<p>I don’t care how much inside information you claim to have, interesteddad, I don’t think you know the American people, from all of your posts combined on this issue. You seem to be always preaching to a self-selected choir which does not represent the country at large. But again, it scares me, because I think the party regulars very much think this way, too, WHICH IS WHY THEY HAVE SO MUCH DIFFICULTY WINNING THE ELECTIONS THAT THEY SHOULD WIN IN A LANDSLIDE.</p>
<p>I think Hillary needs to show us all that she has passed the steroid test before we claim her a Big League victor. She may have convinced her own team, but I agree with epiphany. I’m not so sure she has convinced the American people.</p>
<p>I can’t think of a recent Presidential election the Democrats should have won in a landslide. It can probably be argued that Gore had a decent chance, but Kerry was doomed from the start running against an incumbent while the country was at war. The strong candidates never even bothered with the 2004 race. Clinton dominated the pollng in the Democratic race throughout the summer of 2003, but didn’t enter the race because she knew that just 2 years in the Senate wasn’t enough seasoning.</p>
<p>The Democrats have been running weak Presidential campaigns. They have been horrible about not anticipating letting the Republicans define them. For example, we already know the Republican theme for the fall, the RNC has been using it over and over:</p>
<p>“Big government, higher taxes, and waving a white flag in the global war on terror.”</p>
<p>Look at the campaigns carefully. Which Democratic candidate(s) have spent five years proactively positioning to deflect that narrative? Edwards is out there touting the fact that his health care plan will cost $120 billion a year and that the “war on terror” is just a bumper sticker. Obama doesn’t even mention retaliation when asked what he would do if Al Queda pulled off a 9/11 attack on his watch and now says that he’s willing to rush into a meeting with Fidel Castro, no preconditions. It’s almost like cartoon characters for the Republicans to shoot at in the general election.</p>
<p>“Clinton dominated the pollng in the Democratic race throughout the summer of 2003, but didn’t enter the race because she knew that just 2 years in the Senate wasn’t enough seasoning.”</p>
<p>Yeah, ok. It had nothing to do with the fact that she knew she had a snowball’s chance in h$ll to win… :rolleyes:</p>
<p>“It can probably be argued that Gore had a decent chance.”</p>
<p>Interesteddad’s Motto: I am the master of understatement (^^) and of overstatement, both. (HRC) </p>
<p>(When I don’t like dealing with small facts – such as how the American voting public differs from the Ivory Tower self-congratulation of party regulars – I merely dismiss these realities.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I say decent, because Gore faced positives and negatives in the race. He was running as a third-term President, which is historically a difficult feat. Offsetting that was the fact that the Clinton administration was pretty popular. However, he also had to figure out how to deal with “the scandel”.</p>
<p>Obviously, Gore had a chance, but it was hardly a landslide setting. I do think that a stronger candidate and campaign could have defeated George W. These elections really are determined by the performance of the candidate and the campaign.</p>
<p>Gore was NOT running as a “third-term President.” Please get your facts straight.</p>
<p>Will you become HRC’s Press Secretary? You’re certainly training in earnest.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Third term president: running to succeed a two-term President from the same party.</p>
<p>It’s historically been an uphill battle. Humphrey in 1968 following Kennedy/Johnson. Ford in 1976 following Nixon. George Bush pulled it off in 1988 following Reagan, but look at the gift the Dems handed him in Dukakis (gotta love a good Swattie, but if he wasn’t a cartoon character liberal Democrat, I don’t know who would be). Gore in 2000 almost pulled it off.</p>
<p>The Republicans would be facing the third term challenge in 2008. Even without the war, it would be an issue.</p>
<p>The country is so evenly split that a pendulum back and forth between the Democrats and the Republicans is almost inevitable. Either party, in power for eight years, will probably get a little too comfortable and entrenched.</p>
<p>I have no idea what the reference to “cartoon character” liberals means.It has been used in more than one post. 
