Thursday, September 27, 2007

Is Obama ready for this?

I figured it was finally time to check out one of those Democratic presidential debates (even though it still feels too damn early to me).

So I watched the Dartmouth debate last night on MSNBC. And I was surprised by how unimpressive Barack Obama was. Shoot, doesn’t he have, like, 50 presidential debates under his belt by now?

But he was stammering, and talking about fuzzy shit like “bringing people together”... which doesn’t really mean anything. Obama seemed insubstantial.

When asked by Tim Russert about his qualifications for the presidency, Obama mentioned his experience in the Illinois state legislature, and building coalitions during his campaign for the U.S. Senate.... “the kinds of experience people are looking for right now.”

Uhh... no.

I thought, when Obama stepped into this race, it was a mistake. His time – if he’s destined to have a time – is probably eight years from now, after acquiring some kind of record of accomplishment as a senator.

But then the whole “rock star” mystique swirled up around him, and I figured, “Well, let’s see what happens. Maybe he’ll rise to this.” Besides, a little rock star mystique isn’t bad to see in a presidential race. (Or am I wrong, and you’re just dying to go hear Fred Thompson or Bill Richardson speak?)

Sen. Obama is gonna need to do more than touch the hem of Oprah’s garment and post slick campaign videos on YouTube. He has to start looking like somebody who’s supposed to be President of the United States. (Which is hard to do if you’re not.)

Has anybody been following this debates closely or semi-closely? Was last night an off night for Obama?

35 comments:

Dennis said...

I haven't watched a single debate yet, but I usually try to watch several reviews after-the-fact. Obama has yet to live up the hype in anything he's done. I want him to win, but it really does seem like he's not ready.

memomachine said...

Hmmmmm.

Obama should never have gone into the Senate in the first place. What he should've done is either ran for Gov of his state *or* moved to New Orleans and run for mayor and kicked Ray Nagin to the curb.

Rebuilding and fixing New Orleans would've cemented his political future, particularly since Ray Nagin has done such a, to my distant perspective at least, crappy job of it.

The best path to the Presidency is from another government executive position, not Congress. Which is why Corazine is Gov of New Jersey. He wants to become President and is taking the proper path to get there.

E-Boogie said...

Let's be real, if Obama were white, his experience, or lack there of, would not be such an issue, given his "rock star" status. Other white politicians have had just as little experience, were less charasmatic, and served in the hgih office. That being said, I don't think Obama will win the nomination. Early on, I was pulling for John Edwards and thought Obama would be a great running mate. But now, I have completely fallen in love with Hillary. She's going to win the nomination, but she definitely wouldn't make Obama her running mate. And I don't think it would be a good pairing anyway. (A woman and black man together?!?! White Americans would never go for it!) But in 8 years, Obama will be President!

Undercover Black Man said...

E-Boogie: I had a similar problem with Edwards four years ago. A career as a trial lawyer and a year-and-a-half in the U.S. Senate, and he felt entitled to run for president?

And I still don't see him as a heavyweight.

Also... don't you figure Obama might have that rock-star thing happening because he is black? It hasn't been a liability to him so far.

SJ said...

I have been following this campaign very closely, and have watched most of the debates.

It was definitely an off-night for Obama...he didn't stand out at all. For me Edwards was the winner, followed by Biden (who is not given enough credit).

These debates suck though...just a bunch of soundbites...and they didn't ask Biden much about Iraq, even though he's chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and just yesterday had passed a major bill on Iraq. Then the fact that they didn't ask Kucinich about his healthcare plan (HR 676) which would cover everybody in the US.

I'm a pretty strong Kucinich supporter, because he and Gravel tell it like it us.

susie said...

I heard a most interesting conversation the other night with regard to Obama. I was with a group of friends who are Israeli Jews and they were talking about Giuliani and how he was the hope for the future.

I asked what they thought of Obama and you would have thought I'd suggested that we elect Bin Laden.

I was informed that Obama is a Muslim and that if he became president it was only a matter of time before our country would be in the hands of Muslim extremists and Israel would be blown to bits.

My attempts to enlighten them to the fact that this is disinformation were completely rejected.

All I could do was tell them to delve deeper into who Rudy Giuliani is and maybe check out Snopes on the Obama info.

I could tell they weren't interested. I don't know if people even consider whether someone is ready or best qualified.

