Iowa Caucus

Dartzap · Post by **Dartzap** » 2008-01-04 02:13pm

I know this is a fairly cynical thing to say but a thought has struck me: Obama has been praised for his great speeches and smooth talking. Do you know who that reminds me of? A Mr. Tony Blair, 11 years ago during his campaign against a hated right wing party.

For the love of all things sane, lets just hope he doesn't head down a similar path that Blair did.

Xisiqomelir · Post by **Xisiqomelir** » 2008-01-04 02:42pm

Dartzap wrote:For the love of all things sane, lets just hope he doesn't head down a similar path that Blair did.

The lack of a Peter Mandelson analogue gives me hope. Audacious hope.

Guardsman Bass · Post by **Guardsman Bass** » 2008-01-04 06:11pm

So Biden dropped out. You know, I was thinking - do you think there's a chance that Obama would pull Biden as his VP candidate? Biden has the "plagiarism" scandal, true, but he's also got plenty of foreign policy experience and political experience in general - which Obama lacks.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2008-01-04 06:19pm

Guardsman Bass wrote:So Biden dropped out. You know, I was thinking - do you think there's a chance that Obama would pull Biden as his VP candidate? Biden has the "plagiarism" scandal, true, but he's also got plenty of foreign policy experience and political experience in general - which Obama lacks.

Well Biden thinks Obama is definately a very clean looking, well spoken black man, so there's always that chance.

I think it would likely be Edwards or Richardson that would be his VP pick. I lean more towards Edwards as I think he would help offset the "minority" factor. I can't imagine Hillary agreeing to be VP. I think she'd rather stay in the Senate and eventually become majority leader.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2008-01-04 06:25pm

I still say Obama's perfect VP is Mike Bloomberg. Once you have a republican as your VP you have a chance of building a government out of the best people available rather than the best politically qualified.

Of course for succession reasons Bloomberg might need to become independent, rather than stay on as a republican, least some hicks get an even better reason to try and kill a possible black President, but aside from that, bringing in someone so strong on economics and with a broad appel would put him way over the top.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2008-01-04 06:28pm

Of course for succession reasons Bloomberg might need to become independent, rather than stay on as a republican, least some hicks get an even better reason to try and kill a possible black President, but aside from that, bringing in someone so strong on economics and with a broad appel would put him way over the top.

Bloomberg is already an Independent. He was only ever a Republican because it was easier to win the NYC Republican primary than the Democratic one.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2008-01-04 06:56pm

Fuck that. Obama-Richardson.

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2008-01-04 07:22pm

Obama Richardson is my ideal candiadte from an ideas and goals perspective and he could certianly help Obama take Florida which basically destroys any credible threat of a Republican victory (they havn't won a Presidency without Florida since1924 if CNN is to be believed).

Fingolfin_Noldor · Post by **Fingolfin_Noldor** » 2008-01-04 08:02pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Fuck that. Obama-Richardson.

Seconded. Richardson seems to be among the most serious persons who actually attempts to address environmental and energy issues. The guy's a born civil servant.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2008-01-04 08:37pm

I think he'd be better suited for Secretary of State than moldering away in the Senate waiting for tie votes.

Jack Bauer · Post by **Jack Bauer** » 2008-01-04 08:43pm

I believe this qualifies for an "ICE BURN"

"This room was, until about five or six minutes ago, completely empty. This is a manufactured 'celebration.' It really felt more like a funeral as people started strolling in from upstairs where they had obviously been gathered. This is unlike anything that I've ever seen, a completely empty, dirge-like event."

-- NBC's Andrea Mitchell, on Sen. Hillary Clinton's speech after the Iowa caucuses

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2008-01-04 09:02pm

I really do hope Hillary fails, because I really don't like her. The only thing worse than Hillary Clinton would be all of the Republican candidates.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2008-01-04 10:50pm

Guardsman Bass wrote:So Biden dropped out. You know, I was thinking - do you think there's a chance that Obama would pull Biden as his VP candidate? Biden has the "plagiarism" scandal, true, but he's also got plenty of foreign policy experience and political experience in general - which Obama lacks.

