Ask Experts Questions for FREE Help !
Ask
    DonaldM_23's Avatar
    DonaldM_23 Posts: 86, Reputation: 10
    Junior Member
     
    #1

    Sep 16, 2008, 09:19 AM
    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 restaurant 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 decision 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?
    BABRAM's Avatar
    BABRAM Posts: 561, Reputation: 145
    Senior Member
     
    #2

    Sep 16, 2008, 12:13 PM
    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.
    DonaldM_23's Avatar
    DonaldM_23 Posts: 86, Reputation: 10
    Junior Member
     
    #3

    Sep 16, 2008, 01:00 PM
    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.
    Galveston1's Avatar
    Galveston1 Posts: 362, Reputation: 53
    Full Member
     
    #4

    Sep 16, 2008, 05:18 PM
    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.
    BABRAM's Avatar
    BABRAM Posts: 561, Reputation: 145
    Senior Member
     
    #5

    Sep 16, 2008, 05:21 PM
    Donald,

    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.
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 344
    Ultra Member
     
    #6

    Sep 17, 2008, 05:21 AM
    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 existence. 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") .
    NeedKarma's Avatar
    NeedKarma Posts: 10,635, Reputation: 1706
    Uber Member
     
    #7

    Sep 17, 2008, 05:37 AM
    The dems should stay with the high-road campaign while the repub campaign self-destructs.
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 344
    Ultra Member
     
    #8

    Sep 17, 2008, 06:03 AM
    The high road being cease asking the Iraqis to stall negotiations with the Bush administration until after the elections ?
    SEN. BARACK OBAMA WANTS TROOPS OUT OF IRAQ, BUT WANTS A DELAY IN NEGOTIATIONS FOR REMOVAL - New York Post

    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 :
    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
    NeedKarma's Avatar
    NeedKarma Posts: 10,635, Reputation: 1706
    Uber Member
     
    #9

    Sep 17, 2008, 06:11 AM
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by tomder55
    He has personally tried to undermine US diplomacy.
    Yet another lie.

    This is what I am talking about.
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 344
    Ultra Member
     
    #10

    Sep 17, 2008, 06:28 AM

    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 )

    TRAVEL PLANS; War Zones on the Itinerary - New York Times
    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 .
    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.
    NeedKarma's Avatar
    NeedKarma Posts: 10,635, Reputation: 1706
    Uber Member
     
    #11

    Sep 17, 2008, 06:36 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by tomder55
    I did not say he said it .He would not be that stupid . I said his cheerleader squad at CNN said it.
    That was my point, I'm glad you got it.
    sGt HarDKorE's Avatar
    sGt HarDKorE Posts: 656, Reputation: 98
    Senior Member
     
    #12

    Sep 17, 2008, 01:11 PM
    Hi, The democrats are not being too soft, they playing fair.

    My sister leads the obama group in Michigan. And today one of her co workers told her he couldn't come in today because his tires were slashed for being an obama supporter. Not only is that rude, he had coffee and food thrown at his car and him.

    Republicans need to calm down, he's only 16.
    BABRAM's Avatar
    BABRAM Posts: 561, Reputation: 145
    Senior Member
     
    #13

    Sep 17, 2008, 05:10 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by tomder55
    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.
    Nope. What the Dems have is a young presidential candidate that's more level headed than John McCain and is left of GW Bush. I can think of a lot worse things like being on par with Dubya, i.e. John McCain.


    Quote Originally Posted by tomder55
    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.

    What principles? The Democrat's primary redistricting revamp? It's a screwed up way of finally finding out the nominee and maybe the Dems will wise up and simplify in the future. But Hillary fought a tough election and CNN disclosed had they used a similar formula( like the Pubs), it still would had been a tight race. Obama and the DNC gave her the room that they felt she needed, although it was made for TV drama.

    Quote Originally Posted by tomder55
    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 .

    Blah blah blah with the cookie cutter mentality and liberal rhetoric. Conservative, liberal, or moderate, the issues all over the place, and each one doesn't necessarily fit neatly into a single category, "Tom.". Palin's a puppet. All she does is attempt to parrot John McCain. Majority of the time I know her speech content before she utters a word and it comes from some of those same speech writers that Dubya used. Biden is seasoned and doesn't have to have his hand held. If I have to pick between two old Washington insiders, I'll take Biden over McCain any day.