At the end of the day our presidential election reminds me of voting for student body president in high school - how else would Bush be in the White House - I don't think anyone really looked at what he did as Governor of Texas. People seem to vote for someone that they'd want to be friends with, or someone who they think believes what they believe.

I would like to see a President who can identify problems and resolve them in a way that takes into account the economic and global repercussions.

I have no idea who that is at this point.

memomachine said...

Hmmm.

if Obama were white

Nonsense. That's a reflexive assertion, not a well thought out one IMO.

Consider former Vice President Dan Quayle. When he was selected to run alongside Bush 41 he had far more political experience than Obama has now. And yet the press pilloried him mercilessly.

Fact is that Obama has gotten an extraordinary pass on many issues from the press because he's black, Democrat and liberal. If he weren't all three he wouldn't stand a chance.

memomachine said...

Hmmmm.

I was with a group of friends who are Israeli Jews and they were talking about Giuliani and how he was the hope for the future.

Well.

1. I would be extremely surprised if Guiliani won the Republican nomination. The simple fact is that not all that many conservatives trust him and the relative few that are willing to support him do so not out of trust but because of "electability". They think he can be elected so they support him. But the downside to that is that if at any time it appears his "electability" is damaged, they'll abandon him in a heartbeat.

Personally I don't trust Guiliani one bit. I don't like his stance on the 2nd Amendment. I don't like his long history of nanny-statism. I don't trust period.

Regardless of how you feel about the 2nd Amendment it's still a central part of the US Constitution. Guiliani's point of view is that the 2nd Amendment isn't set in stone and that it's application, i.e. your Constitutional right, can be modified according to how "safe" your neighborhood is.

Frankly the idea that Constitutional rights can be broached based on arbitrary decisions by bureaucratic flunkies does not make me happy.

2. *shrug* quite a few people aren't reassured that Obama is in fact a Christian.

link

Part of the issue is that Islam allows Muslims to lie to infidels in order to advance Islamic goals. And this has been used in past history rather often. So there is some concern by people that Obama is in fact a devout Muslim pretending to be a Christian in order to put a devout Muslim into the White House, whereupon he'll begin trying to implement policies that will eventually lead to the Islamic conquest of America.

Frankly I don't follow this line of thinking. But other people do. If you have issue with this, convince them, not me. Ok?

memomachine said...

Hmmmm.

how else would Bush be in the White House

1. Because you put up Al Gore in 2000.

2. Because you put up John Kerry in 2004.

Frankly #1 is a wash. I don't care for Gore, and wouldn't vote for him, but it's not a huge mistake. Nominating John Kerry though is just simply going too far. There is no chance whatsoever that I would ever vote for that bastard.

Keep in mind that I'm a conservative, not a Republican. But still there is no way I'd support an America-bashing anti-military twit like John Kerry.

Dougfp said...

Memo, my friend...

Kerry was an "anti-military twit"? Wooden, stiff, uninspiring...I'll grant you those. But Kerry volunteered for Vietnam and won medals for bravery that no Swift Boat Morons can take away. And what's Bush given us? A useless war and a broken military. Neither of which we would now have if Gore or Kerry had been elected instead of George "Childrens can learn" Bush.

Dougfp said...

And don't be so sure about Guiliani. Check today's Gallup Poll...he leads among people who go to church weekly. Apparently for those good Christan folks marital infidelity isn't quite as important as it was in the Clinton era.

Oh, and I agree with you about Obama...he should have run for Governor instead of the Senate. And waited at least one term before running.

Anonymous said...

Is an experienced politian a good thing? Look at what we have now. sfcb

memomachine said...

Hmmmm.

@ dougfp

1. "Kerry was an "anti-military twit"? Wooden, stiff, uninspiring...I'll grant you those."

That Democratic nomination acceptance speech. Ugh. "Thank you. ... thank you ... thank you ... thank you ... thank you ... " etc etc etc.

2. "But Kerry volunteered for Vietnam and won medals for bravery that no Swift Boat Morons can take away."

Sorry but I don't buy this. I really don't believe for a moment that the awards he got were legitimate. But that's not at issue here. What is at issue is his participation with the Winter Soldier and his testimony in front of the US Senate where he accused the US military of acting like "Ghengiz Khan".

Which is complete bull.

