If you'd asked me last year to choose between McCain and Clinton, I would have easily picked McCain.  I don't agree with most of his fiscal policies or quite a few of his social ones, but until the last year at least saw him as a genuinely honest man, who was willing to tell his party to go screw when he held a differing opinion.  Between visiting with the evangelicals, and sucking up to the Republican overlords, it's just hard to take him seriously anymore.  I think what most people liked about McCain is that he appeared to be his own man, but apparently you can't do that and be the Republican candidate.

If the race comes down to McCain and Clinton at this point, I suspect I'll vote Socialist again, just like I did between Gore and Bush, with exactly the same effect -- nothing, because I live in the "winner-take-all" state of Texas who will almost certainly give all their electoral votes to whatever Republican troglodyte carries the day.

Between visiting with the evangelicals, and sucking up to the Republican overlords, it's just hard to take him seriously anymore.  I think what most people liked about McCain is that he appeared to be his own man, but apparently you can't do that and be the Republican candidate.

My issue exactly.

Now with caps!

Wow Coquito, your post is unduly hyperbolic.  

If Hillary's record as senator from New York is scrutinized, one would see a terrifically hard working woman.  Her track record as a politician has been solid.  Her stances have softened or shifted rightward at election times, but she is a proud democrat who does not have the support of her fellow democrats despite her tireless efforts in the Senate and her experience as first lady.  Democrats haev bought into teh right wing smearing of Hillary, which is more disturbing than anything else.  The GOP keeps winning because they have gotten into your heads.  

Would Hillary be a bad president?  I say no.  I think she would listen to the people and serve them nobly.  Do I agree with all her positions?  No. But I think she is competent, and I don't really buy that "she's a bitch" stuff.  That is just non-descript personal attacks.  Truly she is a polarizing figure, as much for her book "it takes a village" which defined an entire social ideology, as for her failed attempt to nationalize healthcare.  But Hillary is more than just a polarizing figure.  Perhaps she is not the best person for the job, but certainly she does not deserve to be treated the same by democrats and republicans, when all she has ever done is serve Americans.  

Do I agree with all her positions?  No. But I think she is competent, and I don't really buy that "she's a bitch" stuff.

"Unduly hyperbolic".. I like that! :)
But seriously, it has nothing to do with thinking she's a b*tch, which I don't. In fact, I lived in NY when she was elected, I had no issues with that, I'm glad she's doing well. What I'm talking about is the chance that enough Americans would vote for her to make her president. As you said yourself, she's a "polarizing figure" -- I think that, given a.) the simple fact that she's Bill Clinton's wife, and b.) the simpler fact that it's hard to get all non-card carrying Republicans on your side, I don't think she can win. Problem "a." takes her out of the running as a crossover candidate and problem "b." just further shrinks the number of people who will vote for her.

Maybe she is the best person for the job. I would love to think that, were that so, she could be elected. But I'm not such an idealist that I'm going to delude myself into thinking she could get elected. Even if every card-carrying Dem votes for her, that's not going to do it, imo. She needs broader appeal, and in a race between her and McCain, I think she'd get slaughtered. Hell, they could run Dan Quayle and I still think she would lose. How's that for hyperbole? :D

Now with caps!

How about a ticket with Al Gore running with Hillary as his VP running mate?  Hillary does have appeal to many independent voters and swing voters, as she is a liberal who swings conservative at times.  Al Gore is riding high over rebuilding his image in recent years.  He would get massive support from the democratic base.

I don't know. I feel though, that Hillary, if she's aiming for anything, is not aiming for VP.
As for Al... I liked Al. I liked him more with the beard and the movie and all that. I'm not sure he can come back after his defeat, but it would be nice. To be totally honest, my favorite candidate from recent years was Dean. Up until the scream, I liked his attitude and many of his ideas. He seemed like a hopeful idealist who was serious about changing the system for the better. That is, perhaps, why Obama has some baseline appeal for me. He has some of that "Golden Boy" sheen. Of course, that's all I know about him, so it's easy to project my own wishes on someone who's still something of a blank slate (I don't know much about his record in Illinois so far)(well,  he did co-author the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act. I can get behind that.)

Now with caps!

