What is Wrong with the Democratic Party!?!

[amhersthungboi]

Okay so it's still a year until the primary season begins, so there's hope yet. Nonetheless, let's take a look at the three leading candidates for the Democratic nod ... we have

1.) A Black freshman senator from Chicago whose name CNN has easily (and willfully?) confused with "Osama." Yeah, I can picture your average American yokel saying (With twang in accent): "I ain't votin for no Osama, or Obama, or whoever the fuck he is".

2.) A vice-presidential loser who was basically absent for the second half of his VP campaign who, himself, only served out one term in the Senate.

3.) A White, female New York ultra-liberal who is the wife of the man many Republicans had taped to their dart boards.


Ummmm HELLO!!!!! Yeah, they're all brilliant people who DESERVE to be president. BUT HASN'T THE FRICKEN PARTY LEARNED BY THIS POINT THAT THE MOST DESERVING PERSON DOESN'T WIN!?!?! WHAT ABOUT ELECTABILITY?! NONE OF THEM HAVE IT!!!!!

Now, let's look at the top Republican competition:

A middle-of-the-road White male Vietnam vet, from the southwest, with more Senate experience than the above three candidate combined. Shit.

As much as I hate the Republicans, C'mon Democrats, put up a challenge.

We're fucked.

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

Your chief criticism against Barack Obama is that his last name is similar to Osama? Are you serious?

He's probably the most exciting politician in Washington to come down the pipe in at least eight years. Not that that's really saying much.

 

[Pirate Wench]

I see you're in Australia....are you a US citizen there who'll be voting absentee ?

What makes you so sure McCain will get the nomination for the Republicans ?
I assume that's who you meant.....
He may have more senate experience.,.....but a great many people think he's too much of a hothead to be president.

 

[amhersthungboi]

Chief complain isn't really accurate. I like his politics, and he's a firey speaker. I remember watching him at the 2004 convention and being excited.

My criticisms:

1.) Way too young.
2.) Little federal experience. Get a few more years in the Senate under his belt. State legistative politics and federal politics are different leagues. Legislators tend to have a hard time getting elected anyhow ... ala governors getting elected more often (real executive experience).
3.) We're too racist a country to elect a Black man ... even though I personally think it is more than appropriate, given our nation's demographics.
4.) Illinois, while somewhat "mid-West", is likely to be interpreted as Northern Liberal (which has backfired ...).
5.) Favor from the press is critical. CNN's debacle shows that won't be happening.

 

[amhersthungboi]

I see you're in Australia....are you a US citizen there who'll be voting absentee ?

Yup, I'm an American living Down Under, and sick of having to remind people that not all Americans voted for Bush. Every day that man is in office, he does more to ruin our reputation in the world.

Amazingly, living abroad has made me more patriotic.

 

[madame_zora]

Hilary's ultra-liberal? I guess that's why she voted FOR the war.

 

[B_big dirigible]

3.) We're too racist a country to elect a Black man

Nonsense. The Democrats are too racist to run him. Racism is a strategy to get votes, and they do that by constantly banging that old "victim" drum. They can't do that too well if one of the "victims" ends up as the chief executive.

 

[dannymawg]

Pardon my ignorance - it's the reason why I stay out of political threads - but wouldn't it be a refreshing change of pace to nominate/elect someone who isn't jaded/bought off by executive experience?

 

[amhersthungboi]

Pardon my ignorance - it's the reason why I stay out of political threads - but wouldn't it be a refreshing change of pace to nominate/elect someone who isn't jaded/bought off by executive experience?

Probably ... though the trends from the last series of elections goes to show experience in an executive branch wins over Senate experience

W. Bush ... governor
Clinton ... governor
H.W. Bush ... VP, department head, ambassador, and much earlier house of Reps
Reagan ... governor
Carter ... governor
Ford (wasn't even really elected) VP, house of Reps
Nixon ... Senate.

Okay, so the last prez from the Senate was Nixon. Doesn't speak highly of American voters' perception of Senate experience, now does it?

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

Chief complain isn't really accurate. I like his politics, and he's a firey speaker. I remember watching him at the 2004 convention and being excited.

My criticisms:

1.) Way too young.
2.) Little federal experience. Get a few more years in the Senate under his belt. State legistative politics and federal politics are different leagues. Legislators tend to have a hard time getting elected anyhow ... ala governors getting elected more often (real executive experience).
3.) We're too racist a country to elect a Black man ... even though I personally think it is more than appropriate, given our nation's demographics.
4.) Illinois, while somewhat "mid-West", is likely to be interpreted as Northern Liberal (which has backfired ...).
5.) Favor from the press is critical. CNN's debacle shows that won't be happening.

