Do You Favor Any of the '08 "Big Six?"

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
It's true. Candidates tend to look pretty good until the full scrutiny of the media is directed at them. Then all sorts of blemishes come out.

The field DOES suck, though, LotM.

-Arrian

I dont think so. Its better than in 2004. Id say its better than in 2000 - Obama is at least a match for Bradley, and Clinton is superior to Gore. The Repubs other than McCain are at least as good as the GOP field in 2000, and McCain is McCain.

1996 - Yeah, Dole was a nice man, but a lousy pol, at least at the presidential level. Likely would have had a difficult presidency squezed between the Dems and Gingrich. How superior was Bill to Hilary? $64,000 question, Im not sure we know. He was a superior pol, probably weaker in his convictions, and I doubt she will we be impeached over an intern. Oh there were other GOP candidates in 96, right? Anyone remember any names from that distinguished field?


1992 - I simply dont share your views of GHW Bush, Im sorry. Again Clinton v Clinton depends on a whole lot of things. And Perot, spare me. Oh and lets not forget Jerry Brown, Paul Tsongas, and the rest of that history making crowd.


I could go on, but I wont.

I guess part of it is that unlike you, I like John McCain AND Hillary Clinton.

[Donegeal]

Hmmm... interesting that the top 2 D cadidates and the top 2 R candidates anre now tied in combined votes.

Sounds promising coming from a lefty site....

(I know this isn't a lefty site, but it is more left leaning than right)

[Arrian]

and McCain is McCain

McCain v.2008 is not as good as McCain v.2000. Not at all.

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yep, McCain 2000 would easily have gotten my vote. McCain 2004 would have as well. McCain 2008 is going to have some problems getting my vote.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

LotM

Looks like with the exception of 1992 you and I agree this field is fairly strong comparatively speaking.

I give the edge to the field of '92 you OTOH would say we would have to go back further in time to find comparable parity.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
1996 - Yeah, Dole was a nice man, but a lousy pol, at least at the presidential level. Likely would have had a difficult presidency squezed between the Dems and Gingrich. How superior was Bill to Hilary? $64,000 question, Im not sure we know. He was a superior pol, probably weaker in his convictions, and I doubt she will we be impeached over an intern. Oh there were other GOP candidates in 96, right? Anyone remember any names from that distinguished field?

Dole's only real opposition that year came from Pat Buchanan and Steve Forbes; the other big GOP names running included Lamar Alexander, Phil Gramm, and "B-1 Bob" Dornan.

Actually, Dole would have been a fine president in the LBJ mold, because he knew how to work (and work with) Congress so well. Dole's problem -- the problem of many a potentially great president -- is that he wasn't a good enough politician to get elected. (The same problem beset Richard Lugar, who also ran a short-lived campaign that year iirc).

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian


McCain v.2008 is not as good as McCain v.2000. Not at all.

-Arrian

I think hes still the same man. He wouldnt have run a socially left admin then, and he wont run a fundie one now. Hes learned not to stick it to the fundies openly. Kinda how Hillary has learned a thing or two about the politics of healthcare. Learning is good. Tilting at windmills is not. "Sadder but wiser girl for me"

[Arrian]

If he's the same man, I overestimated McCain 2000. Either way, he's no longer nearly as attractive a candidate to me.

-Arrian

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Pekka
No but I don't know the situation in there like this. How does these two characters of the democratic party answer my question about Republican party, that what kind of chances does Ron Paul stand? I wouldn't ask if I knew you know..

Ron Paul doesn't have a chance of winning, sadly. He is the best candidate on the Republican side.

Also Dennis Kucinich doesn't have a chance of winning, sadly. He is the best candidate on the Democrat side.

My only big decision for this election will be whether I become (or remain) a registered Republican to cast a symbolic vote for Ron Paul or a registered Democrat to cast a symbolic vote for Dennis Kucinich in the primary.

[Cort Haus]

Anyone but McCain, please. I think the guy's a major-league nutter.

[Donegeal]

Hey Cort... My vote can be bought.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Anyone but McCain, please. I think the guy's a major-league nutter.

Yes, nuts in my book also. Though I do think he would've been better in 2000. Now I think he's just trying to win to save face -- "See, I lost out those other times but I won it now! So, uh, what next?" I dunno.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Ron Paul doesn't have a chance of winning, sadly. He is the best candidate on the Republican side.

Also Dennis Kucinich doesn't have a chance of winning, sadly. He is the best candidate on the Democrat side.

I thought you were crazy, but totally this is just totally nucking futs.

[OzzyKP]

Why's that?

[Arrian]

He may be a loony, but he's OUR loony.



-Arrian