Because clearly Al Gore needed to be in this race, because he should be our standard bearer.
rajsays
…who you might want to be the candidate, but who you believe will be the candidate. Other than Richrdson, I don’t particularly care for any of them (Richardson is optimal, but not optimum, and there is a difference), but it is probable that sHillary will be the candidate.
You might want to note that my comment, above, to which Mr. Adams was responding, was specifically not about this poll, but about the hypothetical companion poll I was suggesting to the Editors.
“Of the current candidates, who do you think would be the best President and/or most likely to beat whoever you expect to be the Republican nominee?” rather than either “Who’s your ideal candidate, running or not, living or dead?” or the actual poll question.
<
p>I’d love to see Al Gore in the race, but it’s been pretty obvious all along, despite our best wishful thinking, that he wasn’t going to do it. I think that, barring surprises, Clinton’s most likely to win the nomination, but I think Edwards would both be the best President (though perhaps tied with Richardson) and have among the best chances of beating any Republican nominee.
Should have Howard Dean as well, or it just ain’t a real fantasy poll. Now excuse me while I put on the May 2003 Sacramento speech and cry softly in the dark about what might have been.
Think Obama has what it takes in him to defeat Hillary, even with his momentum now. It could happen, but if it does I think it’s going to have to do more with luck than his skills as a campaigner.
laurelsays
is that obama rates highest on this poll, but clinton wins the presidency in the “main” poll. this tell me that more people on this board like obama than believe in his ability to get the job done. or is there another explanation anyone?
Less than five years ago, he was a state legislator who couldn’t win a seat for the US Congress. While Hillary isn’t a bad campaigner, if she had a little more vision and rhetorical skill, Obama wouldn’t even be in this campaign right now. Instead, she employed the typical DC insider consultant strategy of mainly ignoring the competition when they’re 20 points behind instead of remembering that things can quickly change in the primary. I’d have attacked Obama’s lack of experience from the get go, early and often, and used it as the perfect contrast to Hillary’s aura of experience (even though she’s barely been in the US Senate for more than a single term, she still has that aura).
lodgersays
Had she gone after Obama’s lack of experience she might have been questioned about her own, or lack of it. This is what I find, perhaps there’s more.
<
p> U.S. Senate, 2001-present
First Lady of the U.S., 1993-2001
Rose Law Firm, 1977-1992
Lecturer in Law, Univ. of Arkansas at Little Rock, 1979-80
Asst Professor of Law, director of legal aid clinic, University of Arkansas – Fayetteville, 1974-77
Impeachment Inquiry Staff, House Judiciary Committee, 1974
Staffer, Children’s Defense Fund, 1973-74
<
p>Executive experience? Economic experience? How much of that resume is really fringe benefits from her husband’s career?
laurelsays
a fringe benefit of her husband’s career? you don’t have to stretch it even that far to make taffy. you also insult the voters of NY, who voted her into office TWICE. even if you can attribute their first collective naive act in 2000 to “fringe benefits” (which is an even bigger stretch, since she had to overcome the carpetbagger stigma), how do you attribute the 2nd?
<
p>if you don’t like clinton, that’s fine. but find realistic reasons please.
lolorbsays
because he deserves some respect based upon what he did for this country. Not a single candidate can profess to have stood up to Congress and the Supreme Court the way that he did. He should not be the butt of jokes, but that’s what it’s come down to in this country. Heroes and leaders are jokes and one must go along with the crowd with only slight deviation to “conventional” wisdom to be elected. The playbook is written and no edits are acceptable. Yawn.
eury13says
what wiseacre picked Gravel?
lolorbsays
Sheesh.
laurelsays
your wisdom stretches far and wide. how many people have enough of the stuff to cover an area 43,560 ft sq?
nomad943says
I hear the whispering, dont you 🙂
rajsays
…He seems to be a nice guy, but he’s a bit old to be running for president. He was in Congress in the early 1970s, and he was instrumental in insulating the NYTimes from repercussions for publishing the Pentagon Papers.
Not that I was going to vote for him, but you forgot Chris Dodd.
…
<
p>Ouch.
