posted
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.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
WWAAAAAA !!!! THE Christopher Walken ! If he'll become your president, other country may be affraid with his terrific glance. Posts: 1189 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 609 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2715 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know many people around here would vote for Hillary Clinton. We don't have the bumper stickers yet though.
Posts: 772 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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*
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 516 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
"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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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).
Posts: 367 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't say it, and you're consistently ignoring the things she has accomplished as a Senator, Tom.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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...
Posts: 4515 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
