A 'transformative' election?
A year to go. The buzzword here on the subject of the 2008 presidential election is that it will be "transformative." Washington insiders nod sagely at this thought and go about their business warmed by its power. I am at a disadvantage though: I am not sure what "transformative" really means.
Does it mean a black man might take over, or a woman? To some that is it; particularly those who back as a generational - not just a racial - new start; a man who will take the nation beyond the stale battles of the baby-boom generation. But transformative means rather more, it seems...
The best explanation I have had came from the respected and super-smart pollster John Zogby, who kept off the personalities (at least on the record) but talked instead about the polling data that suggests a rare restiveness among the American people, a sense that the status quo is rotten. Zogby points out that FDR did not come to power with the New Deal in his pocket; Ronald Reagan did not have the battle plan to win the Cold War up his sleeve: it's just that both men were able to seize moments. Now is a moment to be seized; there are (to mix the metaphor) open doors to be pushed at.
So who is going to win? In London the other day a senior figure from the Tony Blair inner circle bet me fifty pounds that Barack Obama will be the Democrats' choice, pipping at the post. I doubt it: but the primaries are dynamic events in which (remember the ) stuff happens. And neither of those two candidates has any executive experience; might the party panic at the last moment and turn to , a governor, former cabinet member and UN ambassador?
As for the Republicans; there is a real danger that the media abuse heaped on all of their candidates will rather rebound on the commentators when someone is chosen and that someone becomes (as I am sure they will) a perfectly respectable presidential candidate. But Lord knows who it will be. My money is on a comeback, fuelled by improving news from Iraq and the desire for a grownup to take on the resurgent Democrats.
A friend of mine from California makes an intriguing suggestion: that the post of president should be left vacant this time round. Empty chair the rascals, substitute introspection and self-analysis for leadership, and try again in four years time.
PS: This is the first substantive post - the first of many - in my new blog. You can learn more about me here, my job here, or visit the of this blog. You could also subscribe to my RSS feed (or, indeed, click if you don't know what an RSS feed is).
Hello, I'm 
颁辞尘尘别苍迟蝉听听 Post your comment
Why no mention of Ron Paul? He had the biggest fundraising day out of the Republican candidates this last monday and continues to win all public polls. Though he does rank low in the national polls (the polls that call only previous republican primary voters) he is gaining a lot of support. He is the only candidate from both parties who will end the war in Iraq as quickly as possible and change American foreign policy. Most people are tired of the media telling them who the top candidates are simply because of their money or name recognition. Well, now Ron Paul has the money. The only option I see for the Republican ticket is Ron Paul, and if he doesn't get the nomination, then I don't see this being a "transformative" election at all.
It is unfortunate that we do not have a "None of the Above" choice on our ballots. It's the same ol' song and dance from the same ol' crowd.
Everyone of the cast of characters now running, which God-forbid we have to listen to for over a year, will tell us whatever THEY (and their policy wonks) think we want to hear to get THEM elected and then of course do and say whatever it takes to get re-elected.
It is truly a sad state of affairs in U.S. politics right now.
ABarnes, Austin, Texas
What has me particularly concerned is the fact that we're going to have nominated two people about whom most voters no little, and then, we're going to have to listen to them snipe at each other for nine months. I can't imagine anything as corrosive to democracy short of putting troops in the street.
Buyers' remorse could drive voter turn out to new lows.
The first interesting event at the Iowa caucus (if indeed it is first) will not be who comes 1st or 2nd but who comes in third. With so many runners in the pack this will designate who was has been finally recognized and therefore has the chance to gain momentum.
I'm a life-long Democrat but have a friend who's a well-regarded Republican campaign consultant. He's convinced that Obama's and Edwards' "ganging up" on Clinton will continue and eventually will drive her negatives so high that the Democratic Party will begin to perceive her as unelectable. Into that breach, he assures me, Al Gore will stride (despite his disavowals to the contrary), with the result that he will be the Democratic nominee. Who, I asked, will the Republican nominee be? Newt Gingrich, he said with confidence, since the Republican base hasn't really embraced any of the current contenders. And who wins in a Gore-Gingrich presidential contest I wondered? Gore, he said in a matter-of-fact tone. I told him I would award him with a bottle of very good champagne if his prophecy turns out to be correct.
I think that a terrorist attack is going to interrupt the election and Bush will retain power like some sort of fuhrer.
"Ya don't switch chickens before they hatch across the stream," he'll say. "Heh heh."
That doesn't mean that I'm not going to vote. It just means they won't count.
Why not keep an eye on the candidate that is most useful for the continued recruitment of terrorists?
In our last election, when it looked as though someone at least marginally rational (that is, not a neo-con) might have a shot at winning, ben Laden popped up and in effect shouted "Boo!", sending terrified Conservatives to the polls as fast as they could panic and run.
In answer to your article's question, "So who is going to win?", the answer is simple. American mega-corporations. As Americans might say, that's a "no-brainer".
Justin,
You failed to mention the only candidate in the race with broad appeal among Republicans, Democrats and Independents.
He attracts thousands of supporters to his rallies. His supporters raised an all-time record $4.3 million on Monday from 37,000 donors. He has over 1,100 Meet Up groups with 63,000 volunteers. He receives more contributions from the military than any other candidate. He is one the most searched name on the Internet. Millions of people have watched his videos on You Tube. Of course, he does not feature in the polls, but then we know better to believe the polls rather than our lying eyes. He has been an opponent of the war in Iraq from day one. His name is Ron Paul, an obstetrician who is serving his tenth term in Congress. He declines his lucrative Congressional pension and returns political contributions from corporations. He is unlike any candidate ever seen in this race for the White House. He is the antithesis of George Bush.
No doubt, you are playing 鈥渇ollow my leader,鈥 hence you failed to mention his name. God forbid a journalist acts independently and starts questioning the status quo. Instead, you placed you money on McCain. His campaign ran out of funds at the end of Q3, when Ron Paul raked in $5.3 million. McCain ticked off the Republican base when he tried to foist amnesty for illegal immigrants onto the party faithful. He draws very small crowds to his meetings. Are you really up to speed on this race, or are you fixated on the polls? Don鈥檛 forget, John Kerry鈥檚 stood at 4% in the polls before New Hampshire and Iowa. He won both primaries.
Won鈥檛 it be a shame if Ron Paul makes a splash in the early primaries and you have to face 鈥渁ngry鈥 readers for having kept them in the dark? I know you are going to say you made a judgment call. It鈥檚 a poor call, because if you had done proper research on the Paul campaign, you would have noticed that a silent revolution is brewing. Or, at least tell us, that some would want us to believe that Ron Paul is a serious candidate, but you have done your research and it is all just a flash in the pan. At least then you lay your punditry on the line. I鈥檓 sorry if I sound peeved, but I think the world should know we are capable of producing candidates with integrity who cannot be bought by special interests and who believe in diplomacy rather than brute force. The Ron Paul campaign is most unusual in all its aspects and your readers deserve at least an introduction.
Surprisingly few people picked up on Ron Paul's huge money haul on 5th November, in which he raised between $3-4 million in 24 hours. This has been largely ignored by the media. Ron Paul is a dark horse, but growing more and more popular through the internet.
My favorites are John Edwards and Fred Thompson; Everyone else is far too liberal or un-reliable to be trusted with the top job.
We need a president who's values are American, because they are closest to his heart, not just because the polls happen to go that way this week.
We need a president who believes that the United States Constitution is the Law of the land given to us from our founding fathers and not an out-dated document signed by a bunch of dead guys from the 18th century.
We need a president that can move this country away from the Totalitarian Police State that we are becoming, and prove that this is indeed the land of the free!
Unfortunately, for transformative to truly be that, Americans will have to look deeper than the candidates put forward by Fox News and CBS. Ron Paul, the republican GOP candidate has a record breaking online fundraising effort, fuelled by his message of non-intervention, freedom and a constitutional nation. Was this reported? No. Why? Because the establishment puppet-masters control the media, and thus controls the elections. Wake up America!!
What about Mike Bloomberg, assuming he throws his hat in the ring, he would certainly be "transformative".
Take a look at Ron Paul (R) Texas, you'll be pleasantly surprised.
Please please take a look at what is happening at the grassroots level here in the US in terms of support for Ron Paul. Our media is blacking him out. Supporters raised 4.2 million dollars for him in ONE day with an average donation of $103...contrast that to who is funding our candidates.
For all those in the international community who are sick of US foreign policy, please pay attention to this growing US movement. Please help us overcome the censorship in our govt right now and at least mention what is going on here. It is exciting.
Does anybody really care? Whoever wins will do little to right this sinking ship!
There's a year to go. It's quite reasonable to assume that the event that will determine the nominees, let alone the winner, has not yet occurred.
I too see McCain as a very plausible winner.
Rudy's halo of being the 'one to beat Hillary' will come increasingly unstuck as people realise large sections of the GOP base will simply refuse to vote for a non-social conservative. McCain, for all his 'maverick' reputation, has one of the strongest pro-life records in the Congress. In turn, this maverick element makes him very competitive with independents in election match-ups: several recent polls have showed him polling ahead of Rudy v. Hillary; when one factors in the disintegration of the GOP pro-life vote with Rudy, McCain wins hands down.
Romney, who has flip-flopped on many social issues, will suffer in the same way as Rudy for this, and will, I believe, suffer irrepairable damage by either losing or winning very narrowly in Iowa/New Hampshire to Huckabee/McCain respectively.
Huckabee himself wont survive scrutiny of his fiscal record and extremist views; Thompson will suffer from the latter and has little of the experience, policy grasp or (let's face it) desire to be President.
McCain is increasingly polling second to Rudy in national polls as Thompson collapses and has today been endorsed by Sam Brownback, whose strong organisation in Iowa will help McCain become competitive in that state as he is in New Hampshire and South Carolina.
The stars are aligned against a GOP victory in 2008; nevertheless, McCain remains by far the best bet.
Ron Paul in '08! YEAH!
From Mineral, Washington
Barring a major calamity I expect the Dems to rout the Republicans. I think the odds are really stuck against them. They have a very unpopular President and a an unpopular war to deal with.
Am a not a true fan of Hillary, and I would prefer Al Gore honestly. As to who will win, I would say a year is a long time in politics..who knows what might happen.
I am a 19yr old from Virginia. This will be my first presidential election.
Like it or not Clinton can not win a general election, unless the republican candidate is caught doing something illegal. There are just too many skeletons in her husband's closet for it to happen. While he has no chance of winning the Democrat primaries Richardson would make the best president out of the Democrats. Barrack Obama could never win because it seems like all he can talk about is why Clinton is a bad choice, not why he is a good one.
Out of the Republican's camp, Guillianni is the most viable general election choice with Romney or Thompson at vice. McCain has no chance of bouncing back, he killed his chances with the Immigration Bill. People who think that the Republican candidate has to be pro-life is stereotyping after-all, Pat Robertson, a well respected evangelical in the Republican circle has endorsed Gulianni just today.
I consider myself to be middle of the road politically, I am pro-choice, against judges legislating from the bench, for military spending, and for gay marriage.
At least the republican candidates have different views socially, they can have the prospective president and vice taken from the primary pool and have both believe different things socially to balance each other. The democrats both pandering too much to far liberals, and pouncing on Hillary Clinton to the point where it is just becoming ridiculous. If the Dems don't change their game soon they will not have a chance.
Could the Ron Paul spammers stop it on at least one website. The article only mentions one Republican candidate by name, it was not trying to exclude or ignore him.
You are very vocal and there are many of you, however your annoyance factor will ultimately prevent him from winning.
Truly 'transformative' would be an election result that reflects the spiritual values of the American people, as expressed by Democratic candidate Dennis Kucinich. He is the only candidate who dared to oppose the unnecessary, illegal, and unjust invasion of Iraq before it was begun, exposing it for the calculated usurpation of natural resources that it is. He is the only candidate who has the intelligence to speak of the need to restore democratic values within the US and, by extension, the Western world. He is the only candidate with a vision that extends beyond the rule of cold market-driven data and greed, to include the needs of the everywhere - in the US and beyond. He has been working tirelessly to establish a Department of Peace, and to impeach the trespassers of human rights and democratic values.
And he does not have to wait until the end of the campaign trail to experience abuse by the media -- they simply ignore him for the truths that he speaks.
American politics are in serious trouble. There is no leader in the bunch. What happened to the "Land of the Brave"? I think they have all retired.
Judy
Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination barring a series of catastrophic setbacks for her and her campaign.Guilana has a slight lead on the Republican side but it is a wide open race with McCain, Romney, and Thompson all having a good shot at the nomination.
