However, I can't see Clinton getting enough votes if she is the nominee, just to plastic and devicive. And Obama has got NOTHING to offer, no experience in leadership or significant congressional influence. As it stands, I cannot see how or why the democrat party is so smug concerning the next President. What is your view?
2007-05-15 12:36:16 · 14 answers · asked by Charles V 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
sadly Lynette s, you are totally wrong, it is the Democrat party. Wikipedia is not a reliable source for anything. No one serious about research even thinks about using Wiki for anything.
2007-05-15 15:27:10 · update #1
well, Hillary is very devicive, granted...
Obama though, seems to be a political outsider and somewhat honest... which is SOMETHING if you ask me... (and pretty much a lot more than Bush has or had to offer, from what I can tell?)
granted, his experience is low...
also, Edwards could be interesting...
but the other issue could be... who do the Republcians have that could beat them? you don't have to be great, just better than the other guy...
I would be surpised if Rudy makes it through the primaries... McCain won't... and who knows who will?
2007-05-15 13:03:48 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
The dems don't have a good candidate, yet. Someone might emerge, but it certainly looks like Hillary and the clinton machine will get the nomination. No matter who the republicans nominate, they have to overcome a lot. Carter was the worst president the US has ever had, but he was going to win because of the Nixon shadow. If the republicans can find someone to run, none of the current ones, that is charismatic and sincere, it will be a close race I think. Lots of time for things to sort out. Interesting to watch.
2007-05-15 20:58:38 · answer #2 · answered by Blitzpup 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Though they have no right to be smug, as things stand now, it would apear the Democrats have a lock on the next Presidency.
The 'black halo' effect of George W is sufficient to besmirch any republican candidate. Thus whatever sacrificial lamb gets nominated will have no choice but to distance himself from Bush, just as Gore distanced himself from Clinton - except Bush is even more unpopular.
If you have a choice between two candidates, one of whom is 'distanced' from a prior president you hate, and the other of whom is diametrically opposed to that same prior president, you'll run right out and vote for Ms Diametric Opposition. OTOH, if you really like the last President, you won't be too enthusiastic about voting for either of the people bad mouthing him, and just might stay home.
2007-05-15 19:45:09 · answer #3 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Its the Democratic Party but only a publican could get it wrong. Look it up on Wikipedia. Fits you to a tee. We're smug becuase who in their right mind would vote publican?
2007-05-15 21:37:50 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Its not over till its over. Who knows. At this point, I don't think it makes much difference. Neither one is going to do anything for anybody except corporations and commerce.
2007-05-15 19:41:58 · answer #5 · answered by BekindtoAnimals22 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. Democrats think it is in the bag. They also think they have a mandate from the last election.
2007-05-15 23:01:07 · answer #6 · answered by Chainsaw 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is possible.
They would have to take a strong stand on the issues and not back down.
Good luck to them, we really need the change.
2007-05-15 19:44:30 · answer #7 · answered by Mark F 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I am betting we'll have another Dem for prez. If history repeats itself the Repubs will start a mess and leave it for the Dems to take the blame for it.
2007-05-15 19:40:55 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
I do not want to be smug but the next President--by a landslide--will be a woman.
2007-05-15 19:47:08 · answer #9 · answered by GO HILLARY 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
I'll laugh my *** off if they find the mobile weapons labs in Syria between now and election day.
2007-05-15 19:42:23 · answer #10 · answered by Eric 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