Text 8715, 119 rader
Skriven 2006-09-20 22:44:00 av Robert E Starr JR (9212.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: My presidential pick
================================
* * * This message was from Vorlonagent to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <86SdnUjGE9w6lY_YnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@comcast.com>
@REPLY:
<1155498642.569827.315080@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com><1155541553.581894.307270@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com><0001HW.C10


"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:m5k3h2ln2kncl361i2e2eiv3ajodfd6cu5@4ax.com...

> Why would they hold a grudge because someone chose to run in a
> primary? Particularly since if they hadn't allowed Bush to steal the
> primary and McCain had won the general election, the GOP would quite
> likely be riding high today rather than licking its wounds.

Bush had a massive war chest and no opposition had McCain not stepped 
forward.  Financially, he had an incredible shot at the general election. 
McCain forced him to spend it on the primary.

They didn't like that.

It's fashionable to allege Bush "stole" elections and perpetrated 9/11. 
Saying it doesn't make it so.


>>Guliani, harder to say.  9/11 gave him a whole new image and he still has
>>some well-hoarded political capital from it. The Dems are sure to dredge 
>>up
>>his old image.  If Guliani gets the R-nod the question is whether being
>>tarred with his past sins sticks or makes the D's look pedantic.
>
> Giuliani would, I think, be a formidable candidate and quite possibly
> a great or near-great president. Kinda doubt he'll make it past the
> religious right, though, what with his liberal positions on abortion
> and gay rights and his association with New York City. And how will he
> do in the debates?

That is the question.  He's not the sort of candidate the inner circle would 
like.  Depends on who else throws in their hat.


>>> For the Democrats, barring Edwards making one heck of a comeback, I
>>> think the nominee is going to end up being somebody we haven't heard
>>> much about before, someone who's going to kind of blind-side the media
>>> and the beltway the way Clinton kind of came out of nowhere.  I think
>>> we've seen the same-old-gang one time too many, and none of them have
>>> demonstrated any real strength in dealing with things in DC, so someone
>>> from the outside will, I think, be very attractive.
>>
>>The nomination was Hillary Clinton's to lose.  With the successful 
>>targeting
>>and destruction of Joe Leiberman democrat senate nomination, Clinton's
>>careful presentation of a centrist veneeer may prove to be an unexpected
>>liability with her base.  Then again, with the foiling of a large-scale
>>terror plot shortly after Leiberman's loss, she may prove be in the "sweet
>>spot" after all.
>
> I don't think it will be Clinton. Like Dubya, Sen .Clinton is a
> creation of the media: she's not a good campaigner and while I respect
> her ability, I don't think she has what it takes to be a great
> president and I don't think that lightning often strikes in the same
> place twice: marriage to a popular president doesn't make one a
> popular president, any more than being the son of a reasonably capable
> president makes one a reasonably capable president.

They aren't the same critter, that's for sure.  And Bill's faux pas have a 
strong collateral damage effect on those near him, as Al Gore found out.

That said, Ms. Clinton's crucial measure is if she can rise beyond the 
idology of her party to control terroism, which would be easier for her than 
any republican.  There's a whol media establishment that will give her a 
pass that would never let up on a republican.


> I tend to agree that Sen. Clinton's centrism is a liability. The
> national mood now, particularly among Democrats, is one of reform
> rather than fence-sitting. With the right played out, the country is
> ripe for a liberal swing: what the Dems need now is someone who is
> progressive but not Deanish -- a populist or old-style liberal rather
> than a New Leftie.

The democratic mood is to ideologically purify the party and themselves of 
all centrists and other unbelievers.  While Mrs Clinton has a massively 
liberal voting record, her public support for the Iraq invasion hits the 
"purify!" hotbutton squarely, just as Leiberman's did.  We saw an early 
indication of this when Cindy Sheehan took it upon herself to scold Ms. 
Clinton about it last year.

As for the public mood...that's harder to judge.  I don't think they're 
particularly happy with either party.  The democrat purrists are mor 
concerned about civil rights for terrotists and cuttin and running in Iraq 
than confronting terrotists and the Republicans are revelling in pork-barrel 
budgets, with corruption as an issue for both parties.

If the democrats dumped the lar-left anti-war stand and stepped solidly 
behind the war on terror and on winning in Iraq, they'd have a peach of a 
shot at the House and Senate this fall.  But it's too late for that now. 
They're comitted.


-- 
John Trauger,
Vorlonagent


"Methane martini.
Shaken, not stirred."


"Spirituality without science has no mind.

Science without spirituality has no heart."

-Methuselah Jones
                                                        
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)