<p>So now that the race has started to get crowded, are there any posters who have selected a candidate to support in the primaries, someone that you feel good about?</p>
<p>I don’t bother selecting one candidate to support in the primaries until spring of election year. Living in a state with a late primary, I have found that my favorite candidate has usually dropped out by the time I get to vote. :(</p>
<p>Little too early to be pickin’ horses, IMO.</p>
<p>I heard a wonderful speech by James Carvelle on the upcoming election cycle. He was giddy (in a way only Carvelle can be) about the number of high-power candidates entering the race and the sheer sport of it all. He rattled off Clinton, Obama, Gore, McCain, Guiliani, and others, pointing out that any one of them could walk in and instantly change the temperature of the room. They all have a larger than life pesonality. He then went on to describe the next tier of candidates (Edwards, Romney, etc.) as “not exactly chopped liver” – candidates that are certainly plausible Presidential timber.</p>
<p>He also pointed out that he’s been there for the primary grind. Been cold. Been wet. Been hungry. Been sore. Been exhausted beyond belief. And that he knows how that experience leads to candidates making mistakes, thus ensuring plenty of twists and turns as primary season cranks up. He surmised (correctly IMHO) that McCain’s ‘suffer no fools’ personality puts him at heightened risk of losing his cool somewhere along the way and making a campaign gaffe.</p>
<p>It is difficult to imagine a scenario where the Democrats don’t ultimately field a Clinton/Obama ticket. Even though his candidacy makes the primaries more difficult for Clinton, the energy he stimulates in the race will be a benefit in the general election. The challenge for both candidates will be to stick to general election themes in the primaries and not visibly attack each other. I’m sure they both understand that attacking the other is, to a large degree, attacking part of their own core constituencies. That will make for an interesting dynamic.</p>
<p>On the Republican side, I honestly don’t know how McCain can campaign on a platform of escalating the war in Iraq. That may play in some hard core primary states, but it’s suicide in the general election. The country has voiced its views on Iraq as unambiguously as any issue I can recall.</p>
<p>Interestedad, depending on how things play out, I could definitely see a Clinton/Richardson ticket. I think that would be entirely plausible. As far as Iraq, I think that’s an open question, too. Bush was re-elected because many people saw the alternative candidate as not going to be tough on safety issues. That could happen again, too, depending on who the democratic candidate is. I think it is absolutely true that this is a stellar field and I think that’s just wonderful.</p>
<p>I sent Richardson a donation this morning. I really am not fond of Hilary, although I’d vote for her before I’d vote Republican. I like Richardson’s credentials.</p>
<p>DMD, obviously Richardson isn’t my party, but I think he’s a super candidate and is completely qualified to be President. I’d also love to see no more Clintons in the White House.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>He was very fortunate that the election came around before the grace period on Iraq had run out and that the Democrats nominated a truly horrible candidate.</p>
<p>IMO, Iraq is a millstone hanging from the Republicans’ neck. I’ve never seen public opinion turn so comprehensively against a policy in such a short period of time.</p>
<p>The problem with trying to rehabilitate the policy is that voters know that they were sold a bill of goods with the WMD justification for the Iraq invasion.</p>
<p>Just put my “Barack Obama for President” bumper sticker on the mini-van this morning. Read both his books, watched the speech at the DNC couple of years ago, like the guy, like his values, trust him. </p>
<p>I like Edwards, too. And Hillary… I could warm up to her, I guess. Though people are making good points about dynasties.</p>
<p>I like Mitt Romney or Guiliani.</p>
<p>I like Newt, but I’ll support my party’s nominee. </p>
<p>As I said, however, I do think that Richardson is qualified, suited and possesses the gravitas for the office.</p>
<p>My choice for President: Colin Powell.</p>
<p>Oops, not running…</p>
<p>But there are lots of people in the race I would be happy with. Of course, after the current administration, Alfred E. Newman would look great in comparison.</p>
