Steve, I'll have a go at your last question. If the GOP Controlled Media didn't exist to further the GOP "Dems are traitors" line at every opportunity maybe the Dems would say "hey, screw Bush, everyone hates him and they elected us to oppose his every move". But it does exist. Media Control is a 900 pound gorilla that reaches every corner of every town. Its why Jefferson (D-LA) was labeled "Crooked Congressman" on Fox News all afternoon. Sure, Jefferson is crooked, but he hasn't even been tried or convicted. That is what the Dems fear, blatant false reporting that convicts people without trial. Hey---that's the Bush way! And this Media Control will continue to exist until someone on the left of center stops it by ignoring it and lives to tell the story. Don't forget, it was Hillary who pointed out the Vast RightWing Conspiracy. She was lambasted in the Media for that. But she was right. Years ago. Nothing has changed.
As for the GOP polls...they got nobody. period. As for the DEM polls...the nomination is Gore's for the taking.
I'd like to see Richardson talked about more. I think a ticket with Richardson and either Clinton or Obama would be strong--not sure who should be on top. Clinton was really playing nice with Richardson during the debate--seemed like maybe she'd choose him as a running mate if she got the nomination.
Posted by CG at June 5, 2007 04:35 PMA little information is a dangerous thing. This may help:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/6/5/12506/97105
Posted by JoeCHI at June 5, 2007 05:26 PMCG makes me think of something...the Dems have lots of interesting pairs..Gore/Obama, Gore/Clark,Obama/Clark, Hillary/Bill, Edwards/Clark, Edwards/Obama,etc. What we aren't currently mulling is the potential GOPer pairs....Thompson/Liberman, Gulilani/Soprano, Gingrich/Bin Laden, McOld/Jeb, Romney/a selection of Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders. Who's got another GOPer pair?
Posted by T2 at June 5, 2007 05:31 PMRon Paul/Brownback-- a libertarian and a religious wacko. Something for everyone.
Posted by CG at June 5, 2007 05:37 PMSteve,
Good questions. Here goes FWIW:
1.Thompson or whoever ends up with the nomination, may be remembered by history as another Winfield Scott. They may have really lost middle America permanently.
2.McCain's chance was in 2000. He'll never be president.
3.This isn't the 1990's. In her own way, Hillary's situation is like McCain's. The difference being that her youth may give her a chance to become relavent again in the 2010's. She's got the intellegence to change with the times, but she's too tied into the current discredited establishment to get substantial netroots support.
4. The M$M hates Edwards because he is a true leftist populist. He s the one Democrat most likely to bring back the fairness doctrine and otherwise make life less pleasent for the elite that they consider themselves a part of. Therefore, any 'haircuts' Edwards get and going to get the Dean scream treatment.
Having said that, I will add that Gore has a lot going for him.
5.The DLC-beltway types will always advise a 'GOP lite' course. Reerring back to question one, if the Republicans don't self destruct, the failure of the Democrats to take advatege of their opportunities may be a large reason why.
Herbal Tee, the Republicans have ALREADY self-destructed. The one an only thing keeping a party with a 29% approved Administration afloat is the Media Roar. By a Miracle, replace today's GOP controlled Media with any semblance of responsible Press and Broadcast Journalists and we'd have impeached and imprison these crooks and liars years ago. But that miracle hasn't happend and shows no signs of happening. The modern GOP is a mess, and the public knows it. Bush is beyond miserable and the public knows it. The Dems and/or anyone besides the 26% of hard core racist nut-religion rightists have written this Bush Regime off as a horrid failure. But look at cable TV and you'd think Iraq will be fine in six more months. You are correct...the first Dem that stands up and tell's it like it is will be Dean-ized, and the next one after that, and the one after that. No wonder Al Gore isn't ready to jump in. His refusal to take it to the mat, after winning the popular vote, has put us where we are. Is he willing to go through that again? The real question of course, is, are we?
