What gets me about some of Webb's liberal positions on the energy industry, free trade, and healthcare is that it tries to punish those who are working their hardest to contribute to an elevated standard of living in the US. Instead of looking at the benefits of a more secure source of oil supplies, superior healthcare (with fairly compensated doctors), and the benefits of low consumer prices and US exports that come alongside free trade, Webb instead tries to 'retaliate' against any concern that makes money. OK, so you want to retaliate. Then what? Where does your retaliation leave you? Answer: worse off than when you started. It leaves you with higher oil prices, higher consumer products prices, and inferior healthcare with doctor's not earning a wage consistent with their 10 years of training. Webb has a real vindictive streak, and is a hot-head. This scares me about him, and frankly distances him from exercising sound judgment.
If he picked Evan Bayh, and the Republicans put out a crazy man like McCain, I might possibly consider voting for Obama. Doubtful, since I think Obama is destructive enough to overwhelm any return of freedom that Bayh might pursue. Odds are that I'd still vote 3rd party, but I would at least consider my first Democratic Presidential vote ever.
I think the change would be primarily focusing on the common ground as opposed to differences. There is so much that could be accomplished with common sense reforms and improvements - we saw this in the 1990's when, after the government shutdown, both parties really started working together and had great, moderate achievements. The problem today is that both parties are unwilling to compromise at all, and neither party has any interest in listening to the other side. The point is simply to deny the other party and victories. That's the culture that needs to be changed - and given that we were there just 10 years ago, it doesn't strike me as a particularly impossible task. But you need someone that's not going to be reviled and demonized by half the country on Day #1 - that's why someone like Hillary, no matter anything else about her, probably wouldn't be capable of it (ignoring the fact that she openly despises the right-wing anyway).
Who else here thinks Edwards will join Obama and run as vice president once it is clear that Obama will be the democratic candidate? I hope so. They would make a great team, IMO.
I think there are two issues with this: 1. Edwards has same "experience" issue as Obama - you'd think an Obama would pick a VP that helped nullify that. 2. Do you really run for VP twice, especially if you lost the first time? Beyond that, it does make a lot of sense but I don't know that it would ever happen. In today's debate, Edwards was easily the most interesting of the bunch - hopefully that doesn't take votes away from Obama and end up helping Hillary by accident.
Excellent point. I just don't see Edwards being on the ticket if Obama runs. It'll be someone else. It really ought to be someone who's from the South or the West, is seen as experienced, and is more moderate/conservative (and popular). Webb might not fit all those descriptions, but he might make a good fit. There's several others to consider, as well. We might be getting ahead of ourselves, but it's fun speculation. Personally, I'd like to see Obama pick a running mate who's a big supporter of NASA and manned space flight. Impeach Bush.
Webb seems like the best choice but at the same time it might suit Webb and the DNC to leave Webb in the Senate. The Democrats are making very strong inroads into the Mountain West and I think geographically ideally someone from there would be good. Richardson or CO senator Salazar might be good choices but would the US accept a ticket of an African American and a Hispanic? While Obama is looking like he might overcome racial politics an all minority ticket might be pushing it too far. One way out there choice that I was thinking of would be Rep. Heath Schuler. For Democrats he is about as conservative as they can get and might provide the unity ticket appeal. Also both are relatively young and telegenic and for photo ops would be a huge contrast to an elderly McCain or slightly goofy looking Huckabee even if those guys had a youthful running mate like Minnesota gov. Tim Pawlenty. All of the regional and issue calculation for VP might not matter that much as Al Gore and Cheney showed that a ticket can still win even without balancing out the pres. nominee.
So your criteria to lead the most powerful nation on earth is to be 'telegenic' and good for 'photo ops'. That is just pathetic. It's a sad reality that most democrats are thinking along these lines. Hillary, as much as I despise her, actually hit the nail on the head last night when she called for a 'reality break' and said that change is more than a stump speech and some words. You need SOME substance on the ticket. After all, if the Pres goes down, then the VP assumes leadership. HEATH SHULER as the President? Are you f'ing kidding?
Brings a tear to my eye. <object width="425" height="373"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AmUUYo9o9eg&rel=1&border=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AmUUYo9o9eg&rel=1&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="373"></embed></object>
Nice video. As of right now, if I had a vote and the elections were today, I'd vote for Obama. I have to admit, though, that this is just an outside view at an early stage in the process, based on limited information and not taking domestic politics in the US into account much, and obviously, I don't have a vote. But people in the world are watching what is going on in the USA, and I think many people around the world are hoping for a charismatic leader who has the potential to make the world a better place. Many commentaries and articles in Germany spoke of Obama as the potential "new Kennedy". By the way, Desert_Rocket, if you want people to vote for the guy, you might want to start with getting his name right in your signature.
