I think that the swing to the right was most likely a response to the left's response after 12 years of Republicans in the White House. After we swing to the left for the next 8 years, we'll probably swing back to the right as a response. These things always work like this.
But the Clinton administration was no where nearly as extreme as the Bush administration, could there be an administration that is more extreme without declaring himself the king?
But we won't swing to the left if the Dems put up a guy or gal that a large voting block will not even consider.... DD
i was referring more to the general mindset of the people not the guy in the white house. sorry about the reference to the 12 years of Republicans, that would have confused me too.
Kerry...yes....another North East democrat with ZERO chance of winning. This is exactly the problem......got to get the voters in the south to vote for someone too. Southern democrat......that is the ticket....anything else is forgetable. DD
I think Edwards could be the underdog who steals the spotlight away from Obama and Hillary much like Kerry in '04 with Dean (though that was a extremely tepid field).
Exactamundo! I'd like to hear this come out in his speeches... he's on the clock waaaaaay early, and you only get so much time before people begin to pay attention to others in the race. If he doesn't make his points verbal very soon, others may steal some of his stances that are appealing, then he comes off looking like he's the one stealing, and playing catch up. He's less of good choice to me simply because of his lack of this understanding... he must strike while the iron is hot... get it out there before others do... (Of course the more he talks now, the more he'll flip-flop if he's a good democrat.)
If Barack can prove he's more of a moderate than he seems and he gets the DNC nomination and Guiliani gets the GOP nomination, we might have a decent election. I'm somewhat disappointed in some of the positions I see Obama taking as he paints himself as a moderate but as it's so early in the process, I'm more than willing to see how it all develops. The problem with both parties is there are very few, if any, good choices and a large number of uninspiring ones.
Isn't Guiliani's problem that he is pro choice? Does he even stand a chance in the republican side if he is pro choice? DD
Obama doesn't paint himself as just a moderate, and his position is that those terms are obsolete and lead to not getting things done. What Obama is for is finding the common ground in order to get things done. Here is a hypothetical example. Let's say Obama is for 100% free healthcare, medicines, preventive care everything. He wants it all to be covered by the govt. That is not a moderate position. Let's say conservatives are obviously against that. Rather than say Obama is for all that stuff he can't be worked with, he would rather find common ground. Maybe everyone involved is for reduced medicines and free preventive care(because that will save money in the long run as well as lives) for people living below the poverty line or at least below the poverty line primarily because health costs forced them into that situation. Obama is for finding that common ground rather than rely on obsolete labels which lead to nothing getting done. That doesn't mean he won't continue to work on the other things he believes, and others won't work to stop those, but with most issues both sides can find something they agree on, and if they are willing to work together instead of looking only at labels then it is a better more efficient govt. That is different than giving up things you believe in. It is about finding something that both sides agree on.
I agree but he's going to have to prove that he's willing to compromise on a lot of issues. It's going to be hard for him because in order to get the Democratic nomination, he's going to have to be fairly hardcore on some of the issues and then spend the campaign convincing voters that he's not hardcore. It's the same problem Guiliani is going to face. As far as Guiliani getting the GOP nomination, I think the midterm beatdown the GOP received opened the eyes of many that they can't just cater to the fundamentalists anymore, thank God (no pun intended).
With healthcare costs these days, I think if Obama did suggest this, he would find a majority of Americans approving this deal, and any congressman who votes against it does so at his own peril.
As for Rudy getting the nomination... If the Primary schedule stays as it is right now, there is absolutely no way he gets it, thanks to the evangelical vote in the South. He is pro choice, pro gay rights and pro gun control. The voters DaDa is speaking of are just as scared of Rudy as they are Obama. But, if New Jersey and California move their primaries up, he's got a great chance of getting such a lead that the South cannot stop his getting the nomination. The good thing about that is that there is no way the God, Guns and Gays wing of the party votes for him in a general election. Thus a Third Party candidate representing them will appear and hand the election to the Democrats. Rudy is a much bigger risk to the Republicans than Obama is to the Democrats.
I don't think DaDa's point was what they *should* do. It's what they *will* do. Whether people want to admit it or not, his being black will be a challenge for him. Whether he can overcome it, who really knows.
