"I feel the hunger for election, and the only thing that can satisfy that hunger...is more cowbell."
Seriously, I hope this is a joke. It could really hurt his movie career.
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
Oh come on! Imagine the debates!
I'd emmigrate to vote for this... Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
I don't think it is a joke. It looks pretty serious. And to be honest I'm liking what I see so far of his politics.
And seeing how actors who run for political office, least on the republican side, tend to do in this country... he could stand a good chance to win. Good heavens... I actually hope this isn't a joke. I'm gonna keep my eye on that site.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Depends on who he is running against. Chances are, he's running on the Democratic ticket. If he is and Hillary decides to run, she'll almost certainly win the nomination.
If she doesn't, he has to face several senators and governors, but few, if any, of them will have the national recognition he will have. As soon as the midterms are over in 2006 he'll have to start getting his face out there, or he won't be taken seriously.
If he runs as a third party candidate, and is a serious contender, he'll hand the Republicans a victory.
Posted by Choobak (Member # 7083) on :
WWAAAAAA !!!! THE Christopher Walken ! If he'll become your president, other country may be affraid with his terrific glance. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If he is and Hillary decides to run, she'll almost certainly win the nomination.
See, I don't get that. The only people who think Clinton has a serious chance at a nomination are Republicans; I don't know a single Democrat who'd be interested in voting for her.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I do.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Be interesting to see him negotiating with Iranian leadership.
"What'd you say? Great satan? You're talking to me all wrong. You're tone - it's wrong. Do it again, and I'll stick a soldering iron in your face."
Posted by Happy Camper (Member # 5076) on :
"Goodnight room. Goodnight Moon. Goodnight cow jumping over the moon." Please, children, scootch closer. Don't make me tell you *again* about the scootching. You in the red, chop-chop. -- Christopher Walken, "Insane Clown Poppy"
Sorry, that episode of "The Simpsons" is what I think about now whenever I hear the name. That and the video he dances in. I forget who the artist was.
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
Fatboy Slim - "Weapon of Choice"
Great clip.
Posted by Rico (Member # 7533) on :
I can't wait to hear his speeches! This is awesome!
Posted by Choobak (Member # 7083) on :
And remember the headless horseman, with Johnny Depp.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
He doesn't seem to have much of a platform.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Christopher Walken gives me the willies. Don't get me wrong, he's a great actor and I love a lot of his movies... I just think he wants to eat my skin or something.
I don't have a problem with actors running for public office. They have just as much right to try it as anyone else. But I do think it's a little silly when they go for a presidential run right off. People really should be a mayor or governor or something first, IMHO.
--Enigmatic
Edit: I signed up for the mailing list, to see if more ever comes of this down the road.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:He doesn't seem to have much of a platform.
The websites only been up for 4 days and just moved to where it is now yesterday. I'm surprised its as large as it is.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I know plenty of people who would vote for Hillary. I've seen more "Hillary 2008" bumper stickers around where I live than I ever saw Kerry stickers. Which isn't exactly official polling data, but she is popular, and has more recognition (positive recognition) than any other potential democrat.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I just got back from Wedding Crashers, and I've gotta say, I'd vote for him.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:People really should be a mayor or governor or something first, IMHO.
Personally, I think it should be a constitutional requirement. The position of head of government of an entire nation is a big deal, with a lot of potential for some major mistakes, and it shouldn't be available to people who have absolutely no political experience. I think we need to implement some kind of cursus honorum that outlines certain political offices you have to have held before you can be considered for the presidency.
As for the question of Christopher Walken . . . well, my default setting is to assume when any celebrity suddenly announces they're going to run for president that they're doing it as a publicity stunt. (I mean, come on. Does Hulk Hogan really think we'd ever make him president?) Walken will have to prove he really is serious before I would even consider voting for him. Then I'd have to know more about his platform. I'm not going to say I would never vote for him. I just have to be convinced that he could make a good president first.
Posted by mimsies (Member # 7418) on :
I know many people around here would vote for Hillary Clinton. We don't have the bumper stickers yet though.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hm. I'm skeptical. Who, specifically, do you know that would vote for Hillary Clinton? And have they told you why?
She's unelectable, and most Dems know that.
