Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.

2008 American Presidential Election

by Drew J Jones Thu Mar 1st, 2007 at 05:28:18 PM EST

Something very strange is going on in American politics at the moment.

A few weeks ago, Hillary Clinton was riding high on a twenty-point lead over Barack Obama and John Edwards.  Edwards has stagnated, as I feared he would.  But Obama has jumped by about ten points in the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll.  He attracted 20,000 supporters at a rally in Austin, Texas, a week or two ago -- 20,000, nearly two years before the election.  I've been hunting around Wikipedia and many sites trying to find the last example of a candidate accomplishing this.  Not even Dean was playing to crowds that big.


(Source: The Polling Report)

The Republican side is looking even more bizarre.  Many people, myself among them, thought Rudy Mussolini's candidacy to be something of a joke.  In the same poll, he has gone from running roughly equal to St. McCain to now besting The Last Honest ManTM by over twenty points.  Rudy, the pro-choice, pro-gay rights candidate, with enough marital baggage to sink at least half of Lower Manhattan, looks like he may well be on his way to not only competing, but winning the nomination of the Republican Party.

Did I wake up on another planet?


Display:
Yes it is very weird, until you remember how early it is--one year and 8 months away from the election.  So the scrutiny process has really not begun.  For example, I think many people find Rudy to be a very attractive candidate--9/11 hero, seems to have good executive experience, articulate, etc.  But as you suggest, there is a % of the Republican Party,,,I don't know how big but I would guess 15--25%, for whom social issues are paramount.  And when Rudy's positions on these issues come out more clearly,,,,he is certainly not going to have a lead double the 2nd in the polls.  I think he's a possibility, but I don't think he'll make it.  McCain is the front runner for the R's in my mind, and I think will be formidable in a general election.  Gingrich will appeal to lots of R's, but I think everyone realizes he can't win--or at least it's hard to see him winning a general election because his negatives or so high.

Obama is a very attractive person, very articulate, and I for one don't think his race will hurt his chances at all.  I know there are a number on this site who feel there is a lot of discrimination in the US, but I don't think there is--(I admit I've been mainly in California for close to 20 years, so maybe I'm overly influenced by that).  But when you look at the fact that in 2008, the US Secretary of State has been black, a woman, or both for something like 16 years (I know it's not elected), I think it shows attitudes are clearly accepting of all colors.

But Obama hasn't been vetted, has only had a national position for a few years, and my understanding is there are things in the closet.  But he's good at fessing up and saying I was wrong to do that,,,,rather than the normal political approach of denial, denial---oh yeahl, I did do that.  But he's a Kennedy, as in John, like personality--but unfortunately lacks the JFK track record.  

Hillary will have, IMHO, a huge problem in a general election, because her negatives are so high--a large % of Americans just won't vote for her,,according to the polls.  But she has got to be the heavy favorite for the ticket--though she shows propensity for big mistakes, imo.  The door could still open for Edwards or Gore, but I would see that as a pretty long shot.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a Hillary/Obama ticket,,,,versus a McCain/Giuliani,,,,,or outside shot of McCain/Condi.   The latter would certainly be an incredibly exciting and interesting race.

It's too bad the Dems don't have a stronger lead candidate, because like the 2006 election, this is one they should win, and of course they did win on '06----though once again, a lot can happen in 20 months.

by wchurchill on Thu Mar 1st, 2007 at 07:20:52 PM EST
"Yes it is very weird, until you remember how early it is--one year and 8 months away from the election."

Also, the polls can change at any moment. Remember 1992, when Harkin was leading at first, until Clinton became more well-known. We have lots of time before the first debates, and not everyone who's going to run has declared, I'm sure. Granted, if those numbers are correct, Obama's garnering a stupendous amount of attention, but in the end just having a lot of people attend your rallies doesn't mean much.

by lychee on Fri Mar 2nd, 2007 at 12:49:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, absolutely. These polls reflect only name recognition and who is getting more cable tv press coveraage any given day.

