If McCain is the Republican's nominee then we must nominate Obama...

[CalebHayes]

McCain will represent the old way. He is of the same party that got us into Iraq (Arabic for Vietnam). He is old, and he looks old. He has no ability to connect with the youth in any way. McCain in many ways acts as the caption of a sinking ship.

Obama is fresh and new. He will give the youth a reason to not only register but be excited to go out and VOTE! This is major chance for America to turn a corner in history. We are so blessed as a country to have a great man like him that can bring us together like no other.

Another plus to Obama is that when he registers all those new voters they will likely cast straight Democratic tickets. This will help Democrats all across the board.

[thoughtcrime1984]

1. I would like Obama to be the 44th President of the USA...

...regardless of who runs for the Repugs. I agree with your views on him, and he has been on my "radar" since the Democratic Nat'l Convention in 2004. He is more than just a "rock star" or some flavor of the month, as has been widely suggested by agenda-laden media sources. He will undoubtedly make his stances on the issues we face well known very soon. One only needs to look into his Senate voting records to get a taste of what he has supported if they profess to not know what he stands for. Although I will do what I can to help Sen. Obama, I will support whomever gets the nomination of the Dems.

[newyawker99]

18. Hi Obama_for_our_future!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[AtomicKitten]

21. Obama is a most attractive candidate.

If Al Gore doesn't throw his hat in the ring, I'm going to be all over Obama's campaign like stink on a monkey.

On edit: Welcome to DU.

[Syrinx]

2. I used to like McCain a little

He's always been more conservative than the media paint him, but he really used to seem a little bit honest (despite his involvement with the Keating 5). But he's become such a suck-up to Bush and company. Something is seriously wrong with this picture. Especially after what BushCo did to him in the 2000 South Carolina primary.

I like Edwards and Clark. Obama is in my mix too. Hillary Clinton is not, though I will vote for her in the general election should she get the nomination -- which I don't think is as likely as widely assumed.

[jobycom]

5. Concerning Hillary

(Not an attempt to change your mind on her, just a bigger perspective observation). Have you ever to thought that maybe the reason the media is promoting her as the eventual nominee is because they are trying to create "Hillary fatigue" to destroy a lethal opponent to the Republicans? If she falls, they will go after the next frontrunner in their own way. This could be one reason, if you want to think along these lines, Gore has so far stayed out of the race. He's positioned, but he's far enough away from the campaign that the media can't start killing him yet. (This is of course not an argument to support Hillary, just an observation).

[Syrinx]

6. I don't see Hillary as a lethal opponent

In fact, I think she's an almost sure loser in a general election. She has been crucified by the right over the years, making the middle-of-the-roaders leery of her. Combine that with the contempt of the left based on her vote for the Iraq war (and refusal to apologize for it), and I think we'd see a Republican landslide in 2008... unless the GOP nominates a fruit-loop like Brownback or Duncan Hunter. Just my late-night, hazy opinion. :)

[jobycom]

7. Sigh.

Well, now you've attacked her, so I have to defend her. Her "vote" for the Iraq war (Which she has said was a mistake) was not a vote for war, but, as she clearly stated, was a vote to try to avert the invasion. In fact, her reasons for voting for the IWR were far less militaristic than Kerry's or Edwards's. Don't forget (though people seem to) that even late into the primary season in 2004 Edwards was still attacking Kerry for not supporting the invasion strongly enough. He wasn't like Hillary, who wanted to see force used only as a threat; he was downright gung-ho until he realized how opposed to the invasion most Dems were. Hillary attacked Bush's handling of the invasion before Edwards did.

As for her electability, polls show the opposite of what you say. She is a strong opponent against any Republican--consistently stronger than any other candidate, though some have peaked above her, then fallen back down. And since popular opinion does matter in an election, that's all the proof you need that she can win, and that she is the worst threat, now (though it can change), to the Republicans.

As for her being "crucified by the right over the years..." Yes, and that's good for her. She's survived that. As we've seen, the Republicans will do that to everyone and anyone. She's been through it and survived. That gives her a strong advantage over Obama, or anyone else running, unless Gore gets in.

If Hillary can't win, we can't win, in other words.

That still doesn't mean I'm supporting her (or that I'm not, I haven't decided, and won't, this far out). Just that I completely disagree with your opinions of her. I've been at DU long enough to have watched that image of her be carefully crafted. It's not the image of her that the nation as a whole holds. I've played around in politics outside of DU, too, and out there, she is the one most people, of both parties, assume will win.

[Syrinx]

8. I didn't attack anyone

I simply offered my opinion on her viablity as a candidate for president.

As I said, I will support her if she receives the nomination. I simply don't think she is the strongest candidate that we could field.

[jobycom]

10. You attacked her when you said

"Combine that with the contempt of the left based on her vote for the Iraq war (and refusal to apologize for it)." Neither point, nor your interpretation of those points as "contempt" are true. So I defended her against that attack.

More specifically, her vote for the IWR, as she clearly stated, was "not a vote for war," but a vote to make Bush use diplomacy where Bush only wanted to invade. Bush had already declared he didn't need Congressional approval to invade Iraq. The IWR was a bill of many purposes. For some it was to give Bush the power to invade, for some it was an attempt to head of his rush to war. The latter failed, but they were going to fail, anyway. The IWR did not give Bush any power he wasn't already claiming he had. If it had failed, Bush would have invaded anyway--he said he would. The IWR made him use diplomatic channels first. This was all clear in the leadup to the vote, but many have forgotten it, or missed it at the time.