</p>
<p>However, when I think of the cartoon character Cruella DeVille, there is only one candidate that immediately comes to mind. :D</p>
<p>Am I on the right track?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I feel like a spy here. I’m one of those southern state, white, suburban, evangelical, Republican women. :-)</p>
<p>From those I’ve spoken to in my circle, you are certainly right that we don’t like any of our candidates. I think the Republicans could very well end up nominating someone that the evangelicals will not support. I’m not a political junkie, and I don’t know that much about Fred Thompson, but what I do know doesn’t get my hopes up.</p>
<p>I really foresee that a lot of evangelicals will end up voting for a 3rd party candidate this time around. So, maybe there isn’t much for the Democrats to worry about from Nader. We could have spoilers at both ends of the spectrum this time.</p>
<p>For what it’s worth, I remember being impressed with Edwards last time around. I think in a general election he could pull in some formerly Republican voters (not evangelicals, but others).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re cute when you’re naive i-dad.</p>
<p>We don’t have to wait for the election. Congress can deny the administration the blood money for oil right now. But they don’t. They didn’t–even though that would be the smart thing to do in the eyes of the voting public.</p>
<p>Why is that? That is because the entire machine, on both sides of the aisle, does not want to turn Iraq over to the PRC.</p>
<p>And yes, the Chinese would have no problem sending 300,000 nationals into Iraq to put in proper infrastructure. that’s the thing about the Chinese. Problems with local workers? No worries. We’ll send in a couple of hundred thousand to do the work ourselves–and we’ll send in support staff as well. In Tanzania in the 1970s–they sent in their own farmers to grwo the food for the workers buiding the rail line.</p>
<p>Also, dig up a little info on their support for Mugabe and then do the math. The PRC would have no problem throwing millions at which ever bad guy is in charge in Iraq–heck they would throw millions at a couple of different bad guys–as long as they get first dibs on the right to buy oil.</p>
<p>That’s one of the many ways the PRC differs from us. One, they don’t have moral squeamishness when it comes to getting resources for their insatiable economic engine. </p>
<p>Two, they treat their human capital as easily expendable assets. Our nation goes up in anguish over the deaths of 3000 volunteer soldiers. Th Chinese must think that is hilarious.</p>
<p>This is the reason we’re hearing so much equivocation from all the candidates. Why can’t they tell us the truth? Perhaps our prosperous consumer economy and our military dominance is as deeply invested in the ‘global’ economy as China’s. The candidates don’t have the perfect solution. There is no perfect solution. </p>
<p>From an economic, world politics position, the best, imperfect solution is to maintain those eight bases in Iraq for as long as we can hold onto them, a la post-war Germany.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Or, not voting, which would be equally devastating to the Republican’s chances. </p>
<p>I’m reading a book about Karl Rove’s political strategy. The foundation of his strategy is using hot button issues and churches to turn out the evangelical Christian vote. He guided the Republicans’ message so single-mindedly in that direction that he basically wiped out the secular country-club Republicans in the northeast and key border swing states. So a Republican Presidential race without the enthusiastic support of the evangelical base is problematic.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree. The problem is that the strength of his support (white male southern voters) is concentrated in states that the Democrats simply cannot win. It doesn’t really matter if the Democrats lose South Carolina 60% to 40% instead of 65% to 35%.</p>
<p>The other problem is that the campaign platform he has chosen this time around (increased taxes, poverty tours, two-Americas, etc.) is the opposite of the centrist middle-class message that is required to capture the kind of middle-of-the-road voters you describe. I understand why he’s doing it (the only available turf in the Democratic primaries is left of Clinton/Obama), but it is a devastating general election position.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, I think the House overwhelmingly passed an amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill this week that prohibits the funding of permanent bases or US interest in the Iraqi oil fields. Of course, Bush is going to veto it, like every other appropriations bill.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So would we. The problem in Iraq is that there IS no bad-guy in charge to throw money at. It is in the middle of a complete civil war with zero political center. There’s nobody to “throw in” with who can consolidate political control.</p>
<p>I don’t think Hillary will be able to choose Obama (or want to–too much star power) as her vp mate. She needs to be the star (she and Bill, of course). She’ll pick some guy who can fade into the woodwork. Actually, she’ll have to, because of the gender thing.</p>
<p>Your side will overestimate the power of the “evangelicals” in the party, as you always have (and many hysterically so), and when push comes to shove, they’ll go with anybody other than Hillary. And they won’t sit home, either. Yes, education is one of Hillary’s issues, but for those of us on the other side, that’s the main reason many of us will vote against her. We understand her education agenda all too well.</p>
<p>I saw Thompson in an extended interview for the first time on tv last night, and I was way underwhelmed; in fact, turned off completely (and he may not even run). The Republicans will not be stupid enough to nominate him if he does (again you overestimate the power of the evangelicals, and besides he has one divorce under his belt too and his wife doesn’t strike me as an evangelical vote-getter). It’ll be Giuliani.</p>
