Today on Blogcritics
Home » Bread And Rodeos

Bread And Rodeos

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

The night after Bill Moyers' hard-hitting expose of the compliant American mass media serving as the Ministry of Truth for the Promotion of Oil War, GOP assets Brian Williams and MSNBC had the audacity to present a "debate" of the announced Democratic presidential candidates. The transcript of the debate is an interesting read, but one really should see the debate to appreciate the poor delivery styles of all concerned.

In my opinion, such a political American Idol at this stage of the 2008 campaign is a distraction and not beneficial. With all of the major issues facing the American people at this time, this isn't the time to get distracted by a popularity contest. And yet, maybe that contest will eventually prove to have been a benefit in exposing the sorry sad sacks that both parties are offering up as the Solution to All of Our Problems. Not a single candidate helped themselves last night. Not one. When MSNBC presents the Republican offerings next week, they will fare no better.

This isn't to say that there weren't some interesting highlights from South Carolina. But in the main, no candidate – not Hillary, nor Obama, nor MNBA Biden – broke out of the pack as the clear choice to lead the nation. But if one were to cut out all of the self-serving promotion and the tired platitudes offered up as answers, there wouldn't be much to report. Each of the candidates had an opportunity to score major points, especially on their favored topics, and yet each failed to score a major victory.

Dennis Kucinich, for instance, had a chance to present the argument for pulling our troops out of Iraq, but turned it instead into an advertisement for his bill intended to convince the rest of the world to tidy up our Iraq mess for us. Senator Dodd demonstrated a lot of "me-too" in his promotion of Feingold-Reid as the answer to Iraq.

On the whole Iraq situation, only former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel reached this pundit with his views. When presenting his strategy for ending the Iraq Oil Rustle, Gravel asked the American voter to "understand that this war was lost the day that George Bush invaded Iraq on a fraudulent basis" and asked the pertinent question, "How do you get out?"

I got to tell you, we should just plain get out. Just plain get out. It's their country. They're asking us to leave, and we insist on staying there. And why not get out? What harm is it going to do? Oh, you hear the statement, "Well, my God, these soldiers will have died in vain." The entire deaths of Vietnam died in vain. And they're dying in vain right this very second. Do you know what's worse than a soldier dying in vain? It's more soldiers dying in vain, that's what's worse.

Gravel was steaming with his excoriation of the seated Senators:

You pass the law – not a resolution, a law – making it a felony to stay there. … And if you're worried about filibusters, here's what you do tactically. …pass it in the House. We got the votes there. In the Senate — let [the GOP] filibuster … let Reid call up [a cloture vote] … at 12:00 every day … and let the American people see clearly who's keeping the war going and who's not. And that's the just the beginning…

Alas, it was really almost the end… and there was still over an hour to go.

Another Almost Moment was handed to former Senator John Edwards to make his Everyman Campaign real and believable. Instead, he stumbled, showing that maybe he really isn't quite in touch with the needs of the working class in America as his critics charge. Rather than show leadership on the issues of the impoverished and those without health care, Edwards tossed the football laterally to "the financial markets" to "figure out what it is we need to do". You lost my vote right there, Senator. You can't be a leader if you refuse to take the lead.

My biggest disappointment was Governor Bill Richardson. Despite all of his international props as a diplomat, he didn't come off well at all with his overly-wordy and distracted responses to questions. As the only state-level chief executive currently in the race, he should have been a step ahead on the experience scale, but he made some rather strange connections between various topics that should concern our nation, such as combining mental illness with gun violence as experienced at Virginia Tech as if that happens all the time. In pandering to NRA paranoia, and in defending Alberto Gonzalez due to his ethnicity prior to attacking him for his malfeasance, Richardson showed that he has personal issues that transcend those facing our nation. We have had quite enough of that, thank you (for nothing) Democrats. In revealing his personal issues, Richardson has lost my vote.

