Cheney v. Clinton 2008?

A little off topic, but I've been hearing the call for Obama as pres since the Dems convention last election. But what does anybody know about him besides one good speech at the convention? What makes everybody think he would make such a good pres already?

I don't agree that he would. Too green at the moment, but someone to watch.

If not Cheney and Clinton, who are the viable alternatives?
Barack Obama has been mentioned....who else has the potential, even so slight?
I wouldn't mind reading up on some possible candidates between now and then...so throw out some names if they may be contenders, I'd appreciate it.

Woodward: Cheney to run in '08
Article Last Updated: 8/10/2005 02:23 AM
Woodward: Cheney to run in '08
By Troy Hooper
Special to The Denver Post

Aspen - Renowned journalist Bob Woodward predicts Dick Cheney will be the Republican Party's presidential nominee in 2008 and that the vice president could face Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton in a dramatic partisan showdown.

Speaking in the Paepcke Auditorium as part of the Aspen Institute's McCloskey Speaker Series, Woodward on Tuesday listed a number of reasons it is "highly likely" President Bush might implore Cheney to seek the Oval Office.

"He would be 67 if he ran and was elected. Reagan was 69. Republicans always like the old warhorse. ... Nixon was 68," said Woodward, best known for exposing the Watergate scandal that led to Richard Nixon's resignation in 1974. "Both parties like to nominate vice presidents. ... Cheney would do it, and I think it's highly likely, so stay tuned."

But while the Pulitzer Prize- winning journalist, whose talk was titled "From Nixon to Bush," drew the loudest audience reaction with his Cheney prediction, the Nixon tapes and the war in Iraq were his main focus.

Woodward described Nixon, who resigned 31 years ago this week, as intelligent and engaging but also unmistakably drunk on the power of the presidency. The Nixon tapes, which he called "the gift that just keeps giving," reveal that Nixon used his power to settle political scores.

"He spent too much time to not only settle these scores and screw people, but to assert he was in power, he was on top," said Woodward, author of "The Secret Man: The Story of Watergate's Deep Throat," which gives a behind-the-scenes account of one of the best-kept secrets in American history.

Nixon remarked during his farewell speech: "Always remember that others may hate you, but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them."

Woodward said Nixon had to walk away from the presidency because "he understood the hating is what did him in. ... When you look back on it, you have to give him credit. It was probably one of his bravest and most noble acts. ... As he said, he impeached himself."

Although he has co-authored or authored more No. 1 best-selling nonfiction books than any contemporary writer, Woodward, 62, still works at The Washington Post as the assistant managing editor. He said the paper gave him an entire year to talk to mostly lower-level and midlevel officials for what turned into his 2002 hardback, "Bush at War."

But he was also given the chance to interview President Bush for 3½ hours over two days in what he said felt more like a legal deposition than a traditional media interview.

"Bush gives very direct answers," he said. "If you'd interviewed President Clinton for 3½ hours, you might have time to ask 12 questions. Bush is on the total other end."

Woodward portrayed Bush as a man rooted in his convictions who feels he has a duty to spread democracy. But he also depicted the president as a fatalist who once told him, "We won't know" how history will judge the Iraq war because "we'll all be dead."

He seems to have both a rather independent vision thing re: policies and a very agile way of talking to voters, including the centrist/independent/white working class ones. That at least is the strong impression I got away with reading a couple of in-depth articles about him on TNR online. Youll find them back doing a search on their site I suppose, or rather (considering their search function is crap) perhaps Google <obama site:tnr.com>. You'll have to register tho, trial subscription or the like.

Here's one of 'em, but yes, you'll have to take a trial sub to get to it (Id have copied/pasted it here, but its pretty long - nine pages if you print it out).

BARACK OBAMA'S MIRACULOUS CAMPAIGN. Race Against History

Isnt it funny that here we all are together, from a bunch of different stripes, and theres the two candidates that at least nominally would be first in line to run - and apart from JW there is not one of us here who can muster anything but distaste at the prospect?

If it does end up Cheney vs Clinton after all, thatd be about the biggest insult the Beltway can serve up to the people, I suppose. Confident that we'll end up feeling that we'd have to vote for one of 'em in the end anyway, it'd be the final proof that they think they can truly get away with anything: they govern us, we get to rubberstamp ("we" in a metaporical way of course, said the Dutchman).

I say it'd be time to vote Green. Or anything (else).

Thanks for the link. I'll check it out.

As far as Clinton vs Cheney... I made up my mind after last election that it would take an extaordinary candidate from either major party to get my vote again... both of those are extraordinary, but all for the wrong reasons.

People say that voting for a third party is a wasted vote. That may be but, IMO, voting for a major is an even bigger waste and I doubt I'll do it again anytime soon.

ps. here is a subscriber free link to the text:

http://www.leopardsinthetemple.com/text/tnr_obama_052404.txt

Clearly I would have to vote for Cheney. Not the easiest choice; but , a far far better choice than the conniving, do nothing junior Senator from New York State, her holier than thou majesty.

After reading the article this was the closest thing I found towards policy:



Beyond that, most of the article was about him being African-American and how he uses that to his advantage to get everybodies votes instead of just the other AAs and white liberals.

All that is good and all, but I still don't quite understand the calls of Obama for Prez. Towards the end of the article it even pointed out that he is kind of an unknown.



All I really heard is that people like him. My question is why? I would prefer to have something more substantial than a good personality, good speeches and that he is different.

I was listening to Wait, Wait, Don't tell me the other day and Obama was on it. They asked him about a recent speech he'd made coming out against 8th grade graduations. He was kind of funny and I actually agreed with him. I'll see if I can find it.

But as to qualifications and policy requirements to be president, I think GWB set new lows in that regard.

Only more reason to be even more strict with the next election. Funny really wasn't what I was looking for either.

Yeah, good point. Even GWB has funny.

But I don't think he's running any time soon. Maybe by the time he gets around to it we will all know more about him.

I will say, and there's always time to prove me wrong, that I think he's pretty honest. He's the only politician I know of to admit to past drug use.

Joe Biden has also been mentioned as a possible Dem runner.

I've heard that the pattern is to chose Governors, not senators.

Richardson (D-NM) has some broad appeal, but likely some baggage now that he has held other offices.

Cheney will not run. Woodward had altitude sickness when he made that prediction...you know, when you go to the mountains from sea-level and get all dizzy and light-headed.

There's no need for everyone to get their boxers in a bunch or start weeping and gnashing. Cheney will not run. He said he won't. He does not lie. I know everyone here hates him, but he is a good and decent man whom history will judge kindly.

The Democrats won't run Obama for years. He needs more experience and any Republican could beat him right now.

I don't think I'd ever be comfortable wasting my vote by voting Green or for any third party.

All the stuff above is merely my opinion (except for the part about Cheney and my voting).

Do you know Cheney personally?

Was Mr. Clinton on the national political horizon 2 years before he became president of the U.S.? Did anyone think he'd be able to put together any kind of campaign, let alone win?

The materials I've read suggest that he wasn't, and I kinda hope the same thing is true for both major parties in the U.S. now. Cuz the options which seem to be available are just kinda sad. If the two mainstream parties don't find candidates, and positions, to differentiate them, they're going to end up with one party in no time at all. They're virtually indistinguishable now.

Any Ross Perot's on the horizon - who could liven things up - get the mainstream parties to more separately define themselves?

Ive been threatening to run for a few years now but I think 2008 might be the year.

Bear


I've heard Pepto Bismo is good for stopping the runs.

BBB

Well, Ed on the campaign trail would certainly liven things up. Especially if he's got the runs.