It could be a year for significant Democratic gains in the U.S. Senate.
As a sidenote, expect Ralph Nader to run again.
Sad as it may appear, as far as the main contenders go, the choice is between Bush (Hillary), Bush (Obama), Bush (Guiliani) and Bush (McCain). They are all as confused as Bush is about war (i.e. occupation of Iraq) and America's role in the world. They all seem to have a noticeable absence of that streak of greatness called diplomacy. They also do not seem to understand that the strength of greatness lies not in the brute exercise of power but in the politeness persuasive skills. Only God can help us if any of these win in 2008.
McCain and Richardson are the two most qualified people and I'd like to see them get the respective nods from their parties, but unfortunately qualifications seem to be less important to many voters. They prefer candidates who are dangerously naive like Ron Paul or much too inexperienced like Barack Obama. Regardless of party, people would rather vote for somebody who tells them what they want to hear.
Definitely Ron Paul. I hate the fact that the mainstream media and even ignorant conservative stations (to a lesser extent) either ignore him due to lack of corporate sponsorship or downplay/villanize his messages. The man is focused, and knows what his priorities are. They just don't happen to be licking the feet of the media or saying what will tickle the ears of each person- depending on who they are talking to. Bring America back to the Constitution, not back to another political dynasty filled with headgames!
Fantasy: Hillary + Obama ticket.
Reality: Hillary + Unknown ticket.
Unfortunately I suspect transformative means just changing parties (from Rep. to Dem).
Agree with Terry Grundy . . . a Gore/Edwards ticket would win in a landslide.
Ron Paul is not mentioned because he still has laughably small showings amongst the Republican party and his general support is heavily overplayed. He is the only candidate that represents his position which makes the support for him all the more fanatical, but also all the more limited. His economics will clash with the more liberal parts of the US voting population whilst his social policy will clash with the social conservatives and his foreign policy will alienate both multilateralists and unilateralists
I hope that Hillary Clinton wins the election. It would be impossible for her to live with Bill and totally avoid some of his good advice, even if she could never admit to having taken it. GWB was a relative unknown when he was elected seven years ago. Just look what buying a pig in a poke cost the world. I hope the US voters stick with some sort of well-known candidate this time. I think Clinton would be the best Democratic choice and probably the uninspiring McCain the best Republican choice.
The point is, Hilary or Giuliani, Romney or Obama, little will change. The foreign policy will be made be the same think tanks and American troops will likely stay in Iraq whatever. Hilary-care II is too much based on the current system - how ludicrous that your health is determined by your employer! - and Giuliani thrives in 9-11 too much to make him anything other than a continuation of the Bush cheerleading.
A suprise from Ron Paul in the primaries would be good as at least he has an idea of things such as the constitution, something the others seem to have long forgotten about. The problem with ALL the other candidates is that they are so obviously self serving power hungry kleptocrats. Not a good choice at all on the whole.
As a Brit, it seems to me sensible that Americans elect as President, people with experience of running things and not just making laws.
The last 11 presidential elections have been won by candidates that have been a state governor, Vice-President or President at some time prior to their election. Senators have been the losing candidate of the other main party in 5 of those elections.
That is why I think Bill Richardson would not be a panic choice, but a sensible option for winning an election.
I believe Feb. 4th 2008 will usher in the dawn of a new era in American politics. Hillary R. Clinton will be elected the first female president of the USA.
She is currently doing all the right things. She has the best political team of any candidate and she has the maestro of American politics, Bill Clinton. Hillary knows the importance of poise calm delivery and she exemplifies style and grace. She is tempered but can be tough when the situation requires it.
Hillary is by far the consummate politician.
Why is everyone posting that Ron Paul is a Republican. He is a Libertarian. I like the fact that he is for a weaker central government with stronger state governments (as our founding fathers intended). What worries me about him is his views on U.S. foreign policy. Sticking your head in the sand will not make the Islamacist threat to America go away.
If you can get him to run, Lou Dobbs is a better candidate, than anyone else running, so far.
No wonder Ron Paul has raised so much money in so little time, it appears his machine is working overtime....even on 大象传媒.com.
I hope Bill Richardson wins.
What about Dennis Kucinich, he currently has a bill in the House
Judiciary Committee seeking cheneys
impeachment, he has been against the
war and its funding from day one.
He has a website www.dennis4president.com and his agenda
is spelled out, high on the list is to return to the Constitution.
Take a look, you might be suprised!
Prediction for the next president?
Ron Paul.
Laugh all you like, but we're done laughing. We're putting our money where our mouth is, getting out and being activist, and most importantly ... we're VOTING!
I have to agree with Jeremy. Ron Paul is the only Republican that makes sense and will try to make true reform which I hope this election is about
The media is "blacking out" Ron Paul because they understand that this sudden swelling of support is but a flash in the pan. Granted, a few of the things he's saying are a breath of fresh air in a party of old and failed ideas, but sooner or later his Johnny-come-lately supporters will begin to understand he's the same old Libertarian idealist with only a shiny new (R) next to his name.
Americans are sick and tired of Bush-Clinton corporate communism. Ron Paul will be the next president.
I agree that Ron Paul's economic policy will be outright rejected by the general public. Laissez-faire economics and isolationism don't compute with the modern concept of government. Having stronger state governments is a joke; the United States (in the plural sense) don't function as 50 separate economic units and to think movement toward that would ever occur is also fantasy. The only way the status quo is ever going to be shook up is to take redistributive measures once again, akin to the FDR era like empowering labor (for everyone in the UK-would you believe it's still illegal for state employees to collectively bargain in some of the southern states?) and providing social services. If it requires increasing taxes on the wealthiest of Americans, so be it.
My prediction is for Romney/Lynne Cheney(GOP) vs Hillary/K Pebelius(DEM) vs Bloomberg/Melinda Gates(IND). With the Democratic party winning a very close race.
The support for Ron Paul is bigger than the media wants to admit. I used to work for the Green Party, and although I do not agree with Ron Paul in everything, he is the best chance we have to stop the empire.
Looking at the Field one would think out of a population of 300 million, they could find 30 candidates of some electoral appeal.
Same story in all the western democracy's a surfeit of charisma.
How about Jeb, out of Left field to make that Hat Trick dynasty?
John Edward is going to win it if things stay the way they are today. Mrs Clinton is too politically correcta yet too devisive. Everybody either hates her to is OK with her. Can't think of anybody who loves her opposite her husband who was a magnet.
America is not going to vote a black aand John Edward is the only one with rreal CHANGE agenda and good chance oof winining. He is my bet, would be pperfect if he picked Barak as Vice.
Ron Paul is the only real "America-Firster" among the candidates from the major political parties.
And "Americ First" is the policy most voters are looking, and finding it hard to find a candidate to champion it.
I think this will be enough to drive a snowball effect in support for Ron Paul, that will sweep him to power.
As a brit... it is evident that you know very little about the complexity of US politics. 大象传媒: Get an American to analyze American politics.
"Transformative" is a word used to draw attention to a campaign already over long and understimulating. Euro observers have long commented on our country's habit of incredible waste.
And so it goes with this political circus: money, time and attention. Meanwhile; many Romes burn, here and abroad. Contributions without end pouring in. (How did you Brits manage to outmanouver those who profit from the long campaign?) Far too soon to speculate on winners, unless they're the same old winners in any national election here:
Wall Street, arms firms, oil, big agriculture, old money families and
foreign governments with the most powerful lobby arms. Don't look behind the curtain.
Ron Paul is the only sane one of the whole bunch, Republican and Democrat! The rest will not take nuclear warfare against a non-nuclear state "off the table".
Sir,
How about Romney?
He has experience as a governor, business people (important for funding) likes his business background and we know he can't afford to be a religious zealot if he needs to convince people that his religion isn't something they should be scared about.
He did flipped on the abortion issue but I do believe most Americans (or should I say Californians, where I live) supports 'limited' abortion rights (i.e. free to choose but shouldn't be paid by taxpayers). Romney wants to give states the freedom to choose their own laws.
Is his religion too much of an issue you think?
I would have to agree with Reuben, unfortunately the man he described is not a Democrat. Nor a Republican. He is a Libertarian, Ron Paul. Dr. Paul is the only candidate who is not a cog in the corporate-American system of back-scratching and pork politics. He will bring back the Constitution as the law of the land. He will take us out of Iraq. And although he advocates not forcing our- now false- conception of democracy down the throats of other sovereign nations, he is not suggesting that we stick our heads in the sand. Sending troops into other countries is not diplomacy, nor is it foreign policy. Just look at 'Nam and the past 7 years in the Middle East (because yes, we have been at war for 7 years now), it is not working. On top of this all, please look at how all the candidates are financing their campaigns. Dr. Paul gets his funds from the American people, not corporations and religious groups. That says it all. I am a Political Thought major and Ron Paul is the only principled candidate out there. He gives part of his pay as a Congressman back to the Treasury! We will see how all this works out in a year, hopefully it will be transformative.
If the election does indeed become "transformative" it will be because of the number of progressive Democrats elected to the House and Senate. While any of the present Democratic runners would be fine as president, the real success of the next administration will depend on the make-up of Congress.
The chances of Gore being nominated are very slight; his only possibility would be as a compromise candidate in a dead-locked (almost literally) convention.
As for the Republicans; while Guiliani and Romney are presently running as social conservatives, if either is nominated they will be forced to defend or repudiate their records and either course will lose them more votes than they gain.
Thompson is just too out of it, he's getting passes now on gaffes that will sink any national campaign.
Ron Paul might have had a chance in the election of 1800, but we've long passed that point.
I think Bush and his cabal have far too much invested in their fascism project to let a trifling little thing like democracy end their reign. I expect the laws which allow Bush to cancel the election in the event of a national emergency to be leveraged and the laws that allow them to appoint the government in special circumstances to be executed. The American people really did themselves a disservice with letting all the revisions to the patriot act go through - the thing is a blueprint to dictatorship
The reality of the situation is that there is no leadership in America, if the choice comes down to the lesser of 10 evils, the next president of the United States will be Hilary Clinton with Obama as her VP.
The Republicans are complety lost, neither one of their candidates has what it takes to become president, not that Hilary is any better, like I said earlier, the lesser of 10 evils.
Good analysis. As a Democrat, I think Richardson is the best candidate in the field. And I believe my party will listen to him, and pick the best person for the job.
Well so far the Republicans haven't been very impressive in comparison to Hilliary Clinton and unless she really screws between now and the election I think she's going to get elected.
It would be nice to see Kucinich because he's the only candidate on either side that didn't have the serious lapse in judgment and vote to invade Iraq and is against giving Bush a green light to invade Iran, not that it's really an option.
Justin, I just found your blog. It is amusing:) Thanks:)
Transformative is an understatement. I enjoy politics, and this will be a simply delightful election. Hillary Clinton will win of course unless there is a major screw up on her part. She is highly electable. Newt Gingrich thinks so, he gave her an 80% 'likely to be the next president' rating on Fox news last week.
Transformative? Ah yes, the GOP have departed from their grassroots base (e.g. me) and continue to make major strategic blunders. The most recent is their position (or lack thereof) on waterboarding. Sorry guys, but torture for the tough guys in times of war may fly with the conservative men, but for the female and Christian base of the Republican Party? I doubt it. The current position can never carry the majority base and is so completely polarizing as to turn off base votes that could not be afforded in '08.
I am a product of the South, Christian, middle class, know how to shoot, conservative, a precinct captain for the GOP in my county, previous volunteer on numerous critical GOP campaigns in several states, and supporter of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence which sit on my bookshelf. I can debate gun control, constitutional freedoms, scripture, justice, etc with the best of them. I am a sound example of the base of the Republican Party.
I voted a straight Democrat ticket in '05 for the first time in my life and then again yesterday. The Democrat that I worked for in '07 won; Democrats almost swept my current state of residence yesterday. I will be working in '08 on Hillary Clinton's campaign.
Hello, GOP? If you lost me and continue to believe there is no problem with the southern conservative base, then you are blind, deaf, AND dumb. When Hillary Clinton better represents my interests than you do, oh but is there a problem within the GOP! Just pls. keep up the arrogance a little while longer because you are the best insurance that Hillary Clinton, my '08 candidate, will win. I have a 100% batting average on selecting and working for the winning candidate in over a decade of campaigns, and you are ensuring that my perfect record will not be in jeapardy in '08:)
Universal Health Care and higher taxes, here we come. And you have no-one to thank but yourselves.