Posted by T2 at June 5, 2007 06:56 PMWith the exception of Ron Paul, I thought the GOP did pretty shitty tonight. After all, they had 2 days to think of the same questions that were asked of the Dem candidates.
Posted by Seven of Six at June 5, 2007 07:31 PMHis refusal to take it to the mat, after winning the popular vote, has put us where we are.
I think Gore was put thru the ringer and he did what he could to challenge the fiasco, and what was he supposed to do once the SCRTUm (sic) decidered? Having said that, in the last 6 years, he along with the rest of us, has learned the dirty, rotten depths of the pukes and the M$M. If he jumps in, he won't be as naive I bet. As he's for Universal Health Care, I think he could win the nomination hands down, with some repub regular people crossing over.
Posted by Sharon at June 5, 2007 09:15 PMWhat does it say that Edwards is way up at the top or near it in the early states who actually vote and is strongest against the GOP in spite of the media vendetta against him?
What does it say that a sure fucking loser like Hillary is still perched at the top of "national" polls?
It says that a lot of Democrats outside Iowa in particular are complete fucking morons.
Posted by God Of War at June 5, 2007 09:40 PMBTW, the ticket you want is Edwards/Webb. VA has a Dem governor. Can you say Senator Mark Warner? I knew you could.
Get with the program, people. Win!
Posted by God Of War at June 5, 2007 09:45 PMAnd the winner is:
Fred Thompson, who wasn't even there!
http://osi-speaks.blogspot.com/2007/06/gop-presidential-candidates-debate.html#links
Posted by KYJurisDoctor at June 5, 2007 11:19 PMT2,
Of course the GOP should be as dead as the Whigs. That's why I linked to Winfield Scott. The corporate media will continue to dance with the one that brung 'em, even if it looks like something that will lead tonecrophilia to those who get a good look at their dancing partner. The internet would be a threat to the M$M anyway, but the corporate elite is doing all they can to drive viewers away.
Posted by herbal tee at June 6, 2007 04:20 AMGOW - Have I told you lately that I love you?
In a totally hetero, I love this candidate! way.
:)
Posted by idiosynchronic at June 6, 2007 05:42 AMEdwards/Webb----Yes.
Posted by gtash at June 6, 2007 05:55 AMagreed with GoW...but Gore could be with an Edwards or Webb ticket as well...
Posted by John B. at June 6, 2007 05:58 AMEdwards/Webb----Yes.
Didn't Sen. Webb just commit the cardinal sin of voting FOR the accursed "Capitulation Funding Bill"?
Posted by snark at June 6, 2007 06:35 AMDidn't Sen. Webb just commit the cardinal sin of voting FOR the accursed "Capitulation Funding Bill"?
But...but...he has a son over there.
Yes, Webb can stay in the Senate for all I care. Clark would be just as good a V/P for Edwards.
Posted by Seven of Six at June 6, 2007 06:43 AMsnark, I don't know about anyone else, but the reason I'm pissed at the Dems is not that they did or did not vote for the funding bill, it's that they fell for and actually helped further the myth that cutting off funding was denying the troops food and bullets. It was a PR disaster that led to the branding of the dang thing as a "capitulation bill." They need to get their frikkin' narrative right, and they need to get message discipline if they're going to get congressional poll numbers out of the gutter. And I don't care if the GOP owns the media; when a mic is shoved in their faces, or when they go on the talkies, they should have their talking points ready. Otherwise they look like putzes, declaring victory when all everyone sees is a defeat.
Posted by iamcoyote at June 6, 2007 07:02 AMThey need to get their frikkin' narrative right,...
I haven't heard anyone other than lefty bloggers refer to it as the "Capitulation Bill". In fact the press that I read following the passage of the final bill was all along the lines of "Dems don't yet have enough power to end Bush's war." Personally, I haven't encountered anyone outside of the blogosphere who blames the Dems for the continued funding of the war. It's a blogstorm tempest in a teapot.