<p>My slight favorite is John Edwards, but I think he’ll be overshadowed by the others.</p>
<p>I am all out for Giuliani. Newt Gingrich won’t get enough attention (sadly), I don’t know enough about Sen. Brownback, I don’t agree with Sen. McCain, and I think Sen. Obama (who barely has any senatorial experience except being a media darling), is just a ploy for Hillary Clinton, who will soon choose him for VP. </p>
<p>If only Sen. Obama would tell us what he actually thinks regarding the issues America is facing today, instead of expecting us to vote for him because he gives good speeches, or because puts his Chicago Bears hat on and says “GO BEARS!” on national television like some kind of buffoon, or because people in Kenya like him so much. That has little to do with real America. I’m even saying this from someone who lives in his hometown, Chicago, and as A CHICAGO BEARS FAN. I am not so easily swayed Sen. Obama. You have to convince me that you are not just drawing the masses toward electing the Sith Lord Hillary Clinton into office. </p>
<p>I’ll even vote for John Edwards over the Dark Side.</p>
<p>I just thought of something really funny. If Hillary Clinton gets elected, then will Bill Clinton be…first man?? That’s like an all-expenses paid, one-way trip to the intern capital of the nation, with absolutely no political liability whatsoever. Will Bill get to wear a pink sash on inauguration day? The horrible thoughts continue.</p>
<p>here you go toky…</p>
<p><a href=“http://billforfirstlady.com/home.php[/url]”>http://billforfirstlady.com/home.php</a></p>
<p>If Hilary gets elected, Bill will have played a major and visible role in the campaign and will have a major and visible role in a Clinton administration. Probably a ‘special projects’ guy – Middle East peace negotiations, etc.</p>
<p>If Al Gore hadn’t been so stupid in distancing himself from Clinton on the campaign trail, he probably would be President today.</p>
<p>I’m not trying to start a fight here, but I gotta ask if people who like his policies really think he is electable? That is . . . among the female gender. I didn’t know his history with women till someone on a news panel about this election declared he was unelectable because of it. The iconic story about telling his wife as she recovered from cancer surgery that he was dumping her, no contact with his daughter, then pursuing charges against that philanderer Clinton as he (Gingrich) was cheating on second wife with another woman! (Them’s the stories, anyway.) </p>
<p>I just wonder if he’s worth anyone throwing their weight behind. I know I try to overlook personal bad behavior if someone is on the right side of the issues, but isn’t this over the top for most?</p>
<p>Wow, that really is something…<a href=“http://billforfirstlady.com/home.php[/url]”>http://billforfirstlady.com/home.php</a> . I just said those things about Bill as First Man off the top of my head. I guess that proves that if you have an idea, chances are on the internet somebody already made a website with merchandise about it.</p>
<p>I had wondered why Bush made Cheney VP. Don’t get me wrong. I understand that Cheney was instrumental in organizing the Bush White House.</p>
<p>But I think his health problems and his termperment probably make him ill-suited to be President, which is why no one ever brought up his name. Why not have a VP who would be a serious Presidential contender in '08? I don’t get it.</p>
<p>Just for you, ZM: Clinton/Obama, Clinton/Obama, Obama/?, Obama/?, Clinton (Chelsea)/?, Clinton (Chelsea?)/?..unto the seventh generation.</p>
<p>Fwiw, I think Obama is probably the only candidate who can foil Clinton getting the nomination. Not because he’s got a great track record–it’s painfully thin–but he’s the only one who can run the irregular emotional campaign. Against the conventional campaigns, including Edwards, Hillary will be like the Wehrmacht slicing through Poland. It’s even money whether Richardson is a plausible candidate through even January 2008.</p>
<p>I still can’t puzzle out the Republican side, though I’d love to see a Hillary-Gingrich campaign…would buy a front-row ticket, I would I would.</p>
<p>
Interestingly, after the vice-presidential debates in 2000, the pundits were scratching their heads wondering why Cheney and Lieberman were just vice presidential candidates and not the presidential candidates for their respective parties. They both exhibited the “gravitas” that was missing in both Bush and Gore.</p>