Clinton and Mccain the comback kids

[Nono]

Quote by: Chaos I can't vote for a head of state that tears up over the goddamn Iowa caucus.

Human beings get emotional. God only knows what sort of monster would meet your criteria.

[Nono]

Quote by: Sonart There's all kinds of political parties in America, Jubloz. But since the Democrats and Republicans represent pretty much the American political mainstream, that means the others represent the political fringes.

If so, that "mainstream" has spontaneously been flowing ever more to the right over the past 40 years. Is this true? Or is it rather that the electoral system has been pumped so full of money that legislators are in the pocket of Big Money? If they want to get re-elected that is.

Meanwhile, the media (the public's source of information) is owned by an ever-more-concentrated group representing (you guessed it) Big Money.

Where does this leave the concept of "representation"?

We here in America are lucky ... in that we've evolved a Constitutional Democratic Republic that makes use of their best attributes -- drive, vision, the desire to succeed and do some good, etc. -- while putting checks and balances on their worst attributes -- greed, naked ambition, lust for power, etc.

Luckier than where? Equatorial Guinea? Agreed!
But these checks on greed, naked ambition, lust for power, etc. have certainly failed miserably in the last two presidential elections, which were clearly stolen by the Bushite Republicans.

By 2004 everybody was too cowed by the "terrism" threat to note the obvious. But even Americans had to hang their heads in embarrassment in 2000 when even they were apprised by their media that the country had fallen to the electoral status of banana republic.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Nono Human beings get emotional. God only knows what sort of monster would meet your criteria.

Well let's see. Who else lost Iowa?

Romney
Thompson
McCain
Paul
Guiliani
Hunter
Tancredo
Keyes
Edwards
Richardson
Biden
Dodd
Kucinich
Gravel

Hillary is the only candidate who decided to get choked up over losing 1 state in a nation of 50. I don't understand your apparent opinion that just because someone can maintain their composure in public somehow this means that they don't have emotions in private and are a "monster".

Self control is usually viewed as a positive trait in leadership, Nono.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Nono If so, that "mainstream" has spontaneously been flowing ever more to the right over the past 40 years. Is this true?

To a point... the "mainstream" traditionally ebbs and flows from left to right, and I'd say within the last 30 years. Recall that Nixon, while certainly a rightward lurch in response to Johnson, was politically more liberal than some democrats today. And after 30 years of rightward swing, methinks we're starting to swing back to the left. The religious right is in retreat, the GOP in disarray, Reaganism a quaint ideal and baby boomers are increasingly concerned about liberal issues like Social Security, Healthcare, the environment, etc.

Quote by: Nono Or is it rather that the electoral system has been pumped so full of money that legislators are in the pocket of Big Money? If they want to get re-elected that is.

Methinks politicians have ALWAYS been in the pockets of money, although with the growth of the Internet, I wonder how much 'BIG' money is any more significant that just lots of 'little' money. I know that over the last couple of years I've contributed more cash to campaigns than during the rest of my life combined, although that still only adds up to a few thousand dollars, and that's been mostly because the candidates and the party have been bugging me more than ever before... that and my desire to get rid of Boy George.

However, if your point is that third parties can't compete because they don't have access to the money, there's probably a lot of truth to that. Money goes to where it thinks it can win.

But I also think there's a chicken and egg aspect to it -- is it that 3rd parties can't get people interested because they don't have the money, or is it they can't get the money because nobody's interested? Ron Paul took his untraditional Libertarian message into the mainstream as part of the Republican Party, but although a small fringe following went berserk and flooded Paul with cash, mainstream Americans weren't buying his message.... in direct contradiction to your implication that cash translates into votes. And with his ultra-free-market message, you'd think corporate America would have lept on Paul's bandwagon.

Quote by: Nono Meanwhile, the media (the public's source of information) is owned by an ever-more-concentrated group representing (you guessed it) Big Money.

Very true, but their self interest seems to be in pandering to America's lowest common denominators, not influencing politics... except for FAUX News. Besides, kindly note that this years' Presidential race has featured far more debates, featuring more candidates, than I've ever seen before. Sure, this may be a temporary reaction to what America has been through over the last 7 years, but it certainly seems to have presented a far broader political spectrum than usual... from the Socialist Kuninich thru centrists Hillary and Rudy, thru Reaganist Thompson, Religious Right Huckabee and Libertarian Paul.

All of them had their chances to pitch America during the debtes and raise cash.

Quote by: Nono Where does this leave the concept of "representation"?

