snood wrote: I can't help but be a little repulsed, even though I understand the utility of it, by the need to deny one's own principles in the quest to win the White House or any American elective office. Inother words, I understand and agree that it will be necessary to limit the 'tree-shaking' to domestic policy, but part of me wonders how much of the true man remains after he undergoes the moral castration necessary to be elected. It seems we try to factor out humanity in our search for some perfect inoffensively commercial cipher - that's politics.
Yep. Sad as it may be; that's politics.
snood wrote: I resist your characterization of our remaining in Iraq as a necessary "cleaning up". I can easily envision the chaos being as lively in two years as in two months. Opinions vary about the true impetus for the original invasion, and for the inpetus to stay. An argument can be made that Bush "stays the course" because he doesn't know what else to do, just as he went to war because of an idea deficit (but that part's neither here nor there, I guess).
That argument can and has been made Ad Nausium, but I don't think its continuation is a winning strategy for Democrats, regardless.
snood wrote:Giuliani is weak as a contender simply because the GOP isn't going to have any pro-choice candidate. Deny it if you will, but it is their unspoken litmus test. Leave alone that he supports the legal unions of Gays.
If you've been reading my posts you'll see we don't disagree about Giuliani's chances of winning the GOP nomination; accept that I don't consider it impossible. First; I think the Democrats have to field a candidate that appears to be unbeatable by the old-school GOP. Obama
might be that man. Only then
might the GOP concede to a moderate like Giuliani or McCain as a last resort before forfeiting the White House altogether.
Pro-Choice litmus tests are dangerous ground for the GOP. The recent changes on the Supreme Court will make it more difficult for me to vote for another hardliner like Bush, because I find his bible-thumping, anti-women's rights stances deplorable. It would be more of a compromise for me in 08 than it was in 04
and I hope the pollsters are paying attention.
Another distinction I've been meaning to make is between Edwards and Obama. Having read Edward's "channeling" of an unborn child for money, I will forever consider him a scumbag. Brilliant as that may have been, legally, I consider it morally repugnant. I'm not alone on this. The similarities of Youth and Lawyerly end there, IMO, so I don't think Edward's lack of success is an accurate indicator of Obama's potential. Also where Edwards (and Kerry for that matter) seemed to come off as arrogant; Obama's confidence doesn't, IMO, come off that way at all.
Also, if the Democrats decide to retread Edwards into the main-man-spotlight; I think the opposition has only scratched the surface of demonizing him as a scumbag ambulance chaser. Were he the main-man in 04; I think a much larger chunk of the Republican War Chest would have been spent this way, to great effect.
Nimh, I appreciate the polls, but my gut tells me they aren't quite accurate. I don't think they can adequately reflect the terror-fear-quotient when it comes down to pulling the lever on a candidate. The flip-flop accusations may have dissipated for now, but they'll be back if and when they're needed. 2 years from now; Iraq may be a hell-hole or a budding young democracy... or anywhere in between. I see no profit in us debating our predictions here... but consider the actual results paramount in future polls regarding "who's better on defense". Where some see only doom and gloom; the picture that resonates most in my mind is of proud Iraqis holding up the blue finger in the face of their true enemies. Time will tell.
Also; the truth isn't always the most important consideration. Everyone knew Bill Clinton shouldn't have ignored a Supreme Court decision and lied to a grand jury, but attempts to capitalize on that, politically, were largely rejected by the voters... Blueflame and Roxanne are not alone in believing Bush a War Criminal, but they are clearly not a majority (of
eligible voters, at least :wink:).
Further; not knowing who the players will be makes the polls almost useless. If memory serves; prior to the Democrats fielding a candidate they were more popular than they ever were after doing so. I seem to recall an "unnamed Democrat" fairing better in the pre-election polls than any name they penciled in. Unless and until the positive/negative campaign machines are operating at full-steam, with specific names on the dotted line; the polls are too handicapped to be of much use, IMO.
Yes Soz, that was fun.
I remember Clinton's delivery of that line like it was yesterday. I agree Bush trumped Gore (and Kerry for that matter) handily in the charm department so no, he's not without it, but Clinton, he is not. Giuliani, he is not. Tony Blair, he is not. Obama, he is not...
