is this the best the dems can offer...

[jazkiljok]

hillary or obama? between smooth tongue and the sharp one--- is there any alternative? hillary acts as if she's entitled to the throne (much like gore and all family members named bush)--obama is riding a wave of gush cause he can string a cohesive statement together that actually sounds thought out. clinton thinks hubby's past daliances should net her his full out support to give her the billy boy glow to push her thru to the nomination.

but heck, what have either of these two really have to offer besides their massive egos?

are there any other viable candidates out there?

or-- do the dem sided folks here like the choice these two present?

 

[Jonathan Randall]

I'm temporarily allied with the Democrats (I'm an Independent Moderate Conservative) because I think that, in power, at least, the Republican Party, and the Bush Administration in particular, are doing too much damage to our beloved Republic to remain unchecked.

That being said:

Anybody BUT Hillary!

She's as bad, or worse, than Bush in so many ways. If anything, her nomination will help deliver a Republican victory in '08 - which would be catostrophic for the national health (Deficits, War, Expansion of Federal Power, etc.). I do think, though, that she's seriously underestimated most Democrats (temporary or not) anger at her.

 

[tellner]

I'm a Progressive Democrat shading towards Socialist, far to Left of the current Democratic Party. The thing that I dislike most about Mrs. Clinton is her lack of courage. She represents New York State. She's had a fair amount of time in the Senate. She has shown absolutely no initiative. She hasn't spoken out. She hasn't taken the lead. What she is most notable for is what her staff calls "triangulating" - figuring out the safest possible position and adopting Republican policies such as the Iraq War and anti-choice legislation if it looks like she is heading towards controversy.

Obama doesn't have much experience at the Federal level. That makes him unfit, so say Clinton and the Republicans, to be President. Of course, when it was candidates Clinton, Dukakis, Carter, George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan they were Washington Outsiders

 

[Don Roley]

She has shown absolutely no initiative. She hasn't spoken out. She hasn't taken the lead. What she is most notable for is what her staff calls "triangulating" - figuring out the safest possible position and adopting Republican policies such as the Iraq War and anti-choice legislation if it looks like she is heading towards controversy.

Which seems to be the best way to get elected. Clinton seems very good at being a politician. That is to say, in getting elected. Her policies, etc are another matter. I honestly think that is she were elected, America would be set back a century as she has shown a tendancy to put her own career over any other consideration. If she knows that "Policy A" is what is needed due to a lot of things only she as president is aware of, but the vast majority of the populace thinks it is bad, then as long as it does not blow up on her watch you can expect her to avoid doing the right thing.

Jonathan and I are on the same side yet again, even though we are worlds apart in politics.

 

[michaeledward]

In no particular order:

• Congressman Dennis Kucinich
• Former Senator John Edwards
• Senator Jospeh Biden
• Senator Christopher Dodd
• Former Governor Tom Vilsack
• Governor William Richardson
• Senator Barack Obama
• Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton

I believe the United States Constitution demands that the President of the United States meet two qualification; be of 35 years of age when sworn into office, and to be a natuarl born United States Citizen. Each of the candidates listed above meet those criteria, and are therefore equally capable and viable of serving.

Members of the Democratic Party will get to decide who they believe is the best choice. As Mr. Stewart said, that is the process we follow in this country.

Jazkiljok, is there a reason you are tearing down Democratic candidates so early? You never struck me as a partisan Republican, why do their work for them?

 

[Monadnock]

In no particular order:

• Congressman Dennis Kucinich
• Former Senator John Edwards
• Senator Jospeh Biden
• Senator Christopher Dodd
• Former Governor Tom Vilsack
• Governor William Richardson
• Senator Barack Obama
• Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton

I believe the United States Constitution demands that the President of the United States meet two qualification; be of 35 years of age when sworn into office, and to be a natuarl born United States Citizen. Each of the candidates listed above meet those criteria, and are therefore equally capable and viable of serving.

Members of the Democratic Party will get to decide who they believe is the best choice. As Mr. Stewart said, that is the process we follow in this country.

Jazkiljok, is there a reason you are tearing down Democratic candidates so early? You never struck me as a partisan Republican, why do their work for them?

Which one of those people is going to rush right in and restore everything the Patriot Act has violated?

What new laws are we going to see in this congress' first 100 days that will attempt to change the path of the war in Iraq, or show that the Democratic party will not just as quickly trample our rights?

So far, I've seen a minimum wage increase, and talk on (restricting) gun rights.

 

[michaeledward]

Which one of those people is going to rush right in and restore everything the Patriot Act has violated?

What new laws are we going to see in this congress' first 100 days that will attempt to change the path of the war in Iraq, or show that the Democratic party will not just as quickly trample our rights?

