[Newsbot]

<strong>Filibuster Cartoon</strong>
<strong>Title: </strong> <a href="http://www.filibustercartoons.com/archive.php?id=20070122" target="_blank">Cheshire Cat </a> (click to view)
<strong>Date: </strong> January 22, 2007

Hillary Clinton officially announced her bid to become President of the United States yesterday. It surprised no one, except maybe me. I naively assumed she was serious when she used to go around saying she had \"no intention\" of running in 2008. <br> <br>Regardless, her announcement comes mere days after Sen. Barak Obama announced HIS candidacy. The mega-popular African-American senator from Illinois is currently considered Hillary\'s chief rival for the Democratic nomination. In another time and place Obama\'s lack of experience- he\'s only been a Senator for two years- would be considered a considerable handicap. However Ms. Clinton remains such a polarizing figure it\'s likely he\'ll be able to get by on popularity alone. If he does win the nomination it will be because he will have emerged as the most credible \"anyone but Hillary\" candidate.

[Voyager]

When I went to the grocery tonight, there was some little girl out front handing out fliers and asking everyone to vote for Hillary.

Can't we at least wait for the primaries to start, please?

[Kjorteo]

The primaries are over a year off, which is forever in politics. One year ago, John McCain was invincible. Now, the "McCain Doctrine" has put him in "Iraq better be over by the elections or he's in serious trouble" status.

I seriously cannot stand Hillary, and it depresses me that she's running. If she gets the nomination, I'm voting third party.

Obama? He seems like a cool guy, but I really don't like his lack of experience. I mean, not only has only been a Senator for less than one term, but he beat Alan Keyes to get that term. His superstar status mostly stems from how massive his landslide victory was, like, "holy crap, who's this fresh new face that crushes his opposition?" But come on, Alan Keyes! I'm sorry, but I could beat Alan Keyes in a general election. So, not only is he new at his job, but he's never even been in a remotely competitive election before, making all the buzz about him seem fraudulent to me. Last time we ignored someone's credentials to run him on "He seems like a cool guy" status, we got George W. Bush. No thank you.

Bill Richardson is in, now, though. Now that's exciting. He's got all kinds of credentials, and I live in the state he's been governing this whole time, and he seems like he knows how to run things. He's definitely my pick for now, ignoring the "one year is forever in politics" unpredictability.

That is, of course, unless Gary Johnson decides to run. Holy hot damn, I would be in on that.

[Rhoffman]

Agreed, Richardson is really the only Democratic candidate that I support at the moment. If Obama actually delivers some substance, then maybe I'll be pulled over to his side. In the meantime though, I'll be pimping the Richardson name at my home in Illinois and in college in Indiana.

And as for Hilary, whoop-de-do. While Obama has an impressive two year Senate record of doing nothing, Hilary has a whopping six years of doing nothing aside from the occasional reactionary attack against video games and music that only drag her down further in my eyes.

[USCAdad]

Ron Paul, but's that's way too optomistic to think it will ever come to anything. The best would probably be that he goes out with Arny and tries to influence the rest of the field. Still, I can dream.

[Psudo]

Unlike most Republicans, I desperately hope Hillary gets the Democrat nomination. This is because I'm extremely confident that she cannot win the election.

Obama hasn't been around long enough for me to form an opinion on him. Talk radio and other conservative pundits have already labeled him as a Clintonite from the order of Bill and, thus, the devil incarnate. I think there is an important difference: Bill Clinton cynically used "Third Way" rhetoric to get elected, whereas Obama seems to actually believe it.

But seeing as how I'm a registered Republican in a state that is irrelevant to Democratic primaries, my opinion doesn't matter a whole lot.

[Kjorteo]

Psudo wrote:

Unlike most Republicans, I desperately hope Hillary gets the Democrat nomination. This is because I'm extremely confident that she cannot win the election.

Interesting. That's kind of how I feel about Sam Brownback, although I'll admit it's a huge gamble, because holy crap, just the mere thought of President Brownback is keeping me up at night more than a year before the primaries even start.

[JJ]

A while back Newsweek had a cover story about Hillary and Obama, with the caption going something like "they're the ones to beat, but is America ready for either one?"

What does it mean when the media keeps making a big fuss over whether or not Americans are "ready" for a black / woman president?

[Rhoffman]

That the media is a bunch of behind-the-times, sensationalist morons?

And Psudo, there's actually a large number of Republicans that are already planning to strategically vote for Clinton in open primary states for that very same reason you just mentioned. I've said this once, I'll say it again: if nominated, Hilary will not even win the state of Illinois unless she's up against someone like Brownback. She is simply not electable so long as the GOP doesn't nominate an uber-conservative.

[Kjorteo]

I think it's unfortunate that minority status is playing such a huge part of evaulating the candidates. With those two and now Bill Richardson in the mix, it's being billed as the first woman vs. the first black vs. the first hispanic. The problem is that I feel like my ability to complain about any of them without sounding like I'm "not ready" for whatever group they represent is threatened. Like I said earlier, I have no faith in Obama because all he ever did was win an election that was practically uncontested, and he hasn't even finished the one term that the Republicans were nice enough to hand to him. Hillary I cannot stand because she's made terrible policy decisions--she was surprisingly hawkish regarding the whole Iraq thing, and she and Lieberman are almost solely responsible for the fuss over violent video games. I like Richardson so far because, having lived in New Mexico under his rule, he seems to more or less know how to govern. Some of his earlier actions (the Wen Ho Lee thing, vetoing eminent domain reform) give me pause, but he's at least the best of the three until Obama can come up with some convincing credentials.

Note how I didn't mention race or gender in any of those evaluations.

That's me, though. There are definitely racist and sexist people still alive and well in large enough voting blocs that headlines like that actually make sense, especially in the south. In Tennessee, Bob Corker managed to sink Harold Ford Jr. at the last second with a subtly racist ad that actually worked. Karl Rove destroyed John McCain in the 2000 primaries with the "illegitimate black baby" trick. The truth is that when the stakes are as high as an American Presidential election, people on all sides are afraid to take any risk, any risk whatsoever. Hell, I remember in the 2000 Bush v. Gore debates, Gore caused some minor controversy by wearing a blue tie instead of the traditional red with his otherwise-identical clone suit. (It has since been alleged that, in hindsight, the media pretty much had it in for Gore and pounced in just about everything the man did or did not do, but even still.)

Rhoffman wrote:

I've said this once, I'll say it again: if nominated, Hilary will not even win the state of Illinois unless she's up against someone like Brownback. She is simply not electable so long as the GOP doesn't nominate an uber-conservative.

Which they actually might. It's always been true that, due to the fact that only the most eager members of the party itself participate in primaries, candidates will veer sharply toward the extremes to get nominated, then try as hard as they can to steer back toward the middle in time to get elected. However, nowhere is this more true than in the modern Republican party, where uber-hawk arch-conservatives like John McCain (ratings if you don't believe he merits me calling him that, courtesy of Electoral-Vote.com: ADA: 0%; AFL-CIO: 14%; Chamber of Commerce: 72%; Christian Coalition: 83%; NAACP: 5%; NARAL: 0%; NOW: 0%; Nat. Taxpayers Union: 78%) are considered unlikely to make it past the base due to still not being uber-hawkish and arch-conservative enough, leading the nomination open to a crazy guy like Brownback.

BTW, I recommend http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2007/P ... races.html if you haven't read it already. Very good food for thought for this discussion, with the possible exception of still treating Al Gore and Condoleezza Rice (who have each done everything short of making the "If elected, I will not serve" speech) as possible candidates.

[ejacksonian]

Well, I just want to point out that, if it weren't for the Iraq War, the next President would probably have been a Republican. If you look at what party wins the Presidency more often ever since 1968, it's the Republican Party. In fact, ever since 1968, the only Democrat ever to serve two terms was Bill Clinton.

However, if Bush insists on staying in Iraq, it would be politically damaging to his parties prospects of regaining the House and the Presidency.

[Psudo]

Rhoffman wrote:

JJ wrote:

What does it mean when the media keeps making a big fuss over whether or not Americans are "ready" for a black / woman president?

That the media is a bunch of behind-the-times, sensationalist morons?

I could not agree more. They think the great unwashed masses are ignorant bigots, which (ironically) is bigotry in itself.

Kjorteo wrote:

all [Obama] ever did was win an election that was practically uncontested

Was the primary contested? Just curious.

Kjorteo wrote:

There are definitely racist and sexist people still alive and well in large enough voting blocs that headlines like that actually make sense, especially in the south.

So you're not prejudiced by race or gender, but those southerners are a bunch of bigoted hicks? Heh heh heh.

John McCain lost the 2000 primaries because conservatives (myself included) don't trust him to stick to what we believe is right. In the Republican party, conservatives have a lot of sway. As for the Bimbo Ad, please! Race isn't mentioned, he did attend a playboy party, and he did take money from porn movie producers. Only a bored imagination thinks social conservatives voted against him because he's black rather than because he's affiliated (however loosely) with the sex industry.

Racism (except as an accusation) is increasingly marginalized as a political tactic, especially at the national level. I doubt it'll have a significant effect on the 2008 outcome, even if it's a black Republican woman vs. a white Democrat male.

Kjorteo wrote:

...uber-hawk arch-conservatives like John McCain (ratings if you don't believe he merits me calling him that: DA: 0%; AFL-CIO: 14%; Chamber of Commerce: 72%; Christian Coalition: 83%; NAACP: 5%; NARAL: 0%; NOW: 0%; Nat. Taxpayers Union: 78%)

It's all relative. The ACU rates him as the least conservative (eg, the most moderate) of the 2008 potential Republican candidates. Three possible candidates have perfect 100% scores for 2005, whereas McCain has 80%, and the most conservative Democrat has 20%.

There simply aren't enough centrists in the USA to demand a centrist candidate; pandering to polarization is the best way to get elected for both sides. McCain and Lieberman are about as moderate as it's gonna get. The massive size and lack of overlap between the parties' respective bases is why third parties and independent candidates have so little chance.

I think one uniquely USAmerican trait is that the parties vote along party lines more because of parallel ideology than because of party loyalty. Lieberman, Jeffords, etc. are perfectly willing to dump their parties in favor of their ideologies. I love that. Screw party loyalty.

[Tylahedras]

You know what would be cool? If Condi and Hilary went at it, not going to happen, but it would still be awesome.

Personally I hate Hillary, and I agree with what most are saying, she cannot win against any white catholic the republicans care to put up. (All that video games nonsense just drives me nuts.)

Obama I tend to disagree with the posters of this thread on. Most of you say you won't vote for him if he doesn't establish a platform, but it's his lack of political history (and probably his race) which makes him such a difficult political person to attack. He's also got flair, which counts for a lot more then being a stickler to your political ideals (Bill being the best former example of that).

Still the best choice for the Dems would be what it's always been, a white male, that just gives you the best statistical voter base. (Although it will probably be a Mexican male soon enough) I am not at all sure the country is "ready" for it's first black president, honestly it probably depends more on the candidate then anything else.

I would venture to guess that it really will be either Obama or Hillary from the Democrats, and they had best hope it's Obama, he's the only shot they have.

[Pitchfork]

Psudo wrote:

Was the primary contested?

There were multiple players in the Democratic primary, and Obama's victory there was helped by a dose of luck.
The Democrats vying for the Senate seat in Illinois were Obama, Blair Hull (a millionaire businessman who financed much of his own campaign) and Dan Hynes, the state comptroller. For most of the race, Hull was in the lead. Then about a month before the primary journalists started digging around and found out that his ex-wife had once sought a restraining order against him and she had once accused him of beating her. No charges were ever filed though.
Hull's campaign imploded after that news broke. Obama was a state Senator from a Chicago constituency, and I don't think anyone outside Chicago had ever heard of the guy. I live downstate and I know I hadn't. The Chicago vote is huge though, and Obama won the primary with a respectable but not overwhelming 52% of the vote, mostly fueled by a huge lead in the Cook County returns.

[Psudo]

Pitchfork seems to prove what everyone has been saying anyway: Obama's success is due to a lack of faults, not an abundance of virtues.

On the other hand, if I ever run for office I'll look pretty similar. I have no contacts with anyone, really, so I'll have proverbially appeared out of thin air. So if I complain about him too much and decide I want to go into politics later, it may just come back to bite me. =]