Well, thanks for offering something a little more meaty than he has a bad name.
1) he looks younger than he is. In 2008 he will be 47 years old. That's older than Teddy Roosevelt (42), John Kennedy (43), Bill Clinton (46), and Ulysses Grant (46). All of them seemed pretty electable.
2) granted. But how much federal experience did G W Bush have? uh... zero? Same for Clinton. Most presidents don't have that much experience. "Washington insiders" rarely get elected. This was something that was actually working against Al Gore IMO. People are so jaded with governement, today moreso than ever, that I think Obama's relative (arguable) lack of experience could actually be seen as a benefit.
3) we are not. Colin Powell could have been elected ten years ago had he wanted to run.
4) Illinois? Northern elite?? No way. Illinois is Lincoln's state. It's where Ronald Reagan went to high school. Outside of Chicago, it's about 90% corn field. There's no way it connotes what you are implying it does. Cheney's home state is further north than Illinois. latitude has little to do with it.
5) what are you smoking?? really. The press loves Obama. They can't stop talking about him. He's all over the place and he hasn't even announced that he's going to run.

 

[Nitrofiend]

Nixon participated in some criminal acts, but then what president has not? The man at least opened up diplomacy with China, and I think that's a pretty respectable accomplishment. Don't denounce him entirely.

 

[B.CRAZY]

We are no where near electing a black president, or female president.

And the way things are now our voting may not even count. Bush has been selected the past two terms... he was not elected.

And us Americans have done nothing about it... so where do we stand?

The Dems are the other side of the same coin.

Scary place we are at.

Do some homework.

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

Hilary's ultra-liberal? I guess that's why she voted FOR the war.

Resolution 114 passed the Senate by a vote of 77 to 23. Hillary wasn't exactly jumping over the aisle on that one. She's pretty liberal. Of course, Hannity, Limbaugh, et al will paint ANY viable Democratic cantidate as ultra-liberal, and will say this over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again until people think that they are ultra-liberal, regardless of what that cantidate may or may not actually believe. That said, Hillary is still pretty liberal.

 

[madame_zora]

Oh, I understand, but I haven't seen an ultra-liberal elected to office for a very long time. The Clintons (both of them) are far more centrist than they're given credit for. I would vote for Obama at this point exactly for that reason. I think he's actually more of a liberal, and being uncorrupted by big business should be a plus. He probably actually still believes the things he says.

 

[Sklar]

Nonsense. The Democrats are too racist to run him. Racism is a strategy to get votes, and they do that by constantly banging that old "victim" drum. They can't do that too well if one of the "victims" ends up as the chief executive.

I'm not too sure how to respond to this. I find it highly amusing that you think that the Democrats are too racist. Of course, it doesn't help matters when Howard Dean said to a group of African Americans in a hotel: "The only way the Republicans would get this many black people in a room is if they were on the wait staff." I probably did paraphrase that one but essentially got it right.

The history of African American presidential candidates has only been around since the 1980's when Rev Jesse Jackson came upon the scene. Then came the Reverend Al Sharpton. And then last in 2004 with the woman who ran who is a Senator. Please forgive my lack of knowing her name. She obviously didn't impress me enough to remember her name but if I heard it, I'd know it.

The thing about the Democratic Party and African American presidential candidates is that two of the three of them had the word Reverend before their names. As we all know, Religon and the Democratic Party does not mix well. So, of course, those two men (Jackson and Sharpton) not only scared the caucuses but made the good old boy network bunch closer together.

Now, of those two men, only Rev Jackson was a viable candidate and that was only (in my opinion) in 1984 where he was basically bought off by the Democratic Party so they could nominate Walter Mondale. Sadly, Jackson and his Rainbow Coalition, the more they appeared in the spot light and under national news, came across as someone who, in today's terminology, would be an early Howard Dean (YYEEEEEEEEHHHHAAAAWWWWWWW).

Reverend Sharpton on the other hand, again during the 80's, was seen as a fighter for truth and against racisim. However, he too fell by the wayside, mainly for being who he is. A liberal. I'm not saying that is bad, but back then it wasn't as popular as it is now.

Neither man, today, would beat Hulk Hogan for president, let alone survive one month during the primary season.

I do not remember which man it was but during the last election one of them was claiming blacks were denied the right to vote in Florida and yet they could not produce one person on national TV, let alone a court room, to prove those claims true.

I have the same fight with my Democratic friends here in Washington state. To me, it seems that a lot of people, I won't say most, but a lot of people, seem to be blinded by a candidate just because of the party they run under.

Just because someone has the big "D" next to their name on the ballot does not mean that they have MY best interest at heart. Even when I can show them evidence here locally that the person they fawn and drool over has voted against things that my friends wanted. They make excuses for them instead of holding their feet to the fire.

Sorry, I seemed to have drifted off topic there. Is the Democratic Party racist? Overall, I'd have to say no. Individually, sure, I'm sure there are some that are.

But the world has changed. With the advent of the internet, I'm talking about youtube in particular, anyone with savvy can either bolster someone or destroy someone. Anyone remember Macaca (sp)? And then there was the false report on Nancy Pelosi that started her thread at the beginning of the month.