One redeeming question Williams asked had to do with regrets. When Williams asked each of the candidates to speak upon their "most significant political or professional mistake", it proved to be about the only moment when the majority of the candidates touched on honesty. The answers each gave impressed me that they are aware of their limitations, something the current White House resident fails to display. Williams and MSNBC might have served us voters better if this was the first question asked of the candidates, as it diverted their self-awareness from hubris toward humility and honesty.

Such a result was also produced by the last set of questions Williams asked of the candidates. Putting each on the spot with their most-inflammatory positions, each was exposed to the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Media Machine by the response each gave: Kucinich on why he introduced a bill of impeachment of Dick Cheney, already putting him in the gun sights of Oval Office operatives like Dana Milbank of the Washington Post; Dodd on civil unions and not gay marriage, Biden on the environment and energy policies, Richardson on relations with Cuba, Obama on energy-saving lamps in his own home, Edwards on models of moral leadership, Hillary on Wal-Mart.

Each made statements that their opponents will ride to the four winds in fanning the partisan flames consuming this land. With the answer each gave, each demonstrated that they are not the choice for leading the nation. One can only hope that when it comes down to the Republicans next week, MSNBC and Brian Williams do for the Elephant what they did for the Donkey, for the Republican choices are no better or less self-serving.

Paraphrasing a comment Hillary once made, it takes a nation to make a nation, and the divisiveness that has wracked this country since November 22, 1963 has got to come to an end if this nation is to survive intact. The American voter has to find a clearly qualified choice for taking the reins of power in hand, and the American media could possibly redeem itself from its sins of commission if it helped to discover who the right person is, rather than continue its practice of promoting the lesser of two corporate candidates of the status quo.

Powered by

About pessimist

  • http://universaltruthnow.blogspot.com/ Pope Silas I

    I’m so incensed with MSNBC and Brian Williams right now for hosting this love fest of Democrats as opposed to a real Presidential debate. This wasn’t a debate. It was a way to get the press to make a mockery out of the Gravel and Kucinich campaigns while making Hillary Presidential and Barack the media darling. Poor Bill Richardson, arguably the most qualified candidate for President, doesn’t stand a chance because he’s not pretty enough for the cameras. Let’s face it, Richardson is too intellectual for the rest of us. We need somebody stupid like, um, oh yeah, George W. Bush. Here’s my take:

    BIDEN: Funny, cocky, intelligent. My bet is that he will be Hillary’s running mate.

    CLINTON: Presidential, confident and definitely qualified to be President. It’ll be nice to have Bill Clinton back at the White House.

    DODD: A dud. Why is he even wasting his time?

    EDWARDS: As much as I like him I don’t think now is the time for him to be President. Perhaps he could serve as Attorney General in the Clinton Administration.

    GRAVEL: This guy is a breath of fresh air. The media hates him so they laugh at him and compare him to Ross Perot. To me, Sen. Gravel reflects most of how mainstream America feels at this point. I see a lot of Ronnie Reagan in him and would love to see Gravel Republicans surface. This is the man who should be President but he’ll never get there because the pundits in the media are scared to death of him.

    KUCINICH: His heart’s in the right place and Lord knows he’s intellectual. He’s just too far too the left and we need someone more centrist right now. Make him Secretary of Health and Human Services in the Clinton Administration.

    OBAMA: OK, why are we even considering this guy? Because he gave a keynote speech? Because he’s the freshman Senator from Illinois a/k/a the Land of Lincoln? Or is it because he’s black? The media loves him but after his performance last night I see an eloquent man who lacks substance, experience and for some reason character. 2008 is not the year of Obama. He needs to prove himself more on the floor of the Senate. Perhaps 2012 or 2016.

    RICHARDSON: The most intelligent one of the bunch who won’t get the nomination because the media and cameras aren’t enthralled with him. He has the most experience and qualifications to be President. Perhaps a Gravel/Richardson ticket?

    THE WINNER(S): a tie: Clinton & Gravel

    THE LOSERS(S): a tie: Richardson & Obama

    MY PREDICTION: Hillary will win the nomination and pick Joe Biden to be her running mate. The deal is made, folks. Look at the footage of the candidates’ post-debate. It’s a slam dunk.

