Who Should Get the Dem Nom?
 

Of the field of current candidates which one should get the nomination for candidacy? I personally think it should be Gov. Richardson, though I could also see myself voting for Obama in the Presidential election.

Richardson seems to be the only one to understand how free markets work and would probably do right by immigration, but I like Obama as a statesman and think that at the least he could help change American social culture for the better.

Just curious, (Not aiming this at the candidate you chose, because I honestly don't know who he is. ) but when you say he "understands how free markets work and would probably do right by immigration" do you mean that he'll completely open up the borders? I ask, because in my economics class, I did research on immigration policy. What's technically best economically is just to open the borders and reach an equilibrium, at least in terms of labor.

Ron Paul, obviously.

Given what Richardson has said on the issue, and what he's done as Governor of New Mexico, I'd say that's highly unlikely. Wanting to throw open the border is political suidice in both parties.

As my vote in the poll says, I think Richardson should get the nomination. Of the people running for the nomination, he has perhaps the best credentials (having served as congressman, U.N. Ambassador, cabinet secretary, and governor). As a governor, he's been fiscally conservative and has continued to serve as a diplomat. Out of all of them, Richardson is probably the best equipped to actually be President.

But I'm a Republican, so it's not like what I say matters here.

I think Obama and Hilary would both do a great job of "looking good" as president; unfortunately their policies would do the country more harm than good. I feel Richardson could do an "ok" job of "looking presidential" (he seems like a good guy but just doesn't have the strongest charisma of the lot) while his policies could do the country some good.

However, as a republican Newt is my guy and he would do the opposite: he would do a bad job of "looking good" (at least because the media would constantly portray him in a bad light regardless) while on the other hand his policies would do the country more good than harm. (For those liberals who haven't heard him lately, he has been a vocal critic of the Bush war policies long before it was "cool" to do so...)

I wonder which part of this thread asked your opinion on Republican nominees?

You can start your own thread, but Ron Paul is just going to win anyways. :rolleyes:

Hillary really isn't as scary and horrible as everyone seems to think she is. When one looks at her actual record and views, it's not too bad if you can excuse her habit of trying to appeal to every demographic at once (but then again, what politician* doesn't do that).

*: i.e. politician with any chance in hell of getting ahead

I like Obama as well, although I often have trouble figuring out what the difference between electing him and elect Hillary is. There's enough latent sexism and racism in this nation still to give either one of them problems.

Edwards: He's got a nice face, but he already had (and blew) his chance 4 years ago. No thanks.

Gravel's got a few fantastic ideals and a few absolute nutso ones, but he'd be bearable.

My choice? Give me Gore. I want an intellectual back in the white house.

Give me Night Phoenix. I want an intellectual back in the forums.

banned so fast

Pffft! HAHAHAHAHA!!! Gore, an intellectual... good one.

Hillary not scary? Maybe if you're a commie.

I'm really hoping that Hillary and/or Barack Hussein Obama get the nod cause there's no way in hell either of them will win.

You guys remember when Obama was on that Disney Channel show, Smart Guy?
http://www.sitcomsonline.com/photopo...rtmowry02b.jpg

Even though both of them come out quite well compared to all the Republican Front-runners in comparison polls? Even given that polls are never 100% accurate that would hardly support the claim that there's "no way in hell either of them will win".

If you're a socialist, then of course Hillary's views don't look too bad. It's a shame to think that we spent trillions fighting the Cold War against the Soviets to stop the spread of communism only to implement it now by electing Democrats into office.

Yeah, your polls don't support my claim. But it doesn't mean they hold water. It's June of 07... Nov 08 is a long ways off as many voters don't get interested in the candidates until Sept or Oct before the election.

hurr but the socialism

What about her involvement in Whitewater and her history as a corporate lawyer?

I think Hillary Clinton has the best chances. Sure, she's a woman, which is quite the worst thing right after being black-skinned and being jewish if you want to run for president, but she's the wife of a more or less succesful and popular US president and she's tough.

edit: uhh okay so I am the first one who's cheering for her. You fucking chauvinists.

Apparently actual Americans who have actually had to pay attention to her don't really want her to be President.

Her oh so scandalous 'involvement' that never even resulted in criminal charges much less a conviction?

This poll is missing Al Gore.
He would win (again) and be a fine President.

Charges or no, the conduct of the Clintons throughout the entire investigation remains highly suspect. On the one hand you had the first investigator, Robert Fiske being appointed by Janet Reno, which created a conflict of interest. You then had Hillary claiming she was unable to produce her billing records, which surfaced two years later in her book room in the White House. Throughout the entire process White House lawyers stonewalled the investigation and drew it out for years, and then in the final days of his presidency, Bill pardoned four people who were convicted over the course of the investigation.

I'm not going to front any conspiracy theories here, but at the very least the actions of the Clintons suggest that they used their power in order to protect their friends and business associates.

It also doesn't help that the original Whitewater dealings occurred in 1979, which was a year after Hillary made a 10,000% gain on her investment in cattle futures. That was an issue where Refco invested $1,000 of Clinton's money in $12,000 worth of Cattle Futures contracts, which violated margin trading rules.

The fact remains that Hillary Rodham Clinton is more Rich White Man than any of her actual rich white opponents, and that another Clinton administration would involve a massive amount of corporate largess and probably another round of suspicious pardonings.

The Clinton Administration has been one of the more shadiest of recent history, and Hillary's use of the term "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" in many ways channels Richard Nixon, a kind of paranoia that would no doubt involve her expanding the power of the executive to spy domestically as her husband did.

She's also more interventionist than Bill was, and was supposedly instrumental in convincing him to intervene in the Balkans. She hasn't learned the lesson that Iraq was a mistake to begin with, and gives the impression that she thinks the war would have been justified if only we could win it. To her credit, Obama has made similar overtures not to seem so "Doveish," but then Obama doesn't have a history of interventionism and originally opposed giving the administration the authority to go to war.

Gore has already stated that he isn't considering running for President, but that could just be another way to generate buzz. I think that he's trying to use the buzz to sell books and increase demand for his speeches, but we'll have to see. Also I think a Gore ticket would make for an ass presidency. ;)

......what? Have you paid attention to ANYTHING the current Administration has done? And I'd say Iran-Contra tops anything the Clintons ever did for shadiness.

That would put Clinton's term at #3 of the last 4 administrations. Hardly "one of the more shadiest" (to use your term).

It also depends on how you define recent history. I was thinking back as far as the Eisenhower Administration, since that's usually as far as they ever get in High School classes.

and...perjury. He sounds a lot like Pinnochio from Shrek 3.

Perjury about an affair that he should never have had to testify about in the first place since it was none of Congress' business. Let's be honest here: What man WOULDN'T try to lie to avoid telling about an affair?

Yeah, let's be honest here...

Are you saying that guys that cheat on their wives and lie about it (in a court of law) aren't shady?