America is represented overwhelmingly by the mainstream middle. That's just the way it is. As far as money, America in 1800 was a country run by wealthy gentlemen farmers, Tories and Whigs, then by industrialist robber barons, Democrats and Republicans. When was it never thus? When has a 3rd party candidate ever won the U.S. Presidency? The fringes have representation, just in numbers and influence comparable to their numbers they represent and never with enough numbers to elect someone to the branch limited to only one elected representative... the President.

Quote by: Nono Luckier than where? Equatorial Guinea? Agreed! But these checks on greed, naked ambition, lust for power, etc. have certainly failed miserably in the last two presidential elections, which were clearly stolen by the Bushite Republicans.

Even a good system doesn't guarantee perfection. Bad Presidents happen. Bush was just that absolute wrong guy who showed up at the right place at the right time (for him), and his problem wasn't so much one of ambition and greed... it was those things combined with monumental incompetence.

Quote by: Chasosabar Hillary is the only candidate who decided to get choked up over losing 1 state in a nation of 50. I don't understand your apparent opinion that just because someone can maintain their composure in public somehow this means that they don't have emotions in private and are a "monster".

Makes as much sense as assuming that getting choked up for half a minute (I didn't see any tears), when answering a question of how all this affects her personally, is a sign of weakness. Besides, unlike any election campaign in American history, the candidates have been going none-stop since last spring, with 10 more months to go. It's gotta be grueling. I sure as hell couldn't do it.

And her choking up aside, who's answered that question better? People on these boards have sometimes asked why I'm so passionately opposed to Bush's war. Because this is MY COUNTRY, my home, and I get really pissed off watching some cowboy clown rip it apart through arrogant, ignorant, reckless negligence.

Besides, there's a rule in advertising: you can't make the same pitch as your competition when they make it first, even if the same pitch legitimately applies to your product. All gasoline is detergent, but only one can be the "Detergent Gasoline"... the guys who claimed it first. So although it might actually benefit some of the other candidates to be seen as emotionally invested in what they're doing, sorry, can't dip in that well twice without appearing calculated.

.

[Nono]

Good, thoughtful responses as usual, Sonart. Just a couple of remarks:

- Yeah, Evil Dick be lookin' kinda good in comparison these days. At least -- as Paul Krugman once remarked -- the Nixonians actually took the process of government seriously, and thought it worthy of talent.
Still, I'd put the marker back in the mid-60s. After all, less than four years separate Eisenhower's presidency and Goldwater's candidacy. Imagine.

- When a US senator has to come up with 10 thousand dollars (or whatever it's worked its way up to these days) a day just to get his ass re-elected, things have gone too far.

- Rudy is a centrist? Well I'll be. (Did you hear Biden's remark? "He only knows three words: -- noun, verb, 9/11", or something to that effect.)

- I say again: If a people doesn't go out on the streets to protest an obviously stolen election (or series of stolen elections) it doesn't deserve democratic representation.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Nono - When a US senator has to come up with 10 thousand dollars (or whatever it's worked its way up to these days) a day just to get his ass re-elected, things have gone too far.

I absolutely don't disagree, Nono. That part really sux. But given the size of our country and the nature of our media driven culture, I'm hard pressed to see an alternative.

Quote by: Nono - Rudy is a centrist? Well I'll be. (Did you hear Biden's remark? "He only knows three words: -- noun, verb, 9/11", or something to that effect.)

LOL ... that's because he can't campaign as a Republican on some of his other stands... pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro gay-rights. But I think we're both right... Rudy's a pretty odd duck. Downright fascist on some things, liberal on others. Go figure.

Quote by: Nono - I say again: If a people doesn't go out on the streets to protest an obviously stolen election (or series of stolen elections) it doesn't deserve democratic representation.

You mean 2000? Hey, if the candidate from who it was stolen accepts the results, I suspect his followers will take his lead. I'm sure we're all kicking ourselves in hindsight.

.

[Nono]

I mean 2004 as well (Was the 2004 Election Stolen?).

It has become systematic, and I see no reason why, if the election is anything but a Democrat landslide, it wouldn't happen again this year.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Sonart Makes as much sense as assuming that getting choked up for half a minute (I didn't see any tears), when answering a question of how all this affects her personally, is a sign of weakness. Besides, unlike any election campaign in American history, the candidates have been going none-stop since last spring, with 10 more months to go. It's gotta be grueling. I sure as hell couldn't do it.