  • Arch Conservative

    I agree with most of what you said Pope your forgot to extrapolate your predictions all the way to the genral election. Who among the republicans do you think will fare well and ultimately win the nod?

    The way I see it is that the only chance the Dems have of winning back the white house is if they elect edwards or Richardson or if some as of yet unknown comes along.

    Obama can’t win because he’s black and if we’re being honest we must admit that our nation is just not there yet. Also he doesn’t have very much experience. He’s kind of a lightweight.

    Hillary can’t win because well…she’s Hillary. There is such a seething , festering hatred for this woman out there and it is going to be boiling over come Nov 2008 and now matter how many black-ops Clintonistas are out there stuffing ballot boxes she will not be able to overcome.

    As for the GOP three big three…

    Mccain…….He has done nothing but carry water for the current administration and he is hemmoraghing Republican support right now. He’s got no shot.

    Guiliani…..Leading in all the polls right now but may prove too be too liberal to win the the GOP nod.

    Mitt Romney…….Has enourmous personal charisma and intelligence. Demonstrated crossover appeal by getting elected governor in one of the bluest blue states. Has a very very strong background of fiscal success in both the public and private sectors that virtually no other candidate on either side can compete with. Will have to overcome the mormon thing though.

    In the end I believe that Dems will insist on cutting their own wrists by nominating Hillary and Romney will overcome the mormon hurdle as he becomes more and more visible in the public and people realize how much they like him and what a great president he would make.

    2008 Presidential election prediction:

    Romney over Hillary in a landslide.

    Bye bye to the bush family bye bye to the Clinton family. Hello to the reincarnation of Ronald fucking Reagan. Happy days are here again!

  • STM

    America WON’T elect a woman as president, whether it’s Hillary or not, nor a black. Yet. So I don’t know what all the hoo-ha is about.

    Neither will get the gig. So unless someone else from the Democrats seriously sticks their head up in the meantime, it looks like you’re stuck with some of Bush’s mates for another few years.

    The bizarre thing is, the Democrats would have won by a landslide had these options not been on the table.

    Democrats, 2008: how to lose a presidential election #101.

  • Dr Dreadful

    Arch: So there’s a seething, festering hate for Hillary out there? From whom? Conservatives? Quelle surprise. Or is it just propaganda? Data please.

    STM: America probably WILL end up electing Hillary as President. She’s a shoo-in for the Democratic nomination and if Bush and the rest of the Republican Party keep on acting like a bunch of assholes between now and 11/08, she’ll steamroller anyone they care to put up against her. If she has any sense, she’ll ask Obama to be her running mate. Slam dunk.

    UNLESS… a certain Mr Gore decides, as rumored, to toss his hat into the ring sometime around October. Pigeons, meet cat.

  • STM

    Doc: I just don’t see Americans being ready yet to elect a woman.

    She might be a shoo-in for the nomination, but whether America is ready for a woman as president, particularly one who rightly or wrongly is carrying plenty of baggage from her husband’s presidency, is a different matter.

    Americans are notoriously conservative when it comes to these matters, even so-called liberals. And let’s face it, she’s no Maggie Thatcher (a woman with balls, if you will, much as I despised the Torys’ ultra-divisive policies under her reign). Hillary seems really wish-washy to me, and I suspect she lacks the qualities required to both lead AND heal America. I have never seen the country so polarised, and further division would be a disaster for all of us.

    Gore, however, is an elder stateman and would be a walk-up start. I hope he does throw his hat in the ring. He probably deserves a gig after the disputed 2000 votes debacle.

    I reckon he’d be a great president. Still, I don’t count as I won’t get to vote for him, but we watch and wait eagerly down here as the mood turns in our neck of the woods as well.

  • Dr Dreadful

    STM: Whether they’re ready to start saying “Madam President” or not, I think they’re going to be presented with a fait accompli. Britain in 1979 wasn’t “ready” for a female prime minister either, but they got one anyway because the alternative sucked so much.

