Different time, different space... Sort of like comparing on the field performance of Barry Bonds and Willie Mays... Take away the juice and the way the players take days off during the season, better travel, better diet, working out to take care of themselves, taking supplements, working out off season, not taking risks on the field, the body armor like Barry wears...Willie is the king and always be in my book, but these days numbers are the thing... JFK was of a different generation, a true war hero by most accounts, and today he might very likely be an independent or a republican if he felt uncomfortable in the democratic party, though I think the right wing via hacks like Coulter, Hannity, and Limpdick have seized the imagination of the country in defining the dems as all liberals, etc. We live in a country now where image is nearly everything, much more so than it was 50 years ago. Jim Webb seems to be a throwback, who gave a decent speech last night, but many of his positions are hawkish/conservative, etc. Pretty smart move by the dems to let him give the rebuttal to Bush, and let him write his own speech. I think he will add to the democratic party...if they let him. Would JFK win now? Probably, he was Edwards who actually did something before running with his military career, he was a tough guy compared to Edwards who is a panzy touchy feely guy, and we can't forget that he was running against Nixon pre-Vietnam and nearly lost the election, but not for the efforts of the state of Illinois...land of Lincoln, Mayor Daly, corrupt politics, and now home of Obama... Look, Hillary is not my first choice by a mile, my first dem choice is out (Evan Bayh) and my first choice of "declared" is Richardson, but I do think she is more competent than Bush could ever be, and of the leading candidates ont he repub side, McCain, Romney, and Rudy are all terribly flawed. I said previously, we could easily see a maverick 3rd party candidate who is a hardliner on the border issue, abortion, etc. and that will hurt repubs, not dems. I don't really see a great field with anyone even close to what JFK brought to the table in terms of background, image, wit, sense of humor, etc. but I do think the Americans who might be our best presidents these days aren't going to submit themselves that is the dog and pony show of a presidential campaign. Perhaps if the camera were on JFK 24/7 like it is these days, and if the press did not protect many of the secrets of the candidates, JFK wouldn't have made it. Like I said, different time--different space. I look forward to seeing if Obama can handle the constant pressure and scrutiny, where every word is recorded, and a single gaff can ruin your career. In addition, I don't think the debates between the dems themselves running in the primaries will be kids gloves off. Also, as I mentioned in the chat room today, I want to see what Obama looks like wearing a cowboy hat and holding a rifle or shotgun. I actually think Hillary could get away with that, but I think Obama will not look the part at all, and God knows, Americans love someone who can either bubba it up, or look good on a horse with a cowboy hat, and holding a gun.... Bottom line, Hillary likely has bigger balls than anyone of the dems, and those balls belong to a former very popular former president.
I used to be Republican. Actually, every election since I turned 18 (1980), Reagan twice (yep, ugly spending, but we out spent the USSR and they crashed. It worked.) Now who? Its pretty clear that the DEMS are doing anything anti Bush. Gee thats good for the US? I'm 100% independent now. Repubs are bad, Dems worse. QUOTE]Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz: January 20, 2007 Clinton Says âIâm In to Winâ 2008 Race By PATRICK HEALY Six years after making history by winning a United States Senate seat as first lady, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton announced this morning that she was taking the first formal step to seek the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, a journey that would break yet more political barriers in her extraordinary and controversial career. âIâm in,â she says in a statement on her new campaign Web site. âAnd Iâm in to win.â http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/20/u...=1169355600&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print [/QUOTE]
A lot of voters feel exactly the same way. Neither party has any credibility. Both want to sell out the country, they just differ on how to do it. ZZZ is right about one thing. Republicans will definitely have to deal with a hardline third party candidate. Neither Bush nor the party leadership seem to have gotten the message that their voters are angry and alienated. Every week they rub our noses in something new. One week, it is throwing those Border Patrol agents in prison, no doubt to placate the Mexican government/drug cartel. Then it is an idiotic Iraq plan. Then it is shoving amnesty backer Mel Martinez down the party's throat as Chairman. Don't expect the administration to emerge from the Scooter Libby trial free from stain either. His attorneys have already argued that the White House threw him under the bus to protect Rove.
I see a # of posts about whether Hilary is socialist or moderate. If you look at the health plan she drafted (which basically was a giveaway to health insurance corps- not remotely the socialist plan of a single payer....) her votes for the war, and Patriot Act its clear she is no socialist, let alone way to left. Is this a good thing tho? Gore and Kerry both ran to the center and were beaten by a dolt. The dolt had a clear message leaving the Dems spinning their wheels trying to explain how Kerry voted for the war before he voted against it.... Oh, by the way, what is Hilary Clintons plan/stance for the Iraq war? She voted for it based on being lied to and now has quibbles with how its being run? OTOH, for example, Obama has no such mess. Sure he has to come up with a compelling plan, but has no messy history of calculating, equivocating moderation to rationalize away. He was against the war before it started and never fell for the lies. Clearer target maybe, but less of a blurry mess IMO.
