President Edwards

[Jazzooo]

You know, I just watched him on Bill Maher' show. He's not "my guy" or anything, but at the end of the interview I told Glenda "I think this guy is going to be the next president of the U.S." We'll see what happens in the next week or so.

[Jazzooo]

Up, just because if it happens, I want everyone to be in awe of my ability to forecast the future.

[Tanager]

Originally posted by Jazzooo
Up, just because if it happens, I want everyone to be in awe of my ability to forecast the future.

I was always in awe of you anyway.

[Jazzzoline]

Awwwwwwwww

[MRS]

I shook his hand this morning.

[Dr Dave]

No. He might be Kerry's VP, "balancing the ticket" and all that shit. Let's wait and see how Al Sharpton does in South Carolina. He's as phony as a three-dollar bill, but he's the right color and etc.

[frankiepop]

i listen to campaign excerpts that edwards makes and i think to myself

this is the democrat's own dan quayle...

Thats funny, Frankie.

Even I'm willing to give Edwards more credit than that!

[Jazzooo]

THat's kind of what I'd always thought about him. But on that night, there was sharp intelligence under the pretty-boy looks. Anyway, like I said he's not my guy at this point, but I think he might go all the way. It feels a little less likely today, what with Kerry getting the Union vote.

[Jason Bivins]

One of my colleagues told me that the Republicans are referring to Edwards as "The Breck Girl." I don't care who you vote for, that's funny.

[willy]

The Breck Girl doesn't have a chance against Bush. Neither does Lurch.


Four more years baby!!!!

[crawjo]

Originally posted by willy
The Breck Girl doesn't have a chance against Bush. Neither does Lurch.


Four more years baby!!!!

I don't know, Willy. I suspect you are right but Bush has been making a lot of mistakes recently. He is going to need job creation and better management of the Iraq situation in 2004 if he wants to handily win re-election. He's pissed off his base with a lot of his decisions, and the Democrats seem energized and determined to beat him. I'm not sure if they are picking the right man in Kerry, but they are organized. If the unemployment rates don't drop, and if the Iraq situation is still a mess, I think the Democrats have a definite opening to win in November, no matter who the nominee. But a Kerry-Edwards ticket could be very persuasive if the news on the domestic and foreign fronts is not very positive. Bush needs to make the war on terrorism the central issue of the campaign. That's where his biggest advantage is with the general electorate.

[Jason Bivins]

Well, I think four more years of Bush would be a disaster on a number of counts - not least with the economy, the environment, and the possible appointment of draconian figures to the courts - but I hardly think it's a given Willy. I agree with Crawjo that this'll be a pretty close election; about 47% are firmly committed to Bush, another 47% firmly against. That remaining 6% of the electorate seems pretty up for grabs right now.

I'm sure Rove and his gang have some smear tactics all lined up for Kerry, Edwards, and everyone else who might step in their path, but that shit could backfire this year. There's an awful lot of resentment and dissatisfaction out there.

[stonemonkts]

There's a photo inside the A section of yesterday's NYT of the Democratic candidates. They're standing on the debating stage. Edwards DOES look like a democratic Quayle. What turned my stomach about his picture was that little fucking semi-thumbs up gesture he gives. Yuck.

I know, this is a very superficial reaction on my part.

Yuck anyway.

[Tanager]

I am not a huge Edwards fan, even hailing from NC, but he is, whether he comes across this way or not, razor-sharp under the covers. He does the folksy good ol' Southern boy thing just fine to be sure, but he's a pretty brilliant trial attorney, and believe me, when he wants it to be, his English is just fine. Having said that, I didn't think much of him as a Senator at all.

[Gordon B]

Kerry will win the nomination, barring a major blunder on his part.

I'm not sure that Edwards is the right choice for a running-mate. I think Kerry should choose a somewhat conservative, regular church going candidate to help blunt the large Bush advantage with regular churchgoers. BTW, that gap is much larger than the gender gap. If Edwards is the running-mate and Bush wins but not overwhelmingly, Edwards will be in position to battle H Clinton in 2008 for the nomination.


I'll make a prediction here: If Osama Bin Laden is captured, dead or alive, before the election and if there are no successful terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, Bush wins, period.

[Monte Smith]

I agree with crawjo that this will be a squeaker no matter who the Dems nominate, but I also agree with Gordon that if we nab Osama, it's all she wrote. The GOP has a lot of advantages in the unknown unknowns. Also, the trial of Saddam and issues like the Massachussetts court stirring the gay marriage pot (when the Dem nominee will probably be Mr. Massachussetts and the convention is in Boston) could be unhappy spectacles for the Dems. I think the economy will see sustained growth but not at a pace that is going to take the issue off the table.Hopefully I am wrong there. Edwards would make a good Veep choice, but for my money there is not a better one than Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico.