Well then this still isn't a good argument for why they should be elected to the office of President because it shows that they don't know how to manage their time and effectively use resources so as not to become so exhausted to the point of breaking down emotionally. Plus, I'm sure that campaigning is arduous but I highly doubt it's comparable to actually running the country... the job they are applying for. If you can't make it through the interview, why should I give you the job?

Furthermore, if campaigning really is so arduous why are Hillary's other competitors not breaking down as well? I doubt it's because she's just working that much harder than everyone else.

And her choking up aside, who's answered that question better? People on these boards have sometimes asked why I'm so passionately opposed to Bush's war. Because this is MY COUNTRY, my home, and I get really pissed off watching some cowboy clown rip it apart through arrogant, ignorant, reckless negligence.

Ok... what's your point?

Besides, there's a rule in advertising: you can't make the same pitch as your competition when they make it first, even if the same pitch legitimately applies to your product. All gasoline is detergent, but only one can be the "Detergent Gasoline"... the guys who claimed it first. So although it might actually benefit some of the other candidates to be seen as emotionally invested in what they're doing, sorry, can't dip in that well twice without appearing calculated.

Oh? So you think the emotionally vulnerable appeal was actually calculated and political maneuver and not the result of stress?

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Chaossaber Well then this still isn't a good argument for why they should be elected to the office of President because it shows that they don't know how to manage their time and effectively use resources so as not to become so exhausted to the point of breaking down emotionally.

Enough of the rhetoric, ok? She didn't "break down", she got a little choked up for a moment. And given that people were calling her a cold, calculating machine before the interview, and given that she's winning, I'd hardly accuse her of not knowing how to manage her time.

But don't forget for a second that all of these candidates are going all out and pushing themselves and their "time management" to the very edge of the envelope.

Quote by: Chaossaber Furthermore, if campaigning really is so arduous why are Hillary's other competitors not breaking down as well?

{{SIGH}} Number one, Hillary didn't "break down", and number two, who says they haven't.

--"In his first state campaign stop in Grand Rapids, a voter fondly recalled his father, George, former Michigan governor and CEO of AMC. “He was a great man and I miss him dearly,” said (Mitt Romney), choking up."-- Jan. 2008

And I seem to recall John McCain having "an emotional moment" some time back, although I couldn't find a reference. Anyone else remember such a moment?

Quote by: Chaossaber Ok... what's your point?

Americans want to believe candidates are running for reasons beyond they just wanna be president. Bill Clinton had the uncanny ability to express empathy, to make people feel he genuinely care about their lives. Hillary's "moment" allowed people to think they'd seen something genuine inside her that's driving her desire to lead the U.S., something bigger than just ambition.

Quote by: Chaossaber Oh? So you think the emotionally vulnerable appeal was actually calculated and political maneuver and not the result of stress?

Not at all. I think it was genuine. But you brought up that Hillary is the only candidate to have done so (ignoring my Romney link above) and I was expanding that, not only haven't they, but now it would be a bad idea even if they wanted to -- or put more generously -- felt it was okay to "give in" to "a moment". That would look calculated.

.

[Charlatan]

Quote by: Jubloz Which is why I'm not registered with either party. Unfortunately, there's still no 3rd party candidate, as far as I've noticed, that's both of quality and is running in this election.

Third parties? Well what would these parties need to offer people to get them to vote for them? Brand power I tell you, people only vote for things they believe in, so people would need to believe that these third parties can be counted on. I mean people are used to voting for their parties, It is not common to see people vote for the same party regardless of who is at the helm, so maybe people are lazy, or afraid of change? Funny though to see people wanting changes and yet not voting for them, they know a praty is consitituted of the same people after the election, even the president will have been in that party for some time, so they won't be open to discussing changes that have not been brought forth before within their in house talks. What is proposed is what they have agreed to deliver, what they would like to see happen, so basically presidential speaches are about one person giving their ideas and seeing if people agree with them. It is not about what will happen, it is just a display of their opinions and promises.

A third party would need to be publicised because they need people to know of them. Also people don't have a communications medium where they can see who else in the country is thinking of voting for a 'radical party', so they will think their vote would be wasted, so they vote for the bigger people. If they could converse with the rest of the nation, say on the other side of the country, then they could all say to each other that they will vote for another third party, who is in for it? Seeing as how they are nucleated, people are afraid of wasting their vote. So even if a third party became widely publicised, it would probably fail. Who are they? Are they in for just a term to take our money? These are questions asked of people in the voting. Also, these bigger parties are seen as 'liable', and that is not for sale. It is not like they could dissapear so people think that they can count on them to be there to answer question if things go wrong, so they are seen as true parents of the people.