Funny, I still liked Dean after the scream.  That whole issue was a tempest in a teapot, much ado about nothing, and so on and so forth.  A manufactured canard.  When I saw Barbara Walters trying to goad Mrs. Dean into calling Howard an abusive husband ON NATIONAL TV, I wanted to reach into the goddamn television and strangle that opportunistic, manipulative bitch.  The guy got excited at a campaign rally.  That's what rallies are for.  Everything after that was a hatchet job.

I don't disagree. But the fact is the episode tainted him. Unfairly, imo, but it did. I think rule number one of being a good presidential candidate is probably to never ever ever act psychotic in public.

Now with caps!

Obama has a lot of promise, and he has the gift of public speaking, he can be inspirational, but Obama doesn't seem ready for it.  I think he needs a few more years seasoning and experience to feel up to it.  I have a feeling he is not going to run for president, even if Democrats beg him to run.

Not even if Oprah begs him to run? Hmmm?? ;)

Now with caps!

And let's not forget how Gore defeated ManBearPig. We really dodged a bullet there.

Okay I see your point.  She may have win-ability issues.  

But if I evaluate her performance in the senate, I see nothing that truly bothers me.  She has a work ethic, she is not a "status quo" type, she has stood up for unpopular opinions even against rank and file democrats, and is willing to work in a bi-partisan way.  As a president, I feel she would serve the nation rather than rule it.  As the junior Senator from New York for only a few years, she has already been far more affective than John Kerry has for well over 2 decades.  

Hey New York, I'll trade you John Kerry for Hillary Clinton, straight up.  Okay, I'll throw in a Starbucks Latte and Theresa Heinz too.  

I'd feel less inclined to dislike Hillary if she quit engaging in ridiculous ranting about the dangers of videogames.  Since when did the Democrats become the party of people who told us what we can and can't watch and play?  More to the point, I doubt Hillary gives a rat's ass about videogames, but rather sees it as a nice, juicy, middle-of-the-road issue to prove she's not a liberal.  The current frenzy is remarkably reminiscent of the Tipper Gore-led fiasco of the P.M.R.C. and every bit as stupid.

Since I'm convinced that Hillary isn't so stupid that she actually believes playing a videogame is going to turn people into killers (a hard propostion to sell since the murder rates have been consistently down since video game consoles were intorduced into American homes in the 80's), then one must assume that she's cynically trashing a subculture just to get over on the White House.  That doesn't exactly encourage me to vote for the lady.

Since when did the Democrats become the party of people who told us what we can and can't watch and play?

murder rates have been consistently down since video game consoles were intorduced into American homes in the 80's

Not surprising.  My knife technique has gone to hell since I got carpal tunnel syndrome from playing PS2.

In regione caecorum, rex est luscus.

But if I evaluate her performance in the senate, I see nothing that truly bothers me.

And I wish to God (in my own way) that people chose their elected officials that way. I think it would be a very different government. Of course, I can't complain: lately, I more often agree with the views expressed by Green Party candidates than by Dems, but I don't (usually) vote for them.

Now with caps!

I don't have firsthand knowledge of Edwards, so I'll take your word for it.  But he talks a good game, and if he was paying attention at all in the Senate, he's already more qualified than Bush was (or Giuliani or Romney are).  I'm not really a big fan, but he's a plausible candidate.

I'm betting the eventual Democratic candidate isn't even listed in the poll.  At least, I hope so...

McCain seems to have no ethics, despite his reputation as a stand-up guy.

Wow what a dirty shot.  McCain has lots of ethics.  Where do you come up with that salvo?  McCain's fight against torture seems to be ethical.  His fight to clean up the world of professional boxing seems ethical.  His fight for Campaign Finance reform seems ethical.  This is a man who fights for ethical ideas.  His principled vote against the Telecommunications act of 1996 showed him on principle voting against a big corporate payoff, and he was the only republican senator to vote against it.  He is a pro-life anti-pork who is also environmentally friendly.  

Thalia, you saying that McCain lacks ethics is an opinion that does not seem to match the records.  His stances on issues were entirely based upon ethics.  Here is is voting record.

So his voting record is in 100% agreement with the Republicans, pretty much.  I'm supposed to get principle from THIS?  

