LOL, I thought there was something strange about your post. First time since 1936 that a president was elected and won more seats in congress! Largest popular vote EVER for the winning President......amazing how many people came out to vote.
Today, and the next four years has me excited! Liberals are crying and angry, they want to lash out in vitriol revenge by any means necessary...That is the clear impression. This election says your efforts aren't working... Kerry ran the best campaign possible, and it still led to the most votes in history to a U.S. President!...Self-examination needs to happen...You need to cut off the far lefts, Moore, and the "screaming-mad" liberal politicians...This neo-demo. technique is clearly dead... If you want a chance to win, ...compromise. Stop trying to be anti-gun, stand for an unpopular issue for once, Be better on clarifying your foreign policy message...Your candidate of the future is a moderate.
I've been here the whole thread. As for Clinton Obama ticket in 08, I would rathter reverse the order. I know that Hilary is a big name in the democratic party, but she isn't my favorite, nor do I think that she has the best change of winning. She seems like a consumate politian type, who comes off as slick, and vulnerable to make actions and votes for political reasons and not on principle. She will polarize people for sure. But she is smart, and I agree with her stance on a majority of issues. She has slightly more charisma than Kerry but not that much more. She won't win very many if any southern states including Florida.
Obama is too liberal for his own good. John Ellis Bush / Rudolph Guiliani in 2008 would crush that ticket into tiny bits.
You would think by losing this election that the Democrats would see the need for getting a candidate who is more moderate than liberal. Obama or Hillary is not that candidate. But I guess I should not complain if that happens.
Maybe because Kerry still has his senate seat, whereas Edwards gave his up and it went to a republican. DD
How can you say Obama is a negatively connotated"liberal"? His legislative record is as a consensus builder. He has drawn endorsements and votes from across the political spectrum. You seem to have prejudged.
Obama has won and convinced many long time Republicans to vote for their first Democrat ever. That was before Keyes was his opponent and the sex scandal involving Jerry Ryan surfaced. Obama wins support from all over the political spectrum, and doesn't just rely on liberals as his base. I've seen stories that show very much the opposite of that, but if you have any that show he only plays to a liberal base, I will read them with an open mind.
Sam and FB: I will gladly admit that I am not an expert on these things and I have no idea if the link I am providing is a biased one or not (maybe a mistake for me admitting this instead of bluffing ), but I did a google search on "Obama" and "Liberal". Basically to summarize this article, Obama has been accused of being very liberal in the past but now being more of a moderate. Maybe this article is one to take with a grain of salt; I really don't know. I do know that if Obama is the Democratic candidate for 2008 instead of Hillary, there exists a better chance of me voting for the Democrats. I guess I will need to really decide for myself if Obama is truly a moderate Democrat or not.
That's fair enough, and I wasn't trying to accuse you of making stuff up, I just hadn't heard about Obama as a liberal idealogue, and had heard the opposite, so I was curious where the story was coming from. I will read it now. Thanks.
If Hillary is on the ticket in '08, I'll step in front of a bus and spare myself the misery. Obama in '08! Keep D&D Civil!!
Democrats need to wake up and figure out they need a heavy hitter. Someone who's not going to take crap for 8 months and then start swinging a big stick in the last week when its too late. They need someone that's going to come out punching from the get-go. Middle america will respect that more than a charisma-less politico like Kerry or Lieberman. The 'hot button' issues (gay marriage etc) don't leave the democrats handicapped (see Gore) as much as people think. A candidate that polarizes the country isn't a bad think results-wise (see Bush). Vote 'No' on Mondale/Dukakis/Kerry wimpy candidates: Hillary in 2008.
Not as much. Democrats will vote for him because they think he is a very moderate Republican. Moderate Republicans would also vote for him with no problems. The estremes on both sides probably wouldn't, in addition to various other sections. Not sure if he would actually win, though. A black Democrat at this time would be worse than a New England Democrat. Only deeply entrenched Dems would vote for him. Racist Dems would not, racist Republicans would not, and most of the rest of the Republicans would either see him as too liberal or not think he was significantly better than their candidate to merit voting outside of the party.
So do you think there won't be a black president? Personally, I don't believe there will be one, at least not in my lifetime.
I think people who normally wouldn't vote for a black man would be comfortable voting for Powell because he has been on the scene so much longer and his familiarity brings a degree of comfort. For certain people I believe time tends to blur an individuals race depending on their chosen profession.