------
As for Walken: his platform's pretty thin. I don't understand why he thinks he'd make a better president than, say, Joe Biden. *shrug*
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Who specifically?
I would. My ex-girlfriend has a "Elect Hillary" bumper sticker on her car, she would also vote for her. I have a couple other friends, and some people at work that would as well.
It depends entirely on who she is running against. She will win points for Bill Clinton era nostalgia, and she has done very good work in the Senate. She's insanely popular in New York and other places. Her husband would be a massive asset, perhaps the best political asset any candidate running for office has ever had.
Mostly, why would I vote for her. She agrees with most of my issues, she's very smart, she will know what she is doing without someone holding her hand, and I trust her.
If she were to run in 08 against Guliani I think she'd win hands down. Everyone seems to forget the fact that before 9/11, Guliani was incredibly unpopular, and had a swarm of corruption issues revolving around his office. And all that stuff will come out when/if he runs.
Many of the other Republicans are far too Conservative, and their attempts to soften their image will erode support from their base. Bill Frist, for example, and Condi Rice, who I believe would have massive trust issues. There's also talk of Laura and Jeb Bush running. But from what I've seen, Jeb's high profile mishandling of several issues in Florida makes him unelectable, and Laura Bush couldn't get elected as Chief Librarian to the Library of Congress.
If she runs against McCain, things will be really interesting.
Posted by RoyHobbs (Member # 7594) on :
I hope Hillary gets the nomination.
That's all I'm going to say about it.
Posted by Mintieman (Member # 4620) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
She's unelectable, and most Dems know that.
Un-electable? For what reasons?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Personally, I think it should be a constitutional requirement. The position of head of government of an entire nation is a big deal, with a lot of potential for some major mistakes, and it shouldn't be available to people who have absolutely no political experience.
How many times in history would having such a requirement have made any difference?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The safeguard until now has been the people of the electorate, but they don't really seem capable of defending themselves lately.
More than 60% of those polled recently in California say they wish they hadn't voted for Arnold in the recall vote. A year ago Arnold was use as a magical totem to campaign for Bush in California. Now he is more widely hated than Grey Davis ever was. I think it's a good example of someone that looks good on the surface, who then has his inexperience show rather obviously when serious challenges start to come his way.
I think a more in general requirement would make more sense. Like, the person running has to have held some sort of previous public office for at least one term, or must have served in the military for a few years. Anything more specific restricts the process too much for it to be considered democratic and free.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Hillary Clinton is un-electable as President. If the Democrats nominate her in 2008 they will be throwing away the nomination. Roughly 50% of this country hates her. I mean, *hates* her. It is not reasonable, it's not fair, but there is it. Where I live, she might as well be a serial killer. The percentage of people who hate her is closer to 85-90%; even Democrats.
She cannot win a national election. Emphatically can not. This is the nation that elected Dubya TWICE.
The Democrats need ... somebody charismatic, somebody with something to say, somebody with passion and a real platform.
Learn from your past mistakes, Democrats. Gore? Kerry? And now Clinton?
They'd have to be crazy to nominate Clinton.
Perhaps Walken is the answer. Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Be interesting to see him negotiating with Iranian leadership.
"What'd you say? Great satan? You're talking to me all wrong. You're tone - it's wrong. Do it again, and I'll stick a soldering iron in your face."
Dag, you have no idea how much that made me laugh.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Re: Hillary, I think it's fair to say that alot of people see her as smart and capable. However, I don't think she would win a presidential election--at least the way people see her now. Even among Democrats, she comes off as extremely cold and precise.
When all the politicking and photo ops are over, I think choosing a president comes down to a gut level inclination for most people.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Un-electable? For what reasons?
1) She's a Clinton. And among a certain percentage of the population, she's believed to be the eviler one.
2) She's profoundly uncharismatic, and every attempt at seeming charismatic comes off as being false and wooden -- like a female version of John Kerry.
3) She hasn't actually accomplished anything, and neither is she known for grand ideas or brilliance. She's said to be intelligent, but we haven't seen any actual evidence of that -- which means that it's a no-starter as far as selling points go.