I have no issue with you saying Hillary is not viable, though I will obviously debate that if I disagree. But that's a matter of opinion. I do have an issue with an attack based on smears rather than of facts. While I don't think you are trying to smear her, you are repeating smears. Here's her floor speech: http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html Read it yourself. She was obviously fooled on Iraq. But she wasn't voting for war. Her position was much less militaristic than Kerry's or Edwards's, to name just a couple. Edwards supported the invasion itself, while Hillary was raising questions about it and about Bush's handling of it. I'm glad he changed his mind, but I'm still stunned he comes off better than Hillary, or even Kerry, over this. Edwards was still attacking Kerry for being against the invasion late into the Dem primaries. Yet he's seen as more sincere than Kerry or Hillary.

She's been swiftboated, like Kerry, like Gore, like Ann Richards, like everyone else who emerges as a frontrunner against the Republicans--especially the Bushes.

[Syrinx]

11. I did not attack anyone!

Get off my ass. Who is paying you?

[oasis]

15. Let's keep it civil, okay?. Who could be paid enough to put up with the abuse

that posters receive in these "discussions" for simply defending Democrats?

Edit to add::shrug:

[jobycom]

16. Okay, then, criticized unfairly.

Whatever, read the post again. It said what I meant.

[Syrinx]

20. I'm sorry for the rudeness

I overreacted and I hope that you will accept my apology. I'm sorry.

[pnwmom]

9. Why is she almost a sure loser? Her negative ratings are in the 40's,

which is probably where they'll stay, since the vast majority of Americans have already formed their opinion of her. Her positive ratings are in the low 50's, which is all she would need to be elected.

On the other hand, most of the other candidates are less disliked AND less well known. Once they are more widely known, their negative ratings will also go up.

[cyclezealot]

14. McCain a moderate.

all a big put on.

[jobycom]

3. I don't agree, but, you have one of the more creative typos I've seen lately.

McCain "act as the caption of a sinking ship." Ah, poetry!

The parts I don't agree on, just for clarity: I don't think McCain lacks ability to connect with the youth--I think otherwise, in fact. He's a clever, charming campaigner. I think his policies are harmful to the youth, even more that to older Americans, who won't be saddled as long with his mistakes, but I think he can appeal to that demographic.

And while I like Obama greatly and haven't made any decisions yet on whether I'll support him or not, I don't see that he appeals to, or represents, the youth any more than other candidates. A few may not connect as well, but you underestimate the younger voting demographic if you don't think the will be impressed by Hillary's competence, or inspired by Kucinich's energy, or moved by Edwards's compassion, etc. Our strength is in our message, not in an individual candidate. I am quite sure that there are many youth, as well as many other Americans, who will be brought into the party by Obama's strengths, but our other candidates will bring their own, as well.

Viva la Democracie!

[CrazyForKucinich]

4. Democrats choose their candidate first I believe

Republicans choose the week after.

[Katherine Brengle]

12. While I believe you are correct

that only Obama has a chance of beating McCain (should it play out like that), I hope it doesn't come down to that.

I think Obama will make a great president one day. I just don't think he's ready. I could be wrong (and I will happily vote for him if he is the candidate) but I think he could use a bit more experience in the upper levels of government before he sits in the Oval.

That said, I think the contrast with McCain would give him a fighting chance. A Clinton/McCain battle would be the old blood fighting the old blood with McCain coming out looking like the more authentic, more trustworthy candidate (not that he actually IS but it would play that way) and no other Dem candidate imo has the star power to beat him without a heluva fight that I can't see any Dem fighting these days...

Personally, I hope we're up against either Giuliana or Mitt Romney - either would get slaughtered. Giuliana for that blaming the troops crap back a couple of years ago (what a soundbyte that'll make) and Romney for badmouthing his own state while he skipped around the country feeling out his prospects. What dicks.

[cyclezealot]

13. so far, I think Edwards has been the better candidate

at taking on McCain. His one speech against McCain was a take no prisoners attack on all McCain stands for.

[mtnsnake]

17. I think Obama matches up against any of them for the reasons you explained

Obama is fresh and new. He will give the youth a reason to not only register but be excited to go out and VOTE! This is major chance for America to turn a corner in history. We are so blessed as a country to have a great man like him that can bring us together like no other.

Well said, especially the last sentence of that paragraph. Not only can he bring us together, but he'll be perceived as a healer who can bring the country back together, and that will go a long ways to attracting swing voters to his side. People from both sides are sick of the divisiveness and Obama is the best one at convincing citizens that he can fix that situation.

[dae]

19. I really like your supposition about Obama bringing in

new voters for the party nation-wide. I'll vote for whichever Democrat gets the nomination and try to war only with Repubs, no friendlies. My first choice hasn't announced and I don't know if he will. If he doesn't, I want a true progressive/liberal candidate. I've had enough of Puke-lite.
I do feel that any Democrat will have the upper hand going into '08, regardless of who he/she may be.

[CalebHayes]

22. Bet your ass he would. Him and Edwards would both be great for ...

the Democratic party on all levels.

[allskinners]

23. That's a very narrow

reason for choosing a candidate. I'd much rather have the most qualified person in the job, not the best looking.

[CalebHayes]

24. your missing the big picture.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

25. It won't be McCain-- probably Giuliani

I wouldn't even put McCain in the Top Two. Giuliani is #1 for the GOP by quite a bit, then probably Mitt Romney at the #2 spot. Giuliani would be very, very tough. I still think Obama could win for us even then-- definitely not Hillary, not Biden either.

[mnhtnbb]

26. Watch out for Hagel as the underdog.

[zulchzulu]

27. Obama is clean, neat, takes showers and talks normally

Oh wait...hmmm... actually it's all true.

:D

[JNelson6563]

28. Didn't McCain father a black child...?

With a crack-whore....in Vietnam? Thought I heard that during the 2000 Rethug primary race....

Julie