I think that the Republicans are smarter than we

[question everything]

Yes, any poll at this time is almost meaningless, especially when we remember that this time four years ago Lieberman was leading.

Still, their front runners are Guiliani, Romney and McCain. While none is palatable to us, they are not as rabid and obnoxious as, say, DeLay or Rove or even Newt.

They are considered moderate and could appeal to centrist and swing voters. I think that Guiliani is close to the character played by Alan Alda on the "West Wing" that some of us found appealing and were glad knowing that someone like him would never win the Republican nomination.

Plus, all three have executive background. A mayor, a governor, a military man. This means they have experience in formulating policy, finding the resources and then executing these policies within their budgets and with available resources. Also, to be able to change course when conditions change (current occupant of the White House notwithstanding..)

Ours, on the other hand, are a woman and an African American who will still have an uphill battle to attract the majority of the voters. Even if most say that, of course, they would not discriminate. Yeah, right.

Worse, though, neither has a real executive experience. Being legislators, even in State House, mean that they are good at... talking. Nothing wrong with this. We know that legislative bodies are the place to debate, to discuss, to theorize and to compromise.

I think that if Obama really wants to be President, he should leave the Senate and run for the governor of Illinois. He could win there, I would think, and this would bring him an excellent experience to run in, say, 2012 or 2016. He is young.

[Burma Jones]

1. I like Richardson

but doubt he could get the nomination.....another in a long long line of Primary Candidates that I supported not getting the nomination....

[question everything]

2. With Nevada primaries moving early

he could surprise.. if he can hang on that long.

[OHdem10]

13. I have thought about this myself

and posted about it. This is intended in no way
to denigrate Obams or Hilary.

Here is how I look at it. Close your mind and envision
Hilary alone with say Guilliani, then Hilary alone on stage
with MCCain, then Hilary alone with M. Romney. Pretend
your are average citizens. Average citizens do not and
will never have the kind of information we have. They
are not political junkies. They will do well to
follow the election closely until a few weeks
before the election. What I am trying to say is
they will go a lot on instinct. Terrorism and War
will be stressed 24/7 by the Republicans. "Who can and
will protect you best??" will be the Republican Theme.

Do the same exercise for OBama.

I believe this is all we are saying.

I do not know if Republicans are smarter but there
is an observation I have made.

This is genteralizing which is most often dangerous.

Republicans seem to get people with strong assertive
personalities to run just as congressmen. You cannot
say the same for Democrats. Hilary and Obama are exceptions.
Think of all our leaders . Dems come across as quiet
and almost retiring. Get a Democrat with Gumption like
Howard Dean and a Certain Wing creates problems and
the Media attacks him.

You may not like them but Republican Leaders are not
quiet and retiring. They know the American people
like peoplw with gumption. Winning is the name of their
game.

Our Party will do much better when we recruit more
people in the mold of Howard Dean.

No disrespect to anyone. Just my humble opinion.

[OHdem10]

14. Must add this

In this last election we did get some great
Dems with assertive personalities and
none are shrinking violets. I have
watched them in the Senate and House.
Three come to mind quickly. Webb, McCaskill
Tester in the Senate. We need to keep them
and look for others in theirs and Dean Mold.

I am a loyal liberal.

[question everything]

30. This is the dichotomy that we have

We, Democrats, do not pretend to have all the answers. We question, we debate, we - yes - change our stand based on new information or on changes in the situations.

Bush, for example, when asked, could not regret a single decision that he's made. They see the world in black and white. Never shades of gray, never hesitate, never wonder about alternatives to finally select one.

This is why they appear assertive while we appear wishy washy. We had a war decorated candidate last time, the best that we could have during time of war.. on paper. But his "I voted yes before I voted no," his too human approach to weighty problems created the image of non decisiveness.

This is why Clinton is almost ruthless in her approach of the scorched earth policy. But we are not yet ready for women warriors.

[job777]

33. Me too

Good electable choice

[wetcanvas]

36. ...I like Nunn...

...but he ain't runn'in.
What is he doing...anyone know?

[snowbear]

3. Question everything

I "question everything" you just said.

Oh yeah.. and I like Richardson too!!

