I've made this argument before, and I will do so again. Hillary and Obama are UNELECTABLE!

[Hawkeye-X]

Why?

Democratic Senators since JFK hasn't even won the election.

Even JFK barely won it - less than half of the votes.

I remember seeing Gary Hart and Walter Mondale running in the Democratic primary in 1984. Both were senators from Colorado and Minnesota respectively (Gary Hart was my senator, and I was only 8, but still somewhat followed politics) - both didn't even win.

Fast forward to 1988 - This is one exception, and it was Michael Dukakis vs George H.W. Bush - a governor from Massachusetts (aka Taxachusetts - to take Kerry's example from the right wing) vs a moron from wherever the asshole decides he's from (Houston, Texas). Doomed from the start, Dukakis was never a brilliant campaigner. As a 12 year old, he was a turnoff.

(Note, I want to thank GHWB for one ONLY good thing that he managed to sign into law - the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act - made a huge difference in my life)

Fast forward to Bill Clinton vs George HW Bush - Now, that man had charm. He governed Arkansas. True, Clinton had faults, but he was still charming the pants off everyone. When he was elected, I was pretty damn pleased. I knew something special happened. And that fact that we had 8 years of peace and prosperity helped. And the economy was booming. The gap between the rich and the middle class ACTUALLY was closer.

Fast foward to 1996 - my first actual Presidential election that I was legally allowed to vote for. Bob Dole vs Clinton. Dole, a crackpot 'Thug vs a successful president that has defied the Rethuglican Congress for the entire 8 years, and still managed to pass some critical bills and defied the threats. Survived the impeachment process. Survived whatever witchhunts the 'Thugs managed.

Fast forward to 2000 - Al Gore vs Chimp. This one I had definetely banking Gore to win, especially in Florida. It was a sudden shock to me that Chimp stole the election, and thought 'fraud' from the beginning since I followed every case from the Florida courts to the Supremes, and I knew the Florida courts were correct in determining that fact, and at one point, Al Gore was in, fact, leading in many different 'aspects' of counting determined by the NYT in 2002.

Fast forward to 2004 - John Kerry vs Chimp. I only half-heartedly supported Kerry because in my guts, I knew he would lose because of his record as a Senator from Massachusetts, and I knew that the right-wing media would go full-time blasting at him. I was a Howard Dean supporter through and through the primaries and was not happy when he dropped out after Iowa and the infamous 'Scream'. I'm quite pleased that the delegates has wisely selected him to the DNC Chairman. That man has guts, and has proved it in the 2006 elections.

Now we're coming to the 2008 elections, and the selections for Democratic presidential nominees are pretty slim pickings. Right now, even though there are tons of senators trying to kiss butt and win the primary, I am still sitting on the fence, leaning towards SLIGHTLY to John Edwards? Why? He has impressed me through the last 3 years, even after he left the Senate, he took the time to meet people, denounced the IWR vote he did as a Senator in 2002, and is anti-war, pro-troop redeployment out of Iraq. But like I said, SLIGHTLY leaning towards him, not 100% backing yet, more like 10%. My heart is still for Al Gore, who still continues to impress the hell out of me, and would love to see him back on the game, and I know I'm hearing rumors and innuendoes, but think about it - the right wing has absolutely NOTHING to attack him about - the Tennessee house that he's using green energy for that is overly expensive to pay for - debunked. WAY debunked. A lot of right-wing Al Gore 'facts' has already been debunked and will not be a factor. Stiff? No way. DLC? Forget it. Corporatist? A little, but I'll forgive him for the Wal-Mart thing - I know he was trying to promote green energy.

But the fact that Al hasn't announce that he's running has me still sitting on the fence.

But my case in point - Senators have voting records to defend, and the right-wing attack machines are just warming up (and pissing on their pants in excitement in anticipation of Hillary Clinton - what makes you think that Rupert Murdoch donated $$ and hosted parties for her?) for any Senators that have been nominated for the Democratic President. Too many stupid votes that they have to explain for, and that'll waste their time and money explaining away every single vote they made that pisses people off in general.

