Which party is best positioned to win in '08?

[Mr.Vicchio]

From the base level you'd think the Dems have it. Hillary is a monster in terms of money, Obama can put a charm show on the likes we haven't seen since Clinton left office.

And the GOP is searching for a candidate to really rally behind. Sure, Guilliani has money and name recognition, but in the eyes of many core base voters, he's just no the "right" guy. Not when you consider his more socially liberal stances and the fact that the SC is looking at 2-3 replacements in the next 5 years and most of those are liberal as is.

But there is the other factor, Hillary isn't well loved, she lacks her husbands popular appeal and is a rather polarizing figure. Obama on the other hand has no experience and is more fluff then substance so far.

I've said it before, Clinton'Obama 08, and honestly I think if the GOP cannot find a candidate to rally behind, the '08 election is Hillary's to lose.

The Dem's also have the advantage of a pliant national media that supports their cause, which is just how it is, whomever the GOP get's on top, has to be someone that can work right through that, forcefully, but with class and dignity.

I don't see any of the three front runners capable of that right now.

[Clarence]

Which party is best positioned to win in '08?

both

[Captain Chaos]

Both McCain and Giulliani can win. Both have strong personalities and come across well.

I prefer Giulliani, myself. I honestly believe he would take action to streamline government, because he did that some in NYC.

As much as I think Bush's management of the war in Iraq has been foolish, I do not want us to pull out and leave a widespread civil war in our wake. I think many Americans will still agree with that point, if they think about it. I think either McCain or Giulliani can manage the war in Iraq competently.

It is not about where the candidates stand in polls, right now. It is about how they will be perceived by election time.

I think either McCain or Giulliani win on a variety of points.

If, however, the Repubs nominate another bumbling far-right candidate, the bad taste people have about Bush will turn them off.

[Osborn F Enready]

As long as money dominates politics, the two major parties will ALWAYS dominate elections, providing no choice except to corporations and special intrest lobbyists.

Time to end the practice, isn't it?

[bishop]

agreed.

both parties have two things in common - tons of money and dozens of corrupt establishment candidates.

the thought of seeing clinton president doesn't excite me in the slightest. nor does the prospect of a president: mccain, guiliani, obama or romney.. actually, if i were force to choose a single establishment candidate of the bunch, i'd choose romney.

i'd mention ron paul for the republicans, but present-day republicans fervently believe in big government and imperialism - which is supported by the people they've voted into office.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: bishop agreed. both parties have two things in common - tons of money and dozens of corrupt establishment candidates. the thought of seeing clinton president doesn't excite me in the slightest. nor does the prospect of a president: mccain, guiliani, obama or romney.. actually, if i were force to choose a single establishment candidate of the bunch, i'd choose romney. i'd mention ron paul for the republicans, but present-day republicans fervently believe in big government and imperialism - which is supported by the people they've voted into office.

What do you dislike about Giulliani?

[bishop]

i think he did good work in nyc, but he also has a very "my way or the highway" approach to his work.. that makes me a bit nervous, having seen how our current president behaves.

and then there's the handling of 9/11... hundreds/thousands of aid workers were there, all breathing in asbestos.

Rudy Giuliani Rudy and 9/11

Did Mayor Rudy ever get blamed for running a fire and police department where their radios didn`t work properly? No. Did Mayor Rudy ever get blamed for the fiasco of ordering the fire department to climb into buildings that were about to collapse? No. Who made that key decision, and why? Was it Giuliani? Did anyone ever take responsibility for it? No. What happened immediately after the September 11 disaster? Workers were sifting through debris for months without the protection they needed from the asbestos and other chemicals in the flames. Many of them subsequently got sick and died as a result. Did Mayor Rudy ensure before the fact that they would have proper face masks? No. Did Guiliani ensure immediately after the fact that they got the proper protection they needed? No. When the EPA said that the air in the downtown area was safe and subsequently said that the buildings were ready for rehabitation, when they obviously weren`t, did Rudy Giuliani say one word about it? No. He was busy flirting with Donald Trump while dressed as Marilyn Monroe. Actually, Rudy DID says something: Giuliani said that the air was safe, even while the US Geological Survey said that the area was contaminated with dangerous asbestos. Giuliani`s city health department did nothing regarding identification of the hazards or cleanup. Did Rudy ever conduct an investigation afterwards, to find out who told workers in the second tower to return to their offices after the first tower was hit, or to investigate the management of the disaster after it happened? No. Not one word. But he did go on TV a lot and talk tough. Suddenly, the nasty, rude mayor that people tolerated was a national hero.

up until 9/11, he was also pretty unpopular amongst new yorkers.. 9/11 helped him reclaim his fame.

[Chaossaber314]

That site makes some good points but isn't exactly subjective or credible...