    In the absence of Gore, Hillary’s the strongest runner by far in terms of the combination of political savvy, charisma, name recognition, connections, money and all the other factors that go together to make a good candidate. The Republicans don’t really have anyone with that kind of clout. McCain? Forget it. If he couldn’t beat Bush to the nomination in 2000, he certainly doesn’t stand an earthly now. Brownback is certifiably insane. Romney is solid but faces the “who?” factor. There are a few additional candidates who are so minor I can’t remember their names. Giuliani strikes me as the only guy who might stand a chance, but his halo has slipped a lot and bear in mind the skeletons in his closet make the Clintons’ look like a chicken’s wishbone.

    I don’t get to vote either as I’m only a permanent resident (still… gets me out of jury duty!) but I can’t help being fascinated by the politics of my adopted home.

    So the mood is changing in Oz, eh? What’s Howard done now? I never could figure out the politics Down Under, and how you managed to get a Liberal-led federal government when every single state had a Labour premier. Sheer Aussie bloodymindedness, I reckon!

  • STM

    Doc: Howard’s a goner … he’s managed to piss off 90 per cent of the population by demolishing the IR laws that gave workers their penalties rates and protections, and handing all the power in the bargaining process back to employers – with the throw-away line: “Trust them”.

    They’ve already shown they can’t be trusted in the short time these new American-style IR laws have been in operation. People have been sacked and then re-employed as casuals, and consultancies are springing up everywhere that offer to get companies’ wages bills down under the new legislation.

    These were laws thrashed out in the courts over the past century, and which made workers in this country well off compared to others around the world. Previously, they offered arbitration and accord between workers and employers as a genuine benchmark standard for negotiating wages and workers’ conditions.

    There was no need to do what Howard did either, as the economy is going ganbusters and for years has been one of the best-performing in the world.

    It’s just another little piece of ideological bloody-mindedness by a man whose politics are marginally to the right of Attila the Hun’s. As for the state v federal thing, state issues and federal issues tend to be very different here, although the mood of the electorate does filter down to the state polls depending on what Canberra’s up to.

    A recent example: the Labor government in NSW should have been punted at the polls last month in a landslide after more than a decade of arrogance and bungling. The Libs ran a weak campaign and just couldn’t do it, but the mood in the electorate seemed to be less about that than what Howard and the federal Libs had done on the IR front.

    Voters gave a nice two-fingered salute to Canberra, and a warning.

    It’s interesting too that the Labor Party continues to use the term “American-style” to warn workers of the risk they face with IR left up to the whims of employers. Aussies are quite savvy politically, and know they have had vastly better wage and living conditions on the whole than most people in America doing comparable jobs, particularly in the blue-collar sector.

    Generally though, the state-federal issues are quite different.

  • Dr Dreadful

    STM, I just realized who Howard reminds me of. Remember PW Botha, the president of apartheid South Africa in the 70s and 80s? Hmmm…

  • STM

    Except Botha wasn’t as vertically challenged and his top lip moved when he spoke …

  • Dr Dreadful

    The muscles of his top lip were exceptionally well-developed from eating the brains of kaffirs.

  • Arch Conservative

    Dr. Dreadful you should change your name to Dr. Deluded if you think Hillary will ever be president.

    It just aint gonna happen regardless of who the GOP runs.

    Deal with it!

  • Dr Dreadful

    you should change your name to Dr. Deluded if you think Hillary will ever be president.

    It just aint gonna happen regardless of who the GOP runs.

    Why exactly not?

    And please don’t wheel out the “because everybody hates her” argument, which you have thus far not demonstrated any basis for.

    Allow me to present you with the key to your mind. All I ask is that you turn it, and then get back with me in November next year and we’ll compare notes.

    Or perhaps YOU should change your name to “Aaaarrgh! Conservative!”