Hillary hasn't even announced that she regretted her IWR vote and would reverse her decision. No, she continues to be a cheerleader for Bush's war.

Obama? He said he would continue funding the war. Already crossed him off on my list -- too many right wing attack potential. Plus he's not experienced enough, although I will give him credit for being an excellent state senator in the state of Illinois where my sister lives, and my mom's native state. And he's flip-flopping already!

Biden? Ha - forget it. MBNA/BoA owns him and I already hate credit cards.

Richardson? *snore* - although he's a governor of my neighboring state of New Mexico which I love to visit, he's just not charismatic enough. Although he's smart and have handled North Koreans with ease, I see more of him as a Secretary of State than a President. He'll be excellent in renewing all diplomatic ties with every countries that Chimp has managed to piss off.

Edwards - as I explained as above, he's my *slightly* man of choice.

Other candidates - I've either 1) never heard of him (or her), or 2) has no chance of winning (Sorry Kucinich - I like you, but you *know* yourself that you don't have any shot in hell of winning the nomination)

*pants*

I'm done typing. You may criticize at will, I may or may not answer.

Hawkeye-X

EDIT: Added another Obama reason.

[EST]

1. Since you may or may not answer, I may or may not reply.

[Hawkeye-X]

13. Uh, what do you want me to say? Fetch?

*throws a bone*

[Forkboy]

22. um...that is a reply.

[Double T]

2. There is a great field of Democratic candidates running for President.........

All the candidates should be given a fair chance to make their case as to why they should be elected. Until 'WE' have the national debates, where all candidates can participate, the announcement that ANYONE is not electable only serves to support our opposition. Is that what you want to do, because that is what you sound like; the opposition!!

[Hawkeye-X]

3. Like I said, I have evaluated every single candidates and have already made my determination

but I am still on the fence (as I mentioned) - so we'll see when the primaries start rolling around and debates are just about to start...

[MADem]

4. The reason why I disagree is because it is too easy to settle into paradigms

California never had a Austrian governor, either. Massachusetts never had a Black governor.

It used to be that women in the Senate were counted on the fingers of a single hand. We still have a ways to go in that department, but the trend is towards more, not fewer.

Combine any of the existing Democratic candidates on a ticket, and you've got a powerhouse ticket, way better than anything the GOP can slap up there.

And of course, the debates haven't even begun. Everyone who claims that their candidate is a LOCK because of some quality or resume item, or that another candidate is toast for the same reason, is just whistling. The most likely candidate in the world can get up on the stage, open their mouth, and shove two boots in it. The meekest, least known and even most poorly funded candidate can get up there and light the fucking stage on fire. With the exception of the poor funding, remember the splash H. Ross Perot made in the Bush-Perot-Clinton three way? Who the hell, save me (but I used to live in Iran) knew who H. Ross Perot even WAS, before he hippity hopped onto the national stage?

It takes very little to capture the imagination of the public. And it also takes little for the fickle public to decide they "hate" you. The corporate media does a great job helping America decide these things, you see.

[MonkeyFunk]

6. Exactly

these arguments remind me of the stupid sports stats that announcers use: No left-handed relief pitcher has ever given up more than 2 runs in a home game in the fourth game in the playoffs since 1953.

They're pointless.

Any of the major Dem candidates can win.

[MADem]

8. Yep....it's always a paradigm, until it isn't anymore!!

And it is just way too soon to count anyone in or out, really. The debates will tell the tale--more than any of this "non-coverage" we're getting through spokespersons and consultants and pundits and blurbs on TV, radio and in print that are all views from a distance of the candidates.

[Hawkeye-X]

12. Again, that's why I'm sitting on the fence..

I'm still open minded, but these candidates that I have deemed unelectable has to make the argument to ME that they can still be elected and govern the way we (there is no we) liberals expect them to govern.

Hawkeye-X

[MADem]

15. I'm on that fence too, unless Gore hops in.

The thing that I DO know is that I am voting "D" in the General. Everything else is a crap shoot at this point. Once the debates are done, I'll sort out which one I like best, and hopefully make a decision ahead of standing in the voting booth!