Congress never has good poll ratings.
Posted by snark at June 6, 2007 07:28 AMYeah, snark, that ten point drop in congressional approval had nothing to do with the funding bill. The headlines I googled said "Dems lose" or "Dems cave" or as Jon Stewart said "pussies" were just an aberration. But I give up; I'm not going to argue semantics with you while I have the flu (or any other time, for that matter).
Posted by iamcoyote at June 6, 2007 07:46 AMYeah, snark, that ten point drop in congressional approval had nothing to do with the funding bill.
I'm sure that it did. But personally, I think to many people put to much stock in polls. Especially regarding Congress. Half the people are gonna be pissed at Congress no matter what it does.
The headlines I googled said "Dems lose" or "Dems cave" or as Jon Stewart said "pussies" were just an aberration.
I didn't say they were. I spoke of my personal experience here in NY. The NY headlines were not nearly as bad for the Dems as they are made out to be here.
But I give up; I'm not going to argue semantics with you while I have the flu (or any other time, for that matter).
Were we arguing semantics? I didn't think so.
Hope you feel better.
Posted by snark at June 6, 2007 07:58 AMIt is interesting that Edwards says the things that we say Dems want to hear, like flat-out declaring the "War on Terra" to be a scam intentionally promugated to aggrendize executive power (while Hillary embraces the term), and he remains mired at 25%.
Posted by euzoius at June 6, 2007 08:07 AMIt is interesting that Edwards says the things that we say Dems want to hear, like flat-out declaring the "War on Terra" to be a scam intentionally promugated to aggrendize executive power (while Hillary embraces the term), and he remains mired at 25%.
It's a big country. A lot of people want to hear a lot of different things. The key to getting elected in this country is to be just vague enough about enough things to avoid pissing people off. Most people, it seems to me, do not consider the occupation of Iraq in a vacuum. It is one amongst a host of issues. And the blogosphere considers it a lot more intensely that John Q. Public does. You don't hold an election with the electorate you want. You hold it with the electorate you have.
Posted by snark at June 6, 2007 08:32 AMWebb, Clark, either works for me. Clark was my original VP choice but I like Webb strategically: Puts VA in big time play, former GOPer turned populist, Mark Warner Senate possibility.
If not Edwards, then Gore! Hillbama just ain't gonna cut it. Hillary and Obama are "feel good" candidates. They are not leaders. Sorry. I like Obama on an emotional level, but rationally, that cat ain't ready to be President. Someday. Not yet. He needs to learn how to lead. The Great Compromiser is not a winning political position.
Hillary? She just fucking sucks ass in so many ways, from her flaccid cheese-dick consultants to her "we're safer now" bullshit to her nasal fucking nails-on-chalkboard voice (complete with manufactured phony southern accent when in Dixie, of course.)
Edwards, preferably, or Gore. With Webb or Clark as VP. Frankly, I'm not interested in anyone else, because victory is paramount.
Posted by God Of War at June 6, 2007 08:40 AM...because victory is paramount.
I agree GOW. This is the biggest pResidential election for the direction of the country in history.
Most people, it seems to me, do not consider the occupation of Iraq in a vacuum. It is one amongst a host of issues. And the blogosphere considers it a lot more intensely that John Q. Public does.
I think the blogsphere understands if we can get the fuck out of Iraq then we can easily solve "a host of issues" facing America today. Iraq is like an endless 'money pit'.
And for our soldiers to die for this 'money pit' is unconscionable.
To those who prefer Wes Clark to Webb: what is Wes Clark doing lately? It is as if he disappeared from public view. He might indeed be a good person to run with Edwards.
Posted by gtash at June 6, 2007 02:35 PMgtash, He has an online effort to Stop Iran War.
He has been quiet though.
Posted by Seven of Six at June 6, 2007 06:47 PM