Anyone who thinks Hillary could win seriously -- seriously -- underestimates the amount that this country hates her.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Actually, she's accomplished a number of things in the Senate. Heck, just getting elected to the Senate was a moderate accomplishment given the situation. But among senators and new yorkers Hillary already has a rather good reputation.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Tom -
"She hasn't actually accomplished anything, and neither is she known for grand ideas or brilliance. She's said to be intelligent, but we haven't seen any actual evidence of that -- which means that it's a no-starter as far as selling points go."
America elected Bush twice, obviously America doesn't care THAT much about grand ideas, brilliance, or accomplishments for that matter.
And yes, thanks to right wing loud mouths, much of the nation does hate her, but that can always swing back the other way. She has time to soften her image. And I've heard her speak before, she comes off as strong and likeable to me. More so than "treat em like they're stupid" Bush does.
If she decides not to run, I think she will have a much better chance in 2012 or 2016, but after that I think it will be too late. However, I firmly believe that her victory or defeat would depend entirely on who the Republican nominee is. Many of the pontential candidates in the field are the Conservative version of her, and are widely reviled. The next election might just turn into USA Hatefest 2008.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Tom is right. Those that think she could win don't understand the feelings/views of a large portion of this country.
But then, from some of the posts just in this thread, a lot of people seem unable to comprehend how this country could elect GWB not only once, but twice.
Being a Clinton and having Bill at her side would be a huge liability as well as a huge asset. Nostalga for the Clinton years is a two-way street. A lot of people would elect almost anybody else if they believed that she would bring us back to the Clinton years.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think there are an equal amount of people that would give ANYTHING to be back in the Clinton years.
Most especially if this war continues to go poorly, and Bush continues to be a do nothing President domestically. He has 2 more years to erode faith in the Republican party before the candidates start to line up, and one year before the mid terms, when we'll get a good idea of popular opinion about the parties.
I still think it is too far away to make any judgements, and that no one in the country knows anything about Hillary, most are just basing their judgement off gossip they heard half a decade ago. Politically, negative campaigners won't have anything to hit her with. Her Senate career is widely celebrated so far, and as a first lady, she did more in her husband's first term than Laura has, or will do, in 8. What she did might not have worked, but she got involved and tried to help.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Her Senate career is widely celebrated so far, and as a first lady, she did more in her husband's first term than Laura has, or will do, in 8. What she did might not have worked, but she got involved and tried to help.
Russell, for the people who dislike her, this is a BAD thing.
I personally don't care one way or the other -- except that I'd like to see a president elected on merit, and Hillary doesn't have much beyond name recognition to her credit.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Except for Bush 1, You have to go back to Ford to find a president who wasn't a governor.
Not sure who the standout Dems are in this line; conceivably Mark Warner, but his national name recognition is pretty low, even for this early in the cycle.
Gov. Blagojevich of Illinois might be a good choice. If he were to institute death penalty reforms and lift the moratorium, he might get a lot of independents.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
What, Blago?
Please, don't let The Haircut become the President.
If the Illinois Republican party wasn't fractioned insanely, he'd never stay Governor - believe it or not, Chicago would easily vote a decent Republican over Blagojevich.
He really isn't a good choice - I don't know too many democratic voters who actually like him. It's just that the Republicans can't seem to put up a decent candidate (they seem to either be riddled in scandal or a blatant racist).
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I didn't say it, and you're consistently ignoring the things she has accomplished as a Senator, Tom.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Except she hasn't actually accomplished that much as a Senator. She's been celebrated for not falling on her face and not hiding in the shadows. She has been, at best, mildly competent. But, heck, Gerald Ford was mildly competent.
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chungwa: What, Blago?
Nah, we call him G-Nad 'round here LOL
Seriously... I don't recall what started it, but I do know that Eric Zorn wrote about it a while ago and has been calling Blagojevich that since. I'll have to do some websearching later and see what I can find, but I'm about to go to a family lunch/dinner thing for my grandmother's birthday that I'm frankly dreading. Yeah, I'd much rather be in Bloomington with Megan, Raia, Stray, Alcon and fugu right now...
