Clinton v Rice?

[Fairweather]

I think it will be Clinton vs McCain, but what if it's .......

 

[iain]

no matter who wins, we lose.

[TREETOAD]

How about someone from Europe maybe France

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I think it will be Clinton vs McCain, but what if it's .......

 

McCain is too old.

[Dave_Schuldt]

CAT FIGHT!

[foraker]

One might argue that the left won't nominate Clinton simply because they can't afford to alienate swing voters from the right. That's just a guess. Long way to go until then though and still plenty of opportunities for potential candidates to stomp out their brains by inserting foot in mouth. Americans have also shown themselves interested in voting for candidates that they feel 'comfortable' with...someone you like on a personal level, disregarding their politics. My gut reaction is that there are sufficient groups on either side who dislike both of them personally to make either candidacy untenable. Either that or they will both need major makeovers (no pun intended).

 

It also depends on too many factors like how the economy is doing by then, how the war goes, what kind of platforms both articulate and how that does with 'focus groups', etc. And we can't forget the seeming inability of the Democrats to yield a fighting candidate with vision. To be honest, I'd really love to see a real spirited contest full of great ideas, winner take all kind of affair, but I expect more of the same timid platforms meant to cater to everyone and to no one and lots of mud slinging.

Edited October 11, 2005 by foraker

[cj001f]

McCain is too old.

He's 2 years older than Reagan was, so he's no Thurmond.

[ChrisT]

Americans have also shown themselves interested in voting for candidates that they feel 'comfortable' with...someone you like on a personal level, disregarding their politics. My gut reaction is that there are sufficient groups on either side who dislike both of them personally to make either candidacy untenable. Either that or they will both need major makeovers (no pun intended).

 

 

I think your view is a bit cynical. What if there is sufficient groups who *do* feel comfortable with Clinton and I count myself among them. You automatically assume that everyone in America hates her.

 

As for Condi it's an obvious tactic by Republicans to woo black voters. I'd rather see Colin Powell.

[foraker]

Maybe it is. BTW, your extrapolation about my assumption is false. You took what I said and expanded it into something I did not say. Try reading it again. I did not say 'everyone in America hates her'. I said, there MAY be sufficient groups on either side to preclude the candidacy of either one.

[ChrisT]

yeah and there may be sufficient groups to include either one. The glass is half full from my end.

[Stefan]

I think it will be Clinton vs McCain, but what if it's .......

 

I think you are right....but this country will not vote in a woman.

 

Rice. No way. First this country needs a black man to accept as president before it accepts a black woman.

 

That's just culture. Sick. But true.

 

P.S. people are getting more and more tired of this Iraq thing and Rice is too connected to it.

[ChrisT]

Powell was the only with the balls to oppose the war...well to at least question it anyway.

[selkirk]

A glass that's only half-full will end up in the same results as the last election with the country almost perfectly divided between the candidates. Hillary may have the capacity to be a great president but I don't think she's electable. She comes across as intelligent, well-spoken, cold, and a little high-society, most of the democrats will probably find her completely palatable, but she won't pull any swing votes at all. She'll have the same problem, Kerry and Gore did. She only appeals to the democratic base and that isn't enough to really win the election, she lacks the "homey" feel that Bill had. Condi on the other hand has a reputation like a pit bull. She'll get the core republican vote anyway unless some Libertarian-esque Ross Perot type candidat shows up, and the simple fact that she's a black woman will pull a certain number of swing votes regardless of her politics. That match-up ends in probably 60% Condi 40% Clinton and another Rebuplican Pres. for 4 years.

[ChrisT]

I believe Clinton to be more human than you think. She hooked me with "It takes a village..." and her concern for children, something that I think could hook other mothers as well. Granted, I don't support all her ideas, mainly her willingness to send more troops to Iraq or her recent drift to the center.

[foraker]

If she can be inspiring, I agree she has a chance. I'd have to see her platform though and how they intend on implementing it. The tendency to drift to the center is not surprising if you need the other side in order to get even part of your agenda through Congress (unless you control Congress with enough votes too).

 

As for her sending troops to Iraq, you can look at this in a number of ways. One is, she realizes we can't pull out until we stabilize thus we need more troops to do that as quickly as possible (whether or not you agree with that is something else). By doing so, she deflects any future criticism that, as commander in chief, she would not be willing to use the military if need be. Again, you may not like that per se but it is important to a significant number of people.

[selkirk]

It's not that she's not human, it's just the vibe she sends out. Look at the last few presidents.... GW, Clinton, Reagan, Carter all had that relatively "homey" you'd invite them to your house for a BBQ feel to them. Then the ones who were eloquent and thoughfull to boot cleaned up the elections (Reagan, and Clinton). I honestly believe that perception of someone you can relate to is necessary for a portion of the population to vote for a candidate. While look at the recent candidate that lost Mondale, Kerry, Gore, Dole, Dukakis. A different portion of the middle seems to need a candidate who is thoughtful, and well spoken and willing to consider issues from other veiwpoints (and these people end up leaning towards Dem.)

 

The only anomaly was Bush Senior, but he was running against Dukakis, and was the VP as well. They both lacked that "homey" feel and GW's met was thoughtfull and well spoken enough to pull part of the middle that usually leans democratic. Then he got his ass handed to him by Clinton who was incredibly eloquent but still had the right feel to pull the republican leaning middle.

 

The bases vote part line, but it's the middle right now that swing the election and 1/2 seem to need that "homey" feel, and 1/2 need the assurance that the candidate will look at problems from their perspective and can eloquently express their positions to explain any apparent discontinuties.

[ChrisT]

If son of Bush can get himself elected, why is it so hard to imagine wife of Clinton getting elected? Hollywood is already on the bandwagon with "Commander in Chief". Americans will watch this show and start believing that a woman really can lead the US. TV is the great brainwasher.

[selkirk]

Son of a Bush just barely got elected twice in a row, with the country so split it was incredible. Depending on who Clinton is up against, but the best I think she can hope for is %50 of the popular and electoral votes, give or take just enough that it might be a toss up. If it's Condi, McCain, or Powell, she's sunk though. If they do something stupid like Frist, or Cheney, or one of the harder line Rep. she'd have a chance though. The Rep.'s would really have an awfully bad candidate for her to be assured a win.

 

P.S. I'd vote for and think she'd probably do a great job. I just don't think she's electable unluckily. Primarly because I don't think most people really vote on issues or platforms, but on feelings and impressions.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Powell was the only with the balls to oppose the war...well to at least question it anyway.

 

Like when he went before the UN?

[TrogdortheBurninator]

Rice

VS

Risotto

 

Edited October 11, 2005 by TrogdortheBurninator