  • http://universaltruthnow.blogspot.com/ Pope Silas I

    Sorry, Arch, Mitt Romney will NEVER be President. He was a carpetbagger who forced his way into the Massachusetts Gubernatorial elections to usury the State House. Once he became governor (and I use that word loosely) he turned over the day-to-day operations of his Administration to his lieutenant, Kerry Healy. He didn’t give a damn about the Bay State and spent few hours in the Executive Offices. That’s a known FACT in Massachusetts and I guarantee that his governance in abstencia will become an issue in the GOP. He’s a charlatan, a joke and more of a flip flopper than John Kerry could ever have been. A vote for Mitt Romney might as well be a vote for George W. Bush. Both men are clueless users.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    It’s a little hard to glean much information about the actual debate from all the ridiculously stilted adjectives, other than that apparently none of the candidates was enough of a flaming left winger to satisfy the author. Brian Williams is a “GOP asset.” Oh, please. Heck, even Dennis Kucinich ain’t commie enough to satisfy this supposed “Realist.”

    But this one bit was a little more specifically telling in implying the author’s values. “Edwards tossed the football laterally to “the financial markets” to “figure out what it is we need to do”. You lost my vote right there, Senator. You can’t be a leader if you refuse to take the lead.”

    Ah, so you’re not a “leader” unless you propose nationalizing incomes and industries to solve whatever issues you consider to be problems. And asking businesses for their expertise in dealing with financial problems like poverty and health care – that’s just not leadership at all. He should just dictate a final solution from the White House, and that’s it.

    Yeah, what a “realist.” That command economy crap worked out real well in the communist countries, didn’t it?

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “KUCINICH: His heart’s in the right place and Lord knows he’s intellectual.”

    ROTFL!!!

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “Perhaps a Gravel/Richardson ticket?”

    Perhaps a Unicorn/Fairy ticket?

  • Arch Conservative

    Why exactly not?

    And please don’t wheel out the “because everybody hates her” argument, which you have thus far not demonstrated any basis for.

    I thought I explained the basis to you.

    You must not have seen it. As I already stated…among all of the current candidates, rep and dem, Hillary has the highest number of people that say they would not under any circumstances vote for her in virtually every major credible poll that has been conducted. Also she has the highest unfavorable ratings among all the candidates in these same polls.

    I know Hillary looks like such a strong candidate right now against obama and edwards but that’s because she is being compared to other dems and she hasn’t faced any serious scrutiny yet. What waas that line the press attributed to her when she found out that she’d have to start campaigning earlier than Bill did when he ran? Something like ” I don’t see why I have to start so soon, Bill didn’t.” She and her Clintonista followers are extremely arrogant and expect the Dem primaries to be a coronation rather than a process to put the best person forward.

    When Hillary is forced into some environments that for the first time are not completely controlled by her and her followers she will not be able to standup under the pressure.

    I have told you why Hillary won’t be elected but you haven’t told me why she will Dreadful.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

    I have told you why Hillary won’t be elected but you haven’t told me why she will Dreadful.

    Because he wants her to be…

  • Dr Dreadful

    I have told you why Hillary won’t be elected but you haven’t told me why she will Dreadful.

    Because she’s leading in the polls?

    It’s a long time till the election and a lot could happen between now and then, so I think it’s unwise for you to imperiously declare that she has no chance. As far as all those “I’ll never vote for Hillary” people go, let me spin you a hypothetical:

    Hillary wins the Democratic nomination. Meanwhile, the Bush administration continues to lurch from scandal to incompetence to lies and back to scandal. And then it’s election time. I think you’ll be astonished at how many of those “never never” people, when faced with the alternative of another Republican in the White House, suddenly won’t mind voting for Hillary at all.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    And please don’t wheel out the “because everybody hates her” argument, which you have thus far not demonstrated any basis for.

    Just to help Arch out, since he’s never been good at digging up facts, here’s why Hillary won’t get elected because everybody hates her: her astonishing 52% unfavorable rating in the latest gallup poll.

    dave

  • Arch Conservative

    Because she’s leading in the polls?

    Correction.

    She’s leading in the polls of democrats.

    I am one of those “never never” people Dreadful. George Bush isn’t running in 2008, other republicans are and I can tell you now that if Hillary wins the Dem nomination I will be voting for the GOP candidate regardless of who it is and I know that many others will do the same.