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, for a first term Senator her career has been very successful, Tom. She's gotten good committee seats (as in, much better than your typical first year), sponsored a good assortment of successful legislation, taken leadership roles in Senate political groupings, and has managed to make several potent alliances, notably including one with a still-powerful old opponent on moving towards eventual universal health care . . . which is particularly impressive when you realize that opponent is Newt Gingrich.
I don't think she's Presidential material, yet, but she's got one of the most impressive first term senatorial careers of the past few decades.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Give us a little credit. Americans are much too savvy to elect an actor into high office.
Americans are aware that our actors are like beloved pets. Amusing, but none too bright.
Witness "Celebrity Jeopardy".
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I don't think she's Presidential material, yet, but she's got one of the most impressive first term senatorial careers of the past few decades.
Arguably almost as good as Quayle's. Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Or what's-his-name in California. My tongue was in my cheek. My wit is dehydrating in this awful heat and humidity.
Water...water...
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Didn't come to my neighborhood yet. Is it breaking the fast to stand in the rain?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Personally I still prefer a first lady dedicated to solving social issues. The nation, and Congress, has been receptive to the social crusades of a first lady since Eleanor Roosevelt, and they still are. I don't want her to make policy decisions, she isn't an elected official, but I do want her to be active, even if it's just to educate people. They will listen.
Democrats don't really have a lot of popular governors do they? Locke in Washington (or was it Oregon?) was looking popular enough to be a candidate, but then he decided not to seek reelection. Jennifer Granholm in Michigan would be a serious contender if she were legally allowed to run.
Most of the Democrats rising stars are all senators. Barrack Obama will almost certainly take a swing at the Presidency in 10 years, and Clinton will eventually have her run at it. (Heck, maybe they will run together).
So who does that leave, but prominant Senators. Joe Biden is a name that gets tossed around a lot, but I don't know enough about his voting record to say for sure if he is a lock or not. I think that's why senators have an automatic disadvantage to governors in elections, they have records they can be nailed to, whereas governors can pass the blame on to almost anyone else.
As for not electing actors to high office. Jesse Ventura in Minnesota, Ahhnold in California, Reagan to the presidency. We don't seem to have a problem with it.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I'm curious as to where the people who think Hillary is electable live. I agree with Tom that she is not. (But then, I thought Bush could not win reelection.)
I think nominating Hillary would be insane, and all the evidence anybody needs that the democrats just don't have a clue how to connect with the majority of Americans outside of the urban northeast. It would be a great way to kill the party long-term.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm somewhat doubtful she will even run. Evidence points to yes, as she has been making a lot of noise lately by softening her liberal image (which in many ways is an undeserved title), and making deals with Republicans to give her cross party appeal and make her look bi-partisan (which I actually think she is). Also Bill is starting to give interviews about her.
But she claimed she would serve out her 2000-2006 term, and she did. If she makes the same promise now, to serve from 2006 to 2012, she will have to uphold it, or risk alienating New York.
Personally, were I her political advisor, I'd tell her not to run, to secure her senate seat, and spend the next 6 years building up a good reputation and record. Give a more electable Democrat a run at the presidency, secure it, then worry about what comes next later. She has so many options, she could doom her career by choosing too much too fast. In 2012 she could even make a run at the governorship. She's immensely popular, and after spending 12 years there, she might start looking like a good candidate.
After being governor, she could easily take a shot at the presidency, after having some real experience under he belt. By that time, Barrack Obama will have had a lot of experience too, and would make an excellent running mate.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Every time the Democrats nominate a Yankee liberal they lose. A Yankee liberal hasn't won since Kennedy. Democrats need to nominate a Southern moderate. Those are the ones who win. Unfortunately the early primaries are skewed toward nomination of Yankee liberals. I wonder why they can't figure this out and fix it. It's just weird.
Also, nothing seems to matter to the electorate as much as how appealing and how Presidential someone is. If they can find a Southern moderate who is actually appealing (not Gore) and Presidential, they will have a very good shot at it this time. I don't think Clinton can win, but what about Obama? Although he's not Southern, he's African-American, which counts as defacto Southern. I bet he'd have a good shot at it.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
A lot of people believe Obama is too green yet; the fact that he's a senator (right?) seems to hurt too. I am definitely intrigued by what I have heard about him, though.
-o-
Color me unsurprised to hear that the people who think Hillary has a shot are New Yorkers.