The interesting bit will be after Mitt wins Iowa and NH... the stalking horse thompson will fall out for Rudy (as planned) and then the gloves come off in SC. Rudy and Hillary are the 'machine' candidates - and the establishment will back one or the other regardless of party (in some way shape or form) - so if Mitt manages to pull it off then expect a female president - and then we'll see that in reality the parties arent nearly as different as some of us would like to believe.
If the amount of spam spewed by Ron Paul supporters equaled his real popularity or viability, I would be incredibly scared for this country. Luckily, I am hopeful.
As a first time voter living abroad, I applaud the democrats for holding accessible and thorough debates on the internet and overseas TV. It is through this medium that I have come to several conclusions: 1) Hillary knows her stuff, but she's too robotic and polarizing a candidate, 2) Obama is charismatic, but doesn't nearly have the experience or decisive views this country needs, 3) everyone wrongly ignores Bill Richardson. Sure he can be corny, sure he can be boring, but he sure does have all of the right qualities and experience that would make a great president.
If my friends are any indication, today's youth are tired of standing by and are ready to vote, I just hope this doesn't lead them to the wrong candidate. Barack Obama may be wowing people with his eloquence, something we're starved of after G Dubs, but I hope kids will look at the facts and not just stare at the TV screen.
I would vote Hilary, Obama, Richardson, and especially Gore over any offered Republican candidate any day.
The candidate with the most money and inflential backing from the corporations will win the election. Everyone knows that the days of an average American becoming President has longed past. That is no longer a dream that a child can have that can come true. None of the candidates running will change the course that America is taking. Our nation is no longer one nation under god and will fall like other empires of the past.
My bet is that a rich old white man will win the election. Included in that category are Hillary and Barack, both of whom will succumb to the wills of special interests, particularly when it comes to needing money for negative TV ads defaming the other poor sucker. It's as if the same person is running, so should we flock to the polls?
Signed, frustrated American
It is time for the US to elect a Woman President and expect some changes in the US policies both domestic and international.
This too will be my first presidential election (I'll be turning 18 3 months before the election), and I'm quite excited. I support Biden but realize he has very little chance. Ron Paul has absolutely no chance whatsoever. I think Clinton will breeze to victory in the Dems (she's not a loose cannon in any sense of the phrase), while Huckabee will surprise all with a strong second place finish in Iowa and then triumph over Giuliani as the primaries go on. In the general, Clinton will defeat Huckabee handily, as the voters will be tired of another four years of another (admittedly friendlier) Bush.
Guliani is going to go against Hillary and he is going to win in a landslide
Hillary Clinton or Obama? Are you serious? Neither have the appropriate experience or realistic expectations of their actions while in office. Nor are they a benefit to anyone. They are both betting on their ticket based on their so-called "minority status," which is even funnier. Obama will recieve the votes from uneducated men that are set on not having a woman in power, and Hillary will be voted on by the hard core, miserable, stressed out women who are girl power motivated and oblivious to the issues.
Republicans, while all more qualified than the democrats, need to losen up and broaden their prospectives to the pop culture individuals that the democrats are trying to secure in order to fly under radar.
Transformative is the keyword. The only thing transformative about Hillary Clinton is that she is woman.
I have a hunch Barrack Obama will run Al Gore very close to being among the better Presidents Americans did not chose to have.
In that scenario the world at large will be unluckier for another 4 years.
The media (including you) has already framed these candidates as the winners, however, from the polls I have seen, they are certainly not the most popular (but they are the ones with the most cash). Just look at the media's treatment of Dennis Kucinich. How about Howard Dean last time? But I guess this is yet another example of the media taking the reins of our 'democratic' system.
-That the nominees will be Hillary and Giuliani.
-That it will be close.
-That both parties will spend a lot of money on lawyers after it's close.
-That the media will not do their job by not saying "a pox on both your houses".
-That I will bang my head against a wall because Giuliani and Hillary are the same candidate.
-That I will proceed to then curl myself into a ball for the next four years...or move to Canada.
-That the new president will be terrible by subjecting us to a number of government programs to fix our upcoming recession and national security that will just rob us of our money.
-That the country will continue falling down the hill that our current president has started us on.
I fear that Hillary Clinton, who seems completely unstoppable, is going to become the next president. Democrats really aren't much different from Republicans, and it seems as though the next eight years will be spent with a slightly more eloquent, much more acerbic version of George W. Bush. I can tell you who won't win the election, though: the people of America, and those of the USA's allies and adversaries.
The 大象传媒 never mention Ron Paul even though it is obvious that Dr Ron Paul is the news. No news is not good news I have lost all respect for the 大象传媒 over this matter.
I get a kick out of the roughly 500 Ron Paul supporters in the US who flood every internet poll with duplicate votes and give every penny they own to a guy who can't possibly win.
For my money the right guy is Mike Huckabee, and I'm convinced that he's going to win. He's come from nowhere a month ago to put himself in 2nd in Iowa and 3rd nationally (according to Rasmussen Reports) with almost no money. Support is growing and the underdog gets a big bounce from an unexpectedly strong showing.
Clinton in a cakewalk for both the Dem nomination, and the general election.
Base on the parade of presidential candidates seen throughout 42 years, I believe that it will be surprises.
Yes, surprises. I'm looking at Mr.
M'cain, U.S. Arizona Senator, but I
won't be surprised if the man selected is the Former New York City Mayor, Ruddy Juliani.
Lets way and see. !!!
Jose Alcantara
/ja/
Sadly, the repukes will take back the senate and house and one of the more fascist of the clowns in that party will win the election.
America is over. Anyone who thinks differently is seriously deluded.
In the primary I see Guliani winning for republican. As for democrat I can not tell. With all the republicans we have in the US now. None of them have a clue on how to tackle the over all problem we have in US now. So forget republican president.
Clinton / Gore '08!
I'm dead serious, called it here
It will be interesting to see whether Pat Robertson's endorsement of Giuliani helps him or hurts him. It is a blit like being endorsed by the leader of the Inquisition (not the present Pope but the one that nobody expects) or the leader of the KKK. The question will be what promises he made to Robertson to get this endorsement. I doubt if Robertson is that afraid of Clinton, as I'm sure she would be happy to make a deal with him too to get into power. So how many liberal or gay or gay-friendly Republicans will be turned off? I wonder if Giuliani's foreign policy advisors were a factor in this endorsement? The founder of Commentary, who wants to bomb Iran as soon as logistically possible, for example.
I haven't had any money for the last two years, but just inherited around $60,000 and I intend to start sending a bit here and there to the Obama campaign. But if Clinton is the nominee I will be happy to give money to her campaign too.
I have noticed in and around Ulster County in upstate New York, hundreds amd hundreds of posters for Ron Paul, as many as there posters for the candidates in the local elections. Would you believe almost? I remember him from the Libertarian Party days, and I do respect his positions although I would never for for them. I really don't think it is possible to treat all citizens as intelligent, thoughtful, and able to function without help. There are too many forces encouraging them to be dumb, passive consumers of widgets and dumbed-down culture.
You are right Jeremy, Ron Paul is right on the ball. He is one of those politicians who speak the words of a common man. His speech shows real concerns and that he has solutions to take care of those concerns. He is not like politicians who have an hidden agenda and would like to waste the countries money on their filthy self benifiting plans. He really stands out of the crowd out of the whole republican bunch. I love his belief of implementing our domestic and foriegn policies on the basis of the constitution. Ron Paul is the only ray of light that can lead our nation in the right direction, as in terms of economy, foriegn policy, etc. To end it , "He is the man for the Job"
Ron Paul.... period.
It is far easier to predict what will happen with republicans as they generally go with a frontrunner, ect.
If they veer off type, this would be the year.
the democrats, however, are known for being very difficult to predict.
Only twice since 1968 has the frontrunner become the nominee.
I feel that Hillary peaked about a month or so before the debate. Her debate performance was not what is causing her damage. it is her actions afterward.
If Obama keeps going like he has for the past week, he will grow very strong.
I do think Senator Obama will be the nominee.
in a perfect world: gore/kucinich. but i am not the only one who considers the serious possibility of martial law being implemented. in that case, the line of posting on this blog is a futile excercise. really, do any of us put anything past this administration? even it's supporters?
I am a twenty year old student from Chicago, Illinois. The election in 2008 will be the first presidential election that I can vote in. I am a Democrat, although I am greatly dissapointed with the party's performance over the last six years. I will probably vote for the Democrats, although I predict they will lose the election. I believe that Senator Hillary Clinton is simply unelectable. While I agree with many of her proposed policies, I have to admit that she is too far to the left in the political spectrum to obtain votes from independent and moderate voters. While my favorite Democratic candidate is Barack Obama, he unfortunately will not get the nomination, nor will any other Democrat. They are simply too far behind in the polls as well as in funds. As for the Republicans, I believe that the nomination will go to Romney, although Thompson does has a small chance. Giuliani is considered too liberal in an increasingly conservative political environment, and probably will not get his party's nomination. Therefore, I predict (although I hope I am wrong) that Romney will recieve the Republican nomination, and in turn win the 2008 election.
Agreeing with what a few others have written, the attention given on this article is the same format that almost every media source uses. The most attention is paid to the people who raise the most money and who have the most name recognition prior to even declaring candidacy. Instead of giving the "top candidates" like Clinton, Obama, and McCain such favorably weighted air-time, why can't the media give attention to all the candidates... or at least the top six or so from each party. After all, no one has voted yet. I imagine we will continue to be spoon fed pro-Obama, pro-Clinton, pro-Guliani, and pro-McCain lines for the next year, while long-term political players like Richardson, Dodd, and even Edwards get left on the editors' desks.
I see the ever annoying Ron paul cult is here. They are simply driving everyone away from this guy. anyone who would have previously given Paul a fair hearing are now running away from this candidate because of the ultra cult like supporters of his who keep annoying people like moonies.
As somebody who has supported the democrats throughout his acquaintance with American politics, it is funny to think that Ron Paul is indeed my preferred candidate. But his hopes are slim with the masses, for obvious reasons. Hillary is a consummate politician (and I say that with some distaste), and has the highest probability of winning in my opinion.
The republicans are going to have fairly zero chance in any event. I see, in a short while, the global economic/financial system entering an unprecedented phase whereby the US' and its currency's hegemony is going to get severely shaken (yes it's already happening - but I am talking about something a lot worse and a lot more drastic) causing waaaay much more disruption than the recent upheavels we have been seeing. The sangfroid that the financing of the obscene deficit and reckless and deviant spending with the rest-of-the-world's money can go on smoothly forever, along with political unilateralism, is about to recieve a rude rude shock. In its rise, the "(just somehow) getting things done" American will wake up one fine short-term to see that the long term has finally caught up; that a mending of policies is not just an option, it's the only option. And, a first start would be to bring in a more fiscally-responsible party. Unless, the shock is so profound and cleansing - in terms of getting things back in line with the great ideals this country was founded on, they actually bring in Ron Paul.
Immigrant Manhattanite who has to wait until the 2012 election to vote.
There is only one candidate that will truly bring much needed change to the US. Our foreign policy is not working and fiscal responsibility is non-existant. The so called "top-tier" candidates are part of the same machine and will only continue the downward spiral of this once great nation. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil. Therefore, Ron Paul has my vote and my support. He is the first politician I have ever truly trusted and the first one I have donated money to. I may not agree with his entire campaign but he is a man of principles and the only candidate with a shot at the presidency that actually speaks the truth. Ron Paul serves "we the people", not the special interests. As a disabled Army vet I am proud to once again defend the constitution by supporting the champion of the constitution.
I麓ve been living in Europe for the past 40 years, divided between France, Switzerland, England and the last 20 years in Spain. I must say, it always shocks me on just how much it costs to run a campaign which seems like TV publicity for a manufactured personality more than tackling serious questions like Health, Education and Welfare...not to mention balancing the budget, getting out of Iraq and dealing with a flood of non麓working immigrants...good luck.
2008? How can there be democracy when all the candidates are on the same team?
When the dollar is worth 25p, gold is $2000, and oil is $200 the electorate will blame Bush for the obscene cost of the Iraq war.
But that will be too late as we'll be under martial law by then.
In response to the comment of "None of the above" by ABarnes:
Wouldn't it be great if the voter turnout was actually at a respectable level. Most people in the USA do not excercise their right to vote. What a shame! There would no predictability in who is going to win. If you want to complain, complain about the people who do not vote. Govt. seats are won by targeting the right audience as well as what the media contributes. So maybe that would keep politicians more honest. To say they (candidates) are all no good is a cop-out. It's the apathy that frustrates me! To say your vote doesn't count is also a cop-out. I know of an election that was won by 9 votes. The politicians are only operating under the motive of what they can predict from elections, and that is there is a low turnout.