[SharonAnn]

29. Republicans - Shrewd, malevolent, devious, twisted, greedy, but not "smarter".

[napi21]

4. I'm not sure their experienceis much of a benefit.

Remember, Shrub was a Governor too? I'm thinking back to the days of JFK. Yeshe was a Senator, but for all of 2 years! Some people have the ability to think, plan, and make good decisionswithout being in government already, and I believe a lot of the success of a President depends onwho that person puts in as his cabinet and his advisors.

The perfect example of that theory is Shrub! Look at the criminals he's surrounded himself with!

I have no idea what's going to happen in the campaigns in the next year. That's a very long time for each one of the candidates to make their mark of trip themselves up.

I'm just willing to say the chosen candidate has to have specific experience to do a good job.

[StClone]

7. An aside

"example of that theory is Shrub! Look at the criminals he's surrounded himself with!"

What an image your words bring to mind: Foolish Chimp surrounded by criminals.

[napi21]

9. HA! Yea, and it's giving his a lot of good experience for when

there's also bars on the doors!

[fuzzyball]

12. Face it, if it was'nt for the Iraq mis-management, shrub would be in the

70'0 in approval ratings. Mainly based on economy. Millions
of jobs created, record income by US citizens in 2006 the highest ever.
But thanks to his debacle in Iraq we have an excellent chance of winning
the White House.

And I could'nt agree with you more on that we need a executive with PROVEN
RECORD OF SUCCESS. Obama is a 2 years senator and African-American. Prejudice
is by no means dead in this country. That is the stark reality. Just ask
any A-A if they still experience it. Hillary has good chance of winning and
I am backing her candidacy. The only problem being her negatives could be
high. Our best chance of winning is to nominate a SUCCESSFUL governor or even
better someone who has outstanding record of success outside of politics.
Someone like Ross Perot, or Steve Jobs.

[featherman]

15. What a strange post to find on DU!!! This economy is hardly "strong"

in any fundamental sense. A smoke and mirrors economy built on massive Federal war spending fueled by massive borrowing from China, Europe and the Middle East. It's main characteristics are the steady shift of the nation's treasure into the hands of the very, very rich and the runaway devaluation of the dollar against every other major currency... essentially destroying the fundamentals that an actual "strong economy" would require.

Bush with a 70% approval rating except for the "mismanagement" of the war??? Are you delusional? So the only mistake with Bush was that he "mismanaged" an otherwise acceptable invasion? If not for that little problem George W. Bush would be so loved and revered by a grateful public that his approval rating would exceed that of Clinton, Reagan, or any other President???

Strange stuff on DU on a Sunday night.

[StClone]

23. Economy?

The only economic trend that is positive is wealth transfered to the top 2%.

- Job creation is not even keeping pace with population growth

- Personal saving *negative*

- U.S. Trade Imbalance near record.

- Home loan default near record high.

There is almost no positive indicators now. The notion that this is a great economy, or even good one, is as much prefab as WMDs in Iraq. That's just the way it is...

[fuzzyball]

26. may be you should look at the US Govt Treasury web site

which spells out the statistics on personal incomes and taxes.
In 2006 US Treasury collected RECORD amount of taxes. Taxes come
only for one reason and one reason only...INCOME.

Unemployment rates near 4 to 5% are historically very low.

OTOH I agree completely the prosperity is built on BORROWING.
The low interest rates of recent created a housing price bubble
and that enabled people to borrow based on valuation of their homes.

The US trade imbalance is already coming home to roost in the form of
collapsing US Dollar.

I call it as I see it. I don't like to build castles in the air based
on wishful thinking. If US Treasury received record taxes, I want to
accept that as a fact.

But we are getting away from my main point. We need to nominate a
proven manager with history of successful business credentials. Some
one like Robert Rubin. We don't need a senator who has no experience
in the real world of business such as Obama. Atleast the Clintons have
a record of attracting people like Robert Rubin who worked very well
with the economy.

[StClone]

32. Main point

Current tax dollars are not adjusted for inflation, population growth and other factors*. Tax collection statistics look positive but it should be noted that almost all other factors are not positive. One factor is positive that is large corporation more profitable and the employee is receiving lower adjusted incomes.

We need a President that will stand apart and against lobbyist and corporate powers. Edwards may be best at making that case along with Kucinich.

*Record oil price (profits), less Government restraint on Corporations costing them less going into profits (i.e. Coal mine safety).

