At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
Is the Democratic party to soft to win this election.
I've been observing the Dem & Rep go back and forth with nonsense. Its either Palin issues or Obama not choosing Clinton as VP. I recently was eating at a resturant and over heard a group of people conversing about the democrates party is too soft to win this election. I feel that the republicans no matter what decision is made by the party. The decison is embrace even if it's wrong or in question. On the other hand the Democratic party is basically fighting amongs each other instead of fighting a strong campaign. As a party what do the democrates need done to win this election?
In retrospect, being too soft, was the knock on the McCain 2000 campaign in the Republican primaries against G.W. Bush, and with the Democrats in the 2004 presidential election when Kerry made his limp lip bid. This election, however you actually can see that the Dems are spending the money countering the Pubs commercials with ads of their own. All the Dems really need to do is continuously hammer away on the economy and in return that will make the middle and lower classes show up to vote. The Iraqi war issue is secondary as you see most of the public leaning toward leaving the control to the Iraqis asap with the shift currently on Afghanistan and the elusive OBL becoming a topic again. Health care will always get some play as it usually does every four years.
Anyway...Gore's campaign in 2000 actually was correct with their slogan "it's the economy stupid." Unfortunately Al Gore was stipulating too many of his environmental agenda issues along side the economy issue and didn't spend enough time swinging back at Dubya for his rhetorical nonsense. The Dems are running a much improved campaign this go around than the previous two times. BTW the Clinton's had the fierceness for campaigning had Hillary been the nominee, but became too self-absorbed to relate the Dems views to the public the way that an Obama/Biden ticket does.
I completely understand what your saying. I have a question for you, do you think it's unfair that H. Clinton is telling the world that she would be a better choice than biden for the VP spot. I feel Hiliary should be supportive towards the demecratic party to win this election. I think Hiliary agenda regardless of who wins is Hiliary 2012.
My answer to your original question. The Dem party needs to turn right, hard right. It has been hijacked by people so far left that is does not resemble the party of your grandfather, when it was actually the party of the working man.
As brazing as the Clinton's are, I don't think they want to undermine the Democratic party and risk ex-president Bill Clinton having more egg on his face. Now having witnessed the campaign that the Clinton's waged during the Democratic primaries, it leaves me little doubt that Hillary is hedging her bets either for a future run at presidency, a Supreme Court seat, or in the Obama cabinet on health reform. It occurred to me recently that if Obama becomes president that Biden might serve as VP only one term and then the following ticket would be Obama/Clinton in 2012. Hillary then would run for president in 2016 in which she would be 69 years of age, actually younger than McCain is now.
As Gal. said ;the Dems set themselves up by selecting one of the extreme left representatives of their party. We would be looking at a Mondale or McGovern-like defeat if the Republicans had not damaged their own brand in the last decade.
Had they stuck to the principles that got them the majority in 1996 the Republicans would be looking at a landslide instead of fighting for their political existance. The selection of Obama threw them a life line that frankly they did not deserve to get.
McCain's selection of Palin satisfies the base of the party and leaves McCain free to court the centrist in America. Obama's shift to the center appears disengenuous because he fought a long primary campaign that catered to the left. His base gets angry when he drifts too far to the middle . He selected Biden because it was thought that Biden would appeal to the middle. But Biden is ranked #3 most liberal in the Senate and he is frankly uninspiring .
Hillary would've been a much better selection for the VP slot if Obama could've checked his ego at the door. But rumblings of discontent in the party could force Obama to do an "October Suprise " ,and bump Biden from the ticket in favor of HRC (or as I like to call her "Evita") .
or perhaps wishing that economy goes south so he can politically profit from it?
From the CNN transcripts of a couple of Obama supporting commentators :
Quote:
DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: But what happened over the weekend with the economy and the bottom falling out of the financial markets -- and we have been saying for some time on this program this is the worst financial crisis since the Depression -- Alan Greenspan said on Sunday the worst economic situation he's seen -- it seems to me that there's a real turning point now, that that momentum on McCain's side is likely to fade. And there is the opportunity for Obama to seize the momentum back on his side. I don't know if he's going to do it or not. He is trying. McCain has an opportunity here as well. But there's no question right now that this -- this really dark economic situation is now going to be -- is going to really -- is going to, I think, blot out a lot of this question about who -- the backing-and-forthing and the advertising, and focus on the issues.
ANDERSON COOPER, HOST: Right.
GERGEN: And that's what -- that's what Obama has wanted to do. He's now got the opportunity.
I think, personally, he's got the critique down, but he still hasn't provided a message about what he would do, nor has he really surrounded himself, in the way he needs to, with the Bob Rubins and the Paul Volckers and the Larry Summers and Laura Tysons, and have them as a tight unit. I think he still has to do that.
COOPER: Candy, no doubt -- very quickly -- on the campaign trail, it obviously played a big role today. You anticipate, in the days ahead, issue number one, it's going to be front and center?
CANDY CROWLEY, CNN: Oh, absolutely.
I mean, listen, just as foreclosures were showing up on B-17, or in the real estate section, along comes this horrific headline out of Wall Street.
COOPER: Right.
CROWLEY: I mean, this is what they wanted. They believe, of course, that the economy is one of their strengths and that they can paint John McCain as George Bush.
The Obama campaign wanted horrific Wall Street headlines to help their campaign. He has personally tried to undermine US diplomacy. That's what I call taking the high road
Originally Posted by tomder55 He has personally tried to undermine US diplomacy.
Yet another lie.
This is what I am talking about.
NK you can't get away with that . Obama said before his trip to Iraq it was his intention to stall negotiations . (and my source is impecable ;the liberal newspaper of record ...the NY slimes )
Among the issues being discussed between Mr. Zebari and the presidential candidates is a long-term security accord between Iraq and the United States. While the Bush administration would like to see an agreement reached by midsummer, Mr. Obama said he opposed such a swift timetable.
''My concern is that the Bush administration, in a weakened state politically, ends up trying to rush an agreement that in some ways might be binding to the next administration,'' Mr. Obama said, ''whether it's my administration or Senator McCain's administration.''
That was in June .
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55 The Obama campaign wanted horrific Wall Street headlines to help their campaign.
Another republican lie. He has said no such thing.
I did not say he said it .He would not be that stupid . I said his cheerleader squad at CNN said it.
Linear Mode