    I HATE Hillary and so do many many others. It’s just that simple and I don’t see why you can’t understand it dreadful.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    Hillary’s negatives are somewhere between Michael Moore’s and the Green River Killer’s. She can’t win in a general election. And that’s why I hope the Dems nominate her!

  • MCH

    “I got to tell you, we should just plain get out. Just plain get out. It’s their country. They’re asking us to leave, and we insist on staying there. And why not get out? What harm is it going to do? Oh, you hear the statement, “Well, my God, these soldiers will have died in vain.” The entire deaths of Vietnam died in vain. And they’re dying in vain right this very second. Do you know what’s worse than a soldier dying in vain? It’s more soldiers dying in vain, that’s what’s worse.”
    – Sen. Mike Gravel

    And of course, those who’ve “supported” the invasion/occupation without going themselves don’t have to worry about dying in vain.

  • Dr Dreadful

    if Hillary wins the Dem nomination I will be voting for the GOP candidate regardless of who it is

    I wouldn’t expect anything else of you. Having the screen name “Arch Conservative” doesn’t leave us in much doubt about your political standpoint.

    Just don’t be so sure you speak for the other 150 million or so potential voters.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

    It’s a sad day for the dems when Billary is their best candidate.

  • Dr Dreadful

    It’s a sad day for the Repubs when Rudy “More Skeletons in His Closet than an Obsessive-Compulsive Physiology Professor But 9/11 Hits and Suddenly He’s God” Giuliani is their best candidate.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

    True. Woe is the US, ’cause one thing’s for sure: an American politician is going to be elected.

    Sad…

  • Dr Dreadful

    Maybe Dave should run…

  • MCH

    “It’s a sad day for the dems when Billary is their best candidate.”
    – Clavos

    That day will never come, thank God. I’m sure glad our best candidate is actually Obama, instead.

  • Arch Conservative

    “It’s a sad day for the Repubs when Rudy “More Skeletons in His Closet than an Obsessive-Compulsive Physiology Professor But 9/11 Hits and Suddenly He’s God” Giuliani is their best candidate.”

    Actually Mitt Romney is our best candidate. Rudy is the one that’s leading the polls.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

    That day will never come, thank God. I’m sure glad our best candidate is actually Obama, instead.

    That may well be the case, emmy, but how’re you gonna get all them cracker redneck dems in the South to vote for him?

  • MCH

    I can only cast one vote, Clavvy…My own. Am not gonna worry about something else I have no control over.

  • STM

    While the Democrats have only two touted candidates, Hillary and Obama, there won’t be a democrat president. Unless someone else throws their hat in the ring, it’s a given that they’ll be defeated – Hillary is wishy-washy and a woman and Obama is wishy-washy and black (and not, as many African-Americans have pointed out, a “real” African-American).

    The wishy-washy bit might not be that important in the final wash-up, as many of the democrats’ policies seem wish-washy to me, but in a conservative country like America the other two factors are of vital importance.

    I have spoken to some supposed pundits who, in defence of both, say there is always a “first time”. I say: that time ain’t now.

  • Dr Dreadful

    Actually Mitt Romney is our best candidate.

    Not if you listen to Silas (comment #13)…

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/clavos Clavos

    MCH,

    So, he’s not going to get the nomination even, much less elected…

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    Hillary Rodham Clinton – Most people dislike her. Is the female version of a cuckold. Has legs so thick, she doesn’t have ankles.

    Barack Hussein Obama – Half-Black empty suit who pretends to be full-Black. Gets “nervous” in debates surrounded by other liberal Democrats, in front of a crowd full of liberal Democrats, and with a liberal Democrat moderator. Gets angry at liberal Democrat columnists who poke fun at his ears.

    Joe Biden – Thinks he’s brilliant, but commits more gaffes than anyone else in the world, ever, because he can’t shut his giant fucking mouth.

    John Edwards – Talks about the plight of poor people while living in a mansion and getting $400.00 haircuts. Spends his time campaigning while his wife slowly dies.

