LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Who should the Dems run for US president in 2008?

angela146 said:
My thinking: Hillary Clinton and Russ Feingold
Click to expand...

I think running Hillary would be a mistake -- she has too much baggage from Bill's tenure to be elected. They might do well running a woman other than Hillary but Hillary just isn't electable at this time.
 
angela146 said:
My thinking: Hillary Clinton and Russ Feingold
Click to expand...
Hillary would be a massive mistake from the dems viewpoint. She has too strong an abolute love/hate relationship with the public. 90% of it has nothing to do with Bill. It's her own personality and way of doing things.

The Repubs would love for her to run because it would make whomever or whatever they ran a shoe it. They could run the dishonest used car salesman from down the street and win with nude dancers in every shot of the candidate.
JMHO

Hugo
 
Last edited:
Maybe in about ten years they could run Hillary, but it's too soon. She hasn't established herself enough as a strong candidate who is totally seperate from Bill.

I hope they come up with a good candidate, tho cuz we sure as fuck need one.
 
Mickey Mouse and Minnie Mouse.

They have a squeaky clean image.

Og
 
angela146 said:
My thinking: Hillary Clinton and Russ Feingold
Click to expand...
Just a little side note:

If the Dems do run Hillary then the Rep. will for sure run with Conde. And Conde would be a shoe-in.

Personally, I would prefer Conde over Hilary any day.
 
zeb1094 said:
Just a little side note:

If the Dems do run Hillary then the Rep. will for sure run with Conde. And Conde would be a shoe-in.

Personally, I would prefer Conde over Hilary any day.
Click to expand...

Shiver. For either.
 
hillary would be the single worst possible nominee for the democratic party, for precisely the reasons already stated: too polarizing. if you think the republicans got out and voted b/c of the "threat" of gay marriage, that's nothing compared to the effect hillary would have.

the party really needs a moderate. i believe the social conservatives will put up a less moderate nominee for 2008, and since usually the voting public prefers the more moderate candidate, one would think it simple enough.

there's a perception i think among the electorate that the democrats are too extreme and that needs to be combatted head-on and killed, IMHO.

ed
 
Moderate Dems

I'm a Republican (Don't shoot, don't shoot!). I believe there are lots of moderate dems AND moderate republicans, and our country needs the two party system to work. I say that because the Dems have GOT to flush the radicals that are getting all of the attention and gain their party back. You are right about the public perception, but its because the dems that are getting all of the attention are the ones screeching the loudest about issues that the public is not comfortable with.

As for running Hillary, I agree that it would be a disaster for the Dems. Of course I would like to see a Republican win, but if the right Democrat ran, I would be more interested in having the right candidate in there, regardless of party. Remember those days? Weren't they nice?
 
zeb1094 said:
Just a little side note:

If the Dems do run Hillary then the Rep. will for sure run with Conde. And Conde would be a shoe-in.

Personally, I would prefer Conde over Hilary any day.
Click to expand...
Yeah, cause war with Syria, Iraq, Iran, North Korea and possibly Pakistan would be fucking fun. :catgrin: [sarcasm/]


Seriously, I agree that running Hillary would be a disaster. Personally, I'd go the Edwards route if I were them.
 
Hillary has positioned herself for a run at the top job.

A lot of her viability as a candidate would depend on whom the GOP runs.

The dems, really need to pick someone who is

A. Not from the Northeast. You're going to carry that region even if you ran Adam Sandler. You need to select a candiadte who has a hope in hell of bringing you a southern or southeastern state along with him. I would be looking at some of th emore popular democrats who are govenors were it me.

B. Isn't seen as a liberal flake. That is to say, they can be a liberal flake, as long as they are not viewed as such, but they can't be a moderate who is viewed as such.

C. You need a scrapper. By that I mean someone who is willing to fight. Neither Kerry nor Gore were scrappers. We all know the GOP strategy is going to be to smear the Dem. candidate. You need someone who will loudly and strongly defend himself.

D. A man with a message. He needs to have a plan, one he can outline and make understandable to laymen. It dosen't have to be a goodplan, but it has to be more substantial than simple opposition to the GOP plan.

E. Finally, whoever you pick is going to pale in comparrison to whom you select to run his campaign. You absolutely cannot afford another party insider, who is adept at stirring the party faithful, but can't speak to anyone outside the party faithful.
 
The Republicans nominate a black female... please separate reality from what the media says.

Condee couldn't win if she proved to be mid-process of the immaculate conception.


Sincerely,
ElSol
 
Colleen Thomas said:
Hillary has positioned herself for a run at the top job.

A lot of her viability as a candidate would depend on whom the GOP runs.

The dems, really need to pick someone who is

A. Not from the Northeast. You're going to carry that region even if you ran Adam Sandler. You need to select a candiadte who has a hope in hell of bringing you a southern or southeastern state along with him. I would be looking at some of th emore popular democrats who are govenors were it me.

B. Isn't seen as a liberal flake. That is to say, they can be a liberal flake, as long as they are not viewed as such, but they can't be a moderate who is viewed as such.

C. You need a scrapper. By that I mean someone who is willing to fight. Neither Kerry nor Gore were scrappers. We all know the GOP strategy is going to be to smear the Dem. candidate. You need someone who will loudly and strongly defend himself.

D. A man with a message. He needs to have a plan, one he can outline and make understandable to laymen. It dosen't have to be a goodplan, but it has to be more substantial than simple opposition to the GOP plan.

E. Finally, whoever you pick is going to pale in comparrison to whom you select to run his campaign. You absolutely cannot afford another party insider, who is adept at stirring the party faithful, but can't speak to anyone outside the party faithful.
Click to expand...





Is there a man out there who fits this description???

I'd vote for him! ;)
 
SelenaKittyn said:
Is there a man out there who fits this description???

I'd vote for him! ;)
Click to expand...


I thik there are several who do. Problem is, they are usually the oones who are too smart to run for president :rolleyes:
 
It won't be a woman.

It won't be a black woman.

It won't be a gay black woman.

It won't be a gay black woman who is pro choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Member389
Read 25 stories in under an hour?
Replies
7
Views
234
RejectReality
RejectReality
W
Born to Run Story Event 2025 Support Thread
3 4 5
Replies
104
Views
4K
WaxPhilosophic
W
E
Thinking of Submitting My Story, But Stuck on the Age Issue
2
Replies
27
Views
848
Audiflex
Audiflex
U
The Greek God
2 3
Replies
68
Views
1K
NuclearFairy
NuclearFairy
Inkent
Is wanker widely used or recognised in the US?
Replies
19
Views
509
vanmyers86
vanmyers86
Back
Top