The fact is that Kerry has made a career out of bashing the military *and* trying to elevate his own extremely short military career by grandstanding. Do you remember the episode where he spoke at length, and on the record, in the Senate about how he spent his Christmas in Cambodia delivering special forces into that country? Yet there is not one single shred of proof of this. Additionally people who served as the guard force *preventing American forces from making the mistake of going into Cambodia* reported that the draft was too shallow for Swift boats and that pilings had been driven into the rivers and canals to prevent boats from passing through to Cambodia.

But frankly out of all that the issue that I find aggravating is his testimony in front of the US Senate and the media cameras.

3. "And what's Bush given us? A useless war and a broken military."

The Iraq War is a proxy war. It's an attempt at destabilizing the Middle East towards the potential for peaceful democracies. It may fail, it may succeed. The alternative is to continue the past policies of realpolitik and continue reliance on local strongmen who then have carte blanche to do whatever they want to the people under their control.

As for the military, we're actually stronger now than we ever were before. There are literally millions of active duty and retired soldiers who have extensive experience in urban and COIN, COunter INsurgency, operations. Additionally the US military has taken the opportunity to roll out technologies that would've taken many decades to do otherwise due to cost issues.

On top of which the US military has padded the costs in Iraq and Afghanistan to include not just equipment replacements and repairs but also upgrades. Consider the replacement of the Hummer which is going to cost about $5 billion. In peacetime this could never happen because there would be no justification for it. In wartime, it's acceptable.

4. "Neither of which we would now have if Gore or Kerry had been elected instead of George "Childrens can learn" Bush."

You don't know that. You're guessing that they wouldn't have taken the same path. But consider that the same people you're holding up as examples were repeating the same WMD mantra as Bush was pre-War.

Consider that the Democrats have had an enormous post-Vietnam liability in national defense issues. For a Democrat President to appear weak in the face of a deliberate acts, that could prove devastating to the long-term ambitions of the Democratic party.

Consider also the role played by Iran. Could a Democratic President concentrate solely on Afghanistan without dealing with Iran? And could that same President, considering the previous paragraph, do so by buying off Iran? Or intimidating Iran?

IMO any path that leads to military action post-9/11 will eventually lead to Iraq. Democratizing Iraq is absolutely the best hope of reforming the Middle East overall and Iran in particular.

memomachine said...

Hmmmmm.

@ dougfp

1. "And don't be so sure about Guiliani. Check today's Gallup Poll...he leads among people who go to church weekly."

Like I wrote, many people support him because they think he's electable vs Hillary.

But he bombed in front of the NRA with his ridiculous view of the 2nd Amendment and that's a painful loss of 4+ million voters nationally and the huge pool of money.

2. "Apparently for those good Christan folks marital infidelity isn't quite as important as it was in the Clinton era."

For some fidelity means a lot. For some it doesn't. Frankly I view it as less important in most cases. However it is true that in his personal life Guiliani acts sometimes a bit flaky. Consider his recent habit of talking to his wife on his cellphone in the midst of a speech. Very irritating for some people.

*shrug* my basic point about Guiliani is that he will continue looking look on the outside, but the political support will rot away on the inside until his campaign completely collapses.

3. "Oh, and I agree with you about Obama...he should have run for Governor instead of the Senate. And waited at least one term before running."

Yes. Governor *or* mayor of New Orleans. Frankly if he had run for mayor of New Orleans he'd have slaughtered Ray Nagin. And as mayor he'd have the national bully pulpit when desired, huge influence in Congress to get what New Orleans needs and, at the end of it all, an entire major US **city** that he could reasonably point to as his rationale for running for President.

The positives that could've been generated from a successful rebuilding of New Orleans and the revitalization of that economy are almost incalculable.

E-Boogie said...

"Fact is that Obama has gotten an extraordinary pass on many issues from the press because he's black, Democrat and liberal. If he weren't all three he wouldn't stand a chance."

I couldn't disagree more. Obama is extremely charasmatic and smart. You're really going to compare Obama to Dan Quayle? Now, that's an asertion that's not well thought out. Dan Quayle said a lot of really stupid things that the media latched on to, like when he was in Latin America and he said he wished he spoke Latin.

I think what has been putting Obama over is his charisma. I haven't met him in person, but numerous people who has says it's that same kind of charm that Bill clinton has and Kennedy had. Furthermore, tehre have been plenty of black people who have attemped to run in the past who have not been treated as a "rock star" so, again, that assertion is "not well thought of."

