|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on Feb 14, 2007 18:07:45 GMT -5
"According to Democratic sources, former President Clinton got Spielberg to step away from a tacit endorsement of Obama. Spielberg has let it be known that he will host a future fundraiser for Clinton as part of a policy of helping all Democratic presidential candidates. But Katzenberg and Geffen seem to be clearly in Obama's camp."
Again.......Don't count out the influence that Bill Clinton has despite everyone's grumblings. I personally don't want Hillary to get the nomination, but I think the closer we get to 2008, there's going to be some serious defections from the Obama camp.
|
|
|
|
Post by loudaab on Feb 14, 2007 18:08:09 GMT -5
Skor, what do you base this 'guess' on?
Sure everyone loves Bill--especially Dems, but california is known for being more liberal than most states--I think Hillarys ambiguity about her reasons for approving Bush's war for oil doesnt sit well with far lefties. Maybe thats why the Hollywood elite are siding with Barack
As for Illinois, its Barack's home state, he won the '04 Senate race in a landslide, he's very popular, has the backing of Dick Durbin, Blagovich, Daly and most Democratic bigwigs in the state.
So like I said, if Barack can win Californina and Illinois in those early primaries, this will be very interesting. Hillary is leading big time in Iowa and New Hampshire though--two other early contests (although they are smaller states)...
|
|
|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on Feb 14, 2007 18:09:23 GMT -5
Ban
|
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Feb 14, 2007 18:09:34 GMT -5
What's a link?
|
|
|
|
Post by loudaab on Feb 14, 2007 18:11:31 GMT -5
Why? Becasue you are afraid to talk politcs with me? DOnt be a wuss. If you are going to make a claim, I'm going to want to know why--You need to back up what you say otherwise it looks like uninformed knee-jerk reactionarism... |
|
|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on Feb 14, 2007 18:13:38 GMT -5
I am afraid to talk politics with the people of this board. I am a wuss. I can't back up any claim that I make because I'm too busy trying to ism everyone. I need to talk more about my made up life experiences so that I can look cooler to a bunch of posters on a board that I wasn't invited to. Ban |
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Feb 14, 2007 18:31:55 GMT -5
Edward, please answer my question.
|
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Feb 14, 2007 18:42:59 GMT -5
"According to Democratic sources, former President Clinton got Spielberg to step away from a tacit endorsement of Obama. Spielberg has let it be known that he will host a future fundraiser for Clinton as part of a policy of helping all Democratic presidential candidates. But Katzenberg and Geffen seem to be clearly in Obama's camp." Again.......Don't count out the influence that Bill Clinton has despite everyone's grumblings. I personally don't want Hillary to get the nomination, but I think the closer we get to 2008, there's going to be some serious defections from the Obama camp. I think Hillary gets a lot of press and polls well until the first primary, where she pulls a Howard Dean and gets creamed. Democratic voters are smarter than picking someone with zero shot at winning. And she has no shot. |
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Feb 14, 2007 18:44:40 GMT -5
If someone ran on a promise to throw Dubya and Darth Cheney in jail, I'd vote for him regardless.
|
|
|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on Feb 14, 2007 18:45:38 GMT -5
One can only hope that she melts down, but I still liked Howard Dean WAY WAY WAY more than Kerry. I'm still baffled why Dean being passionate was a reason to go with Kerry....
However, if Clinton does melt down and Obama get's the nomination due to that, that will be pleasing to me because in that case the better candidate is going to get the spoils.
I'm still wondering if Edwards is the Dark Horse for the nomination in 08.
|
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Feb 14, 2007 18:45:53 GMT -5
I think Hillary gets a lot of press and polls well until the first primary, where she pulls a Howard Dean and gets creamed. Democratic voters are smarter than picking someone with zero shot at winning. And she has no shot. Are Democratic voters smarter than to pick someone with zero shot of winning? I mean, check out the candidate in '04 (yeah, he still should have beaten Bush, but he was a crummy candidate). I agree with you that Hillary is far from guaranteed the nomination, but I think you're giving Democratic primary voters too much credit. |
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Feb 14, 2007 18:47:25 GMT -5
Interesting comments on the Democratic candidates from everyone... but let's round this out and discuss the frontrunner Republicans too, shall we? Sounds like that's shaping up to be a three-way contest between McCain, Giuliani, and Romney. So - who do people think will get the nomination? If a Republican DOES win the presidency, which of these three would you prefer? Which do you think has the best shot in the general election?