<p>Giuliani is not Rick Lazio. I can’t wait for a Rudy/Hillary debate. I think he’ll crush her.</p>
<p>My two cents.</p>
<p>While I’m enjoying reading ID’s posts, I have to agree with epiphany’s comment, "I don’t care how much inside information you claim to have, interesteddad, I don’t think you know the American people, from all of your posts combined on this issue . . . " </p>
<p>Can you also give some support that the strength of Edwards’ supporters are “white male southern?” I think you might be wrong about that. For one, he has huge support from women, in large part because of Elizabeth, who gets out and speaks almost as often as he does. </p>
<p>By the way, he is the front runner in Iowa right now, and running 2nd to Clinton in NH. </p>
<p>While I agree that winning SC will be tough for him, I also agree with the above comment, " . . . he could pull in some formerly Republican voters (not evangelicals, but others)." That’s what he can do that Clinton cannot.</p>
<p>I also think that as Obama moves to the background (and he most certainly will), this can only help Edwards.</p>
<p>What a darling, disingenuous bill. </p>
<p>There is no need to fund new bases because we already occupy the eight that we built. In concrete. ■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■
<p>Make up your mind, Mr Dreamer. What do you think is going to happen when we leave Iraq? The guy (or guys) with the biggest…<em>cough</em>… guns is going to step in and establish Stalin-esque control over one or more territories. </p>
<p>Done deal. Could be an Al-Queda operative (they are certainly setting themselves up for that role). Could be an Iranian puppet.</p>
<p>It’s not going to be somebody like Lee Kuan Yew–or Saddam Hussein–someone the US could ‘buy’. We’re desparately trying to prop up a character like that but we can’t find/train one fast enough.</p>
<p>No, if we leave, the next ruler of Iraq will be a version of Mugabe/Hitler. We’re not going to be able to outbid the Chinese when it comes to buying off a Mugabe-type leader. The PRC is earnestly practicing their despot support skills in Africa, with big money and massive human capital. Everyone wonders why. In anticipation of Iraq? Hmmmmm…</p>
<p>Now that you’ve pictured that chess board…add the interests of Israel…just for fun.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, but not right this second. I’ll have to dig up some of the national polling that shows the breakdown (by gender and race) for the various candidates. I’ll get back to you. </p>
<p>Both Obama and Clinton poll stronger with women than men. Edwards polls decidedly stronger with men than women. Obama and Clinton split the black vote, with Edwards out in the cold. The Hispanic/Latino vote breaks overwhelmingly for Clinton. Edwards is strongest with white voters, followed by Obama and Clinton.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Edwards is probably still the front runner in Iowa, but definitely not second in New Hampshire by either of the two major moving averages. In fact, he’s pretty much collapsing in New Hampshire polling:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nh/new_hampshire_democratic_primary-194.html[/url]”>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nh/new_hampshire_democratic_primary-194.html</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I haven’t found anyone knowledgeable about Iraq who even pretends to know the answer to that, other than the likelihood that there will be an intense period of sectarian violence. It’s a tough battle to handicap. The Shia have the numeric edge and would be the presumptive winners. However, which Shia?</p>
<p>The Sunni insurgents are only 20% of the population, but are the best trained, equipped, and organized militarily (it’s really the Sadaamists) and have unlimited financial support from Saudi Arabia.</p>
<p>I don’t think there would be a viable central government for quite some time.</p>
<p>The Al Queda and Iran Puppet themes are a bit overstated, IMO. Iraqis are fiercely Iraqi.</p>
<p>Thanks, ID. I thought I’d read that he was doing well in NH. The last I read he was in 3rd place, and I thought he’d moved up. (Obviously that was wishful thinking.)</p>
<p>By all accounts, though, Edwards has been doing very well with women supporters/voters-- or maybe that’s just spin I’ve been reading. </p>
<p>Again, though, I think he will pick up Obama’s supporters when Obama fades away, and he surely will. As much as I like him, I do think that the more he is out there in these debates, the more readily people will see he doesn’t have (at this point) what it takes. Of course, I thought that about George Bush, too–way back when-- so I’m probably wrong on that score as well.</p>
<p>
Question for Timely (or any other Republican who is feeling “impressed” with Edwards): I’m interested in your view. A lot of Republicans seem to say they are comfortable with Edwards and in polls matching a democrat to Republican, (example Dem vs. Guliani, Dem vs. Thompson) - Edwards consistently does better than Hillary or Obama.</p>
<p>But Edwards politically is farther left/progressive than either Hillary or Obama and is very specific as to his intentions. I’m all for his populism & positions on health care, etc… but I’m curious as to why Republicans seem more comfortable with his strongly articulated progressive views. Is it that you trust him more (preferring a known quantity than a closet liberal?) – or have things gotten so bad with the Bush administration (corruption, Iraq war, etc.) - that even Republicans are feeling attracted to Edwards’ populism? Or is it that the “family values” is important, and simply the fact that Edwards is clearly a family man with a close relationship to his wife & kids - seems to fit better with the Republican idea of who ought to occupy the White House?</p>