Running mates

Remove all ads!

Don't trust the polls. We've seen clearly how bad they can be just in the primaries.

I think the thing that a lot of people are missing (concerning McCain's centrism) is that he's already won the Republican nomination. What I'm saying is, if Hillary runs, McCain could take just about anyone and the conservatives would still vote for him over her. As more and more of Obama's history comes out, it is starting to look like he's just as liberal a candidate as Hillary is, so that may well be true even if Obama wins the nomination.

As to both of them running together, yeah, that would be toxic, but it may also be the only way to even approach bringing the democratic party back together. Would it work? Would democrats supporting one candidate vote for McCain simply because the other won the nomination? Will the independants side with McCain or Obama (I doubt Hillary will get many of them)? We'll just have to wait and see.

 

Obama seems definately to be more liberal than Hillary, which isnt very difficult considering that Hillary Clinton seems to be as far to the right it is possible to be and still be in the democratic party.

 

joacquin, I'm not sure what policies you've been reading from her, but Hillary seems to me to be far, far left (at least for America). On all the big issues in the US today, she's liberal.

 

Well, there are a few high-profile conservatives who have come out for Hill, instead of Mac, such as Ann Poltergeist. Even the former Senator from PA, Santorum, came out for Hill over O, claiming she says the "right things." Santorum is fairly draconian right-wing in his politics. Btw, Mac has positioned himself as Bush III, so that hardly qualifies as "centerist" by any standard.

As for Hill being a liberal, no such luck there either. Many of us, who have very good liberal credentials, consider Hill too conservative. Obama is the candidate of choice for us. The thing about O is that he rises above the petty politics of ideology and speaks largely to the issues, which explains his growing impatience with the media, a media that has never concerned itself with "issues" in any sense of the word.

 

That was my impression as well. Reading through both Clinton's and Obama's site, Obama certainly seemed more 'liberal' and leftwinged than Clinton. Neither, however, stood anywhere near Edwards on that score.

 

It seems that way to you because you're far, far to the right. Trust me. I went to school with plenty of far lefties. I'm fairly far to the left myself.

Hillary Clinton is not a far lefty. Yeah, she wants universal health care. Big deal. At this point, you can find quite a few economists who think that UHC is the way to go. Hell, the RAND Corporation seem to think UHC is the way to go.

 

I agree that Obama is the more liberal candidate. I didn't think that came as a surprise to anyone, or that the topic of who was more liberal between Obama and Clinton was even up for debate.

You don't even have to listen to what they say - look at their voting records. They did a study on the voting records (on issues that had a liberal and conservative side) and ranked all the members of the senate from 1st (most liberal) to 100 (most conservative). Using this ranking system, Hillary ranked 16th. So that sounds pretty liberal. Obama, however, ranked 1st.

I honestly have no idea how 'liberal' became a dirty word in American politics, as liberal policies have historically benefited the common man (and obviously the 'common man' is the largest voting block in the nation).

Back to the topic of vice presidential candidates: I think it will be a cold day in hell when we see Barack and Hillary on the same ticket. If Hillary had conceded the nomination after Barack's string of February victories, it would have been possible, even likely. (Note: I'm not saying that this is what Hillary should have done, just that this would be the only way she would have been asked to be VP.) As the campaigns have drug on, with only one primary between March 5th and April 22nd, both camps have become increasingly negative, and I see no way that the loser gets the VP nod.

 

Well, I guess the title of 'very liberal' or 'far left' is really a completely subjective one, and I don't disagree that Obama is actually much more liberal than Hillary, though that's only recently become evident around here.

As for when 'liberal' became a dirty word, I think it was somewhere in the '70s. Then 'liberal' meant hippie, and it honestly still means some of the same things. The big issues on this count are abortion, stem cell research, gun control, affirmative action (hasn't been a big issue this year), gay marriage (also hasn't been a big issue this year), the wars, energy, and on the economic side corporate income tax (liberals support raising it, usually significantly). Now you can argue how good or bad the liberal position on each of those are, which just goes to show the liberals aren't complete idiots and can actually support their points.

