ieXbeta Board > Who do you think will win the Democratic Nomination for 2008?

Full Version: Who do you think will win the Democratic Nomination for 2008?

ieXbeta Board > Etc. > Political Sanctuary

Man1k3n

Mar 1 2007, 02:39

I know, I know. You guys are pretty much thinking that its too early to call at the moment, but judging from the elections this past November it seems like the citizens of the United States are favoring for Democrats. Now, I know I've debated in this forum for the past two years, mainly favoring for the Democrats over the Republicans; however I have stated more than once that I can vote both ways and won't vote for Democrat just because they are Democrat. To be perfectly honest, I just didn't agree with Bush and that was who was running, now if John McCain was running for President in 2000 and 2004 I would have voted for him on either account, because I agreed with his political ideology as well as I believe he is a stand up guy and has a pretty good head on his shoulders.

Now, this upcoming election in 2008 is probably going to be very very important for our nation as well as historical. The main reason why I am saying this is for the fact that the two most popular Candidates that are running for the Democratic Nomination to run for President in 2008 are in fact minorities. You have Hillary Clinton, a female (I think j/k) who is actually very popular with the audience and seems to be number 1. Then you have an African-American, Barack Obama, who is running very closely behind Hillary. Then of course I hadto look up the other names just to be fair to see who else is pretty much going for the prize. I don't know any of the names except for John Edwards, which really surprises me that he has not been really mentioned in the news at all. I mean, I really liked both him and Howard Dean. I didn't care much for Kerry and for some reason or another he got the nomination and failed to take office mainly because he just wasn't favorable, he was pretty sneaky and sly now that I think of it. Unfortunately for Howard Dean, I don't think hes going to run at all either for a very long time or maybe the rest of his political career mainly due to the media backlashing he received after his so-called "breakdown". To be personally honest for a moment if I may, I liked Howard Dean and saw nothing wrong with what he did. He didn't do anything that was offensive, the man simply lost a primary election in a state, but decided to pump up his supporters by telling them that they were going to succeed. Yes, it was a little "over the top" so to speak; however all he was doing was showing enthusiasm and energy. Of course the media didn't see it this way and made the man unfortunately look like a complete loon. I mean, I remember in 2000 when Bush was running and was caught off stage during a debate calling the guy who was running the debate forum a "fucking asshole" or maybe it was just "asshole". I know he said asshole. But the media really didn't do too much of a flaming for that, it was on the news, but as quickly as it came, it disappeared.

So without further ado, here is some tidbits of information on everyone else other than Clinton, Obama, and Edwards.

QUOTE

Joe Biden, born November 20, 1942, in Scranton, Pennsylvania, U.S. Senator from Delaware and candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1988, although he ceased active campaigning in 1987, before the first primaries. Biden first hinted that he might run in 2008 in a December 8, 2004, radio interview with host Don Imus, saying: "I'm going to proceed as if I'm going to run." Biden has repeatedly stated his intention to run, and did so as early as 21 March 2006. Biden's Federal Leadership PAC is "Unite Our States", which tracks Biden's public appearances and policy positions. On 7 January 2007, when asked by Tim Russert on Meet the Press "Are you running for President?" he responded, "I am running for President." He also said he plans to create an exploratory committee by the end of the month. [1][2][3] On January 31, 2007, he officially signed the papers with the FEC to run for president.

Christopher Dodd, was born May 27, 1944, in Connecticut and is a five-term U.S. Senator from that state. Dodd was reported to be a likely contender for the Democratic Vice President slot on John Kerry's ticket in 2004. In May 2006, Dodd said he has "decided to do all the things that are necessary to prepare to seek the presidency in 2008", including hiring staff, raising money and traveling around the country in the next few months to enlist support.[5] On Jan. 11, 2007, Dodd announced his Presidential candidacy on the "Don Imus in the Morning" radio show.[6]

* U.S. Senator from Connecticut: 1981-Present
* U.S. Representative from the Connecticut's 2nd congressional district: 1975-1981