Your logic Drew seems to me right on -- Rudy will go nowhere (I read of a survey that only one in five Republican primary voters know he is pro-choice) and Obama is also going to have to develop a platform to maintain support. Right now, what is drawing these crowds is a long-repressed Democratic enthusiasm for change; I've been to one of the well-attended, Obama rallies and very very few people there were sold on him.

Finally, Edwards is getting a lot of attention where it counts, among early state caucus and primary voters. He's going to be first or second in each of the first two states (Iowa, Nevada).

by desmoulins (gsb6@lycos.com) on Fri Mar 2nd, 2007 at 01:19:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The sense I get from political blogs like Daily Kos and Redstate (yeah, yeah, I know) is that Republicans very rarely do not nominate the front-runner, once such a person emerges. Which might be good news for Guiliani, if he manages to hold on to front-runner status long enough. Of the four top candidates in the Republican field, all of them seem to have a few too many skeletons in the closet to have that ever mysterious quality of "electability."
In the Democratic primaries, on the other hands, things are more volatile, which Clinton already mentioned as an example and Howard Dean's unfortunate loss.

But, again, I thought Kerry was going to beat Bush in 2004, so take my observations for what they're worth.

"The basis of optimism is sheer terror" - Oscar Wilde

by NordicStorm (m<-at->sturmbaum.net) on Fri Mar 2nd, 2007 at 08:38:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And you were right.  Kerry beat W in 2004, although we don´t know what caused Kerry´s silence (or Gore´s) after the coup.

Our knowledge has surpassed our wisdom. -Charu Saxena.
by metavision on Fri Mar 2nd, 2007 at 08:45:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
To the Patricians, elections are a gentlemen's game. That's why they let the Republicans trample them.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Mar 2nd, 2007 at 08:47:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't know.  I think it's certainly the case that there was cheating in Ohio, but I still maintain, until I see sufficient evidence to the contrary, that Kerry would've lost, anyway.  He just didn't have the numbers, and I say that after having spent the better part of two weeks analyzing the results, county-by-county.  A lot went wrong in Dubya's favor, but it didn't seem to be near enough to change the outcome.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Fri Mar 2nd, 2007 at 11:53:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Kerry definitely lost the popular vote regardless (and I lean towards believing there were large amounts of fraud in Ohio). In 2000, Gore definitely won the popular vote. Both elections underscored the need to eliminate the electoral college for two reasons. One, it would drop the number of chances that the election runs into the margin of error of the vote itself from 50 to 1. Two, it greatly increases the amount of effort required to commit fraud on the scale that can swing the election.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Fri Mar 2nd, 2007 at 01:00:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
My sense is that you're right, although ABC -- at least I think it was ABC -- has done some good polls showing the electorate surprisingly interested in 2008, even more so than 2004, so I wouldn't completely discount the possibility of Mussolini taking the nod, even though I still think it's unlikely.

As for the Dems, Edwards is the only one to lay out any serious policy proposals beyond the war.  (Everybody has a plan for Iraq, but Little Johnny's the only one with a health care plan for now.)  But Edwards, as I pointed out to a friend last night, needs to lay out his policies in order to attract attention from primary voters.  Obama and Hillary are allowed more time because of the excitement around Obama and Hillary's status as the front-runner.  Were it the case that Edwards was the front-runner, Obama and Hillary would be the ones pressured to produce position papers.

And that's the order I'd guess they come in: Edwards, Obama, Hillary, unless Obama can ride the excitement to front-runner status, thus buying himself more time.

I will give Edwards this: I like his health care proposal.  He's covering his bases by making sure not to place too much burden on the working class and small businesses.  The regional health markets are a great idea.  Making private insurers compete with an expanded Medicare/Medicaid is a great idea, given the nearly-insane efficiency of our public system.  (No company can top Medicare/Medicaid on administrative costs.)  If we could get people into Medicare, or if the private insurers could meet or beat the public system, we'd be able to cover all Americans while dramatically increasing their purchasing power through lower aggregate health care costs (since Americans still pay far more than other groups despite 18% of the population being uninsured).

That's, by the way, why efficiency matters, folks.

