LiveReal.org

Election 2008

Democratic and Republican Candidates 2008

The Dems: Obama is too taken with himself; Edwards is too cute so people do not take him that seriously; Joe Biden is a good candidate but doesn't have the pull; Al Gore has what it takes if people would give him a chance; Hillary is just right but people are afraid to elect a woman.

Repubs:  McCain looks old and pasty and is a big flip flop hypocrite; Rudy is full of himself, twice divorced womanizer; Mitt Romney changes his mind with the wind; Newt is about as attractive as Hastert. The republicans are hypocrites and losers this round.

That about sums it up in a brief review the candidates for each party.  I read an op-ed thing by NYT conservative (yes, there are conservatives writing for the New York Times) David Brooks wrote glowingly about Bill Richardson.  Anyway, it does sound like he's the best qualified among the Democrats (other than Hillary, who, as both sides will admit, was practically co-president for eight years).  But with all the anti-immigrant stuff, I can't imagine that a guy of Mexican descent would get very far these days.  Also, as Brooks pointed out, he's just a normal looking guy, no hype, no flash, no pizazz. 

Among the Republicans, Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska is supposedly going to make an announcement soon and he's gotten an awful lot of good press for being opposed to the war but don't be fooled he's a rabid social and economic conservative, would be more of the same garbage we've had the last eight years.  But he's just good looking enough, mature-looking enough and he can talk which would seem to go without saying in a politician, but then look at Bush.  What's scariest about Hagel is that he looks presidential and Lord knows these days that's enough.

Maybe we should quit having primaries and just call central casting.  I think that's how we ended up with Reagan.

Comments:

I will readily admit that I have a litmus test: "where did you stand on the war?" If we weren't on the same side of that fence, you're not getting my vote. And no one can tell me that politicians had to support that mess to remain viable; if you are so married to political expedience that you can't stand up for what's right, let alone what's in our nation's best interest, I don't want you calling the shots. I don't believe all that "who could've known?" hooey, either. It didn't take a rocket scientist to see that the war idea was bad, bad, bad and wrong, wrong, wrong. I'm just an actor and a computer mechanic and I knew it from the start. So did several million other people. As far as I'm concerned, if you weren't bright enough to know, or moral enough to care, you're not fit enough to serve. That leaves me with a narrow field of candidates that not only excludes Hillary on first principle, but doubly so because she won't admit she's wrong. On that particular issue, the one that's killed so many Americans and cost us so much respect with the rest of the world, there's about a dime's difference between her and Joe Lieberman.
Just my two cents.
-Sean, Liberal

Okay, that's a principled position that I can certainly understand.  But I am willing to cut otherwise good liberals a little slack on this one just because of the way the right wing was attacking anyone who didn't support the war as a traitor.  There are few political campaigns that could survive that and principled losses by Democrats still get you more Republicans in power, which has an even worse effect if you're poor and need government's help.

All of that said, I agree with you on the basic premise that it sure didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the Iraq war was a huge mistake, a Viet Nam waiting to happen, as all of us kept hollering at the anti-war demonstrations that preceded the invasion.  They did have to be a hundred different kinds of stupid not to have seen that one coming.

So who are you thinking of supporting?
-Michelle, Democrat

Who is Pat Paulsen?
I would rather vote for someone who may be able to win and who would be a good President instead of waste my vote in protest.  Hillary did say her vote was the wrong vote.  What do you want her to do, get down and beg forgiveness so all the men will say she is a weak woman?  I have to disagree with you on this one.  Colin Powell was out there showing us pictures of WMD's for God's sake.  I do wish the Democrats had of stood their ground but they didn't.  Are we going to continue to talk about woulda, coulda, shoulda or are we going to try and put a democrat in the office this time?  Gore wasn't there to vote for the War so he should still be in your running?
-Keri, Democrat

Pat Paulsen was a comedian mostly famous for his work on the Smothers Brothers variety shows. You can read about him here. He had a running bit about his never-ending Presidential campaign.  

I understand what you are saying, of course, but my situation is a little different. I'm in the bluest of blue states, so there is very little I can do to "waste" my vote or really effect any long-shot candidate's chances of winning. That's one of the reasons I voted for Nader and am still happy to have done so. And you're wrong in saying that Hillary recanted her vote. This is from her page at ontheissues.org:

"Critic of Iraq war, but won't recant 2002 vote in its favor. (Nov 2006)"

You can read her entire page here. If she has since admitted her mistake, please correct me and tell me where and when; I'd love to think that she had. I reiterate what I said before: I knew it was wrong, not just in terms of policy, but morally, as well. Hillary's a hell of a lot smarter than I am, so in my opinion, she has no excuse. And no, I don't want her to beg for forgiveness; I want her to admit she was wrong and say we should get out of Iraq. That would show strength and courage, not weakness.  

I live in California. I can afford to vote for the person I think would make the best President, not the one I think might be wishy-washy enough to survive.

Note: I know Pat Paulsen's dead - that doesn't make him the worst candidate for President.
-Sean, CA, Liberal

Oh, I remember that silly little guy (Pat Paulsen), now...

Hillary said, she would not have voted to authorize to give dumbo Bush the authority to go to war if she had known he would misuse it.  The republicans were all calling the democrats traitors if they didn't go along.  I mean, after all, Bush had all the right wing conservative Christian right people fired up thinking the world was coming to an end.   I get what you are saying, she should have stood up but so should all the dems so it doesn't really matter anyway, because the media will get who they like the best.

If you do not have media on your side, you can forget it.  It depends on who sucks up to them the most.  Basically, you can't get an honest speaking person who always tells the truth.  So if we go along with what you are saying we should just forget about voting altogether, since it doesn't matter? (Because I live in a red state my vote doesn't count anyway)?
-Keri, Democrat

Sigh.  It's all so daunting...by the way, in the meantime I told my husband what we were batting back and forth and he agrees with you regarding Obama which, despite us talking about politics a LOT more than most people, I had not realized.  I have to say, I was very impressed with his votes and comments on the various issues on the site you sent ontheissues.org (which I've now added to my favorites).  All you see or read about is discussions of the fact that he's black, questions about whether he's black enough, speculation about whether he'll succeed at quitting smoking...no substance, just gossipy stuff, dumb and superficial stuff.  I think the media WANTS Americans to find politics boring so they can pick out their own favorite and push him.  I still remember the love fest that surrounded Reagan's candidacy...barf.
-Michelle, Democrat

Note to all posts here regarding the presidential candidate nominees and the primaries in 2008:   It does matter who you vote for whether you vote in a red state of blue, blue state.  You should vote for the best running candidate.