Some of my own thoughts - Romney is clearly trying to run as the "true" conservative, although the crazy far-righties are suspicious of him because once upon a time he supported abortion rights and gave some vague commitment to some undefined "gay rights" as well. But now he's hardline across the board, pro-life and even anti-stem cell research. Falls in line with Administration views on the war on terror, Iraq, security, Israel & Palestine, etc etc. Not sure of his views on immigration, and while his economic views are conservative, I'm not sure how hard-right they are. This guy obviously has appeal for the base, but that same appeal probably means he won't be able to pull many swing voters or moderate Democrats his way. And even the (crazy) base is suspicious of him so I think he's in trouble.
Meanwhile, McCain and Giuliani are interesting. The hard-righties HATE them. Really, hate hate hate them. The Christian right thinks Giuliani is completely anathema because he's pro-choice and pro-gay rights. Conservatives across the board hate him because he's pro-gun control and supports creating some path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. He's reliably conservative on terror, Iraq, security, and domestic crime (excepting his support for gun control). He is potentially extremely attractive to many Americans for 2 main reasons: he was perceived as a great leader in the wake of 9/11, and he is also perceived as having "cleaned up" New York City, turned around a dying, crime-ridden city and created a true metropolis. Whatever you make of these claims, they are clearly the perception of many Americans which makes him potentially very popular in a general election if he can triumph in the primaries against an alienated base. In many ways I think he would be the scariest opponent for a Democrat cause I think he'd pull more of the folks who would consider voting Democrat than either McCain or Romney - though I suppose it's possible he could get hurt in the general election if the base dislikes him SO much that they stay home or cast a protest vote instead. McCain also has a certain amount of moderate appeal because he's seen as a maverick who was repeatedly willing to stand up to Bush and his own party, which made a lot of Dems like him. He also crossed party lines on a few issues to sponsor campaign finance reform legislation (although many true advocates of campaign finance reform viewed his bill as completely inadequate) and he's pretty outspoken about global warming being a real crisis. However his unwavering support for "the surge" in recent weeks may have squandered his popularity with these "moderate" voters and hurt his reputation as a maverick, and unlike Giuliani, his social record is really very conservative and really ought to appeal to the religious right if they weren't so fucking crazy. My sense is therefore that, even though he might for insider reasons be the frontrunner and the most likely nominee, he might be the WORST candidate to run because the base resents him and calls him a RINO (Republican In Name Only) but the moderates and swing voters are pissed at him for supporting the surge and becoming increasingly alienated by his recent pandering to the far right.
I really wouldn't want to see any of these guys as president but for obvious reasons based on what I've just written Giuliani seems the best of the lot. At least a Giuliani presidency would be a big FUCK OFF to the religious right and those guys would have their ties to the White House severed pretty fuckin hard.
Thoughts?
Cheers,
M
|
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Feb 14, 2007 18:53:20 GMT -5
On other hand, regarding Rudy, there is this:  That's the sort of the thing that could cause the nutty Christian rightists to pull out the big guns and STOP THAT FREAK IN DRAG!!! |
|
|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on Feb 14, 2007 18:54:34 GMT -5
I hate every single one of them but the one I think I could sort of stomach is McCain. I absolutely HATE Giuliani and Romney.
|
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Feb 14, 2007 18:55:34 GMT -5
I think Guiliani's opponents will be able to beat him simply by using this picture in all their ads:  I'm serious. I think that seeing that picture enough would be enough to turn a lot of Republican voters off of him. He's also bound to come under criticism from social conservatives for the way that his last marriage ended. |
|