Simple ideas working on basic principles, but very smart policy, in my opinion.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Fri Mar 2nd, 2007 at 12:20:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The one area where Edwards worries my is the deficit.  (That is, however, a huge concern for me -- the most important issue after Iraq.)  His supporters keep saying, "Edwards recognizes that people are more important than the deficit," not realizing the people aren't going to be so well off if we don't get our finances in order.  (The two can't be separated, but, as always, static models and all that....)  He's been quite straightforward on most issues since the race began, but he needs to stand up and tell Americans the truth: This is going to cost a lot of money.  Not as much as the GOP will try to convince them, but a lot, nonetheless, and we need to pay for it ourselves instead of just passing the bill on like the Boomers and Gen-Xers have.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Fri Mar 2nd, 2007 at 12:29:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In the 2004 primary race, he was pretty much the only candidate to lay out a specific housing policy, and if I remember correctly, it was a pretty good one.  To tell you the truth, I don't remember the details at all... but since every other candidate ignored the issue completely, he deserves some credit for paying attention.
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Fri Mar 2nd, 2007 at 12:40:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No surprise there.  Edwards is clearly, at least for now, the champion of the poor in this race.  He's sharp, too, and he surrounds himself with sharp people, which I really like.  Clinton was a lot like that, but Edwards could get a lot more done, given the Democratic Congress.  Clinton was essentially crippled, as far as big policy changes were concerned, with the '94 election and Hillary's colossal fuck-up on health care -- the latter being an issue I still think she'll have to confront, because she probably appears utterly incompetent on it in the eyes of many Dems, in my opinion.

His work on steering the debate for Dems has been excellent, too.  He's playing a huge role in bringing down McCain with the "McCain Doctrine" charge on Iraq.  That truly woke up the press, and McCain has been sinking, in every ideological category, ever since.

I'm leaning towards Obama, working with the assumption that he, too, will produce a solid platform, but, if he doesn't, I'll be more than happy to get behind Edwards.  Either one is just fine by me.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Fri Mar 2nd, 2007 at 12:51:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Obama still gives me the creeps. He has a Hollywood smile, but he's trying so very, very hard to be everything to everyone, not to make waves, and to apologise for his own existence while riding a wave of something that's called 'charisma' but which looks to me like simple media attention.

In other words he's a celebrity in waiting, famous for being a celebrity. But he doesn't seem to be a leader in any real sense - just someone who might appear to do leaderiness if not examined too closely.

His smile reminds me of Blair's smile. 'Nuff said.

Edwards looks more convincing - he has some policies, and knows how to fight a corner without looking over his shoulder to see if everyone thinks he's doing it right.

Obama may yet mature, but at the moment he seems to be getting most of his momentum because he's being consecrated by the media. Which, given the state of play in the US media market, is something that potential voters on the left should be somewhat concerned about.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Fri Mar 2nd, 2007 at 05:56:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
All good points.  I think the 2004 campaign was important, as far as toughening-up Edwards was concerned -- making him recognize where he went wrong.  Everybody knows he can give a speech, but he's focused a lot of his attention on substance,which was, of course, his perceived weak spot in '04 (even though I, personally, thought he was much better than Kerry).

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Fri Mar 2nd, 2007 at 06:10:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It isn't a Hollywood smile, it's a motivational speaker smile. I like Obama a lot, but the impression I get from him isn't very practical, for lack of a better word. Both Obama and Edwards seem willing to stick their hands into the mess and start sorting it out, but Edwards seems to have more of an idea of what specifically has to be looked at and taken care of.

Imagine you have an office that's been ruined by a horrible director, morale is low, the budget's a mess, everyone's working unpaid mandatory overtime (forget metaphors, I'm just trying to set the scene). That director's leaving, and you have to pick a new one. One guy wants to get everyone together and has great ideas about discussing what happened, how everyone thinks it can be fixed, what improvements can be made. Another guy brings in a list of what's gone obviously wrong and tells people to write down anything else they can think of, but in the meantime, let's get started on the obvious stuff, you take care of the missing office supplies, you take care of replacing the broken chairs, you, you, you, and I will go over the budget receipts.