Those who laugh about the "Ron Paul machine" are conspiracy nuts, plain and simple. They don't believe there is a Hillary machine or a Rudy machine, only a Ron Paul machine. Give me a break!
One candidate is not for sale - RON PAUL
Anyone who voted for this war in iraq should not be considered for our next president, it's that simple!!
we need fresh blood.
If Hill wasn't in the race, I'd say Obama had a pretty good chance. But it's looking like Hilary vs. Giuliani... and I'm betting the men will get out to vote for Rudy. They're not ready for a woman to be CIC (commander in chief). I hope I'm wrong.
Say what you will about Ron Paul, but he is the only "candidate of the people", not some bought and paid for shill of the establishment. That's why they are running scared... Thousands of bureaucrats, tax lawyers, lobbyists and even media pundits will be looking for jobs.
The "scientific" polls have been proved inaccurate and the old media ignore him, or distort his views, so his supporters MUST jump in on every discussion thread to set the record straight.
Unless you have been to his website and read his actual statements on the issues, you don't know what you are talking about. You are just parroting the lies and distortions put forth by the media.
The primary elections are only months away. Ron Paul is the only candidate rising in popularity, the others are being torn down.
When the "long-shot" comes in, we will all win big!
This country is on the wrong side of most international conflicts. Pakistan will continue to receive economic support despite the recent takeover. Why does Bush threaten Iran when Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey and the EU sit and watch from the side lines? It is their problem. Rice attempts a Middle East settlement yet the illegal settlements on the west bank continue. Our foreign policy does not work in our best interest, and no candidate appears to have the guts to change direction. What happened to America?
My pick is Fred Thompson. The least dangerous to the rest of the world, unlike most of the others, including Clinton.
Ron Paul it will be!
No clear candidates till too late to matter. Probably no women or "blacks" either. Conservative election with economy dominating the thing (like all other western elections lately), called as late as possible. Likely winners will be the "Oil Barons" with oil at over $100 a barrel, every $1 makes them a million, why they look so smug about Iraq.
The ultimate result will be significantly influenced by neo-Americans. Most of these are people (and there are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands across the country) came to the US in the 1990s. They are educated, professionals, and not ignorant. George Allen paid the price for his (what I think was) well deliberated "macaca" moment last year. The redneck votes that he gained by poking fun at an American citizen whose ancestors came from anywhere other than Western Europe of West Africa, were far offset by the "macaca" votes that he lost in the tech corridor of Northern Virginia. All candidates will have to ensure that they do not repeat such gaffes (after elections as well).
The neo-Americans know the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan (or Saudi Arabia for that matter), understand that there is more to "morals" than being pro-life (and pro-death penalty), can see through blind support to dictators and tyrants in the name of democracy, can tell the difference between who is fighting and who is harboring terrorists. They can also see when taxpayer money is being wasted, when pork barrel projects and subsidies are being misused.
This is not to say that the rest of us are ignorant rednecks. All that I am saying is that the neo-Americans will probably tip the balance in favor of rational thought - the hallmark of America from 1776 through 2001. The days of fear-mongering and bullying unleashed by Georgie Porgie (Bush) and Pudding & Pie (his cronies) seem to be heading to a much-awaited end. Anyone who expects to replace him at 1600 Penn Avenue must demonstrate ability and willingness to act rationally.
Bill Richardson isn't a panic vote, but instead is the most responsible and logical choice. He's an executive with loads of experience.
However, what you forgot to mention is that while Hillary and Obama are interesting, neither of them change the electoral map. Democrats win the Northeast and Illinois regardless of who they run. Bill Richardson, on the other hand, completely changes the electoral map. He opens up the West and Southwest to potential pickups for the Democratic Party. If Richardson were to win New Mexico (his home state) and neighboring Arizona and Colorado, it would be a greater number of electoral votes than Ohio.
Kind of a pity we are limited to voting for Americans--I'd choose Tony Blair over any of the leading candidates, Republican or Democrat. That would be truly 'transformative.'
We need a President and vice president that will bring us back to the constitution of our elders that made this country great . The constitution , Declaration of Independence worked for all of these years so whats the matter with it now does it have too many values in it for the times !
We need a President that will protect our boarders and enforce our immigration laws .
President , congress and senate that will protect the majority not the minority when it comes to values and religion that we have practiced in this country for the last 231 years .
I don't think we have any persons that will do that so where does that leave us but in the same boat were in !
It's too far ahead to say Hillary has won. Too much can happen. There are several MOST likely scenarios all involve Clinton, Obama and Edwards. Pick any 2 of that triumvirate and you have the most likely Dem. team.
The Republicans will nominate Giuliani will win the Republicans and most likely have Romney as VP. he'll want McCain but he'll be too proud to take the position and too old.
Of course the "idiotlogical" pundits of the USA are saying any contest with Giuliani is going to be tough.
I think not. America is tired of being told we should be afraid, very afraid. America is tired of being told the only option is endless war. America is tired of finding out 100,000s of people have died to keep us "safe." America is tired of the hate. America is tired of the war-mongering - and guess what that is ALL THE REPUBLICANS ARE OFFERING - albeit in far more euphemistic ways.
The one thing that made it possible for them to get away with so much was the 9/11 induced stupor of fear and anxiety.
That's gone completely now, and in the time until 2008 elections a lot of people who are still undecided will have time to assess just how terrible a job the Republicans did when they had total control. It's not just the war, it's their wholesale neglect of the proper function of Gov't. to provide a safety net, and be the people's advocate against the world.
More and more Americans are realizing the worst thing Bush did was create NEW CATAGORIES OF CORPORATE WELFARE costing billions of dollars - like the 120% premium the Gov't. pays HMOS and Insurance companies to provide services the Medicare could do for at cost.
By the time the 2008 elections come around it's going to be a route, and the effects will be long-lasting and brutally cruel to the Republicans.
How do I know all of this, how can I be so absolutely certain.
Well I'm one of the few Americans you'll ever meet who actually saw this happen all before in the one state that in terms of complexity of problems and size of population as well as sharing a large part of the major issues of.
This state was once ruled by Republicans for over a decade they got away with their agenda, but then one day the people in the state got tired of hearing the same thing the entire nation has been ceaselessly hearing from the Bush Regime, and when that day came, they were thrown out and have never held power again.
That state is CA, it's a great model for what happens when one party allows it's extremists to take control, and they did in CA. With each passing year the CA Republican party once a bastion of traditional conservativism of small gov't. and libertarian ideals became a social conservative hate machine. It's almost a perfect model of what's happening now to the national Republican party.
Very fortunately for the nation the Republicans in CA have NEVER learned from their defeat, their hubris is just too much.
And even more fortunately the national Republicans are utterly oblivious to that historical lesson, and do not see history repeating itself.
And because they don't the drama will play out almost exactly as it did then.
After the 2008 election, the only places Republicans will hold higher office will be in backwater states like Texas and Alabama, but nationally they'll be done.
Take my word for it. If my friends who know me well are right, I seem to have a knack for getting almost perfectly right ;-)
From far away It seems to me that the best, that is those whose ideas would at least begin the long, long road that the US has to climb to regain any influence, any credibility in the world are, in descending order Dennis Kucinich; Bill Richardson and John Edwards.
Overwhelmingly they come across as understanding that the US is merely part of the world, and not a very big part, at that.
All the other candidates come across as believing, like Bush, that the rest of the world must dance to the tune of the US.
It is highly probable that if I in fact had to cast a vote, it would go to Richardson. There is something very real, very down to earth about that man.
Art Reed,
what polls are these? seriously, I would like to see them.
What's wrong with this presidential race? In a word, it's celebrity.
I know this is just adding to a long list of "What about...?"s, but here it goes: Senator Chris Dodd or Senator Joe Biden.
C'mon folks, it's time the U.S. got smart and put someone who is socially liberal, fiscally responsible, and VASTLY EXPERIENCED back into the ultimate position of leadership. Look at campaign platforms, look at voting records, and look at the legislation written. I want to see an Obama and Dodd ticket in 2008, and am frankly frustrated by the blinders the American public has insisted upon wearing going into each election of the past decade! Leave them at home for this round, please!
- M. Douglas, 20 yrs old, student
Interesting the comment by Justin Webb about a possible improved situation in iraq.....right when American troop casualties just broke the record for deaths in a calendar year for the occupation. One can only hope that a Kucinich can break through the corporate backing of other candidates and stop "the endless war".
A republican friend of mine and I, a staunch democrat, often have friendly political discussions and the question frequently comes up "what is the real difference between a democrat and a republican?".
After the election the answer is always very obvious.
Currently Hillery has a commanding lead in her party and Rudy has a respectable lead in his but when the election is over one or the other will have won by less than one half of one percent which is the real difference between democrats and republicans.
As a native Texan, I have endured pure misery during the last 7 years. I hope that the winner of the election will not be Mrs.Clinton, as I see her as the natural continuation of what Noam Chomsky calls "The Reagan Dynasty". I do not agree with Mrs. Clinton on smoking, either, and I find these anti-smoking women lobbyists to be the reincarnation of Carry Nation, who went around smashing bars with her axe, so that people would respect prohibition, which also got passed at a time when someone ought to have said,"It's the economy, stupid!"
All that said, Obama seems to be the only choice. And I am tired of all of the people who say this person is not experienced enough. They are saying that about the elections here in Denmark right now, too. Are people really going to re-elect a Prime Minister who supported Bush; went to Iraq and Afghanistan with troops and dollars, has let the hospitals and schools and public transportation system go to pieces and who has made certain that the rich lined their pockets? Some people are complaining that the opposition is not experienced enough here, too.
Perhaps the job of leading the country would be better off in the hands of an ameteur? I hope we get a clean sweep here in Denmark and America certainly needs one too!
Transformation means metmorphosis: CHANGE! A new president can always ask Jimmy Carter for advice on how to deal with Congress.
I certainly hope that America gets a President (Barabara Boxer?) who puts World Peace and climate issues and education and safe food and shelter at the top of the agenda. This administration has shown how the Oil Companies and the Military Industrial Complex can run the World and I do not approve.
The front-runners are rarely the actual candidates come the time of the election, unless they're incumbents. We have no incumbents running. My best guess is that the inherent conservatism of both parties produces the usual all male, predominantly white ticket. On the Republican side, I see Romney as the candidate with Huckabee as VP to shore up his religious right support. For the Democrats, Edwards will choose Richardson as his VP to make inroads into the Latino (and Western state) vote.
So not so transformative after all, thinks I. Two white men with great hair heading each party's ticket. The transformative aspect of the election is what will happen in Congress, where I expect a much higher Democratic Party presence in both houses, and an immediate reconsideration of US military, economic, and environmental goals. The changes on those issues could very well be "transformative."
I think it's all a big, big Dog & Pony Show;
Does anyone REALLY believe Bush will go easily?
I wouldn't be surprised if Bush declared Martial Law, and locked down (Locked up?) the country.
Who would I want? Kucinich, second choice being Edwards.
But having said that, I believe that the The Corp Media has already chosen their preferences in order of Most Acceptable to Least (Clinton to Edwards)
The rest of the Democrats?
None of them would be acceptable, I'm sure....
who will win? Hilary Clinton.
Who should win? Ron Paul.
(insert full-stop here)
None of the major front runners impress me. All of them are merely shilling to whoever has the biggest wallet (i.e. lobby groups and corporations). Quite frankly, I am disgusted with the electable choices in this country. For to long we have been ruled by the GOP/Dem oligarchy, and look what it has done to us. I can only hope and pray for a major third party candidate with a real chance at winning, sort of a Ross Perot type, but someone who can really put the Dems and GOP on their toes.
As the Supreme Court rendered American National Democracy null and void in the 2000 selection, I don't hold out much hope for 2008, tho' I will vote for whoever the Democrats throw up. It would be nice if this country was led by someone who was not unilateral, someone who didn't start misguided wars and coddle corporations.
Noam Chomsky with Kucinich as Veep. Europe's choice! The only candidates that can heal all wounds and make the world like us again. Please, please, please, like us, please?
Doesn't anybody think of Al Gore. He is the best person to lead the country and is a statesman. I am sure other countries are also rooting for him. If he decides not to run then John Edwards is the second best choice.