The thing I find even more scary is the bloggers. Here we have people who are not reporters posting things on their websites that people take as the Ten Commandments. Very scary.

We are going to see all presidential candidates go under the microscope as never before and we will probably start to see early indescretions as far back as kindergarten pretty soon. Nothing is going to be off limits.

OK, again I drifted off topic, I apologize for that.

During the campaign season we are going to see the true character of all candidates come out. By seeing the type of ads they run, places they stump at, things they say. I find it baffling that people think it's going to be a nice campaign season. I don't. I see this up coming one, on both sides as very viscous and it will not just be the candidate. It will be their family, friends, close associates, work history.

I don't that that will qualify as racism but I can EASILY see, once the primaries start, and people are less than X percentage points ahead/behind the front runner, that line being crossed and other lines, too.

 

[JustAsking]

I think Barack Obama has a real good chance of getting the nomination. I would love to see that. However, even if he doesn't I think he will push issues all throughout the primary races and this will raise the quality of the campaigning. This is what Ross Pero did when he was running and it really made a difference in the campaigning all around.

I would not be surprised if he ended up as someone's running mate if he doesn't make it to the top.

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

Oh, I understand, but I haven't seen an ultra-liberal elected to office for a very long time.

Right, which is exactly why they want to make anyone running at the very least seem like an "ultra-liberal".... because if they accomplish that, the cantidate in question instantly becomes unelectable. Clinton (Bill) was very centrist, but of course to people who are extremists on either side, anyone who is a centrist is going to seem too liberal or too conservative for their tastes.

That said... I think it's a shame the way the primary system works (and everything else in our two-party system, but, another time..), because it makes it extremely difficult for anyone who is NOT at or near the fringe to get the nomination. I think Hillary is far enough away from center that she could be nominated. McCain may have been more popular among the general public in 2000, but to the registered Republicans who get to vote in the primaries, GW seemed more like their kind of guy. Joe Lieberman didn't make it through his primaries because he was seen as too centrist and had to run as an independent where he won in the general election. There are a lot of political moderates out there right now getting a lot of media attention on both sides, it will be interesting to see if any of them make it through the primaries and get the nomination or if we just end up with Giant Douche v. Turd Sandwich '08.

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

I'm not too sure how to respond to this.

You're right about Jackson and Sharpton, niether of them stand a chance in any election and they both know it but they campaign just for the sake of raising awareness about certain issues. While I do think that is somewhat admirable, as cantidates they are little more than punchlines not to be taken seriously. I would not use either of them as an example of why the country is too racist to elect a black president.

However, and I know this really shouldn't matter but I think it probably would, both Colin Powell and Barack Obama are significantly lighter complected than either Sharpton or Jackson. I honestly think that would probably make a difference to a lot of people, stupid as that is.

 

[madame_zora]

I think Barack Obama has a real good chance of getting the nomination. I would love to see that. However, even if he doesn't I think he will push issues all throughout the primary races and this will raise the quality of the campaigning. This is what Ross Pero did when he was running and it really made a difference in the campaigning all around.

I would not be surprised if he ended up as someone's running mate if he doesn't make it to the top.

Actually, if things continue with Hilary as the front runner, I would love to see him as her vp. That would be a tough ticket to beat.

I also don't see him as the mud-slinging type. I hope he proves this to be the case.

 

[madame_zora]

Right, which is exactly why they want to make anyone running at the very least seem like an "ultra-liberal".... because if they accomplish that, the cantidate in question instantly becomes unelectable. Clinton (Bill) was very centrist, but of course to people who are extremists on either side, anyone who is a centrist is going to seem too liberal or too conservative for their tastes.

Yes, it's been said by smarter people than me that we get the candidates (and elections) we deserve. Sadly, "we" means everyone, the whole group of American voters.

Bill was branded a liberal despite being about as close to the center as possible because there really wasn't a lot to pick apart on his policies. Without the blowjob, the repugs would have been hard pressed to find a good reason to replace the dems in office. Thank GAWD for blowjobs!

Speculation- who's Hilary gonna blow?

That said... I think it's a shame the way the primary system works (and everything else in our two-party system, but, another time..), because it makes it extremely difficult for anyone who is NOT at or near the fringe to get the nomination. I think Hillary is far enough away from center that she could be nominated. McCain may have been more popular among the general public in 2000, but to the registered Republicans who get to vote in the primaries, GW seemed more like their kind of guy. Joe Lieberman didn't make it through his primaries because he was seen as too centrist and had to run as an independent where he won in the general election. There are a lot of political moderates out there right now getting a lot of media attention on both sides, it will be interesting to see if any of them make it through the primaries and get the nomination or if we just end up with Giant Douche v. Turd Sandwich '08.

Thus far, I'd be satisfied with any of the dems running. McCain was someone I admired before bush was in office, but he scares me now. Perhaps the repubs will bring out someone less recognisable.