Dougfp said...

Memo...

Not sure if I agree with you on Obama running for mayor of New Orleans. To move to a state he's never lived in, run for office, then launch a Presidential campaign? I mean, who could get away with that?

Oh, right...

Undercover Black Man said...

^ Heh-heh...

Undercover Black Man said...

SJ: I'm glad to hear from someone who has been watching the debates closely.

I'm gonna start watching regularly now.

susie said...

Memo:

--Frankly I don't follow this line of thinking. But other people do. If you have issue with this, convince them, not me. Ok?--

I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

OK?

I did not put up Kerry or Gore because I am not a Democrat.

You make many salient points and seem to be exhaustively informed, but you also come off as somewhat combative and defensive in your point - counterpoint communication.

I don't have the energy for that,
but I would be sincerely interested to know who, of the available options, you consider to be a good candidate (electable or not)?

Thanks.

Becky said...

I've been watching the debates closely, but I missed this one. (And I haven't checked the archives yet.) I haven't seen much substance in Obama. And I'm not sure what made him think it was a good idea to say we would invade Pakistan. He actually comes across better on the page (I've read both of his books) than in person, for me. I guess as much as he talks about being a catalyst for change and being different? He's not really all that different from your average politician.

memomachine said...

Hmmmm.

@ e-boogie

1. "I couldn't disagree more. Obama is extremely charasmatic and smart. You're really going to compare Obama to Dan Quayle?"

*shrug* charismatic to some extent? Maybe. Smart? Maybe. But while we're all been inundated with politic-speak Obama has yet to really come out with anything in the way of solid policy positions. And the real key as to whether or not someone is smart is whether or not they can expound on the details of their policies.

So I'm still rather hesitant to adopt the Obamamania.

2. "Now, that's an asertion that's not well thought out. Dan Quayle said a lot of really stupid things that the media latched on to, like when he was in Latin America and he said he wished he spoke Latin."

Sure he did. But even before he said any of those things Dan Quayle was getting absolutely hammered in the press because of his supposed inexperience.

3. "Furthermore, tehre have been plenty of black people who have attemped to run in the past who have not been treated as a "rock star" so, again, that assertion is "not well thought of."

Really? Who? Jesse Jackson who has had numerous scandals? Al Sharpton who was intimately involved with Tawana Brawley and the incitement to murder in Freddy's Fashion Mart?

How about "hymie town"?

I'm not saying you're wrong. But if you're thinking of a different candidate, then I'd like to know about it.

memomachine said...

Hmmmm.

@ dougfp

Not sure if I agree with you on Obama running for mayor of New Orleans. To move to a state he's never lived in, run for office, then launch a Presidential campaign? I mean, who could get away with that? Oh, right...

ROFL!

Still and all I think Obama could've jumpstarted his career more impressively with success as New Orleans mayor. Right now one of the biggest hurdles he's trying to overcome is that fact that nobody is certain if he's really Presidential material or if he's a charismatic empty suit manipulated by political advisers.

memomachine said...

Hmmmm.

@ susie

1. "I'm not trying to convince you of anything."

*shrug* I was just repeating a meme that's currently in use by other people. My writing was perhaps not specific enough but I wanted to put some distance between my views and that meme.


2. "I did not put up Kerry or Gore because I am not a Democrat."

*shrug* I didn't vote for either because I didn't trust them. Same difference really.


3. "You make many salient points and seem to be exhaustively informed, but you also come off as somewhat combative and defensive in your point - counterpoint communication."

Sorry. For me politics is a contact sport. If people aren't spitting out teeth and wiping up the blood at the end of the day, then you're not really talking politics. :)


4. "I don't have the energy for that,
but I would be sincerely interested to know who, of the available options, you consider to be a good candidate (electable or not)?"

*shrug* it's very hard to say really as they all have some serious negatives.

On the Democrat side:

Hillary Clinton: has a great deal of baggage and the Clinton tendency to scandal. She's not even in the White House yet and she's already into her first major scandal with this Hsu guy.

Obama: Still not convinced he's more than an empty suit.

Kucinich: An out and out nutcase.

John Edwards: Anybody who lives in a 28,000 square foot home, with indoor basketball court, and talks about the poor just gives me the creeps.

On the Republican side:

Ron Paul: serious fruitcake.