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
Yes, Obama is a senator, and a freshman at that. And he himself was quoted some time ago as saying he had no plans to run for the presidency; he still needed to find his way around the Senate building.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Obama grew up in Hawaii and Nebraska didn't he? One of the plains states, I can't remember which, but he isn't native to Illinois.
And yes, he is green, which is why I suggested he wait until after at least a term or two, then run as a vice president. That way he will have plenty of experience, and still be 'young' enough to make a run at the presidency.
The best thing in 2012 then, is for her to run as Vice President to a southern or midwestern democrat running as President. I think that way they get her supporters, and her detractors can still stomach voting for whoever the the actual candidate is.
Whomever the non-Yankee may be though, he/she needs to start speaking up now, or forever hold his/her peace. I can't even think of anyone viable off the top of my head.
Who do you guys think the best candidate is for the Dems in 2008, and who do you think the best Republican candidate is?
Republicans - McCain. Democrats - Bill Richardson (Gov. of NM)
If I'm the Democrats, I'm putting together an Edwards/Obama ticket.
That ticket should beat anyone unless the Republicans nominate McCain.
(McCain/Whoever would most likely defeat them.)
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
McCain would grab a lot of independents (including me, most likely) and even some Democrats if he ran.
I was wistfully dreaming of a McCain/Democrat ticket last election.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Edwards? Really? You want to nominate two candidates who would have less than two Senate terms between them total? Both Edwards and Obama would be one term senators, and in Edwards case, it'd be his second try after losing the first time. Both are inexperienced, and that would be used to slice both to ribbons.
I think Edwards had his shot, and missed. And Obama needs more time to mature.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Oh hell. I just wrote a fairly in-depth post that got eaten up by the internet gremlins.
Point was, Edwards, really.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'll take your word for it Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
It was really brilliant, in several ways. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
His strong pursuit (involving unconstitutional possibilities being bantered about) of the steroids in baseball issue has significantly dulled him.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:but I think he lost the support of the vast majority of the Democrats when he stood up for Bush in 2004.
But he only needs a small minority of Democrats to turn Bush's margin of victory into a true landslide.
quote:His strong pursuit (involving unconstitutional possibilities being bantered about) of the steroids in baseball issue has significantly dulled him.
I agree - this and his willingness to ban speech make me leery of him.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'd still like to see a Bill Bradley/Joe Biden ticket, but no one knows who those people are.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Dag, that isn't true, really, because McCain wouldn't carry all the same groups Bush did....he isn't "right" enough on their political scale.
I would ahve voted for him in a second last time around, but I would never vote for him at this point...he has proven himself untrustworthy, at least to me.
Part of why I would have voted for him in the first place was my feeling of personal integrety I got from him, and that no longer is the case. He stood up for the same people who did the hatchet job on him and his people , and I lost all respect for him.
Still, at least he ISN'T a Bush. I think that alone will be an improvment, although watching Jeb try to run would provide a lot of laughs...
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Dag, that isn't true, really, because McCain wouldn't carry all the same groups Bush did....he isn't "right" enough on their political scale.
For a lot of people that his matters for, he doesn't have to be "right" enough -- he just has to be more "right" than the opponent.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: I'd still like to see a Bill Bradley/Joe Biden ticket, but no one knows who those people are
Biden is a senator from Deleware, and Bill Bradley sounds very familier. Didn't he try to run in the Primary in 92? or 2000? I know his name has been up before, but he lost the Primary. I don't recall his policies, but I remember liking him.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, that isn't true, really, because McCain wouldn't carry all the same groups Bush did....he isn't "right" enough on their political scale.
As MPH said, he doesn't have to be.
Plus, McCain is darn conservative. The only thing that ever really got him in trouble on that front was that the finance reform act kept a lot of conservative issue-oriented groups from putting out the ads they wanted to. But there was the same complaint from liberal issue groups, so it's not really an ideological complaint, except to those of us who hate speech restrictions.
Now, he might have trouble winning the nomination. But that's an entirely different question.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:If I'm the Democrats, I'm putting together an Edwards/Obama ticket.
That ticket should beat anyone unless the Republicans nominate McCain.
