<p>Here’s the thing about the “I would never vote for” theme. You really have to wait until you have two real candidates to consider.</p>
<p>For example, I have said many times that I would never vote for John Edwards. However, truth be told, if I’m faced with the choice of John Edwards and the prospect of a Republican alternative committed to staying in Iraq, doubling Gitmo, increasing torture, attacking Latinos, defunding education, and appointing more Alitos to the Supreme Court, I’m going to vote for John Edwards.</p>
<p>It isn’t one of those elections where there aren’t clear differences.</p>
<p>First question, first presidential debate 2008:</p>
<p>Mr. Giuliani, when you were Mayor of New York City you were warned before you appointed him police commissioner that Bernard Kerik had financial dealings to people that were involved in organized crime, and even thought you were warned about his ties to the mob, you went ahead and appointed Mr Kerik New York City Police Commissioner. Later you urged President Bush to make Mr. Kerik the head of the US Homeland Security agency. </p>
<p>Can you explain for us why you would give such important law enforcement responsibilities to a man with highly questionable ties to organized crime and whom we now know took over $165,000 worth of free construction work on his home from people with ties to the mob?</p>
<p>interesteddad, your perspective about voting for a candidate you don’t care for to prevent the continuation of horrific policies is rational. However, historically this isn’t the way enough people think. Many people who would have voted for McGovern or Kennedy simply did not vote for Humphrey because they didn’t like him even though they hated the Viet Nam war and he had to be the better candidate for their politics. That’s how Nixon won according to a PBS special I just watched, anyway! And there were certainly clear differences then, too.</p>
<p>I voted for Clinton that way. A million people dead, half of them children, and the BIG LIE of 1998 that paved the way for the Iraq invasion and hostile occuaption, WTO and millions of Central Americans kicked off their lands and crossing U.S. borders later, I can hardly call that a rational strategy, or perhaps it is that this kind of rationality is not really rationality at all, but rationalization masquerading as such.</p>
<p>Of course, the flaw in your logic is that the sanctions against Iraq were put in place by Clinton’s opponent in the 1992 election. Given that Sadaam later tried to assasinate him, I rather suspect that George H. W. Bush would not have agreed to an early presidential summit (without preconditions) with Sadaam Hussein. </p>
<p>Iraq aside, there are many measures of a presidency and it is hard to argue that the Clinton administration was all bad. You have to also consider Supreme Court nominations, health coverage for millions of low income children, a successful effort to stop genocide in Bosnia, fiscal responsibility, and a generally positive image of the United States in most of the world.</p>
<p>Having said that, I can certainly agree (from personal experience) that we all would like a do-over on a Presidential vote somewhere along the line.</p>
<p>An Allstar cast? The is line between wishful thinking and reality. </p>
<p>As far as I am concerned, I see nothing deserving the term allstar in this group. Of course, the YMCA loves to distribute all kinds of allstar trophies to anyone who participate, making it a and oversued trivial term. </p>
<p>And, fwiw, isn’t it telling that a pompous has-been with a checkered career filled with dubious claims could be the front runner the moment he’d enter the race. And that is the best the country has to offer? </p>
<p>Yes. But, that was the opposite situation. The Democrats were the Party of ownership for a horribly unpopular war, which was splitting the party and the country. That is not the situation in 2008. The Iraq war is a Republican war. The Republican candidates are unanimously in favor of a continuation of the Bush/Cheney war. The Democrats are unanimously in favor of redeploying combat forces out of Iraq at a rapid clip. Two of them (Clinton and Obama) both voted to stop funding immediately when they voted against the supplemental appropriations bill. The front runner has submitted a new bill in the Senate to revoke the authorization for military force in Iraq effective October 2007.</p>
<p>I completely agree with posters who remind us that not every voter feels compelled to vote for the lesser of 2 “evils.” What tends to happen in so many of these elections, nationally and locally, is that a lesser evil who is a major turnoff results in no vote, period. Republicans have won many elections that way, given that dems just love to shoot themselves in the foot (and/or only listen to party hacks instead of actual voters). Probably dems have won some elections that way, too. This is an attrition strategy, which is extremely high risk, very unscientific, very unpredictable. (Hence, scary.)</p>
