Wading through all the news garbage on Presidential candidates can be...frustrating. Hardly anyone talks about substance.

I've been swayed a bit by Obama, mostly because he symoblizes change in some way. However, I haven't agreed with much of what he's said and I really didn't like how he backed down to McCain when he first entered the senate. Still, I don't really know where he stands and I'm not convinced he is the change that I require in our next president.

Clinton...well, I just don't like her. She has a very unique position for a presidential candidate, but doesn't use it in anyway to her advantage. Why couldn't she use her position to lead a front against Bush and really rally the country against his insane foreign policy? She wants to be the leader of the free world, but hasn't once done anything to be a leader. If it wasn't for her husband, no one would know who she is.

Edwards...well, I really didn't like him last time around and I still don't like him. This is mostly because what he says is about as canned as the rest of the Republicans (minus being pro war and pro torture). He's young, somewhat inexperienced and will get a mighty thrashing against the Republicans. How will he stand up against Guiliani or Romney, the only two Republican candidates that will probably get the ticket or have it together as P and VP?

if Gore runs, he's got my vote, no questions asked. He would be the change we need in this country, including a vindication for 8 fucked years lead by a simpleton madman.

I came across this article and though it is dense, we are talking about the future of this country and I'd rather not be hypocritical and ignore substance when I ask for it so much. I haven't finished reading through, but it is pretty deep and enlightening on the democratic candidates.

http://www.skirsch.com/politics/preside ... onFull.htm

First, I think it's obvious (maybe not worth saying) that any of these people is better than any Republican, and less obvious, but still true, that whoever gets the nomination will have my vote. But they are all too conservative for my taste. I'd like to see Al Gore, I think, for the same reasons you state - plus, at this point, America is a country that will hold intelligence against a presidential candidate (I don't know if we are unique in that regard, but it's fucked up), and I'd like to reverse that.

The good thing about Clinton winning the nomination would be that I think she would conduct a tough, no-holds-barred, borderline unethical campaign, just like any Republican will. By that measure, she probably has the best chance of winning. Although I like to think Gore has a good chance of winning too - he has before.

I don't think that the Black Thing or the Woman Thing are going to run that badly against Obama or Clinton, simply because the kind of people who would hold that against somebody are generally not the kinds of people who would be voting for Gore or Edwards anyway. (I'm not saying all Republicans are racist and sexist; I'm saying most overt white racists and male sexists vote Republican.)

I think any of them could win, except maybe Kucinich (is he running? I've had my head in books), but Clinton and Gore, I think, have the strongest chances, and Gore would, I think, be the better of the two.

It all comes back to the choice between a douche and a turd and frankly I am at my wits end about it. The GOP are a Nazi-Taliban hybrid and the Democrats are ineffective spineless worms who sold out their base 50 years ago. Both are corrupt. Neither are desirable. I live in Illinois which will go Democratic so I might vote Green again.

Let's do something original this election. Not have a new president. I non-nominate Boombats.

Thanks for posting this, Caix. I've passed it on. Interesting part about Clinton voting against raising the fuel efficiency standards for the U.S. autmobile industry, yet waxing on about the importance of diminishing our reliance on foreign oil.

Skronk wrote:Let's do something original this election. Not have a new president. I non-nominate Boombats.

Thank you, thank you. My first motion while in non-office will be to have Gore publicly sodomized in public by his wife with a strap-on. This will be his punishment for not running in '04, for not fighting for his right to party in 2000, and for being married to Tipper. Then I will allow him to regain his dignity by being President for 4 years, but only under strict tutelage from Clocker Bob, and he will be prohibited from contact with any agents of the Illuminati (except Clocker Bob).

I realize it's too late for this to do America any good, but it's the first thing that came off the top of my head.

Linus Van Pelt wrote:First, I think it's obvious (maybe not worth saying) that any of these people is better than any Republican, and less obvious, but still true, that whoever gets the nomination will have my vote. But they are all too conservative for my taste. I'd like to see Al Gore, I think, for the same reasons you state - plus, at this point, America is a country that will hold intelligence against a presidential candidate (I don't know if we are unique in that regard, but it's fucked up), and I'd like to reverse that.

Yes. I think using the fact that people are pissed off enough to possibly get past the "we hate brains" trend might open a door for Gore.
"See what happens who you elect a smart person?"
Assuming Gore does a good job. I think he can. My only beef with him in the past has been he's tough to elect because of the wonk thing. He's certianly smart enough.

I honestly hope he jumps in and saves the day.

The good thing about Clinton winning the nomination would be that I think she would conduct a tough, no-holds-barred, borderline unethical campaign, just like any Republican will. By that measure, she probably has the best chance of winning.

The people that hate her hate her more than the people who love her. That's a losing proposition. People work harder to destroy people than they do to help them.
There is an old business adage:
Do someone right and they will tell 3 people, do them wrong and they will tell 100.
Something along similar lines will cause her to lose.

I don't think that the Black Thing or the Woman Thing are going to run that badly against Obama or Clinton, simply because the kind of people who would hold that against somebody are generally not the kinds of people who would be voting for Gore or Edwards anyway. (I'm not saying all Republicans are racist and sexist; I'm saying most overt white racists and male sexists vote Republican.)

I'd like to think you are right, but I have my doubts. Perfectly reasonable people do crazy shit when they get in a voting booth. Latent concerns rear their heads.
Once again, the people who *don't* want a minority will work hard to put The Fear into people about "weak women" and "a black guy named Osama, I mean Obama."
Mark my words.

I think any of them could win, except maybe Kucinich (is he running? I've had my head in books), but Clinton and Gore, I think, have the strongest chances, and Gore would, I think, be the better of the two.

Richardson is a latino with a WASP last name. He has foreign experience and is not saddled with the "senator problem" I've bitched about and, I think, proven to be a real detriment.
Governors win. Check your history.
Also, the SW is ripe for Dem takeover, like the South was 30 years ago with the GOP.
The man might be boring, but as with Gore, the only requirement the Dems have this time is not to screw up. We may gain a wonky guy who knows how the world works. Really, what can you attack this man for besides being boring? I think he could stroll into Pa. Ave. in an election like this as long as we ignore the Iowa Caucus concerns of "electability" (which they clearly don't know, evidence: Kerry) and "like to have a beer with him" (which will never happen).

Last of all, Wesley Clark, I truly believe, could win the hell out of this election but the Dems won't nominate him. His Little Rock connections are aligned with Clinton right now. Damn shame too, he's an interesting, progressive man who was against the war, because he's been to war, and has massive military experience. Might be handy about now.

-A

Boombats wrote:Thank you, thank you. My first motion while in non-office will be to have Gore publicly sodomized in public

Because publically sodomizing him in private would be impossible.
Geez, your first stump speech and you've already "Bushed" it.

I still believe in you though!

-A

alex maiolo wrote:Last of all, Wesley Clark, I truly believe, could win the hell out of this election but the Dems won't nominate him. His Little Rock connections are aligned with Clinton right now. Damn shame too, he's an interesting, progressive man who was against the war, because he's been to war, and has massive military experience. Might be handy about now.

Thinking about VP candidates, I was hoping he'd be Kerry's Veep pick, but he picked Edwards for silly reasons, I believe. With that, I would love to see Wes Clark in there as a Veep candidate. Gore/Clark anyone? Even Gore/Richardson would be phenominal. Hell, if Edwards gets the nomination, he should have either Clark or Richardson as his Veep, he's gonna need the cred!

Gen. Wesley Kanne Clark please run for president!


My second choice would be a Gore-Clark ticket.