The candidate with the most money wins. Not the candidate who garners the most money in one day, but the one with the most cash overall. So far, that candidate is Hillary. I do not believe that the American people actually elect their leaders anymore. Leaders are selected by lobbyists funded by corporations or wealthy citizens. Many people spend a lot of time and energy supporting their favorite candidate, but it seems like such a waste of time. Because unfortunately, it all comes down to dollars - not experience, not qualifications, not platforms for change. Who has the financial support - who is being bought? Just keep track of the accounting and you will see the winner unfold before your eyes - before early voting, before polling, before that all important Tuesday in November.
The only chance Ron Paul has is if he ran as an independant with Al Gore. The GOP will never give him the nomination, he's to left minded.
If I had to bet on a single candidate right now; it would be Obama, he's bigger than most rock stars around the US right now.
I'm amazed by the responses on this sight so far.All the major candidates on both sides are in the pockets of various lobbies for health care, oil industry, Israel etc. A truly transformative candidate would never take a penny from corporations, would vote against the Iraq war before it happened,would vote against the continued funding of the Iraq war, would vote against the Patriot Act, would support a single payer not for profit universal health care plan, would take a fair and balanced stance on the Palestine/Israel situation,would have the courage to impeach and prosecute the illegal activities of Cheney and Bush. Only one candidate on either side has done these things. His name is Dennis Kucinich.
The good news is that any of the candidates will be a
significant improvement over Bush. And even better news is that either Hillary or Obama or Edwards could be the next president, and either one would be great.
As to downside risk, if a Republican wins the presidency,
then accept another 8 years of middle-east war, and batten the hatches for a recession that will surprise even the pessimists with the severity and duration.
I'm a registered Democrat in Iowa and I'm both undecided and unaffiliated with any campaign. That being said, my money is coming out of Iowa is on Hillary in 1st, Edwards, coming in second and Obama rounding out the top three. The key is to pay attention to who's showing up for events out here. Not just the numbers, but who they are. If they're showing up because you're a rockstar, they don't equal caucus votes.
The race will come down to the first two out of Iowa. Whoever comes in third will be quickly done, no matter how much money they do or don't have. If Hillary wins Iowa, it'll be a smoother road to the nomination for her. If someone else beats her, it'll be a lot more interesting.
My post as I write is after number 67 at 11:40 PM.
I believe all 67 comments are mistaken.
Huckabee is going to beat al the other Republican candidates and go to beat Hillary too.
Rudy cannot possibly win because the millions of people that think like me.
Huckabee will also get enough Democrats to support him to make it over the finish line.
Lets not forget that the Republican Party is a minority party and unless
there is a united front they cannot make it.
Many have real reservations that they will see the US especially Middle America electing either a woman or a black person to the position of president this time around. No doubt Clinton and Obama (in their current order of position in the polls)and Romney will make it easier for someone not from the historical model to be more electable in future campaigns. It is difficult to see at the moment, with Democrats and Republicans dividing the country almost equally and with a couple of key states capable of making the difference, that a clear cut candidate can be found amongst the current candidates-certainly not someone who can heal the wounds that have been opened in the past 8 years.
It is not impossible-maybe even likely that the next president of the US is not currently in the campaign.
There has been some comment today in the media about the possibility of Mike Bloomberg, current Mayor of NYC, becoming a possible candidate.
At this point, he would most likely enter the campaign when the current field has been weeded out and people begin to see real choices-or choices they cannot live with and be relatively untainted by the challenges of a prolonged campaign. If the choices are perceived to be limited, that might be enough to convince him to make his move.
Would he be a healer for the country?
Could he be the one to rebuild the bridges that the US so desperately needs abroad?
Granted, he is still in his Ivory Tower untouched by the wounds of a long campaign. Maybe that is the smart thing to do.
Maybe Al Gore's options are limited by now but what about a real fight between the two parties represented by Messrs. Bloomberg & Gore (alphabetical sequence)??
To bad there is a non of the above chioce. Its called a write in.
My money is on Obama.
Ron Paul is the only candidate making any sense and telling the truth. He's been saying the same thing for decades and now is the perfect time for him to run. He's currently being proven correct on foreign policy, on economic policy and on civil liberties in ways that cannot be honestly denied.
Any other candidate means the final crashing of the economy and tyranny if not dictatorship at home and abroad, even a possible nuclear war.
This is America's last chance. Go back to what made you great or lose everything.
Why are democrats so hostile towards Ron Paul? Seriously, do they prefer the fear-monger Gulianni as the Republican frontrunner?
I like Ron Paul from the Republican candidates, and John Edwards from the Democrat pool.
Also, just to clear the air: Ron Paul is not an isolationist; in fact he is completely the opposite. The media seems to spin his position by falsely portraying an isolationist/protectionist stance by mentioning he is against the Bretton Woods institutions (IMF, World Bank, etc.), and trading blocks such as NAFTA. However, he is only against these institutions and trade agreements because they are limited in scope. Ron Paul wants to open the US economy to everyone. This means no quotas or tariffs, or any other barrier to trade.
I do hope this election is generationally transformative. I am quite sick of the abfab boomers. Pale shadow in comparison to their parents. Spent most of their lives mining social institutions, bad-mouthing their elders, and leaving their children to fend for themselves. Their presidents (Clinton and Bush) have been awful. A waste of a generation. Narcissism? Boomers practically redefine it.
GenXers get maligned but they are earnest and responsible people. I hope Obama wins.
US will get McCain as next president. Forget how Clinton or Obama can change things around, just remember that US citizens returned Bush to the White House. McCain is similarly short-sighted, misinformed and lobby influenced. It's a shoo-in.
Obama has nothing going for him except that he speaks well. Hillary is simply too shrill and greedy to be electable, Gore has no personality, and his fictional book on global warming hurt his chances, badly.
Romney could take it all. With any luck, and a series of good breaks, he could win. He should win. We can't endure four more years of the Clintons. Remember Bill's impeachment? Vince Foster? Whitewater? All those coverups and convictions for his staff?
The country needs leadership, which is why the country shall have another Republican president.
I am not American but know many. Not one of them like the prospect of Hilary or any of the lot. The only person that gets any love is Ron Paul. The key point of the entire article is about the polling data that suggests a rare restiveness among the American people, a sense that the status quo is rotten.
And the only candidate that does not represent the status quo is Ron Paul. I predict he will do well in New Hampshire and start raking in big bucks but will end up winning as an independent.
Something tells me that the hour is drawing nearer, the hour in which Barack Obama will give an extraordinary speech that blows the minds of the American people. I anticipate it to be much like his rousing speech at the '04 Democratic National Convention, except this time it'll mean alot more. There is certainly alot at stake here, I like to believe that all Americans, regardless of party affiliation, are aware of the significance of this election. The United States as a whole is undoubtedly going through a transformation, therefore we will need a leader who can effectively and responsibly navigate us in a new direction. This leader is Barack Obama. He is the most reasonable and stable nominee, and he possesses all of the remarkable qualities that America represents. Obama '08!
Without reading other posts, I will offer this: I don't think we'll have an election at all, and a dystopia will prevail; Americans will be under a dictatiorship. I'm sadly pessimistic about the future. I just hope that when the time comes, Britain and Canada will be kind enough to take in asylum-seekers.
On the bright side, I should hope that Dennis Kucinich will gain more attention and notoriety and perhaps even become a "first tier" candidate. Obama is a weakling and Hillary is as hawkish as Condi Rice. Her husband is not enough to get her elected. Ron Paul has some good points along the Libertarian line, but I disagree with his views on abortion. Guliani is a farce and rests his laurels on his handling of 9/11 and is quick to utilize fearmongering; therefore, he is no better than the current administration. One need only look at his record as mayor of New York. Also, I wonder if the Christian conservative is prepared to deal with the contradiction of his many marriages and the row with his children against the notion that he is morally correct as the GOP candidate. Say a few prayers for your American cousins.
I disagree that all the candidates are the same. There's going to be a clear choice in 2008, between a bad candidate (Hilary) and a worse candidate (Giuiani). Both will ruin the environment and sell out America to the corporations, neither is going to "fix" Iraq and the economy will tank, but one is going straight into Iran and starting WWIII (Bush has already prepared us with the language).
My prediction? Giuliani gets the nomination (he's already been endorsed by Pat Robertson, so the Christian Fascists have no problem with his 3 marriages), there's another attack inside the US (probably a dirty bomb) that 1) scares the voters enough to endorse a "strong man" and forget about democracy and 2) gives President Giuliani the perfect pretext for invading Iran.
After that, forget about real elections. Giuliani becomes Duce.
God help us.
It is hard to beleive that in the USA two families have controlled the presidency for over twenty years. The average man on the street here in Texas sees both parties as deboched and corrupted by corporate and foreign lobby groups, yet none of us make a move. The Bushs and Clintons have demonstrated to the public and the Washington beltway that they can be as cruel as they are ruthless. I do not think that the current oligarchs will hand over power as easily as you Brits think.
I have been saying Clinton would win since day one and I am sticking to it. A woman must win the Presidency before a non-white will become elected. It is a sad statement to make, but it is an accurate statement.
There is more sexism and racism in America than the Press lets on. But once a woman wins, then we can progress toward voting in the best ideas, not the best white man's ideas.
A Clinton-Obama ticket would kill two birds with one stone.
Hillary 51% to Giuliani 47%
And here is yet another attempt from the media to keep Ron Paul under the table. America needs to open its eyes.
Dennis Kucinich for the dems or Ron Paul for the republicans. If you don't want to vote your ideals please stay home. The US is a sadly sinking ship (just look at the currency) with a debt addiction. We need the economical equivalent of shock therapy.
~v for vendetta
If Americans wake up and vote for a qualified candidate Hillary's a shoe in. All the other candidates on both parties don't have the experience that she does. Now if American woman don't vote for her, look for the Supreme Court to dismantle Woman's Rights. Yes those woman who want careers will be put in the kitchen. McCain was promised Bush's base if he sold out which he did. Rudy is strange and lies to much about 9/11, as he stole most of the victims money. Obama is good and so is Edwards but they just don't have the qualifications to lead American out of this big mess.
If Americans don't choose Hillary, you will see another country come in and take control of the once great United States.
There is a serious undertone to these elections coming up, which we need reminding of. Firstly, why is it that Hillary Clinton gets all positive reviews out of the syndicated media, while the Republicans can scarcely get any positive review? There is a very post-modern, politically correct movement going on here that is likely going to see Mrs. Clinton in the White House. And the policies she stands for will likely become law. Democrats are running a ticket based on post-modern thought, and the effect will be of a turning of the United States of America radically and finally from it's position as the voice of traditional good conscience.
I want to remind all of you that America is founded on the pretext that you may worship God in any way within good conscience, but in an America where someone can't quote Scripture to say someone is in the wrong, God's conscience would probably be to call the bluff. And that is what we Americans are doing with our good conscience, thinking we can live however we choose without regret. But sooner or later, the choices we make become manifest, and it's at that point, where the bluff will be called.
Make no mistake about it, the world is going into, not out of, a religious confrontation and the position America takes in the next elections may well determine the future of the world next generation, and generations to come. As a deeply religious person myself, I cannot support a President that won't respect my rights to religious self-expression, which is precisely what I feel the Democrats are attempting to undertake.
What if the American choice is to not choose America?
Yes, in 365 days America will have its new executive. So? Everything remains the same, only the names change.
United States Of America, for that matters any country in the world needs a President or a leader who could be a Democrat, a Republican or by any other party name to be honest or fair and just in thier human behaviour . As the famous words says "for the people, by the people......" They must stand by these words.
Posting about Ron paul is spamming, and shilling for the establishment stooges is not? Thats what the corporate media seems to be doing all this time, plus trying to limit exposure to Ron Paul's views to the voting public. Isn't that reverse spamming as well?
Mr Webb,
Would grassroots support, as opposed to big business or mainstream media support, count as 'transformative'?
See the results of the Democracy for America grassroots poll:
Perhaps this will broaden your view of the field of candidates for the Democratic party.
Firstly a brief comment on Ron Paul - yes, he's had a fabulous haul of money but he has a long way to go. He needs to score high in New Hampshire (the state that ought to be most receptive to his message) but at the moment he is averaging 3.7% in the state polls there. Now his haul will buy a lot of advertising so he has the opportunity to turn it around but it is still a long shot.
My feeling is that Paul will not pick up the transfers from other candidates when they drop out of the race. I also believe that Huckabee will place third in Iowa, putting him in a strong position early in the race. If Paul can't manage third in New Hampshire then I can only see him being drowned out.