How about his vote against Habeas Corpus (which last I checked can only be suspended for invasion, or threat to the existence of the Republic, neither of which is currently the case, unless you count Bush & Cronies to be a threat to the Republic)?    How about his vote for torture?  You think that was a principled vote?  Seriously?  You think his blaming the Korean nukes on Clinton was a principled move too?  How about his support of Bush during 2004?  Principles?  His speeches at Liberty University (run by Falwell, whom McCain called an "agent of intolerance"  back in 2000).  Principles?  Stating that "the integrity and letter and spirit of the Geneva Conventions have been preserved" while voting on a bill that states that the President gets to define the scope of the Geneva convention & that detainees cannot appeal to it.  Principles?  Giving a retroactive, nine-year immunity to U.S. officials who authorized, ordered, or committed acts of torture and abuse, and permitted the use of statements obtained through torture to be used in military tribunals so long as the abuse took place by December 30, 2005.  Principles?

I'm not seeing it.  Maybe you can point out which principles these listed actions support.  Other than the principle that we're willing to give up much in order to be considered a good Presidential candidate.

I actually lost all respect for him when he snuggled up to Bush, after Bush basically won a primary by telling voters that he had had an interracial relationship and had a black daughter.  His reconcilliation with Falwell (famous for blaming feminists and gays for 9/11) did not help matters.

Thalia

Thalia I never said McCain was perfect, he is a long time Senator and has to compromise to get things done, he is an active member of representation, and he cares about many issues very deeply.  He has served our country in many ways, and was a prisoner of war who was tortured.  I think the points you bring up are things you can rightly question, but to say he has no ethics at all is wrong and mean spirited.  John McCain has not voted 100% with his party, which is why he has made many republican enemies.  As I noted he was the sole republican dissenter in the telecom bill in 1996.  As for the torture matters above, McCain does not support torture.  The Geneva Conventions and the Bush administration have been at odds, Bush was basically forced to end torture, but in order to expedite and force Bush's hand, some compromises were met.  I agree with you that compromising on such a matter seems "unprincipled", but it is not the defining legislation of John McCain's career.  The McCain-Feingold bill is a marvel of bipartisan reform.  

I understand and respect that you do not like him, and for good reasons.  But I do disagree with your assertion that he has no ethics at all.

As for the torture matters above, McCain does not support torture.  The Geneva Conventions and the Bush administration have been at odds, Bush was basically forced to end torture...

No, this is not true. THAT's why McCain is, well, I won't use the term 'unethical' but he sold out his supposed anti-torture ideals. Before the bill: "We don't torture" but Bush decides what is torture and what isn't. After: "We don't torture" but Bush decides what is torture and what isn't.

tnt needs to track moderation. stats page!

I'm sorry but I believe he gave up his ethics (from 1996 when he still had some) in 2000 when he realized he lost the presidential candidacy.  Since then his actions have not reflected ethics.  And ESPECIALLY because he has been the victim of torture, his acquiescence to that horrible torture & removal of habeas corpus bill was completely unacceptable.  

I'm not saying McCain never had ethics, just that he no longer does.  The fact that you have to point back 10 years to see where he stood up to the Republicans is a pretty strong indication of what I'm talking about.  Like when Bush Sr. embraced Reagan's policies for the opportunity of becoming president later, McCain has embraced Falwell, Bush & their lack of ethics.

Thalia

McCain. I wanted to go out for him. He seemed his own man until he gave up the election in 2000, until he endorsed Prez Bush in 2004, until he sold out on the torture bill.

Fuck McCain.

----- The earth may fail, but we will quiver

AMEN - Fuck McCain

Once upon a time (1990-1993) I would see McCain address Arizona voters on Az TV and think ' gee, for a Republican agent of pure evil - this guy seems to have SOME ethics and decent ideas, he aint so bad' (had I remained in Az I might have even voted for him) ... then the Keating scandal happened, and then 2000 happened, then the horrifying spectacle of a man who personally knows in excrutiating detail what torture is and voting for it anyway happened... the man lost his soul somewhere along the way.

"...when theft and high crime becomes obscenely obvious to even the blindest beer sucking idiot, it is always the Republicans who are in office." -- Joe Bageant

I'd like to point out that I personally have no problems with Mormons.  Heck, I married into a family full of them, even though my wife is an atheist like myself.  Some of the nicest people I've ever met.

Personally, I tend to lump all the believers in a magical Daddy into the same camp, which is that their beliefs sound fundamentally silly except to those raised in the same or similar faith.  Mormon belief in spirit children and eternal sealing in the Temple don't sound fundamentally stranger to me than the Christian belief that they (symbolically or otherwise) eat the flesh and drink the blood of their savior.

Mitt's Mormonism isn't a problem for me, but I have a hard time believing that a country who was concerned about a Catholic President a single generation ago is going to suddenly be okay with a guy who believes Jesus came to the Native Americans.

   Are American Christians so concerned about the "secular left" that it will overlook Romney's faith? Or will the old fractures reappear in 2008? It should be clear early in the primary process whether Romney is getting the cold shoulder or not.
   From my little corner of the world (at a used book store), I'd have to agree with you. Laake's Secret Ceremonies remains a popular book, and copies are hard to come by-- usually a sign folks are either passing the book to friends, or keeping it to re-read. And even among the non-religious, being known as the folks who knock on your door to give you literature you don't want is hardly a fast track to popularity.
   OTOH, the RNC has a pretty good machine in operation, and if the party leadership decides Romney is their guy, I'm not sure how much dissent will make its way into the mainstream media. Conservative pundits will certainly be ready and willing to turn Democratic attacks into a sign of religious intolerance, though how this would play at the grass roots is anyone's guess.

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras

From the heart of the Bible Belt, I can tell you that the local Southern Baptists would probably rather have Hillary in charge than a Mormon.  My wife grew up around here, and frequently got told by her Baptist friends that she was going to hell, that she was a member of a cult, etc.  The Baptists don't just hate the Catholics, apparently.

I am glad to see you expound a bit more about these individuals, I think your take on them is interesting.

As for Al Gore, I never liked him, until rather recently.  My take on him was that he never had a real grasp on reality, he is a political creature who appears clumsy and often off balance.  But with his global warming issue, he has crafted a unique identity and has earned my respect because he is crusading for an issue he cares passionately about.  When Al Gore is passionate and sincere, it shows through.  Would he make a good president?  Well not on all issues, but after the years of George W Bush, he can do no worse.  It would be interesting to see if he runs, in the election against Bush it was such a narrow margin, I think if he were to run again, he would win.  He is probably the best candidate the Democrats could have, in terms of being able to win.  

Hey, now.  Hyphenated-Americans can hold office, even Undead-Americans.  If we didn't have Braindead-Americans to hold office, we'd have a lot of vacancies.

Humorless. Cretinous. What'd you expect?

LOL.. OK...

>Hillarycare

According to Wikipedia, the "Clinton health care plan" never came to be, at least in part because "Democrats, instead of uniting behind the President's original proposal, offered a number of competing plans of their own."

>tax increases

Didn't we also pay down the deficit back then?

>surgeon generals talking about masturbation,

That was awesome.

> "don't ask, don't tell,"

Sounds like most people now seemingly agree that was dumb. I would argue it's a step. Also, I could be wrong, but wasn't that partly an attempt to appease the right? Again from Wikipedia "It was introduced as a compromise measure in 1993 by President Bill Clinton who, while campaigning for the Presidency had promised to allow all citizens regardless of sexual orientation to serve openly in the military... The actual policy was crafted by Colin Powell and has been maintained by Clinton's successor, George W. Bush."
"Social conservative interest groups successfully flooded the Congressional phone lines with oppositions to lifting the ban, and for his part, President Clinton soon backed off on his campaign promise to lift the ban on gays in the armed forces."

>the breakup of Nirvana

That sucked too. But I like the Foo Fighters, so it wasn't all bad. Kurt was gonna die anyway.

>Rwandan genocide

That really sucks. So does Darfur though.

>the premier of "Friends."

Oooh... kinda like crack, but for white people. It was bad, but kinda "oh so good".

>It was a dark era.

Yeah, sheez! Glad that's over!

Now with caps!

Didn't we also pay down the deficit back then?

Pay down, no. Decrease, yes. (The US didn't really pay down the deficit until it turned a profit, in 1998.)

OK, I think I see. I may have misunderstood the meaning of "pay down." Actually, no I take that back, I think you mean the difference between the Deficit, which decreased for a few years, until in 1998 we had a Surplus instead of a Deficit and we were able to pay down the National Debt. Right?

Now with caps!