So far, I've seen a minimum wage increase, and talk on (restricting) gun rights.

I'm certain that you are aware that under the United States Constitution, the Congress writes the laws. The selection for candidates for President has no bearing on the items you mention, unless it is to violate the Constitution with so called 'signing statements'.

For you and I ... we can hope that Representative Hodes is going to restore the system of government given us by Mssrs. Jefferson, Adams, Hamiliton, and Washington.

 

[Monadnock]

I'm certain that you are aware that under the United States Constitution, the Congress writes the laws. The selection for candidates for President has no bearing on the items you mention, unless it is to violate the Constitution with so called 'signing statements'.

For you and I ... we can hope that Representative Hodes is going to restore the system of government given us by Mssrs. Jefferson, Adams, Hamiliton, and Washington.

Well, the congress writes the bills, and the Prez signs it into law. We also both know who presses for these bills to be developed in committee. We both know that no change will be pressed for, so the answer to my own question was "none of them."

What we can expect should the unimaginable happen, is more socailist practices.

 

[theletch1]

Jazkiljok, is there a reason you are tearing down Democratic candidates so early? You never struck me as a partisan Republican, why do their work for them?

At what point does expressing his dislike/distrust of a couple of potential candidates become being a partisan republican? Just once I'd like to see an honest political discussion wherein someone could express an opinion that didn't mirror the "party line" and not have to deal with the immediate accusation that they were being partisan. I'm not happy with the idea of McCain or Giuliani taking the Whitehouse for various reasons but that doesn't make me a partisan Dem. Jazkiljok put forth his concerns about two individual candidates. He didn't refer to them in such a way that he believed that all dems would devastate the political process. Relax.

I don't usually post in the study but that immediate accusation of being partisan touched a nerve. I'll leave it to the rest of you to continue the debates and give me plenty to think about in the almost two years between now and the election.

 

[Mariachi Joe]

I'm a Progressive Democrat shading towards Socialist, far to Left of the current Democratic Party. The thing that I dislike most about Mrs. Clinton is her lack of courage. She represents New York State. She's had a fair amount of time in the Senate. She has shown absolutely no initiative. She hasn't spoken out. She hasn't taken the lead. What she is most notable for is what her staff calls "triangulating" - figuring out the safest possible position and adopting Republican policies such as the Iraq War and anti-choice legislation if it looks like she is heading towards controversy.

Obama doesn't have much experience at the Federal level. That makes him unfit, so say Clinton and the Republicans, to be President. Of course, when it was candidates Clinton, Dukakis, Carter, George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan they were Washington Outsiders

To be fair though Ronald Reagan, Michael Dukakis, Bill Clinton and GW Bush were governers for longer than Obama's been in the Senate and had more experience than he has. I think it's kind of premature for Obama to have presidential ambitions when he has not even served one full term as Senator. Just my two cents though.

 

[jazkiljok]

In no particular order:

Jazkiljok, is there a reason you are tearing down Democratic candidates so early? You never struck me as a partisan Republican, why do their work for them?

i'm not partisan any party. which i guess, is not to hard to figure.

example-- I was no fan of dick nixon (though i did appreciate some of his political skills)-- but he was near insane in the white house. i couldn't believe the reconstructing of that dullard Ford, cause he was a nonentity on all fronts.. but because of that nonentity- we ended up with jimmy carter. As a president-- he was a train wreck. i voted for reagan (shocked?)-- and still don't know what to make of his presidency and all its oddities-- but one thing is for sure, i was at poverty level when he came in-- i was doing damn good in life by the time he left.

we don't get great choices for prez as recent history has shown-- Ford vs Carter, Reagan vs Carter, Reagan vs Mondale, Dukakis vs Bush 1, Bill vs Bob, Bush 2 vs Gore.

All my favorite left leaning news source have referred to these choices as "pulling the lever for the least evil and then throwing up"-- but that's getting old for some of us.

so, by taking a shot this early on at the two that the press are pouring an unfair amount of coverage on, i'm hoping a fairly well informed individual such as yourself, will put some Dem names out there that i'm not as familiar with as i need to be.

• Senator Christopher Dodd
• Former Governor Tom Vilsack
• Governor William Richardson

I know little about these guys.. but i'm going to learn about them real quick-- thank you.

that said-- i ain't against having some moderate republican who openly challenges this current idiot-regime's policies, prove he's worth my vote. i just want to now hear more about quality and experienced individuals who can lead this country while there's time to study up on them.

 

[elder999]

To be fair though Ronald Reagan, Michael Dukakis, Bill Clinton and GW Bush were governers for longer than Obama's been in the Senate and had more experience than he has. I think it's kind of premature for Obama to have presidential ambitions when he has not even served one full term as Senator. Just my two cents though.

