Question no one asks....

You're absolutely right. You are the darkside.

I've asked this question. No one seems to care or says "Yeah, that's weird."

I'm not getting into conspiracy theories or anything, but I do believe that it probably isn't all that good for our government to have a Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton presidential cycle.

*ZAP!*

Extrapolating your theory:
Doesn´t the thought of Jeb Bush claiming his rightful place in 2012 or 2016 make up for a nice Criterion Edition?

Thinking about abandoning Monarchy again might not be such a bad idea.

Not worried here. The Oligarchic process seems to to be running smoothly.

Do you want to be in the position of saying certain people cannot run for president just because they belong to a particular family?

You beat me to it. And by the time he's done his two terms, hello Chelsea!

George Clinton, turning the White House black in 2024!

If Jeb Bush becomes president, I will move to Europe.

you are fucking jokes.
And said jokes don't appreciate it.

People have certainly brought it up before, and it's a concern, enough that I probably wouldn't be inclined to vote for Hillary in the primary given her current opponents. In the general, of course, ain't no contest.

While the Presidency is realistically only open to a very small, hyper-rich and hyper-connected pool of candidates, we should be wary of giving "legacies" a pass more than the system already does.

It's ridiculous. I'd love to see a woman in office but the Bush/Clinton debacle is daunting when you consider that the biggest problem facing this country is that Americans have basically been penned into a giant feedlot for the corporations. Clinton might be able to balance the budget but she will not upset the order.

I still want President Gore but am losing hope in that. I know Kucinich does not have enough support though I would vote for him in a heartbeat. I think it really comes down to Obama/Edwards at this point. Both of them have it in them to take on the military industrial complex and the corporate stranglehold but they have an intense fight on their hands and will have to differentiate themselves from the pack to prevail. I wish Democratic candidates would stop listening to the knuckleheaded "shoot for the middle" strategists.

Likewise, it would be nice if Democratic voters, and all other voters, voted for who they really wanted to win - not who they thought had the best chance of winning.

It scares the fucking shit out of me. Maybe "scares" isn't the right word. More accurately, it pisses me the hell off. This is so not how it's supposed to work. We're all getting played for complete suckers.

We've been getting Hillary Clinton rammed down our throats since the day after Bush's second term began and have pretty much been conditioned to accept her as the front-runner. Who actually likes her? Certainly not conservatives, and not a hell of a lot of liberals. Maybe that 4% who couldn't make up their minds between Bush or Kerry. If you can't make up your mind one way or the other between Bush and Kerry, for fuck's sake, just stay home on Election Day. Certainly the media adores her, she's the juciest story and she's a pushover who'll give them whatever they want once she's in office. Return limits on media consolidation? Hillary? Pshaw, she's bought and sold. The person most likely to make a decent president for the people is most likely the one to get ignored or "taken out" in the media. Anybody doubt Howard Dean would have made a better president than John Kerry or George Bush? Of course he would have. So would Dennis Kucinich. Or Ron Paul. I don't agree with either of those guys on a lot of things, and God knows they'd disagree with each other on a lot of issues (while taking bong hits from Kucinich's secret stash, probably) but at least they have tangible positions to disagree with. Or agree with.

The one thing I can say we definitely don't need is another Clinton or Bush. For fucks sake, we can do better without even doing well.

I saw a bumper-sticker the other day that said "It's time for a change--Hillary in '08".

Oh, irony...

For one thing in my view, Clinton isn't the nominee. It's the media looking for a story. Fact is, she could peak much like Dean did around this time. Let's all hold our mud til the primaries and make sure you get out there and vote.

She should probably come up with something like "Hilary 08. What comes around, goes around". Or "Hilary 08. It's my turn".

I like the idea of Bill being the First Husband or whatever the title would be. I imagine him sitting in his underwear all day watching TV and drinking PBR. Hillary as president? Not so much.

I think they should call him the First Dude. That's a title he could roll with.

The idea of Bill being back in the White House disturbs me...not that I'm specifically anti-him, but I'm concerned about essentially voting two people into the office of the Presidency, especially when one of them has already served two elected terms.

Hey man, the First Dude abides.

At this point, I would welcome Bill Clinton back into the White House with open arms and a gaggle of twenty-year-old female interns.

While I'm sure on any other day in any other year (at least those prior to 2000, anyway) I'd share this sentiment, after what this country has been through, I'm willing to let a Bill-By-Proxy Presidency* slide.

Hell, not just slide, I'll gladly take it.

* If Hillary wins, I don't believe that's what we'll be getting, of course.

If Hilary gets the nomination, she will lose. That the Democrats can't see that is absolutely astounding. She is almost universally reviled on the Right and isn't what you would call well-loved on the Left. Man, I'm a dyed-in-the-wool lily-livered surrender monkey and I wouldn't vote for her. She will mobilise traditionally apathetic yokel voters to vote against her in a way that anti-Gay Marriage and anti-Abortion campaigners could only dream of. But then this is the party that thought Kerry was a shoo in.

The problem with Hillary is that there's a significant portion of the country who won't vote for her no matter what she does; and a significant portion of the country who will vote for her no matter what she does. More so than any other candidate, her supporters and detractors have their minds made up even before hearing her speak on the issues or see how she responds to other candidates more left or right than her. This leaves a swing vote in the middle that is vulnerable to that one fuck-up every candidate has...how many people have run a perfect campaign end to end? She's bound to say something, or come across as something the voters don't like, and then she's done.

And honestly, at this point I'd just be happy to see the Democratic party take back the White House, period. I'm more interested in seeing who she picks as VP...

It's Nixon's strategy of "run against the candidate you know you can beat, and sabotage the one you can't." That's why the mainstream media is ignoring Edwards. He outpolls all of the GOP candidates, hence he's the biggest threat. Hillary and Obama are the two candidates the GOP is least afraid of.

I'd agree with that if the GOP had a viable candidate that they were confident could beat Hillary or Obama. At this point, none of them are that guy, and I think that either Hillary or Obama puts up a good fight in the general, if not outright win (with the GOP's tactics, though, who fucking knows).

I'm as big an Edwards fan as any, but without a 1st place finish in Iowa, his campaign is over. Here's hoping.

I agree. Any bellyaching about Hilary or Obama being bad choices has to contend with what the good GOP choices are. The Democrats have multiple candidates who are building buzz. The Republicans have nothing. And considering the GOP's reputation after two terms of Bush, they're going to have to be the ones to take the initiative. If they run the standard campaign, the Democrats win.

While the president's spouse would be influential as anyone close to them, it doesn't mean they're making decisions, unless you're referring to Hillary's gender as weak-kneed enough to bow to the man of the household. This is why America won't have its first female president; even democratic, liberal voters would be disillusioned by their former leader having his 'masculinity' superseded by a female. For the average westerner it's fine for women to make their own choices and attain more freedom, unless it means they change places with the male of the nuclear family; because while the nuclear family definition has evolved to include more freedoms for women, the public still holds onto the general concept, which is outmoded and thrives on making people feel inadequate in their gender and sexual roles, so they become more productive, thereby producing more capital.

First I've heard of that.

Yeah, I don't see that being the big issue with a female President.

Do not underestimate the boneheadedness of the Democratic party is all I'm saying - they have made lots of strategic blunders and will no doubt continue the trend, so even if the GOP's offerings are pathetic at best (and they are), don't forget how ridiculous Bush was.

Also, as the Jena thread makes clear, racism is still runs thick in the lizard hindbrain of a lot of people in this country. I would love to see Obama elected, but he has to win enough support from other sectors to offset the bigoted "middle-third" that will choose not see or hear him - it would have to be an undeniable phenomenon.

And in terms of Hillary, even beyond sexism (which is still considerable), Hillary is HATED by the GOP. They have so much dirt on her, and their attack machine is still firmly in place, with slavish devotion from the corporate media. She will be destroyed if she gets the nomination. Also, for me personally, voting for her would be like voting for a republican.

I do think Edwards has the best shot, but he will need to take charisma lessons from Obama and pick up some of Kucinich's talking points to stand out.

The Republicans will do what they did last time: baffle you with bullshit. It doesn't matter who the Democrats run. The price of Edwards' haircut is somehow relevant! It's madness. But it will work.

I think it was Micah who said that an election in a two-party state is always a referendum about the incumbent.

Clinton policy may have its faults (I read her health care plan and I'm iffy about it. Bureaucratic, but it would provide universal care.) but how can any Democratic Administration possibly be as buffoonish, dishonest, creepy or just plain as evil as the Bush Administration has been? If I were voting in US elections, I wouldn't even have to think about who the Democrats run.

The Republicans need to go sit in a corner and think about what they've done for three presidential terms or so.

No doubt. And furthermore, whoever inherits the office will take the fall for the unholy mess Bush has left for him/her.

All I'm saying - and believe me, I hope I'm wrong - is don't forget what we're dealing with here. Travel back in time to 2004, remember what happened. That could easily happen again - all the elements are still in place: the GOP attack machine, the same Dem strategists that locked in on Kerry at the expense of Dean, the hopelessly corrupted voting systems in the country, the corporate media, etc., etc. ad infinitum. We're not dealing with logic or rationality. We're living in the twilight zone down here - you can't leave anything to chance.

They're experts at creating divisive issues where there were none to begin with. What's funny is how transparent their sleight of hand and diversionary tactics are, and how well these tactics work in spite of this. I'm instantly reminded of this as I'm listening to Bush's most recent PC on NPR. Here's a sound byte:

"People are talking about 'instant democracy.' Why don't we have an 'instant democracy?' It's because people are still traumatized. I heard, I heard someone say, 'Where are the Mandelas?' 'Where are the Nelson Mandelas?' Well, let me tell you. Nelson Mandela is DEAD! Saddam Killed all of the Mandelas. He rounded people up. He divided families. He was a terrible, terrible tyrant"

NO ONE was talking about instant democracy. No one in their right mind thought that Iraq would blossom into an insta-democracy. The problem of nation building was a good reason to be opposed to the invasion. It's a way to divert the dialogue into "Well, Saddam was a bad dude, and we kicked his ass but-good!"

I fully expect a HUGE republican blitz against atheism and 'godlessness' thanks to Pete Stark's 'coming out' as the first Atheist congressman. Expect atheism to be painted as the new terrorism.

Yeah, they don't have to do that -



Source: Pew Research Center for People & The Press (pdf file)

That's fairly sig-worthy.

Yeah, everyone gasped when he said "Nelson Mandela is DEAD!". He should have just yelled "I HAVE A GUN! A gun that shoots out compassion rays. FIRE! FIRE! Wasn't it cool when I fired Karl Rove?"

I haven't forgotten. Like I said, it's madness, and it will work. These are interesting times.

So do you, ya bastard!

Or, at one time, cared. Bush offered Saddam Hussein 48 hours to blow town, otherwise, it's game on. As if forcibly yanking him out of power wouldn't throw the country into . . . civil war or something. This was an acceptable option to the US government in 2003.

Among others, yeah. But the truly maddening thing is that the US government knew this once. Cheney knew it!

Gah!

What? This one got past the goalie. Do tell.

Well, what the hell do they know?