 

Actually, lefties like me have been pointing out Hilary's moderate leanings for years. Anyone who cared to know about Hilary's (lack of) liberal credentials did know. No offense, but you just haven't been listening.

Actually it has more to do with the signing of the Civil rights act of 1964 (when the democrats lost the south), but the word liberal didn't really start to tarnish until the rise of a certain big fat idiot. You can also thank Richard Mellon Scaife.

 

Gee, I wonder to whom you are referring??!!

Who is this Scaife person?

As for running mates, both parties have to appeal to the middle of the spectrum as much as possible, and IIRC, the VP should help the President slide toward the middle, right?

 

It's also difficult to evaluate Obama based on his voting in the Senate. As a junior senator he has a role to play.

 

Richard Mellon Scaife is one of the biggest financial backers the conservative movement has ever had.

 

Who, funny enough, is now a big Clinton supporter.

 

Yes, and that proves (at least for some of us) that Hill is not all that liberal.

My reading of history is something like this: During the early 60's there was a movement towards progressive liberalism, with the Kennedy brothers, among others, who were self-proclaimed "liberals," and very proud to be known as such. They spearheaded the Civil Rights movement and the "War on Poverty" (heaven only knows why every movement has to be a 'War'). With the conservatism of the 50s on the rapid decline, Barry Goldwater, among others, countered with a new kind of conservatism (of which R. Reagan was a younger disciple). And in my mind those are the "real" conservatives.

With the death of Robert Kennedy, liberalism fell to Ted Kennedy, Humbert Humphrey and George McGovern as its leaders. This was unfortunate because all of them seemed to be somewhat hindered politically by a manifold of issues, with Ted's being the most obvious. When McGovern lost to the very popular Richard Nixon it seemed that the political tide had turned once again, in favor of the "old" conservatism of the 50s. Yet, with the revelations of just how corrupt the Nixon regime was, it seemed once again that liberalism was vindicated, because many of the chrages liberals had made against Nixon turned out to have some real substance.

An unknown, Jimmy Carter, rode the resurgent liberalism to become president. Although an honest and well-meaning man, Carter was in over his head, and his unfortunate presidency was marred with incompetence. At the same moment, Ronald Reagan, a new conservative, started the age of political, comedic, one-liners, most of which were directed at his political enemies, largely liberals. The Reagan machine knew how to use the one-liner with great skill and spawned a whole cadre of disciples who took up the use of the one-liner as "real" (meaning serious) political dialogue. Politics, it seemed could be true "entertainment" and Americans love to be "entertained."

It was during this time that the "Fairness Doctrine" was removed from the lawbooks regarding the media. Before that time the media was supposed to provide equal time to any serious political point of view, but no longer. Now any media outlet could take a political stand on a party or political ideology without having to provide its viewers with an opposing view point. All of this played right into the rise of a certain "big fat idiot," whose viewpoint is only skewed in one direction - it is mean-spirited, no-holds barred attack on whomever does not hold the same viewpoint as the political media host.

The tragic part of this is that a very serious conservative, the late William F. Buckley was trying to elevate the political debate beyond the one-liner into a realm that was almost - but not quite - "academic" point-counter-point on the very serious issues and political differences among advocates. But now all of us are at the point of regarding the "big fat idiot" as THE type of dialogue for politics, because Americans would rather be entertained rather than seriously consider, or even begin to solve the issues.

But liberals have finally given up and taken the "if you can't beat them, join them" approach, with Jon Stewart, Bill Mare, and Steven Colbert putting conservatives and their commentators, at least at times, on the defensive.

This is only a personal - and I'm sure a very inadequate - view of why liberalism has declined over the last 40 or so years. The history I suggest is probably somewhat flawed as well, since it's only gleaned from a casual reading of rather superficial sources. Nevertheless, I don't believe liberalism is really a "dirty" word, only a very minority held viewpoint in American politics.