Whoever stays in, Giuliani will be the winner of the GOP nomination. Yesterday he was endorsed by Pat Robertson (one of the heavyweights of the Christian Coalition movement) which will reinforce that he can draw support from Christian conservatives even though his views are more liberal than they would like. More importantly from Giuliani, it kills some of Romney's momentum amongst Christian conservatives.
On the Democrat side I can't see past Hilary winning their nomination. Edwards needs to score high in Iowa and it looks now like he won't, pushing it down to a two candidate race.
If Obama is left as the last man standing against Hilary he will have to get dirty if he is to turn around her lead in later and bigger states. I think he'll stand a better chance, perversely, if Edwards remains in the race a while longer.
I predict that the final line up though will probably be Giuliani/McCain against Hilary/Richardson.
Transformative would be great! Unfortunately each candidate is only as good as the media they are given. People are criticising Hillary Clinton at the moment for not being more candid during the debates but she knows full well that if she is to win the Presidency she needs to create a moderate platform for the general election and pandering to her base will not help. She also has a big enough lead to be able to do this. I think that any of the Dem candidates would be good Presidents but Hillary has a government in waiting that has plenty of foreign policy experience
America needs to pick a candidate that wil engage in constructive dialogue with the rest of the world. The neo conservitive experiment has largely failed due to a childish policy of ignoring certain countries and bullying others.
As Bill Clinton has said on many an occasion "the world can only be safe if each county is inter-dependent on others". The fantasy of US dominance can only lead to catastrophie
I think that the current administration has given the defense industry enough financial help to last 2 decades therefore it would be economically sensible to funnel federal contracts towards health, education & renewable energy projects.
The Republicans need to be thrashed in 08 in order for balance to be restored to the political scene. To watch them try to out macho each other in order to catch the votes of an extremely right wing base is laughable and scary.
Each candidate has some positives: Romney is a good business man, McCain has experience, Guliani is good at crisis management, Thompson can deliver a line (not such a big plus). Their negatives however far out weigh their positives. The republicans need to get back to traditional republican values and this will not happen as long as the cancer that is the christian coalition it part of the deal.
As for Ron Paul and Dennis Kusinich who are truly "transformative" they don't have a chance because a breakthrough would be squashed by the media.
It's not real democracy in the US. Opinion is controlled. Until this is removed there will never be the transformation that people are looking for.
A ministry for peace - what a wonderful idea!
I like John Edwards. He's the first candidate to come forward with a universal health care plan. His plan also revealed how he was going to pay for coverage - through increasing taxes of people who make over $250,000. If you say you're going to raise taxes in America, that is a bold move. (Of course, if you do nothing to adjust the Alternative Minimum Tax, then more of the upper middle class gets taxed onerously, but hey, it's not like the middle class has lobbyists.) His populism may hurt him, but he is right, that there are two Americas: one of wealth and prosperity, and another trying to meet the weekly bills. As pefect examples, yesterday I heard Larry Kudlow (CNBC talk show host) talk about the tax revenues which showed how strong economic growth was; later that evening, the owner of a small restaurant wondered where all the customers have gone.
Her customers are having to chose between a restaurant meal and a tank of gas.
Democrats are desperate for a winner, but the pundits have talked Hillary up, not the Democrats I know. We think Rudy would win in a landslide over Clinton from the "I need a strong Daddy" crowd. Christopher Dodd is smart, so is Edwards. I'd actually love that ticket.
It's going to be tough on the next President to face America's reducing influence in the world. The largest company in the world is Chinese, the largest software-producing country in the world is India. Americans are living on borrowed money and borrowed time. It's going to be painful for them to come to terms with not being top dog. Imagine what it must have been like for the Romans.
The USA is far too redneck and fundamentalist to elect either an African American or a woman. That's why the Republicans are so hot to trot for Senator Clinton to get the Democratic nomination. They figure Sen. Obama may rally previously idle voter demographic segments, but they see running aginst Sen. Clinton as no problem. Too bad for the US but it's going to be another Republican who gets the job.
Unless there are huge improvements in the stated candidates' positions and their dialogues with other candidates and press, I'm likely to cast my absentee ballot for Stephen Colbert....I'm just glad Im not living now in the home of the soundbite and the land of the influence peddling......
A Bin-Laden fuzzy, unrecognisable picture will be played to the media right on queue before the vote. The firm will never McCain win replublican nomination... he is too decent. At this time of "harvesting the rewards" of defeating communism, the last thing one needs in the whitehouse is a puritan. Queue Rudy Guilliani Vs Hilary Clinton. The firm is counting on the revulsion held against the Clintons and the Automatic Counting System (Where no one can verify the ballot papers afterwards) to bring out the Loonies.
Stephen Colbert for the Win!
To me it is time to elect a diplomat as president rather than an idiot who just has good marketing. Diplomacy works alot better than not talking to a group because you have labled them as terrorists. If the U.S. withdrew its tentacles from all corners of the world terorists would have no cause or reason to be fighitng with us. It is stupid to elect a person who is "strong on the war in Iraq" when they don't understand the underlying problems, nor are they interested in talking with the opposition. Sticking your head in the sand may not make the problem go away, but not talking to armed factions is definatly not working.
Unfortunately I must echo the cliche' posted by many others: America needs to wake up. But here's the different spin on that: There's one characteristic of a candidate that's more important than the economy and even more important than the war. The most important thing any president does is nominate justices for the Supreme Court... why don't more people see this? There are 1 or 2 justices now who are old, not healthy, and eager to retire, but they refuse to do so with an ignorant fruitcake like Bush in office. Although the democratic candidates are very weak and disappointing and lack the morale courage to take any firm stand, their one strong point is the ability to pick brilliant, fair, experienced non-ideologues for the Supreme Court... justices who might be able to restore civil liberties. Hold your nose and vote Democratic for that one extremely important reason.
I like what Mike Gravel had to say, " Follow the money, you want to know who's running your country? Follow the money"
Why do we Americans always elect the rich?
After seeing how corrupt our election process has become, how corrupt our media is, how a man could still be President after all the lies, makes my tummy turn. The entire notion of our President saying he is the decider when 70 or 80 percent of the country wants out of the war is ridiculous. He acts like a dictator!
The Internet is a better indicator then TV or anything else of people's political preferences as they are freer to voice their opinion then in public or on TV.
I watched the Dem and Rep debates on Youtube. I checked on issues I wasn't sure about. I didn't want to do what everyone else was doing, but I am. I'm not a Ron Paul Spammer, I'm a Ron Paul supporter.
peace
I would certainly not be oppossed to a woman president but have no desire to have the Presidents Clinton again, charasmatic as they are. It will probably come down to voting for whomever is opposing Hilary (who I believe will get the nomination). There is no one candidate who supports everything I believe in- so it will come down to picking the one who is closest...what is the old saying? Close only counts in hand grenades and horseshoes....
Allow me to present my credentials: although born in Buenos Aires, I was brought to the US as a young child, as a lawful immigrant, and received all my education in the US, graduating from Harvard. I have been active in human rights struggles & grass-roots politics since high school, and have dedicated several decades (pro bono) to effective action for world peace, environmental sanity & progressive social development around the globe. And I have also volunteered locally to help run elections in precinct polling places, so I have witnessed first hand the shoddy performance & even illegal, abusive practices that mar US votes, even in such "advan ced" states as California... Here is the situation in the US today: the elections of 2000 & 2004 brought about outcomes significant proportions of voters -- and an even greater proportion of abstaining adults living & working in the US -- do not approve of, do not agree with. A good portion of that disenchanted population is, sadly, disillusioned and bitter now, and may not be mobilised for the 2008 vote. A mighty attempt was made by my friends of all political hues to end the Iraq war that now has the US haemorrhaging money as well as lives and dreams, by voting for Dems in the 2006 midterms. Unfortunately, the war has not been stopped. This further disillusions potential voters & donors (remember, we are all giving scarce funds to each of these campaigns to end the Bush madness; so far, this money seems wasted, and people are finding it harder to keep giving). The truth is that most Americans today are ashamed of the Iraq war, and resent Bush for making them strongly dislike their own government. It makes most Americans feel discombobulated, and their innate patriotism seem not quite as honest as before. Plus, whereas past wars such as Vietnam did not actually affect their own lives (unless one of their friends or kin was a casualty), the Iraq war has hit hard with rising oil prices. Most people in the US know enough to make the connection, and to see oil companies report bigger profits while Joe Sixpak keeps tightening his belt (and now loses his house as a result) rubs salt in the wound. WHAT I PREDICT: a low, low turnout in 2008, and a new Republican face in the White House, quite possibly Mayor Bloomberg of NY, or the former mayor, Giuliani. What that will mean is more NY power & further dissociation of the elite from the rest of the country (which they simply don't know, and whose problems are like science fiction to them). This will mean, perhaps a quick breath of euphoria for the elite, followed by more problems. At least I think Bloomberg might do something positive for the environment. WHAT I WOULD PREFER: the only candidate on either side (and I have voted all over the map in the past; I am by no means a single-party loyalist) who has actually a sound, logical & intelligent policy programme is John Edwards. He is also the only one who, while being both charismatic & photogenic, is curiously least caught up in his own persona. (Clinton, Obama, Romney, McCain: all rather narcissistic if you actually pay attention to how they "act Presidential" even before having won a single vote). In a perfect world, Edwards' focused message would get through, anda spark of hope would reignite in disenchanted, intelligent Americans; the same forces that mobilised for Dean, for Pelosi, for Gore would roll up their sleeves (ONE MORE TIME!); the media would try to refrain from pushing through their personal flavour-of-the-week and actually would stay above the fray, merely reporting on proceedings and statements; there would be a clean, fair vote in 2008, and Edwards would be elected President. THAT would bring back "the real America" -- they iconic guy in the white hat cleaning up and rebuilding trust & hope for the community of hardworking, war-weary Americans. Can it happen? I can't say. I know one thing: Edwards is the only candidate committed to actually stopping the US contribution to accelerating climate change. I know another thing: the number of American women who vote who will not vote for Hillary BECAUSE THEY DON'T LIKE BILL & THEY DON'T LIKE HER PRO-WAR STANCE is greater than the number of women that can be persuaded to come in and vote for her "because she's a girl." But I also know something else, something very sad & probably decisive: that the same people who want a war in Iraq to expand into a war in Iran will continue doing everything they can to bring about a Clinton or Giuliani presidency that will take us into further, costly, paralysing bloodshed -- with further financial catastrophe spilling over, beyond US borders and quite potentially throughout the world.
I remember way back in 2000 when the late Alistair Cook was reading "Letter from America" he gave a glowing evaluation of the prospects of a McCain presidency. He knew in his heart that at the end of the day, it was probably wistful thinking given the conservative nature of the Republicans' base. Well, its not too late. Although I am a liberal in most senses and would dearly love to see either a Clinton or Obama presidency, something draws me to the deep pragmatism and integrity McCain offers. He is the only Republican candidate who would have a serious chance of winning.
For those who have maligned the reputation of 'social conservatives' (i.e. Christians), 'Christian fundamentalists' are neither: racist, fascist, particularly hateful, or bent on starting World War 3.
British Christians played a pivotal role in ending the slave trade in the British Empire. American Christians spearheaded the movement to abolish slavery in the United States. Christian missionaries have had a strong history of protecting indigenous peoples from the predations and exploitations of their more 'secular' peers.
At least the most famous (or infamous, rather) fascists, the National Socialists--the Nazis, were heavily ATHEISTIC.
Guessing that the 'hate' part is about homosexuality. Christians consider homosexuality to be bad. That doesn't translate into Christians hating homosexuals. Many liberal (or 'progressive,' if you insist) people consider smoking (tobacco) to be bad. That doesn't translate in those people hating smokers. On the contrary, it seems that a lot of atheists have a hateful attitude toward Christians. So much so that they deliberately try to discredit them.
Christians generally are not warmongers. However, as one commentator already mentioned, sticking your head in the sand about the threat posed by Islamist jihadists--who would persecute almost ALL non-Muslims, be they Christian, Atheist, Jewish, even more 'moderate' Muslims--is not helpful. These few Islamic extremists (who aren't very comparable to 'Christian extremists'--just compare the numbers of violent crimes attributed to each; you have maybe the abortion clinic bomber for the Christians; you could point to Timothy McVeigh for the Atheists, and many for the Islamic extremists) do pose a threat, and should be confronted. Pretending that they don't exist won't make that threat disappear or you all that much safer.