Mike Gravel, born May 13, 1930, in Springfield, Massachusetts. U.S. Senator from Alaska from 1969 to 1981 and an active candidate for Vice President in 1972. He was notable for advocating a guaranteed annual income, which he termed a "citizen's wage," of $5,000 per person, irrespective of whether the person worked. On April 13, 2006, Gravel announced his candidacy for the Democratic nomination. His policy announcements to date include support for direct democracy, FairTax and withdrawal from Iraq. His is considered a very longshot candidacy since former Sen. Gravel will be 78 years old at the time of the general election and will have been out of federal politics for almost three decades at the time of the election. Mike Gravel filed with the FEC in April according to various news sources.[9] [10] The FEC's site has listed his reports since July.[11]

* U.S. Senator from Alaska: 1969–1981
* Alaska State Representative: 1962-1966 (Speaker: 1965-1966)

Dennis Kucinich, born October 8, 1946, in Cleveland, Ohio. Ohio Congressman, former Mayor of Cleveland, and 2004 Democratic primary candidate.

Dennis Kucinich is known by many as "The Peace Candidate", having received the 2003 Gandhi Peace Award. Kucinich opposed the war in Iraq and the Patriot Act. Under Kucinich's plan, United Nations peace-keepers would go to Iraq if the Iraqi citizens desire their presence. Congressman Kucinich introduced legislation to create a United States Department of Peace via HR 808 on February 5, 2007. Dennis is currently campaigning to end the war in Iraq by cutting off funding, if such measure is necessary. He is in support of peaceful diplomatic relations with Iran, and all nations. Dennis has received many awards praising his courage and work for peace[citation needed]. On December 12, 2006, Kucinich announced his candidacy at an event at Cleveland's City Hall.[12]

* U.S. Representative from Ohio's 10th congressional district: 1997-Present
* Mayor of Cleveland: 1978-1979

Jizzylax

Mar 1 2007, 03:00

Clinton will probably win the nomination, then lose the election.

If Kucinich wins the nomination, there is no way he'll win the election. If he somehow does, god help us all.

I have to admit, I'm riding the Obama train at the moment. I wouldn't mind seeing him get the nomination, but I think that if either he or Hillary get the nomination, the Democrats are basically giving the election to the Republicans. Too many white, conservative religious fanatics in America.

Man1k3n

Mar 1 2007, 04:16

QUOTE(Jizzylax @ Mar 1 2007, 03:00)

Yeah I'm on the Obama train here myself Jizzy. Sadly either way if Hillary or Obama get the Nom. well the Dems I think will pretty much lose. The thing that really scares me is that there is a major factor that Obama runs a high risk to being assassinated. Hence the reason why Powell didn't run for president back in 2000. Remember that? He pretty much backed down, because his wife was fearing for his life.

Sad

Sinbad

Mar 2 2007, 00:43

Anyone but Hillary. That's my ideology. That woman is the spawn of Satan.

Of the democrats, I like Barack the most. But tbh, there's not much difference these days between dems and repubs. Both want big gov't, both want to spend more and more. I want less gov't, less money being handled at the national level.

"The gov't that governs least, governs best..."

Chugworth

Mar 2 2007, 01:51

QUOTE(Jizzylax @ Feb 28 2007, 22:00)

Clinton will probably win the nomination, then lose the election.

That's what I'm kind of thinking myself. I keep hearing lots of people worrying that Hillary will become the next president, which just goes to show that lots of people would go out of their way to vote against her. She's a really divisive candidate.

On the Republican side, I think that if Giuliani could win the nomination, then he would have a good chance at winning the election. But he may have a tough time getting past the religious wing of the Republican Party to win the nomination.

Of all the candidates, I think that Giuliani is the one I'm favoring the most right now, even though I disagree with him on some issues. I would really have a hard time voting for McCain. I can't stand McCain. And I just don't think that Romney has a good chance at winning the election. These days it seems like all of the Democrats have gone Hollywood-Left. There are very few sensible ones anymore. The only ones I can think of are Zell Miller and maybe Joe Lieberman.

Candyman

Mar 2 2007, 12:16

Hillary for sure. Foolish dems.

Chugworth, do you think we might be twins?

You pretty much said what I was going to say. Glad to see at least one Conservative on the internet (sometimes I feel so lonely

)

jaycalderwood

Mar 2 2007, 13:54

I'm a democrat and I am, right now pulling for Hillary. However, if Ed Rendell (G-PA), or Al Gore decides to run my choice would be with either one of them.

Rendell has brought Philly out of the hole they were in and left to become governor and led PA out of the whole they were in. I believe his values and morals are there and Rendell can put us on the right track that no republican can do.

Al Gore...I still feel that Al Gore is the President of the United States. The Election in 2000 was stolen from him and we should not forget it. I believe that Gore can lead us back in to what we were when Clinton left, Gore can and will continue and re-enforce the plans, etc that him and Bill put in place.

As for Hilary and Obama. I wouldn't be surprised if one of them got the nod, and then select the other. If Hilary does become President, she will just have the title and Bill will indeed run this country again, which would be a good thing.

I know, some of ya'll are going to be bringing up that Clinton lied about getting some side action, so friggen what? I can argue for days on how Bush lied, and his lies are causing the loss of life.

Man1k3n

Mar 2 2007, 14:19

In Bush's defense, he didn't really lie, it was his administration that lied or misinformed him. I really don't blame Bush for everything, even though I dislike him extremely. After bashing him for the last 6 years, I finally looked into it and realized that he made a big mistake by appointing certain people for certain positions that were not qualified for them in the first place.

Even though that Al Gore won the popular vote, I'm actually glad that he did not become president, because I honestly think that the country would be in just as bad shape as it is now. Who knows, maybe it would be in the same state.

Singh400

Mar 2 2007, 14:54

Hang on, so you guys didn't like it when Bill Clinton was in power? Or are the policies of Hillary Clinton completely different? I don't think it would be too bad to see another Clinton in power - we all loved Bill over here (UK) not sure how life was for you over there.

Barack Obama is making waves over here, it would be great if he won.

jaycalderwood

Mar 2 2007, 16:56

Bill Clinton is one of the greatest Presidents that we ever had. The GOP is all about the Rich man and the Dems are about Policy at home. We need a Clinton back in Washington to fix what Bush has broken. Frankly, I am tired of the death hold the GOP had/has on this country.

Jizzylax

Mar 2 2007, 17:33

Clinton was a mediocre president at best, definitely not one of the greats. He does not belong in the same boat as FDR and Reagan, two of the better presidents in the history of the U.S.

Sinbad

Mar 3 2007, 02:42

Clinton rode the tech wave train. The country would have done much the same with or without him. Not that I am saying he was a bad president, but I think he gets far too much credit with the economy aspect.

And bullshit @ dems are about policy at home, they say that, but in the end, all they do is line pockets. There are no good politicians.

@Candyman - one of the lonely conservatives on the internet as well! (and I'm in college, no less!)

Won't say I'm republican, as they aren't conservative anymore.

Man1k3n

Mar 3 2007, 15:43

I agree there are no good politicans per say. I was talking to two people in my politics class who are completely anti-republican, when I am more of an independent individual who looks at both side of a situation and then makes a decision based on the best laid plan. I tried to convince them that there are good republicans just like there are good democrats as well as bad republicans just like there is bad democrats.

I think Clinton was a pretty damn good president; unfortunate that the media (and Kenneth Star) exploited his personal life and attempted to use it as a definition of him performing his duties. Yet, I have to agree with Jizzy that he doesn't belong in the same boat as FDR and Regan.

Although I don't really care for Reagan; however there were a lot of things that he did in order to improve the economy, and even though some of the stuff IMHO was fucking stupid; however he at least made an honest attempt to try to improve things. What other president (other than FDR) can show that type of record?

Clinton did improve a lot of things; however not on as large as of a scale. FDR had "THE NEW DEAL" and Regan had "REAGANOMICS", while Clinton just got head.

zapjb

Mar 3 2007, 16:02

I think John Edwards has the best chance of winning the general election. But sadly not the Democratic nomination.

Jizzylax

Mar 3 2007, 16:50

QUOTE(Man1k3n @ Mar 3 2007, 10:43)

Clinton did improve a lot of things; however not on as large as of a scale. FDR had "THE NEW DEAL" and Regan had "REAGANOMICS", while Clinton just got head.

Seriously, what did Clinton do though? What was his major, groundbreaking policy that he will be remembered for? Nothing. The economy improved, but not because of any of his doing. This was already in motion before he took office, and was started by Reagan. Technology boomed rapidly during his tenure, as someone already said. He reaped the benefits of chance in office, and therefore won't be seen as a failure as a president because of it.

Any president that has the possibility of impeachment on the table should be seen as a failure. If you look back and analyze what Nixon did, he was actually a good president before Watergate.

QUOTE(zapjb @ Mar 3 2007, 11:02)

I think John Edwards has the best chance of winning the general election. But sadly not the Democratic nomination.

I agree with that, but not because everyone likes his policies. People are more like, "Oh hey, I remember his name from the last election."

zxybgsyxz

Mar 3 2007, 19:15

I honestly hope Hillary does not win the Democratic Nomination. I can't stand what her ideas for new regulations are. She's all for censoring/banning/etc. video games, violence, sex, etc. It's not the government's job to babysit our youth. It's the job of the parents. If you can't parent your own kids properly, you don't deserve to have them. A good amount of criminals in society today come from kids who were not properly brought up. I was brought up very loosely in terms of religion, but my parents were able to teach me right from wrong very well, while teaching me to think for myself on those gray areas that no one quite agrees on and no one is truly wrong or right on.

I personally like Obama myself. Maybe I've seen the wrong side of Hillary, but from what I see, Obama is against what Hillary is for in terms of censorship and legislating things that should rather be taken care of a merely semi-responsible parent.

Man1k3n

Mar 13 2007, 12:54

QUOTE(zxybgsyxz @ Mar 3 2007, 19:15)

Yeah I forgot about her being really big on that. She was the one that had Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas removed from stores' shelves all over the country and then branded with the new rating of Adult which really hurt its sales, because it gave parents the idea that if their kids played the game then they would turn Black right before their eyes and start pimping the other siblings in the house.

Luckily though, Rockstar fought it and was able to have the decision reversed and the game was returned to its original "Mature" status. That kinda erked me, because I remember that the price for the "Mature" rating version spiked up a bit on ebay and was considered a collectible item but know its worth shit lol.

Its okay, I don't think Hilliary will win the nomination, because sooner or later people are going to come out and point out an obvious "below the belt" fact about her and her reaction/position on her husband's infidelity while he was in office. They will keep bringing that up that she "backed down" from her husband, so what does that mean for the country if she is faced with a controversial or difficult situation with national or foreign policy? Will she just back down from it all and look the other way? I mean honestly, that is one major issue that makes me not want to vote for her, because she really didn't do anything but look the other way and support her husband. Which in a big way pisses off a lot of women in America, because there are millions that would not only leave/divorce their husbands, but would kick his mother fucking ass for that type of treachery. Hell, if I was the first man, or even President and my wife cheated on me, fucking press or no press you bet your ass I would divorce that whore in a heartbeat. I mean she literally had him by the balls and could have gotten him back so good, but didn't do it. Shows to me a lack of confidence and I really question her ability when it comes to running this country.

cork1958

Mar 13 2007, 13:28

I voted without looking at results first. Voted for Hilary, although I prefer Edwards myself!

Glad to see Edwards has more votes than Obama, even if it is only 2 votes to 1!!

If it comes down to who wants to rate video games a certain way, to win a nomination, the country is WAY worse off than I thought!!

Man1k3n

Mar 15 2007, 16:42

QUOTE(cork1958 @ Mar 13 2007, 13:28)

I voted without looking at results first. Voted for Hilary, although I prefer Edwards myself!

I just used the video game rating thing as an example. I highly doubt that any of them are going to use that in their political platform in order to get votes and move up a few points. There are bigger problems at hand and plus after pretty much failing at the attempt of the Adult Rating on GTA:SA, I doubt that anyone is going to try to pull that shit again.

Video games don't cause people to kill people, its emo music.

and speaking of violent video games, heres an extra life comic strip and made me laugh out loud:

IPB Image

This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.