Hillary Clinton is the clear front-runner to win the Democratic party's nomination for President in 2008, but the Republican race will be a close contest between Senator John McCain and former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani â with McCain edging Giuliani by a three- to four-point margin. And a presidential face-off between Clinton and McCain, right now, would be close to a dead heat. Those are some of the key findings of a new TIME poll earlier this week that canvassed a random sample of 1,064 registered voters by phone. Despite the buzz generated by Senator Barack Obama entering the race, the survey found that Senator Clinton would beat him for the Democratic nomination by a margin of 40% to 21%. Senator John Edwards is a distant third with 11%. Obama clearly suffers a disadvantage in profile among likely voters, with only 51% indicating that they knew enough about him to form an opinion, compared with 94% saying the same of Hillary Clinton. In Obama's favor, however, is his far lower negative ratings. While 58% of voters familiar with Hillary Clinton have a positive view of her, 41% give her negative marks, for a net favorability score of +17. By contrast, Obama's net favorability score is +47. On the Republican side, Giuliani has a net favorability rating of +68, with only 14% having a negative view of him. McCain's net favorability score is +45. McCain, however, holds a narrow lead of 30% to 26% over Giuliani for the GOP nomination. A race between McCain and Clinton would be a virtual tie (47%-47%), according to the poll, while McCain would beat either Obama or Senator John Edwards by a 7-point margin. Clinton's popularity within her party does not translate as easily across party lines as Obama's does, or indeed as Giuliani's and McCain's. Only 58% of the total sample of respondents had a very or somewhat favorable impression of her, compared with 82% for Giuliani (including 7 out of 10 Democratic voters), and 70% each for Obama and McCain â both of whom showed strongly among independents. These figures must be read against the fact that 94% of respondents said they knew "a great deal" or "some" about Clinton, while 73% said the same of Giuliani and 66% of John McCain. Only 51% knew "a great deal" or "some" about Obama. If the election were held now, Rudy Giuliani appears to have the support of the greatest number of respondents of both parties, with 56% indicating they would "definitely" or "probably" support him â followed by Hillary Clinton (51%) John McCain (50%) and Barack Obama (50%). But Clinton has a strong edge when the question is which presidential candidate people would most like to have over to their homes for dinner. The former First Lady led the dinner-invitation field with 26%, while Obama and McCain tied for second place at 15%. But with the New Hampshire primaries a year away, the the four leading contenders all have some work to do: Obama in making himself better known, Clinton in making herself better liked, McCain in matching Giuliani's appeal to Democratic voters, and Giuliani in landing more invitations to dinner. http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1582130,00.html
Interesting Z. Thanks for sharing. Edward's poor numbers perhaps prove that the dumbing down of America is in reversal. (although Obama is probably stealing his share as the new pretty boy flavor of the month) He's one of the least credible candidates in recent memory.
Edwards is a limp dishrag. I think for Obama to stand a chance, he has to do something to demonstrate he is a tough guy of sorts. I still can't picture him on a horse wearing a cowboy hat, holding a gun...but I can see Hillary dressed up as a modern day Annie Oakley. America loves a tough guy as president, and it is somewhat sad when Hillary looks like the toughest guy in the room full of democratic hopefuls. Not that being tough looking means you are tough, nor am I a gun supporter...but this is America, and the classic American hero is not an accountant...or a trial lawyer. We all remember Dukakis in the tank, and that ridiculous photo of Kerry in 2004 holding a gun. <img src=http://www.twainquotes.com/oakley.jpg> Now, that doesn't turn me on, but we have seen the large number of ET members who get horny seeing this: <img src=http://freedomfries.blog.is/tn/700/users/b0/freedomfries/img/c_documents_and_settings_magnus_helgason_my_documents_my_pictures_coulter_shooting_gun.jpg> Not this of course... <img src=http://www.chasingthewind.net/Images/kerrygunsafety.jpg>
Democrats just don't get it. The reason Reagan or Bush can appeal to voters by riding horses or clearing brush is that voters knew they were authentic. Keryy wearing some yellow ranch coat all over Iowa is not authentic. We know he would never be caught dead in that outfit. I wouldn't have thought that Democrats would want voters to be thinking about Hillary waving a gun around. Not after all the unexplained "Arkancides" that occurred when Bill was governor, not after poor Vince Foster ended up dead in a remote park on the GW Parkway, and not after the revelations about her hurling lamps at Bill in the White House. As for Obama, I think the last thing Dem's want is for voters to associate a young black guy with guns. You appeal to voters by being authentic and by being comfortable with who you are. I happen to think that Obama has a knack of giving exactly that impression to people. He is smart and talented but doesn't seem to be arrogant, patronizing or condescending, something the other candidates haven't mastered.
Just wait to you get to know Obama. I saw him at a charity function a few days after he won the Illinois Dem primary. In a sea of hundreds he stood out like an arrogant peacock.....