    Yeah, I’m thinking the GOP (Rudy, McCain, Romney, Fred Thompson, Tommy Thompson, whoever) wins in 2008.

  • Arch Conservative

    Not if you listen to Silas (comment #13)…”

    Yeah and I’m sure I should have listened to Silas when he was telling us how badly Kerry would beat Bush in 2004?

    I think the Democrats are pinning their hopes on the 2008 election being a referendum on bush and the war. They’re going to be in for a big surprise. That was last year’s election.

    It’s back to the drawing board now and most people are not going to view the GOP candidates (with the exception of possibly Mccain) as an extension of the Bush administration.

    The last Democrat that got elected, slick willie, did so by running as a moderate. None of the current crop of Dems are believable as moderates.

    And if Hillary wins the Dem nomination a GOP white house until 2012 is guaranteed. And I will be posting this very notion every time the subject of that fat socialist cow or the election is brought up on BC right up until election day at which point I will open up a can of “I TOLD YOU SO!” for all of you doubting motherfuckers claiming Hillary will be our next president.

  • Dr Dreadful

    I think the Democrats are pinning their hopes on the 2008 election being a referendum on bush and the war. They’re going to be in for a big surprise. That was last year’s election.

    It’s back to the drawing board now and most people are not going to view the GOP candidates (with the exception of possibly Mccain) as an extension of the Bush administration.

    As long as Bush keeps stubbornly disregarding public opinion and Congressional Republicans continue to blindly back him up, you’re dead wrong.

    As for the presidential candidates, well, they haven’t had their debate yet, so we’ll wait to see if any of them have the balls to go against the policy of Der Führer.

  • zingzing

    archie: “And if Hillary wins the Dem nomination a GOP white house until 2012 is guaranteed. And I will be posting this very notion every time the subject of that fat socialist cow or the election is brought up on BC right up until election day at which point I will open up a can of “I TOLD YOU SO!” for all of you doubting motherfuckers claiming Hillary will be our next president.”

    ahh, archie. remember when you were going on about how the republicans were going to dominate the 2006 elections? how you were so sure? how your little predictions were proven so, so wrong? how’s it going to feel this time? i remember you were a bit sheepish the last time. didn’t really have much to say about it, now did you? thought we forgot? betting against your predictions is a pretty solid bet. can you gamble on politics? i suppose you can.

    if gore runs, you’re toast. mitt romney WILL NOT be the republican candidate. i can guarantee those two things.

  • R Garcia

    If Hillary is nominated for 2008, ANY GOP CANDIDATE (especially Rudy, but also Thompson, McCain, whoever) wins the 2008 general election. Hillary has the absolute worst pair of qualities for any major candidate– she is intensely disliked by the other party (and many Independents) and would unify them against her, plus she’s thoroughly abhorred even by rank-and-file members of her own party. The Iraq War, Hillary’s pro-corporatist stands, her stupid flag-burning machinations, backstabbing other Democratic candidates (Kerry, Obama) make her persona non grata even among Dems.

    And since Rudy Giuliani is the likely GOP nominee, he’s mainstream enough (i.e., not rabidly and stupidly conservative like Bush) that, with the extra protection of a Democratic Congress to rein in a GOP Presidency’s worst impulses, he’s at least palatable to most Democrats. They’ll only go out to vote for a Democrat against Giuliani, if that Dem really has not just broad buy very profound, rooted support– and Hillary ain’t that candidate.

    I’d say in fact that Giuliani beats most Dem candidates, except for possibly Obama and Edwards, who would indeed have a strong shot against him, in part due to the depth of support they have among the Democratic base and in part to their perceived affability– they don’t raise tempers the way Hillary does. (Gore would rule, especially as environmental issues are finally so de rigueur, but he’s not running– I think he’s sincere about that.)

    The Dems have to step away from the name recognition infatuation and realize who has the strongest support and prospects over the long haul. Obama and Edwards are much better picks, and they’re the only ones who have a fighting chance to beat Giuliani.