Guiliani: I simply don't trust him. He'll say anything to get into office, that's a common trait amongst all candidates, but Guiliani takes it one step further. And I really don't think he'll be nominated.

Mitt Romney: the decision is still out on this guy. It's possible he could win the nomination but he has yet to really put out any serious policy positions.

Thompson: I have the feeling that Thompson will win the Republican nomination and the Presidency. My reservation is that I'm not sure he's fit for the job. There have been accusations in the past that Thompson is lazy in office. He doesn't like doing the meetings and the other motley stuff of office-holding. Which is ok, not great, in a Senator since there's the other 99 to hold the bag.

But there's only one President. And having one who might not be up to the workload of the toughest job in the world doesn't excite me.

...

In all honesty I'm rather underwhelmed by the candidates. In the end I think it'll be Hillary/Obama vs Thompson/Romney, with Thompson/Romney winning the White House. However I also think the American voter is not overly enthused about having one party control Congress and the White House so I think the Democrats will absolutely slaughter the Republicans in Congress ... unless they really screw up.

Which is possible since it seems the Democrats have been screwing up lately. Though it does seem to be a bit of a rush to the bottom as the Republicans haven't been all that much better.

memomachine said...

Hmmmmm.

@ becky

1. "I haven't seen much substance in Obama."

That's a feeling a lot of people have been having. Which is why Obama has had almost no success in catching up to Hillary.

What Obama has been successful in doing is making speeches filled with politic-speak. A favorite example of mine is from the movie "The Outlaw Josie Wales" where the Native American in the top hate recounts his visit to Washington D.C. where his elders are told to "endeavor to persevere". Whereupon, after much deliberation, they declare war on America.

Like most politic-speak "endeavor to persevere" sounds great, but really doesn't mean anything. And because it doesn't mean anything it's very easy for anybody to sound very smart, without actually having to be so.

And politic-speak looks even better on paper.


2. " And I'm not sure what made him think it was a good idea to say we would invade Pakistan."

That rather astonished everyone. That and his willingness to open up negotiations with anybody without preconditions. Preconditions that are often required because, for many of the more dangerous nutcases in the world, the very act of meeting to negotiate is extremely useful in terms of propaganda.


3. "I guess as much as he talks about being a catalyst for change and being different? He's not really all that different from your average politician."

*shrug* Being a catalyst for change sounds great, but actually coming out and providing the details is much better. And it's the details that are missing. Perhaps it's a campaign decision to prevent getting attacked or having ideas stolen. Still people want there to be more in Obama than there might actually be.

*shrug* like I pointed out in an earlier comment. Had Obama gone to New Orleans, been elected mayor and then gone on to accomplish the very difficult task of rebuilding New Orleans then he'd have a huge set of accomplishments that would greatly aid his Presidential aspirations.

Dougfp said...

Memo...

At my age, these IM abbreviations get confusing. What does ROLF mean?

Undercover Black Man said...

^ It's okay, Doug. ROFL... Rolling on the Floor Laughing.

Memo: Thompson? President? You think? Really?

I saw his big to-do announcement on Jay Leno... and I could barely sit through it. The man is a walking sleep aid. I cannot imagine him on the stump.

You don't have to be a "rock star" to become a major-party candidate. (Dukakis! Dole!) But you gotta have something going on. I think Thompson overestimates the celeb factor regarding his TV work.

Dougfp said...

Ah! Rolling on the floor laughing!

I just learned that BFF means Best Friends Forever or something. I had it down for Big Fat Fucker.

I, too, doubt Thompson will go anywhere. He doesn't have enough fire in his belly. I mean, Hillary, Rudy, McCain...these guys WANT it. In the end, Thompson will be the media sensation that never was.

My prediction on '08: Hillary/Wesley Clark vs. Guiliani/Huckabee. The question will be whether with a guy like Huckabee on the ticket and the motivation of a second Clinton presidency, the Religious Right will fall into line. I'm guessing not and they'll be a third party candidate to Rudy's right who'll draw enough votes in swing Southern states (Virginia, North Carolina) to doom Guiliani.

Unity '08 will go nowhere. It's based on a flawed premise: that you can take politics out of politics.

Hillary will end up winning much as Bill did: with under 50% of the vote. Conservatives will move to France and Rush Limbaugh's head will explode on live radio.

Undercover Black Man said...

^ Another Clinton Administration would be the best thing that ever happened to Rush Limbaugh.