<p>This is why, again, early polling 16 months before an election, can be an exercise in self-deception. I would never trust poll numbers that didn’t exclusively poll voters who vote in every election, for the top offices, regardless of who is running. (And even then, we don’t how honest those claims of 100% participation would be.)</p>
<p>All star using James Carvelle’s definition: political figures who can walk into a room and instantly raise the temperature.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m no fan of Al Gore. However, combating global warming polls off the charts with the American electorate. Used appropriately, as a Democratic spokesman for this issue, Gore can be very effective in the general election. IMO, Gore and Obama could both be used to drive the youth vote, which breaks overwhelmingly Democratic.</p>
<p>It is hard to argue that Gore is not a major figure. It is hard to argue that Hillary Clinton is not a major figure. It is hard to argue that Bill Clinton is not a major figure. It is hard to argue that Barack Obama isn’t a major symbol of “hope” and “change”.</p>
<p>Look at the alternatives. Who are the Republicans going to put on the road in support of their candidate? Dick Cheney? Newt Gingrich? Scooter Libby? Alberto Gonzolez? John McCain? Condoleeza Rice? David Vitter?</p>
<p>“Of course, the flaw in your logic is that the sanctions against Iraq were put in place by Clinton’s opponent in the 1992 election.”</p>
<p>False, as usual. Walker put NO sanctions on medical equipment, medical supplies, antibiotics, or wastewater treatment equipment. None. Zippo. The Europeans, who basically ceded Clinton authority to interpret the sanctions, were appalled when they found out, and some were about to file genocide charges in the World Court.</p>
<p>"Iraq aside, there are many measures of a presidency and it is hard to argue that the Clinton administration was all bad.'</p>
<p>True. I would say the same of Idi Amin, who was responsible for far, far fewer deaths. And, no, I don’t really believe we’d be in Iraq today if it wasn’t for the Big Lie of 1998, and the “slam dunk” condition it created. </p>
<p>And I don’t believe we’d have millions of Central Americans streaming across the border, either. And I don’t believe we’d have anywhere near the degree of global warming. That’s all the benefit of hindsight, of course - I voted for the mass murderer (maybe you didn’t).</p>
<p>I won’t vote for his wife until I know the role she played in the Big Lie of 1998 (I suspect strongly that she was in on it, or there wouldn’t be any reason not to apologize for her 2002 vote.)</p>
<p>Thanks Daddy-O… Half our family lives in Ohio and we’ve been back plenty–going through your neighborhood quite a bit actually. I love SM.</p>
<p>I agree that Edwards doesn’t have the war chest but I’m not at all convinced that anyone else could take Ohio or Florida. What were the early polling numbers on those states for Gore? Forget Kerry.</p>
<p>If it’s just the war chest that matters, then I see a Guiliani -Clinton matchup. That will be highly entertaining–but will the Obama supporters go to Guiliani?
Hmmmm.</p>
<p>Mathmom…just curious. You are a professional female NY resident–can you articulate why you are not a fan of HC?</p>
In that case, it’s perplexing that you could wonder at assessments that Ohio is trending Blue.</p>
<p>I think Giuliani may have piqued too early. His support is a mile wide and a foot deep. I don’t know if the poll showing “None of the Above” is accurate but there’s certainly not a lot of enthusiasm in the GOP about their choices right now.</p>
<p>While there may be major figures, isn’t it a stretch to believe that a common message and agenda would come out of their respective mouth? Same stretch for using Gore appropriately as a Democratic spokesman for the issue of combating global warming. There is a world of difference between giving lectures to a pre-screened audience or producing a soft-science movie and having to account for a dismal record on the … same issue when in a position of power. Gore is nothing but a chameleon who reinvents himself according to focus groups. After taking a seat next to Clinton, he did virtually nothing for the environment during his reign, except for counting the copies sold of Earth in the Balance and watch the slow destruction of a number of US companies that had great hope that the Ozone Man would lift a finger. He didn’t! </p>
<p>I agree that Obama might provide a symbol of “hope” and “change”. How this translates into a successful message is another issue, and especially when the message will have to tote a uniform party line in support of someone … else.</p>
I like her, I just don’t love her. I think she’s done a good job. I think she genuinely tries to reach across the aisle, but some of her moves like the flag burning bill are clearly just pandering. I was cross with her from taking the job from Nita Lowey who had earned it, but that’s water under the bridge now. I’ve never understood why she didn’t say she regrets her Iraq vote.</p>
I’ve seen a pretty good set of numbers of various sorts out of Ohio in the past year. I’d make book on HC carrying Ohio right now…and I could probably get odds. Nothing is certain, of course, many a slip between cup and lip, but I’d rather have her numbers than any Republican’s.</p>