Rudy Giuliani is an aggressive bald Italian guy. He started out as a lawyer in the Reagan justice department and prosecuted a lot of wall street types and some mafia guys. Then Guiliani ran for mayor of New York. After Giuliani's first loss, Guliani ran again and won. During his two terms crime was reduced dramatically, but many people were turned off by his aggressive personality. Rudy also had a very bad combover--a few very long strands of hair combed over his mostly bald head, which Rudy eventually cut off when he had his weiner irradiated.

[bishop]

well, i don't particularly agree with all of this piece's opinions, but i can also separate the facts from the opinions..... imo, people who follow pundit arguments tend to have problems distinguishing between the two.

as far as the facts go in that article, they are true.

his handling of 9/11 is a bit of a fairy tale. the devil's in the details, and unfortunately, most people never bother with any of that "dry" stuff.

[Mr.Vicchio]

None of what you have cited is any issue for me, nor do I think most republican voters would bother trying to sift through that site for the "real information" among all the other stuff.

What bothers us is his values on a social level and the fact the next president will have a good chance at 2-3 SC nominees. We don't want someone like that making those decisions.

[Chaossaber314]

Heh. I do.

A social moderate leaning toward the liberal side and a conservative when it comes to law and order. That's who I want anyway.

[Mason]

Independent Party. Michael Bloomberg. Because the other two suck so damn bad.

[Osborn F Enready]

I vote with my intrests, not with "who I think has the best chance to win".

I am voting for Ron Paul as of now. "Dr. No" at least understands how to read the Law of the Land, which should be clear, since both parties members dislike him to the point they do.

[brien]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready As long as money dominates politics, the two major parties will ALWAYS dominate elections, providing no choice except to corporations and special intrest lobbyists. Time to end the practice, isn't it?

Ditto for me also. We citizens have no real representation in government today. All politics is now a game of big money. Witness the millions and millions of dollars the candidates have already raised to date. HIllary has raised 26 million and has another 10 million to add left over from her Senate race. Today it seems the office goes to the richest and highest bidder. Something's gotta change.

[Sean]

The country is not ready for Hillary or Obama. If the DNC is lucky it will get John Edwards, who plays better in the Mid-West/South.

In my mind it is a question of how the GOP base will behave. If they pick a hardline Reublican they will likely lose. If they take the practical route and go for McCaine the DNC is done for.

[Clarence]

If McCain or Edwards, especially Edwards, gets elected we're done. Edwards is what GWB wishes he was. liquid and without vice. A pedigree politician. He has no clue and has every clue. My list of people we should not ever elect as pres

Edwards (the president that shows us what executive power could be)
Frist (thank god he has no chance)
McCain (political windsock and puppet)
Clinton (how bout more of the same?)

[Osborn F Enready]

After seeing the charade, and injustice that bi-partisan politics has brought to this nation for the last 157 years, why even allow the notion that "they deserve another chance"?

Do people not notice how canidates who don't get major party support fail, without question?

Don't they wonder WHY that is?

What power is it that these parties hold, and could it really be the issue of money?








The answers are so obvious, its amazing we still allow the bi-partisan scham to continue.

Its no wonder other nations are losing their respect for us by the day.

[Sean]

Osborn, I agree that the money is a huge problem. Spending millions on a position that pays six figures makes you of course wonder how many favors they owe. I do not think this rules out however the overwheling desire people have to either suport one side or the other. The difference between the modern GOP and the DNC is merely becoming a difference of the "religious"-right versus the religious-lite/non-religious center. I think the majority of people find it quite easy to fit into one or the other.

If economic/healthcare/educational issues are important to you then you will likely vote DNC. If social (gay, immigration, abortion) and wall street tax cuts are your thing you will vote GOP. People want to back a party that has a viable chance and reflects what they believe in...somewhat

[Nono]

Quote by: Sean I think the majority of people find it quite easy to fit into one or the other.

Except when you consider the extent to which the two parties are respectively Tweedledum and Tweedledee, and beholden to the same lobbies. So the range of choice is precious narrow. And those two parties dominate the scene so fully that it never occurs to most people that anything outside that spectrum is conceivable.

In other words, things have been nicely wrapped up into a tiny ideological package.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Sean In my mind it is a question of how the GOP base will behave. If they pick a hardline Reublican they will likely lose. If they take the practical route and go for McCaine the DNC is done for.

How is McCain doing in head-to-head polls against either Obama or Hillary? He's no savior for the Republicans. His stalwart support of the war has hurt his campaign even among conservatives. Did you catch his little "stroll" through Baghdad recently? The man is totally out of touch with reality.

Giuliani or Romney have better chances in the general election. Both appeal to centrists in their own quirky ways. However, they still must drag the party behind them, a party damaged by Bush's scandals and the Iraq War.

Discounting Hillary or Obama seems very premature. Right now, the '08 election is the Democrats' to lose.

Edited to add: I just noticed that Rudy Giuliani told an interviewer today that he supported publicly funded abortions. I can't see how Giuliani gets the nomination with such a position. It's one thing to promise the appointment of "strict constructionist" Supreme Court justices, but quite another to tell Southern Republicans that American taxpayers should fund abortions.

CNN.com - CNN Political Ticker