Who Should Get the Dem Nom?

Who should get the nom? Well, I agree with a lot more political viewpoints held by Richardson and Edwards than any of the other candidates, and I admire that they both campaign rather than congregate at pseudo-celebrity rock-rallies, relying less on fame and money and more on political know-how. For those that are so down on John Edwards just for having "lost" in 2004, I think you're probably placing that blame on the wrong guy (or state, if you're a conspiracy theorist). Kerry lost the White House, Edwards was just along for the ride.

Neither Richardson nor Edwards really have a shot, because they rely less on fame and money and more on political know-how.

So, of the big two who even legitimately have a chance, I think I'd like to see Obama take the nom, just because I think he can and will do more for this country than Hills would. But I honestly think either of them have the potential to be a great President, so long as their terms aren't completely muddled with cleaning Bush's shitty diapers. We need a President that is going to pay attention to the people here, in this country -- not on the other side of the globe.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

People like Edwards, they didn't like Kerry (and I don't really blame them). I think Edwards is the reason Kerry even mustered 50% of the vote. Imagine if Kerry had picked some joe-schmoe boring Dem activist that nobody cared about? Bush may have actually legitimately re-won the White House. Scary.

I don't think Obama or Clinton would pick him up for a VP though. I'd say either is more likely to pick up the other after Iowa/New Hampshire. Obama/Clinton 2008! Make every racist, sexist, crotchety conservative die of a coronary.

Most amazing jew boots

Obama/Edwards 2008. Mark it.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Generic Badass

Gingrich just came out yesterday or the day before saying that the ticket'll be Clinton/Obama.

IF Hillary can take Iowa. And, really... there's a lot of women-haters here. So... I don't know if she can get the nod or not.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

The media in Iowa gushes about Obama most of the time. There's a fair share of Hillary garbage too, but she doesn't visit here nearly as much as Obama or even John Edwards. She does send out nifty little CD-ROMs with rehashes of her website on them though. That's good campaigning, I tell yas.

I think most of the hillbillies in Iowa (that beat their wives) use them as coasters or clay pigeons.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

If Democrats want Republican crossover they really should nominate Richardson. Obama has some appeal, but believe me that Edwards is far too populist to appeal to many sectors of the GOP, with the exception of the already confused and fragmented Religious Right.

It would seem, considering the trends, that the Dems aren't even going to need a considerable amount of Republican crossover. The fact that Obama, Edwards and Clinton aren't from any state where gay marriage is (or was) legal is probably enough just to get him that extra ~5% of the vote it would have taken to elect Kerry over Bush. Appeasing at least a few of the otherwise fag-haters will win this election for the dems.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?