Lincoln served in the Illinois legislature, one term as a Congressman and unsuccessfully ran for Senate before being elected President.

 

[michaeledward]

At what point does expressing his dislike/distrust of a couple of potential candidates become being a partisan republican? Just once I'd like to see an honest political discussion wherein someone could express an opinion that didn't mirror the "party line" and not have to deal with the immediate accusation that they were being partisan. I'm not happy with the idea of McCain or Giuliani taking the Whitehouse for various reasons but that doesn't make me a partisan Dem. Jazkiljok put forth his concerns about two individual candidates. He didn't refer to them in such a way that he believed that all dems would devastate the political process. Relax.

I don't usually post in the study but that immediate accusation of being partisan touched a nerve. I'll leave it to the rest of you to continue the debates and give me plenty to think about in the almost two years between now and the election.

I think there is enough difficulty in the climate where Democratic positions are confligrated with Socialist positions to get a fair hearing. Refering Senator Clinton as "Hillary" is absolutely a partisan way of demonstrating a lack of respect for the person and candidate. It may be that the subversiveness has penetrated the collective conciousness already.

It is much in the same way 'Democrat' slanders the 'Democratic' party. You see, I saw the very first post in this thread as 'partisan'. Perhaps you are not observing as carefully as I.

I notice you did not refer to either Senator McCain as 'John' or former Mayor Guiliani as 'Rudy'. Why do you suppose that is?

And, framing the argument in the negative, does the work of partisan politics. Jazkiljok could have instead talked about what ideals he would like to see in a possible candidate.

If I started talking about Senator McCain as unfit for President because of the possibility he was brainwashed during the five years in a Communist POW camp, or claiming Mayor Guiliani was unfit because of his infidelities and cancers, it would be fair to question my assumptions based on a 'partisan position'.

 

[FearlessFreep]

Oh relax

"Refering Senator Clinton as "Hillary" is absolutely a partisan way of demonstrating a lack of respect for the person and candidate."

People often pick up singlar namess a way of referring to them when it's understood that people willknow who you are talking about. Everyone knows who "Obama" is and how "Hillary" is and who "Dubya" is and who "Leno" is and who "Kobe" is. Referring to someone by a publically recognizable nickname is not disrespect; it's just convenience

"You see, I saw the very first post in this thread as 'partisan'. Perhaps you are not observing as carefully as I. "

Not knowing his posting history or following his politics (nor caring) I took as more a democrat complaining that the two candidates from the Democratic party getting the most ink these days are not palatable to him. I gues sit depends on how fast one rises to the defensivee

 

[Monadnock]

Well, maybe we should fully qualify Senator Obama's name. That is, Senator Barack Hussein Obama.

 

[michaeledward]

Well, maybe we should fully qualify Senator Obama's name. That is, Senator Barack Hussein Obama.

Imagine the Audacity ... his parents game him a middle name; The Horror!
Hey, that makes him, kinda like me. I've got a middle name too. Michael Edward Atkinson.

Now, forty five years ago, the name Hussein meant what exactly? Oh, yeah, the same it means today 'good, small, handsome'. And today, it is used as a smear, by the smear merchants.

I imagine that 'Timothy' is seldom used name, because of what Mr. McVeigh did, right? http://www.thinkbabynames.com/search.php?g=1&t=1&s=Timothy ... oops, guess not.

It is nice to see the honorific use of his title. That is a practice to be expanded, I think.

 

[searcher]

It does not matter who the Dems put up as long as it is not Hillary. I am a very strict conservative. I cannot imagine having her as a President. I won't go as far as the Baldwins and say I would move out of the country, but it would be very tempting.

 

[jazkiljok]

:xtrmshock

he's kenyan american. his name shouldn't be an issue to anyone. it's silly as the stuff they threw at newt gingrich when he enter the political arena.

don't get goofy folks.

 

[The Master]

Interestingly quaint attitudes.

I highly doubt anyone has anything to worry about. The United States is not yet ready for either a female or non-white president. A nation still fixated on such things as gender, pigment, religion or orientation isn't enlightened enough to move beyond it's own prejudices and infantilism's. Proof is the focus on Obama's name, it's simularity to America's forgotten Public Enemy #1, and his heritage or Clinton's husbands strange use of cigars.

The next president will be just like the last few.
Wealthy, male and rest assured, white.

 

[shesulsa]

The next president will be just like the last few.
Wealthy, male and rest assured, white.

... don't forget old ... oh, and a legacy ... oh, and a puppet ... oh, and chin-deep in the power industry ... oh, and with baggage he will condemn in others ... oh, and .....:wink1:

Hopefully the next one will be able to speak ... and not make up words ... and pronunskiate things correctamundo. :barf: