The Presidential Race

So what does everyone think of what's happening with the candidates so far?

I really want to listen to the recent 2-hour Democratic debate on National Public Radio:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...toryId=16843353

I haven't made the time to catch-up with it yet.

Right now, I'm leaning towards either Barack Obama or John Edwards. They seem much more concerned with the issues I'm thinking about, and have some interesting solutions to current problems. Each has his drawbacks, but I think we'd do pretty well with either. I need to do some more research before I throw my hat in the ring with either one.


I'm a little concerned with Mike Huckabee gaining ground on the Republican side, since he seems to have such a socially conservative agenda.

I have been keeping an eye on John Edwards, but I'm afraid he doesn't have the star power attached like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have. And we know that here in America, star power is so important (at least to a great many folks).

And concern about Huckabee is valid. He is so draconian, and will drag us back out of our well earned social progress.

It is so funny to see Barack getting any attention. He is a one term senator. Since when is that qualified to run the country. I can't think of anyone with less experience except the current president. Gov of Texas is really on top of world events.

I have to say that I don't see a front runner for my vote at this time. That might be good, might be bad. The race is wide open and that has got to be somewhat good for the American people. I don't know if I can take another 11 months of this though - I am sick of it already!

QUOTE (Callmemiki @ Dec 11 2007, 06:25 AM)

I have been keeping an eye on John Edwards, but I'm afraid he doesn't have the star power attached like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have.  And we know that here in America, star power is so important (at least to a great many folks).

What's interesting about Edwards' situation is that polling is showing that he would win the general election by the biggest margin of any of the Democratic nominees. Of course, much will change, but what makes him a getter of only 14% of his party's opinion and a landslide of the public opinion?

Joe, I've got the same thoughts about Obama, though he always seems to manage to strike a non-partisan feel better than the other Democratic contenders, something that I feel is important in the next term even if from a totally factual standpoint, Hillary Clinton is more centrist than everyone else.

If we didn't have to play this stupid Hillary Clinton is the devil game, I'd favor her because she's shown how savvy she can be when the chips are down, has won over conservative districts in upstate New York by explaining their issues back to them better than they could, and can be inhumanly ruthless when needed.

Did you know she was chosen as one of the top 25 tough guys of our time by Men's Journal magazine? I believe that she was picked for that honor before too the article I just linked to. I don't remember if it was the same magazine or another one, but the editorial on it read something like, "before you think we're making fun of Hillary Clinton, just ask yourself one question, 'Would you want to mess with her?'"

On the other side of the coin, I could have lived with John McCain... but then he suddenly became the best friend of all the fundies that he had scorned as kooks before he made this most recent run to be president.

Well, this is fun. It looks like the fiscal conservative vs. the social conservative fight is breaking out into a free for all.

Here's a very entertaining thread on RedState.com:
http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/...k_conservatives

There are people so dismayed by Huckabee that they're threatening their follow Red Staters that they'd sooner vote for Hillary.

More Fun:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_...ight-and-r.html

Rich Lowry (National Review Online):
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjJiZ...2YwZjdjNzliMDg=

QUOTE (Kathleen @ Dec 13 2007, 09:11 AM)

I don't know if I can take another 11 months of this though - I am sick of it already!

I completely agree -- I've been counting down the days til 1/29/2009 for quite some time now. My calendar reads "Bush leaves office =) Not soon enough!!! =("

My friend is president of the Young Democrats club at Stanford. He loves Hillary because as he so eloquently puts it, "She can kick my butt!" I am a big Bill fan so I have to back Hillary.

And as far as Obama not having much experience, that is one of the reasons he's so appealing -- people don't want business as usual. If Hillary were not running, I'd probably vote for him. Either way, it looks like we're either going to have our first female pres or our first black one -- and either way is fine by me. Barack is very likable. Is it just me or does his wife totally look like Condi Rice? It's probably not my business but I would feel bad to see his young daughters be bullied by the media if he is elected.

This post has been edited by mobyfan on Dec 22 2007, 12:02 AM

From every experience in politics, you can't change things from the outside. You have to bridge these changes a little at a time. Can Barack really effect anything when Bill ran into such violent resistance when he won decisively and had his popularity? We can't afford another lost session. We need change from within.

Do you think Hillary or Barack can promote change? The senate and the house will listen to her. Only problem is she is the first ever female. That is why Hillary is so scary to many americans. She is even more liberal than her husband. Barack can't sway his fellow senators now. If he was so passionate about change, show me his legislation and influence while in office. With Hillary you at least get a two for one: Bill and his experience with Hillary and her zealousness (is that a word). Edwards has the right idea and would make a great vice president but he has only slightly more experience than Barack and he is talking from a wealthy liberal point of view. He needs more experience in world politics. Does anyone doubt Hillary didn't have first hand experience with every international conflict during Bill's eight year tenure? She probably solved most of the problems.

I think it is time for a female president and we have the best chance NOW!

This post has been edited by techvbjoe on Jan 23 2008, 11:14 AM

In case you didn't know where the top 7 front-runners made their fortunes, this breaks down their net worth.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/12/10/magazines/...eymag/index.htm

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/moneym...ymag/index.html

This article in Business Week says that some long-time Republicans are ditching the party. I've never been a Republican but this quote from the article echoes my sentiments: "Extremists have hijacked the Republican Party," says [Mark] Gould. Republican candidates are trying to make unrealistic demands on our economy by suddenly cracking down on illegal immigrants. The Repubs have also been too slow to act on global warming.

For more on how immigration reform is affecting Arizona, read this CNN story, Illegal immigrants packing up and leaving Arizona.

It frustrates me that there are too many apathetic and disenchanted Americans. I think it's all the more reason people need to get educated, involved, and vote but then again, I certainly don't want ignorant people voting. I still remember being mad that I wasn't old enough to vote for Bill Clinton in November 1992. I turned 18 five months later, and registered to vote as soon as I could. My parents are citizens but don't vote, so I didn't get it from them but I've always felt voting was something important and I wanted my voice to be heard.

This post has been edited by mobyfan on Dec 23 2007, 06:00 PM

Buy your Bush's Last Day clock here, http://www.bushslastday.com/.

I have to say the race is getting interesting! What does everyone think? I am terrible but I don't know who to believe (I really don't think there are any honest politicians out there) or who is worthy of my vote.

I heard on the news the other night about two border patrol officers in Texas (or one of the other states bordering Mexico) who were jailed on firearm charges (mandatory 10 years) for shooting at someone trying to cross the border (who also happened to be smuggling drugs)!

Good grief - isn't preventing illegals from coming in what these folks are SUPPOSED to do? The illegal was given immunity in exchange for testifying against the officers. Since their convictions, this illegal has since been caught AGAIN trying to smuggle drugs in to the U.S. and was finally arrested but the officers remain in prison.

Our current President chose not to do anything about this. Why they were ever prosecuted is beyond my understanding.

Who of the candidates could reverse this miscarriage of justice? Who would actually do something to secure our borders? Who isn't already being backed by organizations supporting this type of injustice?

That is an insane story, Kathleen. I agree, the charges make no sense.

While we are talking election, what does everyone think of the propositions on the ballot? Most of the propaganda and editorials I've seen say to vote Yes on all of them, but I'm still confused. The argument is that many of them are casino-related props sponsored by the California Indian Gaming monopoly. Their thinking is that people will vote No on ballots they don't understand, and they actually want us to vote No.

So we should shoot everyone that is doing something illegal? What a preposterous suggestion. We can't even shoot a murderer. a molester, a nobody that commits a felony unless they pose a threat to the police. Do we shoot people coming over the Canadian border? Of course no drugs come over the Canadian border, right? Or from any of our ports or coastal airports. But those damn mexicans, crossing the border to work for minimum wage or less in sub standard conditions. We hope this isn't the pivotal issue in the upcoming election. Last time a politician made immigration an issue in California they didn't last very long (Garamendi, I believe).

There is over a fifty percent latin population in California. We are not worried about Mexicans working their ass off to make a living. If you want to do their job, I can give you a referral.


This post has been edited by techvbjoe on Jan 17 2008, 08:17 PM

My point on explaining the story isn't that the agents were charged for shooting, it's that they were doing their jobs and they were charged - if it were you or I robbing a bank and those officers shot at us, those officers would be reviewed (standard practice if an officer discharges a firearm) but wouldn't be jailed, and you can be sure we as the ones breaking the law would be in jail.

The election is getting interesting. I am hoping the election isn't centered around race or gender - these are already becoming issues - it would be great if this country could just vote for who they really thought would do the best job. I talked to my nephew, who will be 18 and able to vote in the presidential election, about the whole race / gender thing and he was like "who cares?" - it was great! I asked how he was going to choose who he would vote for and he said he wanted to try and understand where each candidate really stood and then vote for the candidate who best matched his interests and concerns. How refreshing!

Watching the primaries, etc has been wild - the race is wide open for both parties. Stay tuned!

Last comment on the subject because I have seen first hand the prejudice on the border. The border agents are not doing their jobs if they are shooting at people crossing the border. They know that, we know that. Agreed. That used to be the job of Texas Vigilantes until they were arrested and imprisoned. Hell we can't even shoot destructive rodents without permission.

We don't shoot at Cubans on rafts escaping Cuba. We don't shoot the thousands of Asians that cross the Canadian border. We catch them and return them. Why is it okay to shoot Mexicans? We should only shoot when shot at and when we need to defend ourselves. I know we all agree.

This post has been edited by techvbjoe on Jan 19 2008, 11:39 AM

You're right - only shoot when we are shot at!

I for one don't know what to believe in regards to the candidates and how they actually stand on the issues.

Any one know where I can find some factual non-biased information? I have always turned to the League of Women Voters for this info but have found the bay area league to be quite biased (that's okay if that's their deal and you understand their bias when you review the info) - I just want some info from a neutral source. Can anyone help me out here?

I am curious, what did the League of Women voters guess wrong on. I love their recommendations. I have to check to see if I am a man after I see how much we agree. In fact, we should just let the women do all the voting. It would be a better world. No one would be hungry, cold, homeless or sick.... right?

Where the League went wrong is they are leaning far to the conservative side - I want to hear both sides.

Maybe if I just look at the materials I get that perspective but when I attended meetings there is definitely a bias to the conservative. I attended meetings because I wanted to get involved and get people to vote - at this point I am undecided and don't necessarily want to support just one candidate. The League has always been a great way to get involved.

QUOTE (Kathleen @ Jan 18 2008, 07:43 PM)

I am hoping the election isn't centered around race or gender - these are already becoming issues - it would be great if this country could just vote for who they really thought would do the best job.

Well, the recent Clinton dust up comparing Barrack Obama with Jesse Jackson pretty much sealed the deal for me. I'm not casting a primary vote for Billary. I'm sick of this crap.

The Vermont Senator, Patrick Leahy's endorsement of Obama really started to change my mind. Leahy's one of the few politicians that I can honestly feel good about. Dick Cheney hates him, that alone should qualify one as a king of cool, no?

Ted Kennedy endorsing Obama really puts me firmly in the Obama camp. If a policy wonk's policy wonk thinks that this man is ready to be President, that soothes the uncertainly I've felt about Obama's experience.

On the lighter side, I think it was David Brooks (Conservative columnist for NYT, News Hour w/Jim Lehrer) who mentioned that both Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama had Kennedy family endorsements, but he added that Obama had the better Kennedys.

FYI the New York Times Endorses Hillary
"We know that she is capable of both uniting and leading. She is the best choice for the Democratic Party as it tries to regain the White House."

The daughter and son of Robert Kennedy, Kathleen and Robert Jr, said the following:
"As a woman, leader, and person of deep convictions, I believe Hillary Clinton would make the best possible choice for president. She shares so many of the concerns of my father." Also, "We need a leader who is battle-tested, resilient and sure-footed on the shifting landscapes of domestic and foreign policy. Hillary Clinton will move our country forward while promoting its noblest ideals."

You can read the entire piece here:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-...0,1618955.story

I love to hear what Bill says, even more than what Hillary says. Bill can be brutally honest. "It is a fairy tale!" is still my favorite. Bill is right about South Carolina, WHO CARES? To me it was only a test to see if Edwards could come back by winning his birth state. If Jesse Jackson could win it TWICE, and he didn't have a chance in hell of getting the nomination, what DOES that say? So Carolina will vote for ANY viable black man. What is the matter with comparing Obama with Jesse Jackson? Is it an insult? I think Jackson had more political experience than Obama when he ran then and now.

Florida and California will tell all. Don't you think the Latins, women and asians will sweep her in? The news was right in that the Latins had a fondness for the Kennedy's, John and Robert. They were Catholic and represented change in the 60's. Not now. Ted is the second longest tenured Senator behind Robert Byrd of Virginia. What do we think of those two? If there was ever a case for change. Good case for term limits.

We should be uniting to beat the Republicans. One more week. Status:
Hillary up 80 delegates nationally, almost 20% points in the polls in California.

This post has been edited by techvbjoe on Jan 31 2008, 01:37 PM

QUOTE (techvbjoe @ Jan 29 2008, 11:15 AM)

FYI the New York Times Endorses Hillary

I would hope that NY would endorse Hillary -- it would be sad if they didn't. But the Mercury News, SF Chronicle and other professional organizations all seem to endorse Obama. It's a close race. I know Edwards was a long shot but I'm kind of bummed he bowed out. He was actually my second choice, behind Hillary. Almost all of my friends are independent and support Obama. I don't know if they are representative of all Americas though, but I mostly hear a lot of support for Obama. Time will tell.

