the info was available, just not online) and spent far less Coburn/Obama's bill spends $15 million, where private orgs had spent in the $100 thousands. Now, they may be able to do more with 15 million, we'll see.

I'm not sure whether to defend Obama from the charge of being a leftist radical or a centrist quisling--perhaps he's a bit of both.

Well, I've never seen anyone say Obama was a radical leftist, like, ever. Certainly not in this thread.

Afroblanco - you need to ask why, if everything you say is true, she's still getting all the money.

She's getting money from her rich new-york social circles. These people don't care about minor issues, they care about being in the club and ingratiating themselves with the ruling class.

I agree, but you don't get the nominations by winning media polls, you get it by winning primaries.

That's why they poll possible primary voters. A lot can change in two years, and people need to campaign. Will faith and values voters buy Guliani's shtick? I dunno. Will they even give a damn about the Republican Party and so forth after being played for fools for so long (they're starting to realize it).
posted by delmoi at 1:24 PM on October 12, 2006


What I don't get is the willingness to look to DLC candidates like Hillary as party saviors, while arguing that Obama is a sell-out. Obama's dad is from Kenya, and Obama has a intuitive grasp of global justice issues that marks him as far from conservative. He supports progressive taxation, universal health care, labor rights, full implementation of the Kyoto accords, affirmative action, abortion rights, increasing the minmum wage, and has been a harsh critic of the Iraq fiasco since the beginning. I too am troubled by some of his compromises on some of these civil liberties issues, but I don't think it will pay to lose the forest for the trees, and (much though I like Fiengold) I don't see any other electable candidate who presents Obama's combination of electability and progressive principle.

While this thread has criticized Obama as a centrist compromiser, the conservative media paints him as a extreme liberal--which is a fair charge at least insofar as he (unlike Kerry or Dean did) supports universal health care. I promise you that the right wing views him this way. In fact, if you are in need of reassurance of Obama's liberal bona fides, it might pay to take a moment to Discover the Network.
posted by washburn at 2:10 PM on October 12, 2006


> If they can make cokesnorting, fortunate son, failed businessman Dubya seems like a
> war hero who sits to the right of Jesus, they can and will make Guiliani palatable to the base.

Speaking as someone who does actually sit well over to the right of Jesus, do you know I'm finding both Guiliani and Hillary more and more interesting? A contest between a centrist Republican and a centrist Democrat? Not a bad idea right now. Enough with the polarization already, phooey on "true to their principles," that's not what politicians do. Their talent, when they gave any, is to be chamelionlike enough to successfully represent a wide range of constituents. Let's have candidates who're indistinguishable from their opponents. Plus it has the added advantage of jacking up the shriek level on both far-left and far-right blogs to a pitch that might well be fatal, which would be fun. I happily imagine both Jim Dobson and Markos hyperventilating until they blow up and pop. (Too bad about poor old Ralph, who will do the same, but omelettes... eggs....)

> the conservative media paints him as a extreme liberal--which is a fair charge
> at least insofar as he (unlike Kerry or Dean did) supports universal health care.

Well, this right winger thinks it's time for some healthcare solution--and it may come about, if you can somehow keep Ted Kennedy from sponsoring the legislation.

I'm still rooting for a Condi-vs.-Hillary show.
posted by jfuller at 3:45 PM on October 12, 2006 [1 favorite]


I'm still hoping for Feingold. I think someone who actually has principles, lets people know what they are and then acts on them could get a lot of disaffected people to vote, maybe even enough to make up the difference in people who'd hate his liberal views. Wow, it'd be so nice to actual vote for someone for once, instead of against someone.
posted by jiawen at 4:05 PM on October 12, 2006


jfuller writes "Enough with the polarization already, phooey on 'true to their principles,' that's not what politicians do. Their talent, when they gave any, is to be chamelionlike enough to successfully represent a wide range of constituents."

Amen. Idealogues are fucking dangerous. Give me a fox over a hedgehog any day of the week.
posted by mr_roboto at 4:20 PM on October 12, 2006


I'm with you Jiawen. Feingold is one of the few remaning politicians who gives me confidence that some of them actually have principles. I'd support him as a protest candidate to pull the primary left for a while, but when he runs out of money I'd like to see John Edwards competing with Hillary in a two-way race, with both of them courting Obama to be their Veep candidate.