[patricia]

Originally posted by Gordon B
Kerry will win the nomination, barring a major blunder on his part.

I'm not sure that Edwards is the right choice for a running-mate. I think Kerry should choose a somewhat conservative, regular church going candidate to help blunt the large Bush advantage with regular churchgoers. BTW, that gap is much larger than the gender gap. If Edwards is the running-mate and Bush wins but not overwhelmingly, Edwards will be in position to battle H Clinton in 2008 for the nomination.


I'll make a prediction here: If Osama Bin Laden is captured, dead or alive, before the election and if there are no successful terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, Bush wins, period.

As an obviously non-voting participant in these speculations, my strong feeling is that Kerry will get the nomination an the running mate position will go to whoever is willing to set aside their own asperations to be President and support Kerry unequivically. The point is to win.
The money being given to Bush is extraordinary, considering that he is the encumbent and, barring Hell and high water has the traditional advantage.

What concerns me is that the high points of Mr Bush's Presidency, so far, has been the choreographed photo-ops and speeches following the obscenity of the Sept 11 attacks.
In order to re-create that kind of solidarity among Americans, I do hope that another crisis, in the form of another devastating attack won't be seen as a sure-fire way to win the support of the electorate.

I disagree with Gordon that NO attack would be an asset. I think, and this scares me, that another attack, Presidentially handled, well-handled, with lots of film, would make Bush unbeatable. The electorate is a visual one and showing nothing happening, even if it's presented as heading off terrorism, would not be a powerful, IMO.

I also think that the capture of Osama bin Laden could be manipulated to coincide with flagging numbers this summer. It wouldn't surprise me if this administration already knows where he is and is just waiting for the opportune time. Saddam Hussein's capture was big news, but faded fairly fast. So, perhaps the capture of bin Laden will have the same effect fading, thus becoming a nothing event, given a few months. So, the capture, if it happens, will happen close to November.

Short attention spans are the bane of the election process. These two possibilities are almost fail-safe campaign boosters.

The Bush Presidency was going nowhere, until Sept 11, constantly used as a mantra, gave it a reason for being. The economy is circling the bowl, despite record profits for some big companies. Education, care of the elderly and the poor etc. and healthcare for the rest are in worse shape than they were.

But, what do I know??

[Pete C]

Originally posted by Gordon B
I think Kerry should choose a somewhat conservative, regular church going candidate

Lieberman?

[stonemonkts]

Originally posted by patricia

I also think that the capture of Osama bin Laden could be manipulated to coincide with flagging numbers this summer. It wouldn't surprise me if this administration already knows where he is and is just waiting for the opportune time.

It sure would surprise me! No offense, but I find that possibility totally preposterous.

I think people tend to demonize governments they dislike to the point of paranoid delusion.

If Bin Laden's whereabouts were known he'd be taken in a New York minute.

[Jason Bivins]

I dunno, Stone. I'm not much for conspiracy theory - for reasons that Gary articulated well on another thread (it assumes a kind of order and efficiency that I think are mostly lacking in large bureaucratic entities, much less the world) - but I don't think too many people would be surprised if Osama's capture were the "October surprise" this year.

[Jazzooo]

How would anyone here explain or interpret the crawl on CNN this morning that a senior military official said "he is sure that Osama will be caught this year"? The use of the word "sure" caught my eye. How can he be sure enough to state that in public?

[Monte Smith]

Originally posted by Jazzooo
How would anyone here explain or interpret the crawl on CNN this morning that a senior military official said "he is sure that Osama will be caught this year"? The use of the word "sure" caught my eye. How can he be sure enough to state that in public?

That line came out on Thursday, I think. I would characterize that as brash self-confidence and wouldn't read any more into it. We'll be "sure" Osama has been caught when kids are kicking his head down Broadway, IMHO. Having said that, the military is planning a Spring offensive against terrorist and Taliban elements in Afghanistan. Karzai has welcomed it, and said he hopes we can roll up al Qaeda once and for all. That would be fantastic.

[Brian Olewnick]

Agreed with Monte that Richardson would be an excellent choice. Kerry strikes me as pretty damn loathsome but, as I've mentioned before (because I prefer to see a potentially gridlock-producing balance between the Pres and the Congress) I'll be voting for him anyway. Seeing Richardson on the ticket, someone who's been quite intelligent and rational the last few times I've seen him interviewed--far more so than any of the Dem candidates, btw--would make me feel that much more at ease. You know, in case Kerry OD's on Botox or something. Especially as I'm in Jersey now which, unlike New York (my prior home) might well be a purple state.