That probably isn't the best example, but I'm trying to type quickly. I'm sure Obama's got plans too, I'm not trying to say his brain is up in the clouds. It's not, he's a very smart guy, and I nearly cried during his 2004 Democratic convention speech. But he's not giving me a very memorable impression yet as a presidential candidate. Maybe I'm not paying that much attention, but a lot of other people aren't either, and in the end, the impression you make is what's going to influence a lot of people to vote for or against you, never mind your actual policies and plans.

(That being said, if Obama ends up being the candidate, I will vote for him of course.)

by lychee on Fri Mar 2nd, 2007 at 10:24:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Just to point-out: Richardson would instantly put Texas, Arizona, and Florida into play forcing the GOP to throw money at states they would otherwise take for granted.  The odds are long for him to get the nomination, no doubt, but if he runs the Western States he will garner a little over one half (1142, IIRC) of the delegates needed to nominate.

Sticking my neck out: I don't think either Senators Clinton or Obama are going to get the nomination.  They are both going after the same block of primary voters which means neither will win the Winner-Take-All states.

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Fri Mar 2nd, 2007 at 06:34:04 PM EST
There are no winner-take-all states on the Democratic side.
by desmoulins (gsb6@lycos.com) on Sat Mar 3rd, 2007 at 02:39:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
good catch, you are right.
Newsflash for mainstream journalists: Democratic presidential hopefuls do not actually win states. They win delegates proportionate to their support within that state (Article 2, Section 4b of their charter). The Democratic party's primary system is not winner-take-all, like the GOP's.

As an example, in 2000 Al Gore won 64 percent of the vote in Iowa. Bill Bradley won 35 percent of the vote. Gore received 29 delegates from Iowa and Bradley received 18 delegates. A similar split occurred in New York that year. Gore received 65 percent of the vote and 158 delegates. Bradley received 34 percent of the vote and 85 delegates.

by wchurchill on Sat Mar 3rd, 2007 at 12:56:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Hmmm, what's good for the Democratic primary is not good for the Presidential election...

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Mar 3rd, 2007 at 01:13:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
though, as you probably know, states do have a choice in the way they assign their electoral votes.  they could use a proportional approach.
by wchurchill on Sat Mar 3rd, 2007 at 01:51:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, and Nebraska and Maine do use proportional representation.

People seem to think the Constitution mandates winner-takes all, which is patently not true. Especially since the number of electors matches the sum of congressmen, it would be within the spirit of the electoral college to elect them by congressional district plus two by statewide result.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Mar 3rd, 2007 at 02:42:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
you are logically correct that change is in line with the spirit of the process.  However, I don't expect many states to do it, since I think in effect it would make their electoral votes worth less to the presidential candidates.  In a state with 30 electoral votes for example, a candidate would view it as a chance to win 30 votes, or a chance to win something more like 18--20 votes.  so I would imagine self interest will trump spirit in most states.
by wchurchill on Sat Mar 3rd, 2007 at 02:52:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In very large states it is in the interest of "peripheral" counties to make every congressional district count. For instance, when campaigning in California one can just go to, say, San Diego, Los Angeles and San Francisco, and be done with it. Candidates would concentrate on "swing districts", not "swing states".

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Mar 3rd, 2007 at 02:58:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
that is a very interesting point!  I'll have to reflect on that.  I've never heard that idea before--have you seen discussion on it, or is it a Migeru original?  <no snark>
by wchurchill on Sat Mar 3rd, 2007 at 03:13:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I just came up with it, to be honest.

It's funny, because it's far from the first time I am involved in a discussion of the Electoral College. It may just have been an effect of spending a lot of time thinking about Spanish and European Parliament districts over the last few weeks, and of thinking that it's the state legislature, not the State executive, that has the final say on this.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Mar 3rd, 2007 at 03:19:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This is actually a serious proposal being discussed right now in the the US on two fronts.

