Europeans knwo more about our history than we do. They may not care but they know there stuff. I agree about HIlary. She is an opportunist. I think when a person becomes a politician, an evil demon pours crap in his or her ears during sleep.
Maybe aliens will rescue us as in the book LILITH

What pox has fallen upon this thread to cause it to die out? We've still got a year until election time...these threads aren't supposed to die until the election. So, in effort of resurrection, I pose a question to all: Do you think there's any chance of less known, less talked-about candidates (e.g. Bill Richardson) can find a way to get the nomination? Or is this destined to be a battle between the frontrunners?

quote:

Originally posted by Sinister:
Do you think there's any chance of less known, less talked-about candidates (e.g. Bill Richardson) can find a way to get the nomination? Or is this destined to be a battle between the frontrunners?

Unlikely. I hate to sound to cynical, but the truth is that despite your message, it's money that wins elections. I'm not talking about buying votes or anything, but it takes a lot of cash to run a campaign to the point where people know who you are. Howard Dean did a decent job of raising money at the grassroots level in the last election, but in the end he still couldn't compete with the Kerry-Heinz checkbook. Hillary and Obama seem to have all the cash right now, and unless they really make some public gaffs in the next year, one of them will become the Democratic nominee.

Bill Richardson seems like a decent guy, but I think the best he can hope for is the nominee dragging him along for the VP slot. There was talk of Kerry picking Richardson for that position in 2004, and honestly I thought he would've made a better choice than Edwards.

I wasn't really thinking that lesser candidates have much chance either, but I just wanted to hear some other opinions. What surprises me, though, is that for all the noise people make about Hillary Clinton, she's been able to raise more money than anyone else (unless, has Obama raised more? I'm not sure...).
I definitely agree that Richardson would be a better pick than Edwards, and in a way I'm glad he's running for the nomination because as it's virtually certain that Obama or Hillary will get the nomination (as a side note, who do you think will end up being the VP for the Democratic candidate, or, for that matter, the Republic candidate, whoever they may be?), Edwards will have trouble challenging the spot.

Sorry to hijack, but I just saw a "Fred '08" bumber sticker. Now I am from TN, so I'm not too alarmed, but I hadn't heard that he was actually running. Has Thompson announced?

quote:

Originally posted by Sinister:
as a side note, who do you think will end up being the VP for the Democratic candidate, or, for that matter, the Republic candidate, whoever they may be?

It usually depends on the candidate. They usually get someone who compliments them both demographically and in terms of skill set -- if a candidate has zero foreign policy experience, their likely to pick someone who does.

Both Hillary and Obama haven't been in the senate long, and their inexperience is the weakest part of their candidacies, although Hill's perceived as more experienced because of Bill. The chances of one dragging the other along for a VP slot is slim-to-none.

I'm guessing they both pick a crusty old white dude who's been around forever and is fairly conservative. Sort of the Democratic version of Dick Cheney.

Nevermind, I found his website and he's still in the "I'm strongly considering running, I just need to know how much money we can generate" phase. I do think he will cream either Osama or Clinton. I don't know if that is a good thing or not.

quote:

Originally posted by Maximum Jack:
Nevermind, I found his website and he's still in the "I'm strongly considering running, I just need to know how much money we can generate" phase.

If he wants to be a a serious contender, he needs to be careful about staying in that phase too long. Wesley Clark made that mistake in '04. He generated a lot of interest, waffled back and forth about running, and by the time he entered the race, Dean, Kerry, and Edwards were already household names.

I don't think Thompson will have the same problem. He has miles more charisma than Wesley Clark, and who among today's Republican frontrunners has become a household name?

I don't understand this obsession with Thompson. His record is for all purposes the same as the other GOP candidates (except Ron Paul) he was a Senator for two terms (not even all of two terms?) and that's his best qualification? There are a lot of (reliable) people that know him well who are all consistent that he's a giant lazy ass too. Which leads me to one of the follow conclusions:

In this quest for the "new Ronald Reagan" that I've heard about ad nauseum, he looks the most promising because HE TOO WAS AN ACTOR!

People are SO unimpressed by the current field people not even officially running win out by default (both disheartening.)

Or, like you've suggested Maximum Jack, charisma is carrying him a long way. Which while I don't personally see, I know it's a good deal of the gas in Obama's tank, since he too is fairly inexperienced, more so than Thompson. He's also got the race card, since this...erm, race, seems to be all about what "first" you'd be as president (Black, Hispanic, Mormon, woman, Gnome in the case of Dennis Kucinich.) <3 politics in America.

But, whether Fred officially throws in his hat or not, or any of the maybes do, short of an unforeseen miracle between now and election day I don't see anybody beating out Hillary

The Republican party is desperate, and that's why I think Thompson looks (and sounds) appealing. Personally, I think you've hit it right on the head. He is totally under-qualified.

Why do you say that about Hillary? I think the Republicans are hoping the Dems nominate her-- it's probably their best chance at victory in '08 no matter who they nominate.

quote:

Originally posted by Maximum Jack:
Why do you say that about Hillary? I think the Republicans are hoping the Dems nominate her-- it's probably their best chance at victory in '08 no matter who they nominate.

Truthfully, Hillary is probably the most moderate of the Democratic candidates, but oddly, she also seems to be the most polarizing. I don't know why Republicans seem to hate her so much.

quote:

I don't know why Republicans seem to hate her so much.

Even more, some Democrats hate her. And yet.

Why do I say I think she's so likely to win? Because for a long time now, America's been swerving violently between parties/extremes. We elect someone, they fuck up royally, we go "we're tired of this. We want change!" So we elect the other party until they fuck up royally and etc. etc. (never mind trying to actually address the real problem, let's keep looking to one of two relatively the fucking same parties) It's looking about that time. After all the negative points of the Bush terms - Iraq, Katrina, Scooter Libbey, Alberto Gonzales, gas prices, etc. I kind of don't think there's much chance any Republican can get nominated. And of the Democrats, Hillary's got the most money, she's got the name recognition, there's a surprising number of people who think her husband has something to do with electing her (I could talk a while about that alone.) Oh, and I'll guess she's got the vote of a lot of women that otherwise wouldn't give a damn.

Why ? Because she's a panderer. She's the same corporate whore that a majority of the field is, but even less human. Pro-war (it just looks good right now to say you're anti-war), pro-death penality, pro-war on drugs. It's like you took all the worst qualities of the current Democratic party and the NEOCONS and made Frankenstein's bride out of them.

I pretty much agree with everything you say about Hillary, Naz, but I still think that she is the one candidate on the Democrat's side which will pull the Republican base out of the woodwork on election day just to vote against her. I'm still hoping my vote will count for something in '08, but I doubt it.

Courage Jack! All votes count. ( At least I think so)
Keep the faith. Don't give up. Hope you enjoy a better upcoming 4 years!

I don't get this "can't vote until you're eighteen" law. What's worse is that my unfortunately placed birthday (always around election day) is going to prevent me from voting until I'm almost 19...stupid laws...

From the Breakfast Club:

Q: What do you need a fake ID for?
A: So I can vote.

quote:

Originally posted by Sinister:
I don't get this "can't vote until you're eighteen" law.

It's to prevent people with 10 kids from getting more voting power. "My baby's voting Nader!"

I would be in favor of dropping it to 16 though. If you're old enough to work and pay taxes, you should certainly have a say in how government is handling your tax dollars.

Hm, I never thought of that eric. I always said it was because of the poor decision making of undeveloped minds. "I'm voting for ________ because (s)he promised me candy if I did!" or such. You make a decent argument for sixteen, though.