Christians oppose homosexuality and do not consider it a 'right to choose' to willfully terminate another innocent human's life, among other things. Abortion for non-life-threatening reasons by far supersedes homosexuality as it is considered to be murder by Christians.
(On a side note, Christians are generally for stem cell research, just not the use of EMBRYONIC stem cells. *Odd* how the media has the tendency to just use 'oppose stem cell research' (referring embryonic stem cells) and when there's a scientific success, again use 'stem cell' in their headlines, only this time it is usually for adult stem cells. Buried some paragraphs into the article is the mention whether or not it is adult or embryonic stem cells which are being mentioned.
Having the information of the heat or cold tolerances of humans could be useful, but the experimentation on prisoners by the Nazis, Imperial Japanese, and other governments to find that information was bad. Same thing for embryonic stem cell research. Embryonic stem cells could be a faster segway to adult stem cells therapies (or might not), but it is unethical; money being put into embryonic stem cell research should be diverted to adult stem cell research. Skeletal muscle tissue has already been turned into cardiac muscle tissue so the idea that adult stem cells aren't pluripotent doesn't hold much water).
Those who hold the belief that George W. Bush will turn the United States into a dictatorship rather than relinquish his position as President (still the weakest of the three branches of the federal government) are being delusional. Contrary to what one poster stated, the Patriot Act does not give the President power to turn himself into a dictator.
There were presidential elections both during the [American] Civil War and World War 2 when the executive branch was headed by two presidents far more power-grabbing than Bush (Lincoln(R) and FDR(D)).
Furthermore, Congress has the ability to impeach and remove the president. If by some odd and remote chance the DEMOCRAT-led Congress is unwilling to remove Bush after his term, the people in the "several States" can recall their Congressmen and Senators and vote in new ones who will remove the president. The Supreme Court justices can also be removed by Congress.
And then there is the military. You insult American soldiers for suggesting that they would support an illegal president (what Bush would be if he didn't relinquish power after his term and somehow quelled the power of both Congress and the courts). The probability that George W. Bush will form a dictatorship to remain in power is MUCH less than 1%.
Come on people, you're entitled to your opinions, but at least *try* to be sane.
Lets face it the candidates running don't represent the average US citizen and they are all in the pockets of the corporate elite. Look how the Democrats have handled the war in Iraq they've done NOTHING, they where elected into office because the majority of the american people wanted us out of the war and look at the war it is still spiraling out of control.
As far as who will win the election it's who ever the corporate elite want just look at the last two rigged elections. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Bush suspended the elections with his National Security Presidential Directive 51 that gives him the power to do so in case of a national emergency whether it's a natural disaster or terrorist attack.
I appreciated Steve Harper's words of agreement re. Gore being tapped as the Democratic nominee when Hilary Clinton begins to seem unelectable as a result of her high negatives. Mr Harper promotes a Gore-Edwards ticket as unbeatable and it might be, but even more likely to be unbeatable would be a Gore-Obama ticket. Rather than the Democrats leading with two white, male Southerners, they would be very strategic in advancing a ticket with a Presidential nominee of Gore's stature, experience, and moral authority and an energetic and exceedingly bright V.P. nominee from an industrial upper Midwest state (Illinois) who also is of African heritage. A ticket of that kind not only would be enormously energizing to the Democratic activist base, it would be very attractive to any number of swing voters as well -- and it's Independents (swing voters) whom the Democratic Party has to win over to achieve a commanding majority and thus a mandate.
It strikes me as rather crass and stupid that so much money is outlayed in the form of benefits dinners, video commercials, time on radio, web-pages etc to promote a candidate. Why not set a limit on the funds that can be spent, as there are in the UK, to ensure that there is a fair and level playing field as far as media exposure goes. Then we can see how skillful the politicians are at getting their points across on very limited budgets, rather than the circus that we see. I'd rather vote for the person who donated their entire "war chest" to a charity such as Save the Children or Oxfam, instead of using it to line the pockets of TV execs.
optimist prime (#80 above):
"Clinton / Gore '08!
I'm dead serious, called it here."
*
You called it wrong. Gore can't serve as VP again.
Bill Richardson is the most qualified and he could win if someone actually taught him how to run for President, because all he can do in the debates is whine. "You guuuuuuuuuys, what about meeeeee? I have experience tooooooo!" He comes off looking like a child instead of a governer or a UN ambassador.
I can see that the McCain & Romney spammers are in full force here. Unfortunately for them, the Sun has set on the candidates they support. They have had their 15 minutes of fame and it appears that they are out-of-touch with the American people. They are living in the past, where television dominates the media. Ron Paul is the candidate of the future. His support is growing like wild fire. Across the nation, people are seeing for themselves that Ron Paul's supporters are not a handful of spammers. In fact, they are an army of millions who seem brave enough to answer the call of freedom. They will turn the lights out on the 20th Century and usher the world into the 21st.
They will show the world once again the timeless qualities of freedom and liberty. For this Constitution of our's endures for its vision was and continues to be far ahead of its time.
If you are pro-war, then I appeal to you on this: If war between US and the Islamofascists is inevitable, then I propose that only a Ron Paul presidency with Freedom, Liberty, & Constitution can lead it in a manner proper for posterity.
Hillary Clinton's biggest supporters are going to be African Americans, people voting for her because they want a woman President, and people who see a vote for Hillary as they are really voting for Bill.
Obama's biggest supporters are regular folks giving small contributions, but your limousine liberals and Hollywood types may jump in the mix there.
My favorite Democrat is Bill Richardson, but I hate to say it, he does not stand a snowball's chance in hell.
On the Republican side, I think my Senator, John McCain is going to fall by the wayside. Rudy Giuliani will get the votes of people interested in defense and security, Mitt Romney your Republican economic Conservatives and Fred Thompson, the Southern vote.
Ron Paul is an interesting part of the mix. Not sure where that is going.
Well said
"Why no mention of Ron Paul? He had the biggest fundraising day out of the Republican candidates this last monday and continues to win all public polls."
The 大象传媒 is government controled, but one thing is for sure if Ron Paul wins the race the UK will be left high and dry.
Suport Ron paul for freedom
I am loosing faith in the 大象传媒 faster than I can say in polite words. Ron Pauls support is being suppressed in the US media, and it seems that the 大象传媒 is joining in. If you look at policy in the UK it mirrors that of the US but is more subtle. If there are any 大象传媒 reporters who actually care about what is happening I suggest that they look more closely at the Ron Paul message then look at what is happening at home. Look to your consciences and actually investigate.
Why are Ron Paul supporters being called spammers when they are just airing their views? It is only because they are overwhelmingly overrepresented that they are called fanatics. What happened to the right to express oneself? It simply happens that Ron Paul supporters, not Clinton or Giuliani supporters, turned up here in large numbers.
P.S. I would hate it if Clinton or Giuliani won - they freak me out. Giuliani just so happens to be a liar, and the "Clinton Cackle" freaks me out. Personally, I wouldn't mind Al Gore, Huckabee, or the aforementioned Ron Paul.
The British are rather ignorant of US politics. Some of you talk of choice (lack of). As I look around British politics the reality is there is absolutely no choice and definitely no say in matters of liberty and democracy. Uks left and right are exactly the same with more liars at the helm than the US could ever muster. I cannot think of one British politician who has any remnant of honour or honesty within them Take a look at Libertarian Ron Paul's policies and compare them with Mike Gravel, Obama, Clintion Kucinichi. The US political system is not perfect but at least there is still some sort of democratic choice for the people to consider
You fail to mention Ron Paul. He will be the next president. All the other Republicans are running to lose, not to win. Everything is pre-arranged for Hillary to beat Giuliani. Ron Paul is the dark horse who will beat Hillary. Probably there is going to be a 3 way race: Ron Paul, Hillary, Bloomberg, and Ron Paul will defeat them.
You have so far failed to comprehend what Ron Paul represents. He represents Hope of a Better Tomorrow and he is the only one who can beat the neocon barbarians. Some people accuse Ron Paul supporters of being annoying, of course annoying for people who are asleep. Ron Paul supporters have fire in their minds and the mediocre can not understand that.
It's fascinating to see you Brits so interested in American political campaigns. It's understandable since, indeed, as vital as they are - now more than ever - they share a similarity with horse racing.
The fields on both sides of the aisle are fairly capable, particularly the Democrats. But not one candidate has appeared like a clear and distinct winner, contrary to the early allegiance given to Hillary. In fact, Hillary was destined to fail because of her personality, comprised of part Drill Instructor, part faux cackler, and part suddenly concerned "liberal." Actually, she has a rather long history as a Republican (pre Bill).
As it turns out, the issues, which most of the Democrats, except for the true liberal, Kucinich, agree on with relatively small differences aren't as important as personality. W has been a horrific President, but yet a common man with a penchant for an easy joke. That's why he's not pelted with rotten fruit everyday.
Americans are suckers for one-liners, big smiles, and confident individuals. Obama, Edwards, Biden, Dodd, and, to a lesser extent, Richardson all have those qualities. Hillary has had to adopt them since they're not part of her true nature.
That's helped her look tough enough to fight terrorism - something Americans are disproportionately afraid of - but it's worked against her because Washington politics has been abrasive for too long now. The electorate is looking for a smoother, call it a European-style, approach. The ideal: Debate, differ, but in the end, come up with meaningful policies without bloody polarizations. That's been almost impossible to accomplish for well over 10 years now.
Obama has a leg up in this regard since it's the heart of his campaign, though he hasn't yet been explicit about how it's going to be accomplished. Right now the zeitgeist has shifted his way and if he's going to sustain the momentum he better present a program. It appears as if he's brilliant enough to do so.
Hillary also overplayed her "35-year experience," both in terms of inflating her actual involvement as well as the significance of having had inside-the-Beltway experience. Her pollsters failed her miserably in this regard because Americans are looking for new, fresh ideas and are thus summarily unimpressed by insiders, which is why Huckabee and Paul have accrued so much interest.
For all the supposed "experts" working for her, her campaign has been full of miscalculations. The first one was her inability to apologize for having voted for the bill giving W the preemptive right to attack Iraq. The second was her vote for Kyl-Lieberman, branding the Iranian Revolutionary Guards terrorists. This, procedurally, was a nail in the coffin since it associates her with the Neocons who got America into its present quagmire with the "War on Terror."
At this point you can hear the fat lady sing for Hillary, who was never prepared for the awesome challenge of soliciting America for its approval. She'll probably get buried in Iowa, defeated in New Hampshire and humiliated in South Carolina.
The most interesting phenomenon on the Republican side has been Fred Thompson who had a remarkably strong showing before entering the race late. He has shown very little zest in his efforts and lost a lot of steam, but shouldn't be counted out. Rudy - who was the media darling for months - is rapidly heading towards oblivion.
Part New York liberal, now part Red State conservative, part Neocon, part micro manager, Rudy has worn out his welcome. The door has been opened on his dysfunctional personal life, as well as his mixed political allegiances and he's confusing the public. The nail in his coffin will be his close association with Norman Podhoretz and the Neocons because he basically aims to continue the same old same old. Thompson isn't much different in that regard but his ties to the Neocons aren't as obvious.
Romney is facing zealous religious resistance, which is disheartening for most Americans to see since they grew accustomed to the separation of State and Church. He's too eager to please the evangelicals, claiming his Presidency will be "informed" by his beliefs. That's scary to secular and Jewish voters, not to mention Christians of a different stripe. He probably has too much going against him, including his softer allegiance to the Neocons.
McCain is the lost soul among this field, largely because he shifted over the years from openly resisting W and the Neocons to enthusiastically embracing the "War on Terror." No matter what you may think of that move, it's called flipflopping in America and it will remain an obstacle he'll never get over.
Pressuring the field is Ron Paul, whose libertarian ideals resonate as well as Ross Perot's iconoclastic candidacy once did. Paul's insistence on abandoning the "War on Terror" is severely underming the legitimacy of his opponents who basically ignore his beliefs. The American public, however, isn't ignoring them.
Huckabee is a likeable fellow, quick witted, and smart, but a fish out of water. He's not equipped for a national race and has made several key blunders - underscoring fear of Mormons to name one - that will rapidly sink his ship after he leaves Iowa.
Where does that leave the field? Unsettled. If Thompson could tap into the early sense of enthusiasm he received, he could revitalize his campaign and win.
The Republican campaign is going to be more arduous and competitive than the Democrats will experience. Regardless, in the end, it's the Democrats' seat to win, if they don't blow it.