[Arugula Latte]

34. Oh, goody. Some more Bushco. cheerleading from fuzzyball. nt

[StClone]

5. They have big problems too

Unless the Republicans completely cave to the pro-choice, gun control laws and gay rights Guilliani is going no where. His polls have plateaued and probably in slight decline.

McCain should be the nominee but in the early going he's sinking like a stone. He'll recover I think.

Romney's Mormon background is almost anathema to the South. His polling is going nowhere.

We have a plethora of possibilities that reflect our belief to have women and minorities, under their own propulsion rather than appointment, elected to the POTUS.

[snowbear]

17. You're right StClone, we do have a plethora of possibilities!

But evidently QE doesn't see that. Their comments would make the ReTHUGS proud-

"their front runners are Guiliani, Romney and McCain"

"they are not as rabid and obnoxious as, say, DeLay or Rove or even Newt"

"They are considered moderate and could appeal to centrist and swing voters"

"I think that Guiliani is close to the character played by Alan Alda on the "West Wing" that some of us found appealing"

"all three have executive background"

"A mayor, a governor, a military man"

"they have experience in formulating policy, finding the resources and then executing these policies within their budgets and with available resources."

Forgive me DeepModem/Mom.. But this thread praising those 3 assholes is sick.

[Phredicles]

6. I'm no HClinton fan, but dismissing her and Obama as

"a woman and an African American" is self-defeating and downright ugly. And on a practical level, Giuliani, McCain, and Romney all have at least as much baggage as either of them.

[question everything]

8. Unfortunately, this is how regular voters may view them

and even how they view themselves.

I've heard some of Clinton's speech today and she said that were it not for the Civil Rights movement, Obama, Richardson and she would not be where they are now.

Yes, we all want to evaluate our candidates on who they are, not what they are but it is a fact. Would Obama have surged so quickly to match Clinton were he not an African American?

Would Clinton even be a Senator were she not the spouse of the President?

[snowbear]

10. Oh Geez Louise...

If I were you.. I'd turn off my tv and ignore the media for the next 12 or so months.

I've gotta say this.. In my opinion, for today only -- this is absolutely the..



(Which is saying something.. Because there were some real doozies on here today! )

"Ours, on the other hand, are a woman and an African American who will still have an uphill battle to attract the majority of the voters."

----------------------------


01- The friggin' campaign season just started LAST MONTH!!! ---- ONE MONTH AGO!!!

02- We have an entire year to go before we select a nominee.

03- We haven't had ONE SINGLE DEBATE yet. Not ONE.... NONE!!!!!!

04- Early frontrunners in the Democratic Party rarely win the primaries.

05- If you think old man McCain, dirty Rudy, or Mormitt are superior are more appealing to moderates as you've said, I don't "question everything", but I sure question where you're heart is at.

No one has voted and NO ONE is a shoe-in!

For all you know... for all I know.. for all any of us know --- our nominees may be Governor Bill Richardson and General Wes Clark.

Or it could be two candidates that haven't even announced their intentions to run yet!

We don't have a clue and neither do you.


OMFG---

[I_Make_Mistakes]

11. If you value the typical American executive experience these days

when then good for you. They are "yes men anti Robin Hood morans!". Yes, let's see George Bush, Ken Lay, even most of our pols were under these mgmt types.

I don't want a career politician, no "true real world experience" period. I attended two really decent colleges;

1. Purely career oriented, primarily Engineering focused DU
2. Purely Liberal Arts oriented, primarily a prep. for Medical, Law and Grad. Students, only
5% went immediately into the workforce. AU

Pros and Cons:

First University:

1. The first school produced students completely prepared to walk into the work force highly
skilled and led in performing entry level mgmt style responsibilities (co-op during college
prepared students to ascend initial entry level position in the majority of cases).
2. Most of the Professors were high level Corporate Employees, and part time Professor.

Second College:

1. More interested in preparing students for a diverse corporate experience (more emphasis on
alternative views/responses to corporate climates.
2. Most of the Professors were high level Academia persona, no real world experience. It always
gave me a smile to think, "This guy who is highly qualified is trying to teach ME how to succeed
in the Corporate world, and yet has no Corporate experience whatsoever!"