As for Wesley Clark... has he been sitting on a shelf for the last four years or what?

susie said...

Thanks for the breakdown Memo. I haven't thought that Thompson could really get there because he's seems like kind of a non-event. I was thinking it might be Romney for the Republicans because he kind of has this Kennedy/Camelot spin thing happening with all the pretty mormon children.

I pretty much agree with your assessment of everyone else. No one has got me excited and hopeful.

Big Fat Fucker - Doug you make me laugh! I would be freaked out if Guiliani/Huckabee were on the ticket. The mere thought of that gives me the heebeee jeeebees.

Dougfp said...

Clark endorsed Hillary a few weeks ago. Why the rush unless he's angling for VP? If not Clark, then someone like Richardson, who'd give the Dems New Mexico and bring some foreign policy gravitas. Trouble is, he's a terrible politician. I don't think she'll turn to Obama and certainly not Edwards.

And yeah, I guess Limbaugh would enjoy having Hillary to kick around around for four more years.

Maybe Sean Hannity's head will explode instead. Although I grant you it would produce a far smaller explosion.

memomachine said...

Hmmm.

@ UBM

Memo: Thompson? President? You think? Really?

I saw his big to-do announcement on Jay Leno... and I could barely sit through it. The man is a walking sleep aid. I cannot imagine him on the stump.


I'm sorry to say that just about all of the other candidates are so heavily flawed, from a conservative or Republican perspective, that Thompson almost wins by default.

Even now a huge number of Christian groups are coming together to threaten the GOP with abandonment if Guiliani gets the nomination. Plus Guiliani just recently pissed off all 4+ million gun owners in the NRA *plus* millions more that aren't in the NRA.

I don't know who is selecting out Presidential candidates but they need a good hot cup of coffee and a powerful slap in the face. Wake them up some.

Heck the 2004 Democrat Presidential race was also a huge snoozer. The only one that seemed to have a personality at all was Al Sharpton.

memomachine said...

Hmmmm.

@ dougfp

My prediction on '08: Hillary/Wesley Clark vs. Guiliani/Huckabee.

Sorry but I seriously doubt it.

1. Wesley Clark doesn't have any voter block, regional area or power group to offer. Plus he has a lot of issues that simply destroyed his ability to run a campaign.

The biggest downside for Clark though is that he was a total f**kup as a general. He was in charge of the Balkans air campaign for Clinton. He nearly started a war with Russia when he demanded permission to "push" a Russian armored battalion off an airbase he wanted. The local commanding officer, a British general, told Clark to go f**k himself when Clark gave the order to push the Russians off, then went behind Clark's back and got Clinton to get Clark to settle down.

The other thing? Clark spent hundreds of millions of dollars of high tech precision weapons in his air campaign against the Serbian tanks and, as it turns out, largely wasted them on fake plywood tanks the Serbians setup everywhere.

2. Guiliani is melting down right now and has zero chance of winning the nomination. Hardcore Christian groups will not support him. NRA, gun owners and 2nd Amendment supporters will not support him.

*shrug* he really doesn't stand a chance. I give his campaign another 3-5 months before it simply dissolves to grey goo.

3. Huckabee?

You got a sense of humor man that is unmatched.

memomachine said...

Hmmmm.

@ susie

I pretty much agree with your assessment of everyone else. No one has got me excited and hopeful.

Yeah. I liken the candidates to a huge bowl of unsalted mashed potatoes. With no ketchup, gravy, butter or anything else.

It's edible, but not desirable.

Dougfp said...

I'm not advocating Clark for VP, but I think Hillary will pick a white male with military or foreign policy experience. The ideal choice would be Jim Webb...if he weren't in his first term and about as controllable as a live hand grenade.

Why not the Huckster? Guiliani will need a Born-Again and Brownback is about the only other guy out there with any profile.

I still think Rudy has the best chance for the GOP nomination. He'll sweep the big states like NY and California and leave the rest behind. McCain is toast and the media seems not to have noticed that Romney hasn't been above 10 percent since he announced.

Thompson could beat Guiliani if the Right organizes around him, but I'm with UBM. The guy seriously overestimated how much star power he has based on being on "L & O". They couldn't consistently draw eight million viewers last year.

By the way, as much as I applaud your outside-the-box thinking on Obama for mayor of New Orleans? He'd have to be psychic on top of everything else, wouldn't he? Given that he ran for the Senate in 2004 and Katrina was in 2005, I mean.

memomachine said...