This is the essence of the Obama candidacy: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/e.../articles/2008/01/05/why_america_needs_obama/ Why America needs Obama By Deval Patrick January 5, 2008 I AM proud to be a Democrat, but sometimes Democratic politics can be tiresome. For years, candidates have appealed to voters by arguing how they can win or why any Democrat would be better than any Republican. They miss the fact that voters are more interested in why Democrats should win than how we will. They mistakenly believe that discontent with Republicans will assure a Democratic victory, when in truth most of us aren't buying 100 percent of what either party is selling. So, election after election, we end up with the same old debate and commentary about competing electoral tactics rather than a vision for the future. We have a chance this time to choose a different kind of candidate, a different kind of president. Barack Obama is the only candidate in the field who has demonstrated the ability to unite people across differences around common cause. From his work in Chicago neighborhoods, to the Illinois Senate, to the US Senate, to his success in campaigning for other candidates in so-called red states like Missouri, Nebraska, Tennessee, and Virginia, Obama has shown an uncommon ability to work across differences and get meaningful results. Applying that talent to a vision for a better, safer, more just, and more prosperous American future could not come a moment too soon. We face profound challenges. The Bush administration has been ineffective in foreign policy and absent in domestic policy. While our troops are performing well abroad, their mission was poorly conceived and their exit strategy nonexistent. At home, the poor are in terrible shape and the middle class are one month away from being poor. Healthcare and college costs are getting further and further out of reach, roads and bridges are in disrepair, and a lot of the people in power have spent more time denying climate change than trying to defeat it. Everyday people are anxious, and their anxiety knows no party. America needs Obama. He has comprehensive plans to end the war in Iraq, provide universal healthcare, lift up schools, and to save the planet. I like many of his ideas. But frankly most candidates in the race - Democrat and Republican - have a couple of good ideas. What I want, and what I sense the American people want, is more than good policy. We want great leadership. This is where Barack Obama rises above the field. Instead of calculation or connections, he has risen on convictions. Instead of stoking partisan anger, he calls on our common aspirations. Instead of the right and the left, he is focused on right and wrong. At a time when so many of us - Democrats, Republicans, and independents - are tired of petty division and desperate for change, Obama makes a claim on all of us to join in restoring the American dream. His leadership is about articulating a vision and motivating others to reach for it. That is why Obama consistently polls higher with independents and Republicans than any other Democrat. That is why he is greeted by crowds made up of every kind of person, from all kinds of backgrounds. That is why he won the Iowa caucuses on Thursday. That is why he has received more than 750,000 donations, mostly from small donors, and signed up a half-million supporters from all age groups, states, races, and political affiliations - many of them involved in the process for the first time. When people try to imagine the kind of leadership they want and know we need, the image that comes to many minds is Obama. And here is where the wise guys and gals come in. The political commentators and self-appointed experts start telling us that we can't have what we want. I heard that throughout my own campaign. I ask the people of America to do now what I asked the people of Massachusetts to do: take a chance not so much on a candidate, but on your own aspirations. If we do, then Obama wins - and so do we. Once in a generation, a candidate comes along who is committed to more than succeeding at the partisan food fight in Washington. Once in a generation, a candidate comes along who is both book smart and street smart, who is equally at ease with the meek and the mighty - and perhaps most especially with himself. Once in a generation, we get the opportunity to take a quantum leap forward in our politics. Barack Obama is that candidate and this is our opportunity. I don't care if it's not his turn, because I know in my head and in my heart that it is his time. Deval Patrick is governor of Massachusetts.
Once in a generation.... I don't get it at all. He has very nice qualities. He might make a good president. But to describe him as once in a generation strikes me as hyperbole to the nth degree, and I would feel more confident in voting for the candidate if I didn't hear such insane expectations being thrown around so much. To reiterate what I posted before, they were saying the same things when Clinton was running. Is he more 'once in a generation' than Bill? He is like the 5th ‘greatest president of all time’ out of the last 6 already. I think to already claim that he relegates Bill Clinton to a historical footnote is insulting to a man who actually accomplished something in that office. It is beginning to remind me of the Reggie Bush treatment. His aura is something alive independent of him. Every president is a victim of situation. No president exists in a void. He will never live up to the hype that people are building up around him. The ‘greatest president of all time’ requires a perfect storm of circumstance and support. Without the civil war, what is Lincoln, etc. How about we tone down the claims a bit. Right now I just want to know whether he will be a good president. Not a great president. Not the savior of all mankind. Just whether he will be effective in the office. Save the hype at least until he’s actually in office, please.
I don't necessarily disagree with you on the hyperbole - but it IS a big component that is driving his campaign. I don't think the once-in-a-generation is in terms of the politics of Clinton so much as it is in the idea that it redraws political divisions to some extent. The most interesting comparison I've read is to Reagan and how he changed things with "Reagan Democrats" - creating new coalitions, changing fundamentally how politics and party appeal to various parts of the country. Clinton was a great president according to most Democrats - but when he left office, there's wasn't a lasting change in the political landscape. That was different with Reagan. I agree it's way too early to know - you don't know the next Reagan until after the fact. But pundits always try to predict these kinds of things. And this kind of label hasn't been tried on any of the other many candidates over last few election cycles. If you consider a generation to be 20-30 years, Reagan would be a generation ago, JFK a generation before that.
Relatively little experience before running, replacing a Republican president named Bush, appealing to young voters, campaign based on "change" and a new way ... Yeah MR CLINTON, when has a candidate or the country eeeeeever done that?? You'd think he was taking up for his wife or something.