Yet, thank God, they wanted to reconstruct my ankle (prompting the transfer) because I had the opportunity to experience both environments that were diametrically opposed in their educational
styles. It allowed me an opportunity that many students don't get, two educational styles., both
worthy of their values, and yet, so completely different in their techniques and practical applications.

To this very day, I know that the experience was more valuable than any I could've mapped for myself, and yet, which one had more relevance, neither, both were so extremely valuable, especially in their contrasting viewpoints, that I still have an internal debate within myself 20 + years later.

Okay, my long winded response is that, there are naturally talented leaders, and I am reservedly backing Obama, because he seems to have the naturally endowed skills to be the President of the US., not the generally agreed upon qualifications of the self selected party elites.

These party elites (not restricted to the Dems) decided they are the one's who know more than the rest of us, because they are the ones who meet their own self-decided criteria to serve.

The only reason I am a reserved Obama backer are:

1. Will they (the power brokers) try to DEAN him (that scream didn't turn me off, I still voted for
him in the primary knowing it was a done deal).

I would be a Gore all the way backer if he jumped in, hoping that Obama would be his VP, but if Gore is not going to lead the way, then I support Obama.

Why?

I am female, and HC is compelling for just that reason, however, as much as I respect Bill Clinton, his Presidency is not all that I thought it was at the time. I started voting outside my party registration (Republic) in the early 90's, but the Clinton witch hunt morally required me to register my contempt for the Republic party in 1998.

The Clintons set the tone with the Nation allowing the all the historical Presidential Republic baloney to remain concealed for that reason alone, I cannot with full conscious knowledge vote for another deceiver (the Clinton's, like Ford, are doing it for the best interest of the country), that's BS. We have been BS'ed for long enough and they need to own up to their own cover ups.

The Republics have an unelected President in the White House and Bill Clinton aided and abetted that with his lack of pursuit of the Truth. One who truly believes in God knows that TRUTH is God and anyone who denies that truth must deal with the consequences.

The Republics have sealed their fate (by bearing false witness), how many Dem's will follow.

[AndyTiedye]

16. The Repigs Are Not Smarter, It's Just That WE Don't Have any Good Candidates

It is a direct result of being out of power for so many years.
Democrats have had few, if any, chances to show leadership.
The whole party was one election away from going down for the count last year.
Fortunately, we got a reprieve this time, due entirely to voter revulsion with the Repiglicans.
That's all we have. It isn't gonna be enough.

What we need is what Al Gore has to offer.
A vision for the future, and the means to communicate it!

[cali]

19. Bullshit.

We have a strong field, and the repukes have a remarkably weak one.

[AndyTiedye]

24. I Really Hope You Are Right

[GeorgeGist]

18. 'smart' ...

is in the eye of the beholder.

[gordon1]

20. Smarter?

They didn't look smarter (or moderate--Coulter for example) at CPAC this past weekend.

[newyawker99]

22. Hi gordon1!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[churchofreality]

21. Their candidates suck!

Mitt Romney will never get the evangelical vote. He might as well be a wiccan.

McCain is an old decrepit crabby flip flopping war pig. He lost the lustre of being a rebel. He is a sellout and everyone knows it.

Guiliani was pro choice, pro gay rights and pro gun control, now, like Romney he is all of a sudden doind a 180 on all those. Plus he loves Bush's war. Plus he has a goddamn lisp. They can call Edwards a faggot, and Gore fat, but a speech impediment is going to be ridiculous in debates.

[Capn Sunshine]

25. I think the republians are good at turfing partisan sites, that's for sure

or getting unwitting folks to repeat their memes for them.

[The Gunslinger]

27. And If it starts going bad for those Republic candidates

Jeb will be ready to enter the race.

[Clarkie1]

28. I don't.

Wait and see.

[Labors of Hercules]

31. Relax... Gore.

[PassingFair]

35. "Think" again. The 'pukes I talk to around here are starting to arc towards

Newt.

NO JOKE.

I'm in Michigan.

[SteppingRazor]

37. That doesn't necessarily make them smarter. It could make them weaker.

Their candidates are compromises, while ours are less so, in other words.

And besides, compromise candidates generally don't do so well. Who was it that said of conservative Democrats, "Why vote for the fake Republican when you can have the real thing?" Anyway, the same sentiment can be applied to the other side.