I think you have to be a little out of touch to think that any democratic ticket is unbeatable or even nearly so, after what happened last year. Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I know who Biden is, but he always struck me as kind of a snake. Didn't he have some scandal ten or fifteen years ago?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: I think you have to be a little out of touch to think that any democratic ticket is unbeatable or even nearly so, after what happened last year.
Well, no, actually I don't. Additionally, I didn't *say* they were unbeatable. Finally, if you had read my brilliant analysis (which I didn't post) of why I felt that way, you'd feel quite silly right now. Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:Christopher Walken, sadly, is not running.
Not surprised. I suspected it might be a prank site. Still, the basic premise was believable enough, so I was willing to give it the benefit of the doubt.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Obama- President Bradley- VP (Biden- Sec of State)
I can just imagine the campaign speeches, debates, and policy that would flow from those three.
About Biden, who says campaign speeches should be original, I'd rather they be true. Wisdom is not something which is invented extemporaneously-0- there are no points for innovation-- wisdom is a clear account of the problem and a course of action that is perceived by a keen mind, and mining the words of some of the clearest thinkers in ones tradition is a habit that should be encouraged, not derided.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
For 2008? No way. Obama would never get elected with less than a term in the senate under his belt, no matter how popular he is.
He might be able to slip by in the VP slot, he'd be a good campaigner I think. But he could never lead the ticket. I'd call him a good VP possibility if no one more obvious steps up. Or, if the Dems lose in 08, he'll be a good contender in 2012.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I went searching for old Hatrack dirt on Blagojevich and found this time capsule gem.
Just reminds me of how hard it is to predict where things will be, three years out.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Wow.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Indeed, wow...
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
reading through this thread was highly amusing. some of my favorite comments:
quote:Most of the Democrats rising stars are all senators. Barrack Obama will almost certainly take a swing at the Presidency in 10 years, and Clinton will eventually have her run at it. (Heck, maybe they will run together).
the dream ticket!
quote:I think nominating Hillary would be insane, and all the evidence anybody needs that the democrats just don't have a clue how to connect with the majority of Americans outside of the urban northeast. It would be a great way to kill the party long-term.
this is ironic, because her big argument was her appeal to white working class voters, and the fear that Obama wouldn't be able to win them over.
quote:If I'm the Democrats, I'm putting together an Edwards/Obama ticket.
That ticket should beat anyone unless the Republicans nominate McCain.
(McCain/Whoever would most likely defeat them.)
You hadn't counted on McCain/Palin!
quote:For 2008? No way. Obama would never get elected with less than a term in the senate under his belt, no matter how popular he is.
Foot, meet mouth.
Thanks Lyrhawn, this post couldn't have existed without you!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Lyrhawn has entirely redeemed himself with his work on the recent political threads. Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: McCain would grab a lot of independents (including me, most likely) and even some Democrats if he ran.
I was wistfully dreaming of a McCain/Democrat ticket last election.
*hangs head in shame*
That was a different McCain. Let it be known that McCain ended up not grabbing this independent's vote.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Lyrhawn has entirely redeemed himself with his work on the recent political threads.
of course...which is why I didn't feel bad gently ribbing him a bit.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Lyrhawn and Strider are both teh awesome
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: Lyrhawn and Strider are both teh awesome
QFT
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
yeah, i don't think Obama has a chance.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: Lyrhawn and Strider are both teh awesome
QFT
I feel all warm and fuzzy inside!
quote:Just reminds me of how hard it is to predict where things will be, three years out.
you know, while the specific end was hard to predict, everyone was bandying about mostly correct names. Obama, Hilary, Biden, Richardson, McCain, Guiliani...that either says something about the intelligence of Hatrack, or the predictability of politics.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
We were also bandying about (although perhaps less seriously) Bill Bradley, Jeb Bush, and Rod Blagojevich himself.
I mostly just see it as an indication that popular wisdom can change relatively quickly, and we tend to have a bit of cultural amnesia as to exactly how different our views can be over the course of even a few years.
So anyone who thinks Sarah Palin will be the Republican standard bearer at least until 2012 (or even 2010), or that any Dem would be crazy to challenge Obama for nomination in 2012 (both things I've heard stated with some degree of certainty) should remember how quickly such perceptions can change.
