[Omniscaper]

Kazan, the digital revolutionary. Reading your interpretations of the world is a nice counter balance to Ann Coulter's ravings.

Who would like to see run for the Dem side of the 2008 US elections may I ask?

[Kosh]

I wish people would start talking about authoritarian vs libertarian parties and be done with the left/right thing except in financial debates.

Won't happen here. Most americans are only capable of thinking in one dimension.

[redmenace]

[Kazan]

Originally posted by Omniscaper
Kazan, the digital revolutionary. Reading your interpretations of the world is a nice counter balance to Ann Coulter's ravings.

why thank you

[/b]
Who would like to see run for the Dem side of the 2008 US elections may I ask? [/B]

Who I may want to run
Personally I like Howard Dean very much - I've met him (in the Sun Room of the Memorial Union at Iowa State University), asked him a question, got an answer i absolutely loved, etc.   When you're in the same room as him you cannot help but be sucked up in his "energy".  

He is also unafraid to call someone out for what they are, etc.

The entire "scream" indicident was an unfortunate TV problem.  The croud ATE IT UP, they loved it, you can see harkin start smiling and chuckling.  It however didn't translate to tv well, and people decided to brow beat him with it.   They ignored the fact that he, without prompting, named each of the 50 states at the top of his lungs --- which is very impressive.


I'd like him to run from president again, but from a political tactics situation I am not 100% sure, I would need some good polling data, on a lot of dimensions to figure out exactly whats up.


----------------
Who I don't want to run

I don't want John Kerry to run again, though i do like him a lot.  He wasn't plagued with any problem personally - it was his campaign tactictians and the skill of Karl Rove (that stupid "flip-flop" bull**** -- if you don't know why it's bull**** i can write an entire article for you ).   He would get eaten alive if he ran again unfortunately, because to win he would have to change his tactics - he would have to give DETAILS about what the differences are -- not just "he does this and it's wrong", but how would you do it better john?

John also had the problem that it takes a while to "warm up to him", which is probably partially due to the intentional vagueness that his campaign tacticians had him project.  It required paying very close attention to what he was saying over time to figure out his plans --- his plans were AWESOME, he just needed to come out and blatantly say them.


-----------

ABSOLUTELY NO HILLARY -- do I even have to explain?

[Lynx]

Originally posted by Kazan
ABSOLUTELY NO HILLARY -- do I even have to explain?

Yes. From what I've read and heard here in my country she didn't seem too bad a politician, and most of the stuff I read about her in the internet is like, "Die Satan's bride you evil babymurdering witch OMG!!" which most people sounding like old farts who are afraid of women.

[Kazan]

she is a good politician - no doubt about it, but far too many people see her as an extremist, etc etc -- there is just too much mud to sling

plus considering the current state of this country we're not mature enough to handle a woman president

[Grey Wolf]

Realistically, there aren't many ways to prevent Hillary from running in 2008. One would be to get a popular and well-known moderate to run or to steal a moderate (McCain, for example) from the Republicans. A second would be the tactic which my state could try, which would be making her lose her Senate seat in 2006, which would ruin her chances of running for President in 2008.

[Kazan]

she can _run_ but we can cut her off in the primaries

the republicans are prepairing to run condi against hillary

[Rictor]

McCain and/or Powell could win in an instant, but they're not extremist enought to get nominated. As for Hilary, well, she's as bad as Johnny Boy. ****ing "New Democracts", they're almost as bad as the Republicans.

The primaries are a mockery of democracy. They mess up the whole electoral process, since there is no actual voting to speak of.

[Kazan]

um rictor the primaries ARE voting smartguy

[Rictor]

I stand corrected. I'm sure I hear/read is several places that there was no voting in the primaries. Hmm, my bad I guess.

But nevertheless, the process is more a media war than anything. Basically, the last man standing who hasn't been discredited in some way (for example the Dean scream).

[karajorma]

I've still never been able to figure out why the democrats can't wreck the rublican primaries by voting for an unsuitable candidate and visa versa.

[Rictor]

so then what do you call Kerry?

[redmenace]

Originally posted by karajorma
I've still never been able to figure out why the democrats can't wreck the rublican primaries by voting for an unsuitable candidate and visa versa.

Depending on the state, only people registered to a specific party can vote in that parties primaries. Other states, such as New Hampsher, allow any registered voter to vote in primaries. Vast majority of states are of the former.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Rictor
so then what do you call Kerry?

The most electable. Sadly.

[redmenace]

However, Edwards was not. He really is a new senator *I think*.