Hmmmmm.

@ dougfp

1. "I'm not advocating Clark for VP, but I think Hillary will pick a white male with military or foreign policy experience."

I agree, but not Clark. And I seriously doubt John Edwards either since he's both a snake and a live hand grenade. Putting him in as VP would be politically dangerous to Hillary as I could see him doing just about anything to undermine her in office. Bill Richardson might be a safe alternative, particularly since he evidently has the charisma of a rock and thus would pose little threat.


2. "The ideal choice would be Jim Webb...if he weren't in his first term and about as controllable as a live hand grenade."

He does seem somewhat self-destructive. Particularly since his election is based almost wholely on the whole "maccaca" thing. Which I frankly still don't quite understand what the heck it is and why Allen said it.


3. "Why not the Huckster? Guiliani will need a Born-Again and Brownback is about the only other guy out there with any profile."

Because the Social Conservatives aren't going to be mollified by the inclusion of a holy roller as VP. It simply will not wash. They are, and have been, extremely suspicious of Guiliani because what he's saying now to curry favor is in complete opposition to how he's acted for decades.

*shrug* there's is an extraordinary lack of both respect and trust for the GOP within the ranks of the Conservative Movement. I'm a conservative and I know a couple hundred conservatives both locally and nationally. With very few exceptions they are all very angry with the GOP and would bolt *immediately* for a third party if one existed with a good candidate.

It wouldn't bother either me or them if this gutted the GOP and destroyed it utterly as a viable political party. It wouldn't give any of us the slightest concern if this relegated the GOP to the same status as the Whigs.

IMO the biggest variable in the 2008 election cycle is if the GOP helps pass an amnesty for illegal aliens. If that happens then all bets are off because many conservatives intend to completely abandon the GOP regardless of consequences.


4. "I still think Rudy has the best chance for the GOP nomination."

*shrug* I disagree. IMO his campaign is running on fumes. So it gives the illusion of health and vitality, but the reality underneath is far different. Simply put: there are far too many diverse and powerful voting blocks that simply do not want Guiliani.

Another point that needs to be considered is that Guiliani has a very long history of doing really strange things. This current habit of answering phone calls from his wife during speeches is only the latest in a long line of weird behavior. I'm not entirely certain that the country, or the planet, is really ready for a President that is comfortable in a summer frock, high heels and lipstick.


5. "McCain is toast and the media seems not to have noticed that Romney hasn't been above 10 percent since he announced."

Very true. McCain's problem is that he seems to have an instinctive need to be in opposition to someone or something. Anything happens and you can bet that McCain will be on the other side. Which is a problem since most conservatives view him not only as completely untrustworthy but as an active enemy.

Romney on the other hand seems like a nice guy who came very very late to the party. Frankly Romney should've been laying down the ground work for his Presidential run over the past decade. His problem is that his "conversion" to conservatism seems phony.

And after years of Bush "compassionate conservatism" most conservatives aren't willing to give anybody a break.


6. "Thompson could beat Guiliani if the Right organizes around him, but I'm with UBM."

The problem with Thompson is that a huge number of conservatives are still waiting for him to prove himself. We're not willing to go all out for a wallflower. We want someone who will get into the opposition's face and be ready to draw blood. And so far he hasn't really impressed anybody.

*shrug* it sounds pretty bad in a way but conservatives are very very angry now. If someone, such as Romney perhaps, really got a fire in his belly. Got out there and became far more confrontational and fought the Democrats, he'd probably beat everybody else.

We're rather tired of the same old crowd who get beat up by Democrats and then go and apologize to them for bloodying their knuckles. What conservatives really want right now is someone who would have the balls to walk right up to some Democrat's face and stick a political knife into his guts.

Find that candidate, and that candidate would win.


7. "By the way, as much as I applaud your outside-the-box thinking on Obama for mayor of New Orleans? He'd have to be psychic on top of everything else, wouldn't he? Given that he ran for the Senate in 2004 and Katrina was in 2005, I mean."

It would mean he would have to have resigned from the Senate seat. But the needs of those citizens in New Orleans would've given excellent cover for that. And I'm certain that plenty of people from New Orleans would've gotten behind an Obama run for mayor.

Consider who the candidates were. Ray Nagin and Not Ray Nagin. Not much of a choice there.