I'd doubt an Obama/Biden ticket would fly. For a start, Biden really doesn't have anything to offer the Obama campaign that it needs and political experience he can get anywhere with a better running mate who has actual electoral assets to bring to the table. And as a running mate, Biden would be as much of a drag as any Republican who'd have been stupid enough to sign on Harold Stassen in the role. Having a string of failed presidential campaigns on the record doesn't exactly make you look like you're worth anything politically.

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2008-01-04 11:46pm

Patrick Degan wrote:
Guardsman Bass wrote:So Biden dropped out. You know, I was thinking - do you think there's a chance that Obama would pull Biden as his VP candidate? Biden has the "plagiarism" scandal, true, but he's also got plenty of foreign policy experience and political experience in general - which Obama lacks.
I'd doubt an Obama/Biden ticket would fly. For a start, Biden really doesn't have anything to offer the Obama campaign that it needs and political experience he can get anywhere with a better running mate who has actual electoral assets to bring to the table. And as a running mate, Biden would be as much of a drag as any Republican who'd have been stupid enough to sign on Harold Stassen in the role. Having a string of failed presidential campaigns on the record doesn't exactly make you look like you're worth anything politically.

Which is not to say that Biden couldn't serve in a useful role in an Obama Presidency. Certainly himself or possibly Dodd would be more than capable in any one of a half dozen foreign policy/defense related posts that (if Obama gets the democrats nod) Obama could announce he intends to bring onboard. In that role either or both of the two would certainly be an asset to a general election campaign by Obama.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2008-01-04 11:57pm

Darth Wong wrote:I really do hope Hillary fails, because I really don't like her. The only thing worse than Hillary Clinton would be all of the Republican candidates.

Yeah, I've grown to really dislike her. She's basically Lieberman.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2008-01-05 02:11am

Flagg wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:I really do hope Hillary fails, because I really don't like her. The only thing worse than Hillary Clinton would be all of the Republican candidates.
Yeah, I've grown to really dislike her. She's basically Lieberman.

She's not even that principled.
Lieberman at least looked the voters in the metaphorical eye and said "I'm voting for GWB's Iraq policy, and this is why", and didn't retreat from it when it would have been politically expedient to do so.

HRC leaves me with the impression that there's nothing she wouldn't bend on if she thought it'd win her the Presidency.
Hell, if she thought the gun people would fall for it, you'd eee Hillary wearing camo and using a borrowed shotgun to shoot pheasants.
Or is that peasants.

I'm no fan of Obama, but he doesn't give off that 'corrupt opportunist' vibe Hillary does.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2008-01-05 02:17am

Glocksman wrote:
Flagg wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:I really do hope Hillary fails, because I really don't like her. The only thing worse than Hillary Clinton would be all of the Republican candidates.
Yeah, I've grown to really dislike her. She's basically Lieberman.
She's not even that principled.
Lieberman at least looked the voters in the metaphorical eye and said "I'm voting for GWB's Iraq policy, and this is why", and didn't retreat from it when it would have been politically expedient to do so.

HRC leaves me with the impression that there's nothing she wouldn't bend on if she thought it'd win her the Presidency.
Hell, if she thought the gun people would fall for it, you'd eee Hillary wearing camo and using a borrowed shotgun to shoot pheasants.
Or is that peasants.

I'm no fan of Obama, but he doesn't give off that 'corrupt opportunist' vibe Hillary does.

Hillary is just from the old school "stay in power at all costs" brand of politics. Lieberman is the exact same way. The pigfucker gets the boot in his own parties primary so he goes "independant" and now votes with the Republicans all the fucking time while keeping his chairmanships. The guy should have done the honest thing and gone Republican, but he knew he couldn't stay in power that way. And there are enough democratic asshats of the same breed in the Senate that are perfectly willing to let him off the hook.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2008-01-05 02:26am

But he got the boot because he wouldn't say 'I was mistaken when I supported the President and I've learned my lesson'.
The point is Hillary has ducked the issue as much as she can compared to Joe Lieberman's standing firm.