That is what a third party would need to do, to say they are better suited to handle problems than the major parties, so they would need to snag a few over a floor crossing period. If say Obama went over to a third party, they would take a lot of media publicity with them, but I don't think that they would see it as a sign. I mean they could all say that they are just being paid more there, not really believing they could be president anyway. So 'signing a big star' won't work.

Trying to win people over with new ideas is a funny business, because you can't always back them up can you? You would need to have new ideas though, because the other major parties have years of experience backing them up. So a third party would need to offer radical changes, be publicised, but not need a known nominee, but that could help, a bit, to be noticed, and it would help if they had a great campaign bankroll, as that would fund their 'getting known' part. Maybe if they introduced people from the populace to each other, that would help. But how do you bring people together like that? It would cost way too much, and people don't have time for going around getting to know each other and talk about a party they think is good, but are shy to suggest because they might be laughed at, so these parties get ignored.

I don't think an international party would work either, they would be well funded and people would see them as representing that country, but people would think that the party doesn't represent their needs. If two countries joined, then it would be a free for all, with the country with the bigger population winning. Say China merged with Nepal, then Chinese politicians would find their way into nepal office too.

If people got together and decided that there should be a third party for them, then they would vote for it, because it is like voting for themselves, so if you got people to think they are voting for themselves, like they are not doing now, then people would vote for that party. People nowadays usually think that they are voting for someone else, that the better candidate was going to benefit and then benefit them, but if you got people to vote for someone and thought they were voting for themselves, then they would go for it, or like a neighbour, with the credentials.

People see big parties and big areas, does that person have them in mind when they consider their decisions? If you could convince people that the two major parties do not have them in mind, then yes.

Parties are usually formed after wars, as people are more influential then, and more open to new ideas to represent peace after the war, and keeping it. After that what I have spoken of above comes into play I think.

I don't think a thrid party would come into power after all.

[xyzer]

Hmmm?

Sure wish you folks would make up your minds... all this time Hillary's been accused of being too cold and calculating, of being an emotionless android. Suddenly, she catches her throat for a split second from a personal question that apparently touched a button and she's now "an emotional woman" incapable of rational decision making. Go fig

Hey Sonart...

From what I've read of her Hillary is emotional. She has a history of throwing lamps at her husband, cursing secret service agents and military aids when they don't do her bidding..lashing out at conservatives for being appalled at her husbands indiscretions(rightwing conspiracy) hiding a subpoenafor over a year going asfter her husbands concubines and cursing state troopers assigned to guard her?t As she sobbed she said she wanted to change the country. ....which when it comes from a socialist means increase taxes and government intervention in our lives? Healthcare, job training and other goodies at your and my expense?

[Nono]

Whereas at the moment you have a pampered agricultural sector and a bloated military all funded by China's central bank. Until such time as the Chinese cash their cheque. Then you'll be screwed.

And all this under a president who has a history of goofing off, ruining perfectly good companies and speeding while drunk and under the influence of cocaine.

Time for a change, boyos.

[GHook93]

Quote by: Nono Whereas at the moment you have a pampered agricultural sector and a bloated military all funded by China's central bank. Until such time as the Chinese cash their cheque. Then you'll be screwed. And all this under a president who has a history of goofing off, ruining perfectly good companies and speeding while drunk and under the influence of cocaine. Time for a change, boyos.

Very true, but that definition of change varies!
(1) Democrats: The change proposed by the Democrats is more and taxes spending 10 fold (for Obama it could mean more war, Danfur and Pakistan and I doubt he will yank us out of Iraq like he says).
(2) For the Republicans: It varies. All want to keep us in Iraq. Guiliani is proposing the largest tax cuts in American history. And all are preaching cutting spending, which could be barking and not biting
(3) Libertarians (Ron Paul): Is preaching cutting spending and taxes to levels not seen since before the new deals. Immediate withdrawal from Iraq and some, what people might say, "radical" deregulation of business and agency cutting. This view would bring the most change.

However, the most change is not always the best option, although in the right circumstances it could be.

[sevendogs]

I would vote Clinton, but they did not caucus in Virginia. Interesting that after Michigan, GOP still does not have the guy for presidency. This is because none of their candidates is electable.

[Chaossaber314]

It's wishful thinking that Clinton fits the term "electable".