[wyldwolf]

5. I'm so sorry for you Howard Dean isn't running.. but then...

... you didn't use the same judging criteria for him in 2004.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wyldwolf]

14. now that I know how you feel, I'll make a special effort to contribute to your threads

[election_2004]

7. I disagree

They're not unelectable, but they are embodiments of MSM-hyped candidacies manufactured solely for "thrills" and "excitement."

I believe either of them could win a General Election. BUT...

Senator Clinton's administration would cause an even more divisive era amongst Americans than the one we're currently witnessing.

Senator Obama - - the jury's still out on what his administration would do.

Both of them are inexperienced, and their candidacies are mainly based on celebrity-esque "star power."

[Hawkeye-X]

10. You just have made my point.

Both of them are inexperienced, and they are being touted by the MSM.

[MADem]

17. Either one of them, and Edwards, for that matter, and certainly the rest of the crew

had more experience than a governor from a "weak governor" state like Texas who got chosen for the job by the Supremes.

Good grief, the used toilet tissue of any Democratic candidate could grow legs and do a better job than Bush!

[Hawkeye-X]

19. That, I have no doubt in my mind

could govern better than the waste of human life that is in the 1600 Pennsylvania residence right now.

Any of them can govern better - but the question is - will the right wing waste-of-space-and-air NOT attack them during the general election which, once again, could determine whether the election will get stolen or not?

Hawkeye-X

[MADem]

21. We will just have to expect dirty tricks--from the corporate media, from the RW noise machine, from

the cruddy PACS....

We'll just have to GOTV like mad AND fight voter suppression, too.

[OHdem10]

9. You do make some compelling arguments

and I share some of your concerns--a fellow fence-sitter.

This has been my problem--We are facing the most
important election of our lifetime. If the Republicans
win this one, it is over for Democrats for a long long time.

We need candidates who Challenge Market Fundamentalism
(Just as the Religious Fundamentalism --has some undesirable
qualities, so does the Market Fundamentalism of the Right.

Market Fundamentalism is"irrational belief that Markets
can and will solve all Societal Problems"
When one thinks of the Health Care Problem, Widening
Gap between rich and poor, any number of problems the
Market Fundamentalist give the same old approach--
"Privatize everything, rely on yourself and expect
nothing from your government." "Private Spending
is rational and public spending is always wasteful
and unproductive." (Oh those wasteful programs we
Liberals call the Social Safety Net)

What I have just described is Conservative Dogma
Who is willing to challenge it?????

[Hawkeye-X]

16. We live under the auspices of capitalism, unfortunately

But we need to remove the concept of "corporate citizenship" and the fact that the rich companies are chronically evading the IRS and taxes by going offshore (ala Halliburton to Dubai). I believe now is the time to re-regulate everything, from insurance companies (to single-payer insurance vis a vis Canada), to television & radio (bring back the Fairness Doctrine or start levying heavy fines to right-wing radios for 20+ years of bullshit), to stopping corporate welfare (IF they can't run the business, let someone else try - ala GM/Chrysler/Ford), to re-regulating gas prices (The windfall taxes is an excellent idea - they need to backdate the taxes as early as 2001 when the gas prices started to go WAY UP, and re-paying every single dime that the gas/oil companies have stiffed or stolen from us via restitution/tax returns/free gasoline/whatever)..

These are my ideas of what the government should be run as - I don't know if you would call it "green" or left-wing liberal.

I'm a member of Progressive Democrats, and also a DSA member (Democratic Socialist of America) - so yes, you may call me a socialist if that is what I am. I'm still a registered Democrat though.

Hawkeye-X

[skipos]

18. Yep. 2 sitting senators elected pres in the history of the US.

They are just so much easier to smear. And, right or wrong, Hillary's baggage makes her the least electable of the bunch. I could still see myself supporting Edwards and Obama, though Obama has some unique gen elec challenges as well.

I would LOVE to see more non-senators from flippable redstates in the 08 mix, but Richardson is the only one so far.