First, there is the proposal that Migeru is suggesting -- states can award their EVs based on the performance of each candidate in each Congressional District. Colorado had a referendum on this in 2004 which narrowly lost. A bill is being seriously considered in California state legislature as a way to ensure it gets attention from Presidential candidates instead of being a "safe" state that gets little attention. Other states would certainly follow suit if it were to pass in CA.

There is another approach that is even mor eprovocative -- uniform legislation (ie, same bill that can be proposed in different state legislatures) that would allow the 9 largest states to award their Electoral Votes to the candidate that wins the popular vote nation-wide. Those 9 states control more than half the EVs, so that it would effectively change the election to one in which the popular vote winner would become President. This would also require candidates to campaign nationally, even in "safe" districts, to boost their margins, as well as in swing districts and states.

Interestingly, both of these proposals are being vehemently opposed by conservatives who fear it would cut into the Republican "electoral college lock". The oddest part of the opposition, which was particularly pronounced for a few weeks on conservative shout radio programs, was two fold

a. first that it would "give all the power to the big states" so that "my vote" in, say Georgia, "would not count." If you can find a logic int that argument, please pass it along.

b. that this would undermine the Constitution. It would of course reinforce the original intent of the Constitution which was to allow states to determine how best to elect the President.

by desmoulins (gsb6@lycos.com) on Sun Mar 4th, 2007 at 06:26:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
By the way, I don't know of any consideration of the idea wchurchill suggests -- of proportional allocation of EVs. For some reason, there is virtually no use of PR at any level in the States and its almost never proposed. Not sure why that is, other than the obvious -- it would be a way for smaller parties or independent candidates to win office.
by desmoulins (gsb6@lycos.com) on Sun Mar 4th, 2007 at 06:29:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
b. that this would undermine the Constitution. It would of course reinforce the original intent of the Constitution which was to allow states to determine how best to elect the President.
I think one of the issues in writing the constitution was how much power individual states should have.  States had very different points of view, and the smaller population states didn't want Federal authority determined solely on the basis of population.  So the House of Representatives was basically apportioned along the lines of population, while the Senate basically gave each state equal votes.  The electoral congress is really a compromise of those two approaches, since a state has the same number of electors as it does Congressmen + Senators.  Since there are far more congressmen, the compromise has a bias toward proportional representation,,,,but of course is not 100% that way.  I imagine there are many people in small, particularly Southern, states that still feel their ideas are very different than people in New York and California, and I reckon they wouldn't want to give people in those states more political power.
first that it would "give all the power to the big states" so that "my vote" in, say Georgia, "would not count." If you can find a logic int that argument, please pass it along.
Sure their vote would count, it would just count less than it does today.
by wchurchill on Sun Mar 4th, 2007 at 03:40:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I believe it would, in theory, depend on the state.  Whether, in practice, the power rests only with the legislatures, or with both the governors and the legislatures, I haven't the slightest idea (and I'm a little pissed at myself for not taking that class on statewide campaigns now).  But the decision on who has the power would be decided in state constitutions.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Sun Mar 4th, 2007 at 07:24:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Here's my take on it:

The Republican nomination is almost certainly for the right to lose the general election.  Historically the Republicans give a man "his turn" so it's very possible that we'll see McCain get the nomination.  Think of him as the Bob Dole candidate, too old but a loyal Senator who has no chance of winning.  Giuliani is too repulsive to the Republicans, has no foreign policy cred and has waaaay too many skeletons rattling in his closet to survive a general election.  I can see his as a very strong VP candidate, however.  McCain will need a younger, fresher face on his ticket and Rudy's popularity will go a long way in the less-scrutinized VP slot.

As for the Democrats their election is very early in 2008 which is the reason for the 'early' campaign that you are seeing.  The race for the Dem nomination will be mostly decided by March of 2008.

The current climate is one of name recognition and media hype.  The media has declared Hillary the front-runner for three reasons: 1. She is the most visible candidate in NY, where they are all based (she is Senator from NY).  2. She has the ability to raise money and already has done so.  For the mass media, who stand to earn this money, this is a great thing.  3. She has Bill Clinton and has been through this twice before with him.