The United States is currently surviving on loans from overseas. A majority of the candidates either don't understand that fact or don't care. My number one issue is the federal deficit and fixing our monetary system. My candidate is Ron Paul. The debates are suited to sound-bites not intelligent statements of positions. Please take a look at Ron Paul and his positions and make an informed choice.
RON PAUL 08
Ron Paul raised over 6 million on 12.16.07 WE THE PEOPLE ARE NOT SPAMMERS! we want our rights and we want our MEN AND WOMEN OUT OF IRAQ and back home alive.
I'm from the U.S.
大象传媒 got my attention when Hurricane Katrina hit.
The news from here was better then many of our TV news programs.
The candidate who got my attention about a year before the debates started was mentioned on a financial show. I checked out his web site and issues there and loved it.
His message is a great one.
Ron Paul will win.
I think many Americans need to take a look at the core issues. Our Economy is in control by the Federal Reserve, which loans the US Government money at interest. There are no laws that control the Federal Reserve. The tax cuts that Bush made in the early 2000's didn't really do anything for middle america. They just saved the richer 10% of america millions of dollars. Our country is on the verge of becoming a fascist country and has been since the 1950's. We spend billions and billions of US dollars that are not backed by anything on the Iraq war. You can have your opinions and your reasons for believing what you do. But one day you will have to wake up to this mess we are in. Weather it be in a few years or a few decades. I hate to say this but there will be another "9/11". Bush will declare Marshall Law and take almost dictoral power. You may call me a "conspiracy theorist" but if it actually does happen will you believe me? Will it take another 9-11 for you to wake up? I can only hope that another 3,000 innocent American's deaths will wake you up for once and for all.
Be proud to be an American! Be Patriotic! and yes YOUR country CAN DO WRONG! Stand up!
Politicians don't change countries. People do! Don't wait for a leader! WAKE UP!
We need a president that will stand up to big corporation and the neo-cons. We need a president that will do what he is suppose to do... Work for the American people and defend our liberties! We need a president that will clean house and get the government moving back in the right direction. We need a president that will be open and honest of what is REALLY going on in the government.
WE NEED RON PAUL!
I want a government that we all can be proud of again. One that will regain the respect that we use to have from other countries. One that does not want to police the rest of the world. One that actually cares for it's own people and problems that we are facing HERE.
If you are as fed up as I am about how this country is being ran... Ron Paul is the only choice.
I'm a British ex-pat. Absolutely no interest in politics whatsoever until I heard Ron Paul's message of freedom and liberty. Not only that but he seems to be the ONLY candidate with a long voting record to back up his claims. He ONLY accepts donations from individuals and not from coporate lobbyists. He won't do anyone any political favours which is why the media ignore him. He raised $4.3M in ONE day in November then later raised over $6M in one day in December - beating his own (and everyone else's) record.
If you haven't figured out how corrupt the media and political processes are yet, you need to take the red pill and WAKE UP!
There is evidence everywhere that Ron Paul's message is being ignored by the media, and he is ridiculed for his opinions because the supporters of the Bush administration have had the wool pulled over their eyes for so long, and they are fed propaganda and fear every day through the mainstream media.
The revolution will not be televised!
Astonishing that you have missed THE major story in this election.
---Ron Paul---
Research this man and present him to your readers.
He is the most researched candidate on the internet by far...yet you have failed to mention him.
He has broke all records for fund-raising from private US citizens...yet you have failed to mention him.
He has nearly 2000 spontaneously formed meet-up groups with over 80,000 members across the US...yet you have failed to mention him.
And I am paying a license fee to your organisation?
I think I may stop that next year.
Your news coverage has become nothing more than 'pandering' and is no different from ad-funded networks.
Ok people, get a clue: American National Democracy was rendered null and void in December 2000 by the Supreme Court and top-ranking Republicans. And it was a selection in 2004 too. So why would things be any different next November?
But I will still vote, just because of what used to be, not what is.
I find it funny that the the ppl who talk of the Cult of Ron Paul or use the term PaulTard are never able to tell us exactly what they disagree with when it comes to ron paul.
Reality; Ron Pauls voting record clearly reflect his stated views. If you are a fan of the consitituion then you must vote for ron paul.
I am a 50 year woman from Maine, USA. I have always been registered as an independant. I have always voted for the "lesser of 2 evils" in our elections. FINALLY I am excited and 100% behind Ron Paul. I think he can restore the world's respect for the USA. We need to stop policing the world and inflicting our policies on everyone else. Ron Paul is not only a brilliant constitutionalist but he lives by the GOLDEN RULE. He will bring integrity, credibility annd KINDNESS back to the USA. (If of course our polls are not corrupt like they were when Bush was elected!)
Justin Webb wrote: "smart pollster John Zogby, who kept off the personalities (at least on the record) but talked instead about the polling data that suggests a rare restiveness among the American people...."
Zogby is paid to get results, and he gets them, no matter whose side asks for it, which makes them inherently biased in favor of what their clients want. Their other polls - 2004 and 2006 elections - have been pretty wide of the mark, 2004 spectacularly so. Sorry, but IMO you couldn't pick a worse poller to get information from.
PS Bruce Landwasrer: Ron Paul's "fence around America" plan, reversion to gold standard for American currency, wanting to end affirmative action and generally being anti-federalist (a debate we in America ended a couple hundred years ago, by the way), in of themselves make him a pretty unsuitable candidate for office. Thanks for asking.
I am a United States Marine stationed overseas and I feel obligated as a military member, and as an American foremost to broadcast with all of the air in my lungs that RON PAUL is the man to restore America. This is no easy task, and naturally it will take time. PLEASE EDUCATE YOURSELVES my friends. Reading these comments I am delighted by many and disappointed, as well. RON PAUL!
If anyone did their homework you would see that whether its Hillary or Guilliani or Obama Or Romney they are all controlled by the Illuminati power machine. Clinton and Bush are the same. Bill was groomed to replace Bush Sr. As if there is a difference between them. They are puppets on a string that are controlled by the Federal Reserve among other conglomerates. Manipulation runs rampant among our leaders. Ask yourself how many campaigns have run on "change" in the last 50 years. All of them! has anything changed? NO! we are still headed for the Global government that most of us are in denial about. Ron Paul isnt afraid to speak the truth, its just that America has a pipe dream that we can contol the world. God will save us all from this ridiculousness in the end. I pray for our souls to realize what is really important in life. Loving one another because we are all one.
Dear Ron Paul Supporters: The NH primaries also mark the return of most of you to your college dorms and apartments, paid for with those monthly checks from Mommy & Daddy. Please go peacefully and leave politics to working adults that actually pay for this mess. Ron Paul LOL. Nixon v. McGovern mean anything to any of you?
All you have to know about American politics is that there is only ONE party. The property party; of which there are two wings
Ron Paul is the only candidate who grasps the economic problems facing the US and the falling dollar.
Paul has also promised to restore the rule of law. Under Paul, the torture of people in black CIA sites will stop.Paul is serious about withdrawing US troops from Iraq. He knows that the war was a mistake and believes that the American occupation must end.
Unfortunatly, He鈥檚 got a bull鈥檚-eye on his back. Despite the fact that Paul has a strong personal approval ratings and polls well against his competitors; the media has deliberately---and very successfully---kept him out of the public eye. if he garners in more popularity, the media will ditch its failed strategy of simply ignoring Paul and take the more aggressive approach of attacking him outright
I think people think there's 'ron paul spammers' because there are a LOT of people who want ron paul to win...
the 大象传媒 seems to be completely covering all mention of ron paul in the UK.
I am a living human being ( not a spambot) who waved a "Ron Paul for President" sign for a few hours today, along with 20 very normal people in a small town in Tennessee. Smiled and waved at everyone, and most returned the gestures including the police. They had no problem with us. It was a beautiful day, doesn't often reach 65F here in January without rain or brisk wind, but today was the weather was perfect.
A little girl asked me out the window "why are you holding that sign?" I told her it was because I love America and want people to vote.
Later I was having lunch at the cafe and an eldery couple came up to me and asked me if I was a campaigner. (I had on the shirt and was reading some material.) They sit and talked with me for a few minutes. Told me their daughter lives in Texas and had told them about Ron Paul. I explained to them that I believe in Dr. Paul because I think the Constitution was Divinely Inspired to Christian men as a guide for our new country, and that it is wrong to disregard it. Now I am no Bible thumper, but that is how I feel about it.
I know not all those people who waved are going to vote for Ron Paul, but I bet we got a few people to look into it. Listening to Ron Paul is an education in economics, monetary policy, how government operates and more that should be taught in high school.
What I don't get is four years ago the media criticized us for voter apathy. Now we have Dr. Paul, and no matter what you say about him; he does cure apathy for a lot of people.
Ron Paul is the new Goldwater and if we the educated voters of America are unable to put him into office we will see his ideas and opinions put to use probably sooner than later and a lot of people will be a lot worse off in the meantime.
I would love to understand why there is such a blackout about him. Surely by now even the lesser parts of the MSM and respectable foreign news agencies such as the 大象传媒 as well should be acquainted with him. And yet lesser candidates still get more headlines. I just don't understand...
Ron Paul is the dark horse and may come up the rails in this race.
He has momentum in this race.
Hillary will be the next president though I've mortgaged my house on it.
Women will not pass up the chance to get a "sister" in there and good for them. It is about time a representative of half the planet had a say in it's running.
Hello all,
So happy to see so much Ron Paul here on the comments section...shame that there aren't too many official 大象传媒 stories about it. Come on 大象传媒, report on Ron Paul!
I truly believe that Dr. Paul is the only candidate that has the expertise and experience to implement significant, lasting change here in America; change that we so desperately need. And though I feel that some of the other candidates, though not all, may want to implement change, they face a conflict of interest because of certain trans-national groups that many belong to, as well as significant evidence that questions their integrity, respectively (irony?).
America was founded on the Constitution, whether you think it is divinely inspired or not. Why wouldn't one support the only candidate that seems to be REMOTELY FAMILIAR with the document?
Dr. Paul challenges the oppressive institutions in this country that control our money supply, as well as those that have turned warfare into America's foreign-policy (and perhaps, sooner than later, our domestic policy, if you're keeping up with all this "homegrown" terrorism propaganda). Go research how intertwined the three big media conglomerates are with arms-manufacturers and the like. Go research how economy is simply not going to last if we continue in this direction. Go research the Project for the New American Century and their proposed "Pax Americana". Go research the SPP and the moves toward a "North American Community" as proposed by the CFR. Oh, don't believe in this North American Union "conspiracy"? Here, go buy the plan on Amazon:
Seriously, the only candidate that makes any true sense, in all honesty, is Dr. Paul. I'm just worried that he makes so much sense that most of America just isn't going to understand...I truly hope I'm wrong.
Interestingly enough if a man follows the constitution and the ideal of limited government then no one in the main stream media wants to talk about him unless they really have too.
I hope Ron Paul wins
I think Bill Richardson is dead in the water as far the presidential campaign goes. The same can be said for the unmentioned Ron Paul,too!
No repies here justin
Look up the Ron Paul rLOVEution
and remember the revolution will not be televised! but this time it will be Digitised becuase the internet is not as controlled as the media!
If Ron Paul had received the same coverage as other Presidential hopefuls by the MSM he would have been doing so much better. As it is he came 2nd in Nevada for the Republicans which just goes to show how the MSM are losing control of the influence they have enjoyed over the voting American public. Thank goodness for the Internet!
In with truth and honest politicians.
Out with lies and crooked politicians.
I sure hope that Hilary doesnt win the eleciton.Honestly if you think about it, what does it say about the government if 2 families have presidency in the United States for more than 2 decades? There is no coincidence there? There is no unseen agenda behind it? Especially after seeing what happened in New Hampshire Compared to what Iowa had to say.
I'm not a Ron Paul SPAMMER as some of you would like to assume, but Ron Paul will deffinitly have my vote. He is the only republican that hasn't flip-flopped his position on any of his stances. He is on his 10th term in congress with the only track record to back up what he is saying.
It's funny because what most people dont know that most of the supposed front runners of this GOP race is that they are on the CFR (Council of Foreign Relations). If you dont know who they are then, it's time to start doing some research
1. At 07:06 PM on 07 Nov 2007, Jeremy wrote:
Why no mention of Ron Paul?
Jeremy...do you now get it? His fund raising fluke wasn't mentioned because he's not (and wasn't) relevant.
Just so u folks know, Clinton is not the first female to run for presidency, Shirley Chisholm in 1972 was the first and she was black so why dont nobody mention that. PPL needs to get a little aquainted with their history