I'd also lurve to see Bill Richardson as the veep on any ticket, to consolidate growing strength in the southwest. I should also try to learn more about the guy, but Edwards/Richardson makes me think there'd be hope.

And hell, I'd get behind Gore. I'd love to know what his circle is telling him to do these days.

But it's Hillary Hillary Hillary. It's hers to win. I really hope she doesn't, but she has some of the best political minds and tons of cash on her side (and she's married to a political genius. A scumbag, but a smart guy who'd love nothing more than to get back out their and campaign away).

Condi? Uh-uh. Her blackness wouldn't be as much of a problem as the fact that she's unmarried, and frankly, not a good speaker at all.

Warner? Good riddance. That sounds harsh, and he's a pretty good guy for a politician, but no charisma. However, he's a good fundraiser, and while most of the south is a wash, Virginia will be in play for 2008, and possibly North Carolina if Edwards is running for either Prez or Veep.

And jfuller, if Jesus was alive today he'd be a liberal. Not sure if he'd vote Democrat, but he certainly wouldn't vote for Republicans. Something about an abhorrence of violence and wanting to care for the least amongst us. Not exactly a Rush Limbaugh type, that carpenter from Nazareth. Although he did love the people around him, so maybe Mark Foley was trying to wrongly imitate him.
posted by bardic at 5:10 PM on October 12, 2006


Wow, sorry that was so long. Shorter: Vote November 2006 and 2008. There's too much at stake not to.
posted by bardic at 5:11 PM on October 12, 2006


Netroots?

Last I checked, DailyKos was not the netroots.

I last saw the netroots in my inbox when a woman in my community was organizing people to canvas. A few days before, I saw the netroots in the online community hosted by my chosen candidate. Starting back in primary season, I kept tripping over the netroots as I saw millions of dollars pour in through campaign websites from individual donors.

Would you point to a swaying tree and call it a forest fire?
posted by VulcanMike at 5:42 PM on October 12, 2006


For the record, I work in the same division that Wen Ho Lee worked in, and I know a lot of people who used to work with him, and every single one thinks he sold secrets to China (granted, every single one is probably a Republican).

I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt (I'm a Democrat). It's clear he was a victim of an overzealous prosecution (don't worry, the current administration has "fixed" that), but it is undeniable that he with alwas very, very sloppy with classified nuclear weapons information, and if Richardson whistle-blew on someone as sloppy as Lee turned out to be, that's fine with me.

Plus he's made my job more irritating due to all the bureaucratic shit I have to deal with.
posted by dirigibleman at 10:18 PM on October 12, 2006


Bill Richardson likes prisons.
posted by landis at 11:33 PM on October 12, 2006


From the above link . . . .

Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson has already received more contributions from a private prison company than any other politician campaigning for state office in the United States. The Institute of Money in State Politics, which traced the donations, reported that GEO has contributed $42,750 to Richardson since 2005—and another $8,000 to his running mate, Lt. Gov. Diane Denish.

Another $30,000 went from GEO to the Richardson-headed Democratic Governors Association this past March. Richardson’s PAC, Moving America Forward, was another prominent recipient of GEO donations. Now, its former head, prominent state capitol lobbyist Joe Velasquez, is a registered lobbyist for GEO Care Inc., a healthcare subsidiary that runs a hospital in New Mexico.
posted by landis at 12:08 AM on October 13, 2006


I care so much less about the Presidency than how Congress swings this November. Just about every viable candidate from either party is so much more centrist, palatable, and BETTER than the existent leader, it'll be a huge fucking breath of fresh air for me. Win Congress, get rid of Bush, and I'll crawl out of this 6 year mourning I've been in.

I'd give any of the candidates a huge hug right now if I could. Good luck to every one of you.
posted by empyrean at 5:33 AM on October 13, 2006


« Older Orhan Pamuk receives the Nobel Prize   |   Socially liberal, economically conservative Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments