The Last Temptation of Al Gore

[bipolarbear]

A bit of a Tangent , but yeah Edwards is done for. He wasn't that great with Kerry adn the notion that people would end up getting behind him for a Presidential run is just silly IMO.

[Jon Miller]

I think that democrats this year are better than Kerry.

Jon Miller

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
And dance...?! Watch the man dance.

Algorhythm.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
I think the GOP actually has good candidates -- it's just that the party itself has become so extreme and ideologically rigid that the candidates are compelled to fit themselves quite uncomfortably into a mold; it doesn't work, and it diminishes what they do bring to the table.

The Dems are in a slightly different position, in that their "second stringers" -- Richardson, Dodd, Vilsack when he was still running -- would make better presidents than their frontrunners; at an earlier moment in party history, they would be running while Obama would be told to wait his turn and Edwards would be told he was yesterday's news (there's no precedent for Hillary, so I won't stretch the analogy).

Edit: Hey! I just became a King!

A good summary except that I would challenge the assumption of the stringent idealogical demogogery of the GOP party faithful.

The two contenders are either Guiliani or Romney. G obviously is a social moderate and still has the leading edge. Romney is a mormon and that supposedly is red meat for the supposedly rampant numbers of haters of the Christian fundy bigots persuasion within the GOP.

Either way this speaks volumes to the actual tolerance of the GOP party and its faithful.

And I would agree with Jon Miller that the Dems this cycle, are far better than Kerry , even and especially the second stringers.

[Ecthy]

Originally posted by Ming
In my opinion, neither can get elected. Both of them will easily win the traditional democratic battlegrounds. The real question is, can either of them win in any of the states needed to swing the election.

Probably not.

And they'd "probably" be beaten by WHAT Republican candidate?

[Odin]

Damn it, Al, RUN!!!

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


A good summary except that I would challenge the assumption of the stringent idealogical demogogery of the GOP party faithful.

The two contenders are either Guiliani or Romney. G obviously is a social moderate and still has the leading edge. Romney is a mormon and that supposedly is red meat for the supposedly rampant numbers of haters of the Christian fundy bigots persuasion within the GOP.

Either way this speaks volumes to the actual tolerance of the GOP party and its faithful.

I think there's some truth to this. It remains the case, though, that Rudy, Mitt, and even McCain are all having to backpedal on previously-held positions. Obviously, politicians fudge and flip-flop all the time; but this time around the GOP candidates are having to do that a lot more than the Dems. The pressure to tie themselves into knots is coming from somewhere.

I think a basically decent GOP field is also being hindered by not knowing what to say about Bush. GOP voters value loyalty (far more than Dem voters), so its hard to bash the Prez (though that's Hagel's tack, and notice how no one's really talking about Hagel); at the same time, backing Bush is aligning oneself with a small -- and dwindling -- portion of the electorate. It's a real bind, and one with no easy way out.

[Drake Tungsten]

(though that's Hagel's tack, and notice how no one's really talking about Hagel)

Hagel might not even make it out of the Republican Senate primary in Nebraska, according to recent polls.

[Dinner]

I'm thinking Mitt Romney is going to be the Republican nominee.