Barack can be the man after Hillary straightens things out for eight years. When you have California (4 million democratic voters), New York (2 million), and Florida (2 million), I think you should get the nomination. How are you going to win the general election if you could not win those states in the primary. He can win all the Georgias (1 million) and Alabamas (600,000) he wants. They don't add up to one CALI FOR NYE AYE!

I can't believe Hillary can drive White males to vote for Obama. That was the surprise of the election. She must create a few nightmares (you know powerful woman). Women, Latins and surprise, ASIANs came thru big time (4:1) for team Clinton.

This post has been edited by techvbjoe on Feb 6 2008, 10:04 AM

It is very interesting to see the county by county tally. She really smoked him ( 16%). All that wasted money and the outcome was the same. We could have spent that money beating Mc Cain in November.

Our best bet is to get Hillary in so taxes/health care/immigration all start to come together. Same with women. They need Hillary in to represent them.

This post has been edited by techvbjoe on Feb 9 2008, 08:09 AM

QUOTE (techvbjoe @ Feb 6 2008, 08:53 AM)

Barack can be the man after Hillary straightens things out for eight years.

Re: Obama, I agree with Joe and [url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/05/BAM5US1B5.DTL&hw=gavin newsom obama&sn=002&sc=525]Gavin[/url]:

"I believe in his leadership qualities, and I look forward to voting for him," Newsom said.

"In eight years."

The thing about Barack though is his fundraising has kept pace with, and at times exceeded, Hillary's. If that's not a show of support, I don't know what is. I don't really know what to expect until all the votes are in come early November.

This post has been edited by mobyfan on Feb 10 2008, 04:05 PM

I still don't understand, What has Obama done? I had a separate topic going so people could post positive comments on how this man achieved the status as democratic candidate for president. "He moves young people" was the best I got. Obama claims to be in front of political reform but who has that label, Obama or Mc Cain. Who has more experience passing legislation.

Obama wasn't in office when the vote to go to war was made. That is his claim to fame: he was so inexperienced, he didn't get elected until after the major decision of what to do with IRAQ. On that basis, all of us are eligible to be president too. We weren't there and therefore have a clean record since we didn't have to make the educated decision. We might have believed Colin Powell and our intelligence reports also. How many democrats with more experience voted to give the President the power to go to war? It passed both houses.

I am die hard liberal but I would vote for Mc Cain (experienced maverick) before I put a rookie in charge. EVERY OTHER US Senator has more experience than Obama. This is his first term in National Politics and he is not even there learning the ropes. He is running for president. I would have to work for Mc Donalds or any company more than two years before they would let me run the store but we will let this man run the country after a couple partial years in national office.

I need to know something will get done in this next presidential term. We can't go on this way. Too many people are hurting.

This post has been edited by techvbjoe on Feb 14 2008, 10:33 AM

I agree that Obama seems to be high on hype and little on substance. I guess it's just a reflection of our society that someone like him gets people actually excited to vote for the first time in their lives (not my words, but that's what people keep saying about him). I can't for the life of me understand why people never felt the need to vote before. But that is our society. Don't forget that enough Americans elected W. as our prez -- TWICE. As we all know, anything else is a step up but that's not saying much. Maybe the majority of country thinks mediocrity is okay. People are sick of business as usual. If Obama is elected, I can only hope a change really will set us on the right course.

I think I know why W got elected. The religious right willed him in. I had people /neighbors leaving stuff on my porch, calling day and night including family members telling me George was good for the church. They were so afraid of the alternatives and boy were they pretty organized. The church is not fond of McCain so we should not have that happen again. I think with W's two (2?) appointments to Supreme Court the church is pretty happy.

And do you really believe W was elected twice? I don't think he won Florida or the national election the first time.

This post has been edited by techvbjoe on Feb 11 2008, 06:36 AM

Sorry, I meant stole the presidency. But it was a close race, and roughly 50% of the vote went to W. That makes me question the sanity of 50% of Americans.

Here is a very valid point against Obama (not that Joe needs any more, but maybe it will help change other people's minds):

Obama may possess all the intuition of a fortuneteller. But as chair of a Senate subcommittee on Europe, he has never made an official trip to Western Europe (except a one-day stopover in London in August 2005) or held a single policy hearing. He's never faced off with foreign leaders and has no idea what a delicate sparring match diplomacy in the Middle East can be. And at a time in which the United States has gone from sole superpower to global pariah in a mere seven years, these things matter.

The main issue in U.S. foreign policy that the next president will face is repairing our image in the world. But in foreign policy, unlike advertising, image is created through action, not branding.

-From He Could Care Less About Obama's Story

This post has been edited by mobyfan on Feb 13 2008, 03:47 PM