[Monte Smith]

I had a terrible opinion of Bill Richardson when he was head of the Dep't of Energy under Clinton. Too much crap was disappearing from Los Alamos laboratories for no explicable reason for my taste. And Richardson was neither accountable nor did he hold anyone else accountable. And the whole Wen Ho Lee mess...we don't have the straight story on that even today. But I agree with you about Richardson now, Brian. He's been a good governor, I think. He's always impressive and moderate-sounding in his public appearances.

While I will be voting for Bush, I can respect your inclination to vote for divided government, Brian. The clusterfuck of gridlock really is the best way to go with the universal inclination to legislate and spend that comes with residence in the halls of DC, regardless of party. If I trusted the Democrats with national security at all, Bush would not be the only candidate out there for me. But he is and so I back him totally.

[patricia]

Originally posted by stonemonkts
It sure would surprise me! No offense, but I find that possibility totally preposterous.

I think people tend to demonize governments they dislike to the point of paranoid delusion.

If Bin Laden's whereabouts were known he'd be taken in a New York minute.

No offence taken. I'm not one for conspiracy theories either. In fact, I tend to think that most government officials take their responsibilities seriously, which is why when manipulations occur, I'm always surprised, angered and yes, saddened.
But, the comment I made was made in light of the way everything has been happening these last two years. Camera crews available for every major event. Stories as dramatic as if they were scripted.
There was a flurry of excitement, when Saddam Hussein was captured in his hometown, where the military has been hangin' for months, then, surprise, there he is!!!
Somebody knows where Osama bin Laden is. He's not invisible. If the U.S. captured him today, it would be old news, forgotten by November, when it counts. What would the Bush team have that was "news" then?? That's all I'm saying.

[Jazzooo]

"That line came out on Thursday, I think. I would characterize that as brash self-confidence and wouldn't read any more into it."

You don't find the timing of an overly-brash quote like this at least a little convenient? Right when most of the world agrees that the Democrats are getting more energized and in the public view? It feels to me like a plant--there was no reason to go on record saying it--we both agree that it's a dumb thing for a military guy to promise, right? But he said it. Tow days after Kerry emerged as a potential threat to Bush. I'm not saying this for certain, but it's about an 8 on my credibility scale.

[crawjo]

Originally posted by Jazzooo
"That line came out on Thursday, I think. I would characterize that as brash self-confidence and wouldn't read any more into it."

You don't find the timing of an overly-brash quote like this at least a little convenient? Right when most of the world agrees that the Democrats are getting more energized and in the public view? It feels to me like a plant--there was no reason to go on record saying it--we both agree that it's a dumb thing for a military guy to promise, right? But he said it. Tow days after Kerry emerged as a potential threat to Bush. I'm not saying this for certain, but it's about an 8 on my credibility scale.

A military guy saying something dumb? Impossible!

But seriously, I would not be at all surprised if the U.S. catches him and doesn't tell the world about it right away. In fact, there would be very good non-political reasons for doing so. It could be that bin Laden's capture would give the U.S. a window to find other Al Qaeda operatives through questioning bin Laden. If you let the world know right away that you have him, then you've lost that advantage, because the Al Qaeda guys will know this and go into deep hiding. Or it could even be that bin Laden already has something worked out with his underlings where his capture means they start launching attacks. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it would be very unwise, from a non-political, strategic point of view, to announce bin Laden's capture at the time that it happens.

[Monte Smith]

Originally posted by Jazzooo

You don't find the timing of an overly-brash quote like this at least a little convenient?

I don't read anything into it. I don't know what the context of the quote is or who said it. it doesn't appear at all significant to me. I agree with Gary and the others. You have to be very sceptical of a government having the self-control and potency to deliver an effective and secret conspiracy. Very sceptical. That's just not how large systems work.

crawjo brings up some excellent points on why bin Laden could be quiety rolled up in a nonconspiratorial way. But in the end, I think this news would be flashed all over the world quite quickly. MHO.

[willy]

So we have at least one poll that says Kerry would beat Bush if the election was held today. A month ago Dean was the runaway favorite in the extreme left camp. A month from now, who nows.

There were polls at this point in the campaign in 1988 that said that dweeb from Mass. would beat Bush 41. The same thing with Mondale in 1984. Yet, the outcome of both of those elections was far different from what the polls told us. Turns out that Mondale was so popular that he took one whole state.

The only poll that counts this year is the one taken on November 2nd. That's when the BS stops and the people let us know what they really think. That's also when the left challenges Bush on his taking 40 states, claiming they were disenfranchised. The 9th Circus Court rules the election unconstitutional, claiming Bush talks about God too much, which violates the so-called separation of church and state amendment (which, of course, doesn't exist, but hey, this is the 9th Circuit).