[Hawkeye-X]

20. Like I said, it's debateable.

It could be Richardson ending up winning the nomination to everyone's surprise and now will have to prove it in the general election, with the media and the right-wing attack machine in full gear.

Hawkeye-X

[JNelson6563]

23. I'm holding out for Gore

I think he could knock the crap out of whoever the Rethugs put up.

Julie

[Hawkeye-X]

25. Amen to that, Julie

:hi:

[Vickers]

24. Well, a total nincompoop had never been President before 2000.

Anything is possible.

[Hawkeye-X]

26. Hell, if a dog even ran as a President..

Or if we have to qualify under the Constitutional standards..

a parrot. (They can live up to 75+ years) and would be even better than Chimp on a good day.

Hawkeye-X

[stray cat]

27. What if a republican senator and democratic senator pair off?

Does no one win?

[thekuch]

28. Hillary, Obama, and Edwards are WarFunders

Hillary, Obama and Edwards are WarFunders.

Our troops will NOT be coming home UNTIL Congress cuts funding to this war.

How? Why? Because since the inception of the War Powers Act, that's the ONLY WAY our troops have come home from those military actions. Hillary, Obama and Edwards will NOT be passing any of their bills to end this war. This war will be stopped ONLY BY THE DEMOCRATS IN THE SENATE KILLING BUSH'S WAR BILL!!! Did you know that Democratic Senator Harry Reid could END THIS WAR virtually immediately by simply invoking Senate Rule No. 22 - AUTOMATIC FILIBUSTER! This is a FACT, a very ordinary fact and procedure. The reality of the 41-man filibuster was exemplified in minority party Republicans' BLOCK of the Democrat Party's "non-binding" resolution. ANY RESOLUTION can easily be blocked by either party because it takes only 41 Senators to kill any bill, period.

THIS WAR WILL END ONLY WHEN 41 DEMOCRATIC SENATORS SUPPORT AN AUTOMATIC FILIBUSTER OF BUSH'S WAR BILL!!! http://www.projectfilibuster.com

THAT'S WHY it's so disingenous for Hillary, Obama and Edwards to falsely present themselves as anti-war candidates when in FACT, they are WARFUNDERS!!!!! Each and every time refunding comes up, Hillary and Edwards have voted FOR WAR!!!!!! Over 13 times!!! Obama has had only one opportunity thus far to vote for war, and he decided to FUND Bush's war bill - Obama voted FOR WAR!!! Obama voted YES on Bush's war bill on March 29th, 2007, the last time it came through the Senate.
Date Bill Title Vote
03/29/2007 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill of 2007 Y
http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=BS...


President Kucinich video reveals Obama and Edwards!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9REGbr0nfI

[Hawkeye-X]

29. Kicking it for the afternoon/evening crew

:patriot: :yoiks:

[mmonk]

30. I happen to disagree.

Just because its been a long time since senators have won is merely coincidence IMO. I wouldn't extrapolate much out of it.

[AtomicKitten]

31. None of our candidates are unelectable

... well, except for Kucinich.

Regardless, this will be settled at the ballot box in the primaries.

[mmonk]

36. Was that necessary?

[obamian]

32. That's not much of an argument... a lot opinion.

How does polling data support your claim?

[Township75]

33. Listen man, I don't like either being our nominee, but

I don't see how one can say either (or any candidate Rep or Dem) is unelectable until that individual's opponent is known. I guarantee people would flock to Obama or Clinton if the opponent were someone like Pat Buchanan or even the prospect of another Bush. The country will NOT go for another far right wing nut.

Now, let's all agree to vote for Richardson in the primary:)

[Zavulon]

34. The biggest difference between Hillary and Obama is that

I wouldn't feel like jumping off the tallest building I could find in the event of an Obama presidency.

[Alamom]

35. At this point in time, due to the last 6 years, (soon to be 8) of the worst

administration & pResident to be recorded in history, historically speaking, voting trends may change. Also, the other side is not offering much. They don't have a well known, great governor to run.....so far. This could change. Campaigns do, frequently.