Maybe I'm just betraying my own love/hate relationship with political predictions (like those Nate Silver is making for the 2010 elections over at fivethirtyeight).
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
If Nate Silver told me who I'm going to marry and the exact time of my death I'd believe him.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
If somebody told me the exact location of my death, I'd make sure I never go there.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
But if somebody told you the exact time of your death would you make sure never to go then?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: If somebody told me the exact location of my death, I'd make sure I never go there.
Really? I bet I could get you to do so.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Personally, were I her political advisor, I'd tell her not to run, to secure her senate seat, and spend the next 6 years building up a good reputation and record. Give a more electable Democrat a run at the presidency, secure it, then worry about what comes next later. She has so many options, she could doom her career by choosing too much too fast. In 2012 she could even make a run at the governorship. She's immensely popular, and after spending 12 years there, she might start looking like a good candidate.
I love how Lyr was postulating that Clinton would make a good presidential candidate at the age of 77- I suppose he wasn't doing the math. Even if she had run after only one term as governor, which would be in 2020 (after a term expiring in 2018) she would have been older than McCain is now at 73.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Really? I bet I could get you to do so.
Really? I'd love to know how.
Bear in mind that I said exact location. "Home" isn't an exact place, since the location of "home" can change infinitely.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
But mph.. "home" is where the heart is...
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
My home is my chest? What am I, a turtle?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Really? I bet I could get you to do so.
Really? I'd love to know how.
Bear in mind that I said exact location. "Home" isn't an exact place, since the location of "home" can change infinitely.
Failing to go to this exact place will result in the painful death (long and lingering) of one of your children.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: My home is my chest? What am I, a turtle?
That is what I'm saying, yes.
That and you're MOM'S a turtle.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:For 2008? No way. Obama would never get elected with less than a term in the senate under his belt, no matter how popular he is.
Lyrhawn, your political predictions no longer hold any weight for me. Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Posted by Lyrhawn, September 25, 2005 11:40 p.m. For 2008? No way. Obama would never get elected with less than a term in the senate under his belt, no matter how popular he is.
I think it deserves special mention that this was the very last post in this thread, until it was resurrected.
Posted by Zamphyr (Member # 6213) on :
Ooooh, I was really hoping this bump had Walken's write-in totals.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: Obama- President Bradley- VP (Biden- Sec of State)
I can just imagine the campaign speeches, debates, and policy that would flow from those three.
About Biden, who says campaign speeches should be original, I'd rather they be true. Wisdom is not something which is invented extemporaneously-0- there are no points for innovation-- wisdom is a clear account of the problem and a course of action that is perceived by a keen mind, and mining the words of some of the clearest thinkers in ones tradition is a habit that should be encouraged, not derided.
This was the real post for me. Irami supporting Obama *and* getting the closest to the actual winning ticket?!
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
hah...i was going to say something about that too. amusing.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale:
quote:Posted by Lyrhawn, September 25, 2005 11:40 p.m. For 2008? No way. Obama would never get elected with less than a term in the senate under his belt, no matter how popular he is.
I think it deserves special mention that this was the very last post in this thread, until it was resurrected.
You know, when I was reading this thread againa and got to that point I was thinking "Please God let there be a few posts after that to bury it a little bit," but no, nope, not nearly that lucky. To my credit, I DID mention Biden as a name on the ticket, and ended up being right about that! Otherwise cripes, it's a thread full of me looking stupid.
I need to stop making declarative statements.
Orincoro -
I didn't think her being in her late 70's was relevent. I just figured creatures of darkness lived forever and that she'd be really well preserved. I hear a lust for power can have incredible restorative properties.
That...and I didn't do the math.
Oh, and in general: Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I need to stop making declarative statements.
You realize what that was, right?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I NEED to.
I didn't say I was going to.
It's a hard habit to break.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Really? I bet I could get you to do so.
Really? I'd love to know how.
Bear in mind that I said exact location. "Home" isn't an exact place, since the location of "home" can change infinitely.
Failing to go to this exact place will result in the painful death (long and lingering) of one of your children.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
post for me. Irami supporting Obama *and* getting the closest to the actual winning ticket?!
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)