And don't think I'm a Lieberman fan or a neocon.
I'm not, but at least Joe's shown that he wouldn't retreat from something he believes in (no matter how mistaken, in the case of Iraq), whereas Hillary, even if she believed in it 100%, would equivocate at best, and thrice deny it at worst.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2008-01-05 08:52am

Glocksman wrote:But he got the boot because he wouldn't say 'I was mistaken when I supported the President and I've learned my lesson'.
The point is Hillary has ducked the issue as much as she can compared to Joe Lieberman's standing firm.

And don't think I'm a Lieberman fan or a neocon.
I'm not, but at least Joe's shown that he wouldn't retreat from something he believes in (no matter how mistaken, in the case of Iraq), whereas Hillary, even if she believed in it 100%, would equivocate at best, and thrice deny it at worst.

Their not elected to do what they want based on their beliefs or feelings. Their supposed to represent the will of their constituents, their position should be the position of the represenative. I don't understand why people give points to a government flunky based on how they stick to their guns, even though their wrong.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2008-01-05 11:09am

Their supposed to represent the will of their constituents, their position should be the position of the represenative.

Considering Lieberman handily beat Lamont in the general election, I think its hard to say he doesn't represent Connecticut.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2008-01-05 11:16am

HemlockGrey wrote:
Considering Lieberman handily beat Lamont in the general election, I think its hard to say he doesn't represent Connecticut.

That may be true for a great many issues, I can't claim to have great knowledge of each states views. But Iraq has turned into a giant clusterfuck with proven evidence that the cause for war was fabricated. To refuse to acknowledge that you were wrong in supporting it and continue to support it is just stupid.

brianeyci · Post by **brianeyci** » 2008-01-05 11:17am

There's different kinds of sticking to your guns.

I think people give points to a politician based on how they stick to their guns because there's too many politicians out there who change their minds to go with whatever they think the people want. Case in point, religious nutjobs are a minority but everybody is fawning over them to get the few percentage points edge since that's how first past the post works: plus one is enough.

Changing your mind because the majority of people want something and changing your mind to get a small advantage is a big difference, the latter not representing the constituents at all but special interests. I don't know many politicians who rule by opinion poll, but I do know of many politicians who change their minds for a small advantage that gives them the ballot but betrays their base, knowing their base has little other choices.

Obama should get points for sticking to his guns about torture, War in Iraq and habeus corpus because he saw it when very few people (and still few people) do see it, and judgment is the hallmark of leadership.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2008-01-05 11:25am

brianeyci wrote:There's different kinds of sticking to your guns.

I think people give points to a politician based on how they stick to their guns because there's too many politicians out there who change their minds to go with whatever they think the people want. Case in point, religious nutjobs are a minority but everybody is fawning over them to get the few percentage points edge since that's how first past the post works: plus one is enough.

Changing your mind because the majority of people want something and changing your mind to get a small advantage is a big difference, the latter not representing the constituents at all but special interests. I don't know many politicians who rule by opinion poll, but I do know of many politicians who change their minds for a small advantage that gives them the ballot but betrays their base, knowing their base has little other choices.

Obama should get points for sticking to his guns about torture, War in Iraq and habeus corpus because he saw it when very few people (and still few people) do see it, and judgment is the hallmark of leadership.

Exactly, you explained it far better than I could.

wautd · Post by **wautd** » 2008-01-05 12:57pm

Is it me or are the current republican candidates even worse than Bush?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2008-01-05 01:01pm

wautd wrote:Is it me or are the current republican candidates even worse than Bush?

Huckabee is even more of a fundie nutbar than Bush. Giuliani is even more of a war whore and 9/11 exploiter than Bush. Romney has even more corruption and contempt for individual liberties than Bush. It seems to me like they Republican front-runners have each taken one aspect of Bush's personality and exaggerated it to form their campaign strategy. And if they were to all combine into one, you would get ... GIANT ROBOT MEGA-BUSH!!! FORM BLAZING SWORD!!!!!