Sorry, Dodd fans. I actually like him a lot, too. Just a sloppy error. My bad. Sorry, sportsfans.
…the companion poll, “Who should be the Democratic nominee”, and likewise for the Republican poll.
Because clearly Al Gore needed to be in this race, because he should be our standard bearer.
…who you might want to be the candidate, but who you believe will be the candidate. Other than Richrdson, I don’t particularly care for any of them (Richardson is optimal, but not optimum, and there is a difference), but it is probable that sHillary will be the candidate.
You might want to note that my comment, above, to which Mr. Adams was responding, was specifically not about this poll, but about the hypothetical companion poll I was suggesting to the Editors.
“Of the current candidates, who do you think would be the best President and/or most likely to beat whoever you expect to be the Republican nominee?” rather than either “Who’s your ideal candidate, running or not, living or dead?” or the actual poll question.
<
p>I’d love to see Al Gore in the race, but it’s been pretty obvious all along, despite our best wishful thinking, that he wasn’t going to do it. I think that, barring surprises, Clinton’s most likely to win the nomination, but I think Edwards would both be the best President (though perhaps tied with Richardson) and have among the best chances of beating any Republican nominee.
Should have Howard Dean as well, or it just ain’t a real fantasy poll. Now excuse me while I put on the May 2003 Sacramento speech and cry softly in the dark about what might have been.
<
p>~~~~~
What I don’t say here, I say here.
Think Obama has what it takes in him to defeat Hillary, even with his momentum now. It could happen, but if it does I think it’s going to have to do more with luck than his skills as a campaigner.
is that obama rates highest on this poll, but clinton wins the presidency in the “main” poll. this tell me that more people on this board like obama than believe in his ability to get the job done. or is there another explanation anyone?
Less than five years ago, he was a state legislator who couldn’t win a seat for the US Congress. While Hillary isn’t a bad campaigner, if she had a little more vision and rhetorical skill, Obama wouldn’t even be in this campaign right now. Instead, she employed the typical DC insider consultant strategy of mainly ignoring the competition when they’re 20 points behind instead of remembering that things can quickly change in the primary. I’d have attacked Obama’s lack of experience from the get go, early and often, and used it as the perfect contrast to Hillary’s aura of experience (even though she’s barely been in the US Senate for more than a single term, she still has that aura).
Had she gone after Obama’s lack of experience she might have been questioned about her own, or lack of it. This is what I find, perhaps there’s more.
<
p> U.S. Senate, 2001-present
First Lady of the U.S., 1993-2001
Rose Law Firm, 1977-1992
Lecturer in Law, Univ. of Arkansas at Little Rock, 1979-80
Asst Professor of Law, director of legal aid clinic, University of Arkansas – Fayetteville, 1974-77
Impeachment Inquiry Staff, House Judiciary Committee, 1974
Staffer, Children’s Defense Fund, 1973-74
<
p>Executive experience? Economic experience? How much of that resume is really fringe benefits from her husband’s career?
a fringe benefit of her husband’s career? you don’t have to stretch it even that far to make taffy. you also insult the voters of NY, who voted her into office TWICE. even if you can attribute their first collective naive act in 2000 to “fringe benefits” (which is an even bigger stretch, since she had to overcome the carpetbagger stigma), how do you attribute the 2nd?
<
p>if you don’t like clinton, that’s fine. but find realistic reasons please.
because he deserves some respect based upon what he did for this country. Not a single candidate can profess to have stood up to Congress and the Supreme Court the way that he did. He should not be the butt of jokes, but that’s what it’s come down to in this country. Heroes and leaders are jokes and one must go along with the crowd with only slight deviation to “conventional” wisdom to be elected. The playbook is written and no edits are acceptable. Yawn.
what wiseacre picked Gravel?
Sheesh.
your wisdom stretches far and wide. how many people have enough of the stuff to cover an area 43,560 ft sq?
I hear the whispering, dont you 🙂
…He seems to be a nice guy, but he’s a bit old to be running for president. He was in Congress in the early 1970s, and he was instrumental in insulating the NYTimes from repercussions for publishing the Pentagon Papers.