What do you think of the democrats that are running for the right to run for president? Which ones would you vote for? Who do you think would actually make a good president? If anyone of them got elected, or even got the nomination, would you run away to Canada? Any other thoughts?

Pretty much the same answer as I gave in the Republican thread with one difference. I don't care what he did at the last Democratic convention. I don't care if he is or isn't (like my parents think) experienced enough. I don't care if he bounces through my neighborhood on a pogo stick singing The Macarena in Esparanto. If I vote Democratic, there's no way that vote will go to Barack Obama. Unless and until he goes on ESPN and proves he is not in fact J.A. Adande. The resemblence is just too striking for me to believe Obama and Adande are different human beings.

If I were a betting man, I would say this upcoming election is going to be a race between Hillary and Giuliani. As far as I'm concerned, voting for either is like playing Russian Roulette with an automatic pistol.

This is really a two horse race. John Edwards is a fringe candidate, he just refuses to accept that. This race is between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, period. I posted problems that I had with each of the main GOP candidates in that thread, so to be fair, I am going to critique the Democratic candidates, at least the top two, here. I mentioned in the GOP thread, and I will mention here, that I do plan on voting for whoever the GOP candidate is, so I am not trying to hide my political leanings at all...

Barack Obama - I think his comments regarding foreign policy should be enough to scare away votes from any Democrat that is concerned about their President's positions on the rest of the world. Obama has revealed that he really doesn't understand the nuances of foreign policy at all. In regards to foreign policy, I think Hillary clearly outshines Obama. He also has the problem of experience, or more specifically, the lack of it. He is a newcomer, and has not had the time to develop the relationships a President needs. Presidents need to be able to call in favors with Senators and Representatives, and he simply doesn't have the political capital. While Hillary hasn't really officially been part of the "Government" for very long either, her 8 years as First Lady give her practical experience Obama simply can't match. Overall, I hope the Democrats nominate Obama, because it would virtually guarantee the Republicans keep the White House. Not that Obama is a bad person or anything like that, I just don't feel that he has the experience yet. Give him another 8 or 12 years, that could change. Its just too soon for Obama.

Hillary Clinton - In my mind, she is clearly a better candidate for the Democrats than Obama is, for the reasons I listed in my criticism of Obama. She has her own faults though. She is a polarizing figure. You either love Hillary, or you hate her. There is no inbetween. Then you have to wonder about her husband. Is Bill actually a liability in her campaign? She either was oblivious to her husband's cheating, which belies her supposed intelligence, or she knew, and ignored, which would be problematic to a lot of the heartland voters. Then there is the whitewater scandal. If she is the Democratic candidate, the GOP candidate would no doubt call into question her integrity about that little real estate scheme. We already know Hillary is tarnished from the 8 years she was First Lady. Republicans will bring those issues back up, its just a matter of whether those scandals will still resonate with voters. I don't know if the voters will be apathetic to the scandals because its "old news", or whether they will remember that Hillary has a questionable past. However, I think in terms of having what it takes to be President, she is a better candidate than Obama is. I think she has the necessary political contacts, she has the experience of being in the White House, of understanding what exactly the job entails more so than Barack does. I think if he would accept it, Obama should be the VP candidate to Hillary. I think thats a more electable ticket than Obama/Clinton would be.

Overall, I think its going to be McCain/Giuliani against Clinton/Obama, but because NONE of the candidates really stands out, I have no idea as to what the results would be, other than low voter turnouts.

Giuliani against Clinton

elctorals: 48% Republican 52% Democratic
nationality: 45% Republican 55% Democratic

just my guess.

Actually, I think that if Hilary had either position, than every single remotely conservative person in the states would vote against her in the main election. Although I would love to see a Clinton- Guiliani debate. I think that would be hilarious.

Its been awhile since stopping in to post. Probable will be some time after this for another. But WTH.


McCain/Giuliani, good combo to start. But I just don't see McCain pulling it out. Too many things going against him, much as were back in 2000. I expect a good start, but a lack luster finish. Giuliani, about the same. Just too many ghost in his closet to pull it out, or be a good running mate. Hate to say, the best chance may stand with Fred Thompson. He's been getting better poll ratings then the others in many polls. Plus his record looks better then many of the other candidates. His running mate may still end up being Giuliani. Unless a better running mate steps forward.

As far as Clinton/Obama. I just don't see that. There has been growing animosity between those two. When the time comes, I expect both to tell the other where they can go, and what they can do with them selves when they get there. I do expect Clinton to grab the ticket. Unless some thing horrific should surface. Obama is just not going to pull it out. Hillary has all of Bill contacts and experience on her side. Obama is just going on golden boy status. Plus he is too far left. And this election I expect to see going more to the moderates then the far right or left. Every one is sick of the extremes from both parties. So who do I see as her running mate? Edwards. The two have been closer in deals, even the one to limit competition in the elections.

As a Democrat, I might not be voting Democrat in 2008. Not if Hillary gets the nod, not with her pro-war position. I gave up listening to the debates just now. She says she wants to keep troops there until THE END OF HER TERM IN OFFICE. Ted Koppel reported that Hillary's military advisors were telling him the same thing, and that, in fact, they told him that it is their quiet plan to keep troops in Iraq until the end of her second term in... 2017!

Think about it. Ten years of quagmire and international humiliation. And all the while the country goes to Hell. And that from the leading Democratic contender? Sorry. I can't vote for that. I can't vote for somebody that I foresee spending the next 8 years protesting against to get us out of the war.

Various comments:

I can't see Edwards ever accepting another vice-president nomination. This is it for him. He's going to go for broke. I'm all for him (or even Obama -- just not Hillary). He either pulls it off this time or it's over for him.

Obama... he would be quite satisfied with a running-mate position to Hillary. He's young and ambitious and it would certainly lend to his increased status for a 2012 run if Hillary fails. And he has one huge advantage over all the other candidates: MONEY. He is able to raise money.

And money is Hillary's big weakness. For all the talk about inevitability and about her contacts, etc., her campaign has been a disaster at raising money, and they know it is because of her position on the war. They are praying that they can get through the first month of primaries on what they have and then the money will start rolling in after it becomes a fact of life that she's going to be the Democratic nominee. Perhaps it will. Perhaps. I won't give her a thin dime, though.

Obama is the big question mark. He doesn't seem to have the eye of the tiger, the necessary ability and willingness to punch below the belt. His attempts to attack Hillary on her war position have been lukewarm. A lot of people that donated him thinking he would be the Hillary-killer have to be disappointed at this point. And the Edwards campaign is suffering because the Obama campaign acts as a buffer protecting Hillary from a more serious challenge.

Still, the Hillary campaign could implode in January. Things will happen very quickly then, and sudden softening or strengthening of one campaign or another could change things decisively, as it did in January and February of 2004, when Dean imploded and Kerry came back from nowhere.

Plus, there are external events that aren't entirely under everybody's control. For instance, war with Iran. Bush and his advisors may attempt to start a war with Iran, as many reports indicate. And he might just try to time it for the best domestic political effect. Or the insurgents in Iraq could blow up a big Marines barracks killing a thousand in a day -- that would change the dialogue over night. Or Bin Laden could be captured. Or Bin Laden could pull off a new 9/11 stunt. Outside events such as these could make prediction impossible.