All that said she's not going to be the nominee.  As the Obama and Giuliani hype is showing the electorate wants a fresh face.  Hillary is a good Senator and is not that popular amongst her own party.  The only way she can lock this one up is if nobody else worth voting for is running.  Her support of the Iraq war is a huge handicap.  She may have stood a better chance in previous years but with the shuffled Primary Election calendar California and other states will have more pull this time around.  These states will be more likely to hold her pro-war record against her.

In a very good field of candidates the Dems can't really lose no matter which candidate takes the nomination.  This will give them the opportunity to really scrutinize them and the issues will become more important as the year goes on.  Foreign Policy is going to be the top issue without a doubt and this will become more important as the year goes on and people begin to think about the mess that Bush has left us around the world.  For this reason I suspect that you will see Bill Richardson emerging as the top candidate for the Democratic Party and he will win it.

I see Obama running for Vice President and will probably be the VP candidate for someone like Richardson, depending on how he holds up for the rest of the year.  Thus far he appears to be a fantastic VP and is showing toughness with the media.  Like Giuliani he will be hurt in the top slot for his utter lack of FP knowledge but will be comfortable in the VP slot.

My early prediction is this:

Dems: Bill Richardson - Barack Obama, VP
Reps: John McCain - Rudy Giuliani, VP

Naturally this Dem ticket will kick the Rep ticket down the street nationally.

While to many it seems unlikely this far out I think the more you look into the candidates and the more you look down the road at the issues that will matter in 6-12 months it is clear that Bill Richardson is the strongest candidate the Democrats can run and that he is very much capable of winning the nomination.

The West will decide this election for the first time in US History.  It will be very different than the last two rounds.

For the Euro's, here are some details:

McCain is a veteran Senator from Arizona, in the Southwest bordering California and Mexico.  No sitting Senator has won the Presidency since 1960 (Kennedy).

Richardson is Governor of New Mexico, which borders Arizona and Mexico.  He has previously served as Secretary of Energy and is known for his diplomatics skills and achievements.  He was previously a Congressman from New Mexico.

Giuliani was mayor of New York City through 2002.  He presided over a major drop in crime and a perceived "clean up" of the city. NYC is viewed very differently now than it was before his term.

Obama is a first-term Senator from Illinois.  Previously he served in the Illinois state government.

The Mountain West has been an emerging powerbase for the Democratic Party and the West in general has been steadily increasing its political influence.  The 2006 elections revealed a strong increase in support for the Democrats that is likely to continue.

Another rising voting demographic is those of hispanic ethnicity.  Richardson's mother is from Mexico and he lived in Mexico City as a child.  

Richardson's natural support bases of hispanics and the western states combined with his superior Foreign Policy credentials and resume in general will be very difficult to beat in a Democratic primary in 2008.

by paving on Fri Mar 2nd, 2007 at 07:38:32 PM EST
very interesting analysis.  Interesting we agree on 3 of the 4 positions.  I think Richardson is a great candidate, and I like the executive, governor, experience.  and as you suggest, it's the Democrats race to lose--ie. they should really win.  an additional advantage to running against McCain is that McCain can definitely lose his cool and melt down.  (kind of interessting that our two Vietnam vet candidates, thinking of McCain and Kerry, are both melt down potential.)  good analysis.
by wchurchill on Fri Mar 2nd, 2007 at 08:01:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks for the informative comment and welcome back!

What is Bill Richardson's position on issues like Iraq/Iran/Middle-East, foreign policy and the UN, environment, women's rights/abortion, welfare/social protection, labour and French fries...?  

"Dieu se rit des hommes qui se plaignent des conséquences alors qu'ils en chérissent les causes" Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet

by Melanchthon on Sat Mar 3rd, 2007 at 02:00:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't know what his initial stance on Iraq was.  As a governor, he's well insulated from any past position, having never voted on it.  I do know that he is for direct negotiations with Iran and North Korea, and I believe he was an ambassador to the UN at one time, but I could be thinking of someone else.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Sat Mar 3rd, 2007 at 02:56:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Great stuff, paving.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Sun Mar 4th, 2007 at 07:25:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]