    Quote Originally Posted by tomder55
    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") .
    Bwa ha ha ha! If she was that darn good and closer to center than left than Obama, and as desperate as McCain is (and yes he is), John could had checked his ego at the door of one of his seven houses. BTW I can certainly think of a lot better Republican candidates than John McCain or his VP pick in Sarah Palin. Hillary would had been a dynamic part of the Dem ticket and in time I expect she'll mature from this lesson, but don't expect that to happen by October.


    Quote Originally Posted by tomder55
    Why would she do that when she holds a powerful position in the Senate ? She could end up being the next Teddy Kennedy of the party.
    Because her last name is "Clinton."
    cassiecase's Avatar
    cassiecase Posts: 10, Reputation: 3
    New Member
     
    #14

    Sep 17, 2008, 11:46 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by DonaldM_23
    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?
    This election has been all about bickerings and personal insults. If they keep with up with these strategy, we're doomed.
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 344
    Ultra Member
     
    #15

    Sep 18, 2008, 07:29 AM
    Bobby
    Lynn Forester De Rothschild now supporting McCain .That is a major PUMA defection .

    What I am interested in is if Evita's sudden decline to address the anti-Mahdi Hatter Rally in NY Monday is marching orders from BO ? If it's true then she is still in his camp. But her support for him has been tepid at best and she has done little to convince PUMAs to support Zeus .
    NeedKarma's Avatar
    NeedKarma Posts: 10,635, Reputation: 1706
    Uber Member
     
    #16

    Sep 18, 2008, 07:40 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by tomder55
    ... Evita's ... the anti-Mahdi Hatter ... BO ... Zeus .
    Who are these people?
    tandemsforus's Avatar
    tandemsforus Posts: 24, Reputation: 3
    New Member
     
    #17

    Sep 18, 2008, 08:02 AM
    Donald_23
    On Sept 16th you said that HRC said she was the better choice to be vp. Where and when did you hear this? Where can I read that statement.

    Tomder55
    On Sept 16th You said that Biden Made the statement that Hillary would have been the better choice for vp. Where and when did you hear this. Where can I read that statement.
    I am looking to get some facts here.
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 344
    Ultra Member
     
    #18

    Sep 18, 2008, 08:15 AM
    YouTube - Biden says Clinton would have been a better VP
    "She is qualified to be President of the United States of America, she's easily qualified to be vice president of the United States of America and, quite frankly, it might have been a better pick than me,"
    tandemsforus's Avatar
    tandemsforus Posts: 24, Reputation: 3
    New Member
     
    #19

    Sep 18, 2008, 08:24 AM
    Thanks for the reference
    But in all fairness to him you got to admit he made that statement to be polite, trying to bring the party together, not to just say outright she would have been the better choice for vp.
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 344
    Ultra Member
     
    #20

    Sep 18, 2008, 09:53 AM
    I wonder tandemforus... I wonder .

    I think he is uninspirational and frankly.. being in the swamp longer than McCain sort of dilutes Obama's mantra.

    Clearly he was picked to give cover for Obama's lack of foreign policy credentials . But when push came to shove .Biden has been on the wrong side of policy in my opinion dating back to the Cold War.

    He was opposed to all Reagan initiatives to bring down the Soviet Empire. He was one of the few who opposed the 1990 Gulf War. And his tri-partition plan for Iraq was the single dumbest post-war suggestion I have heard.

Not your question? Ask your question View similar questions

 

Question Tools Search this Question
Search this Question:

Advanced Search

Add your answer here.


Check out some similar questions!

What is the difference of chemistry in diet soft drink and regular soft drinks [ 1 Answers ]

We have to make a vidoe of this for school and we are stuck. What is the difference of chemistry in diet soft drink and regular soft drinks?

What would be the democratic future [ 23 Answers ]

If Obama beats Hillary and the allegations of him being socialist, communist, and wanting to sell America short with the globalization initiative... proved to be true and say everybody turned against him would he still be the candidate running for the Presidency or would he be replaced by Hillary...

Has the Democratic Party always been the cry-baby Party? [ 21 Answers ]

This is an honest question and I’m looking for an honest answer. Since I can remember Democrats talk about what a lousy country this is and constantly complain about the “unfairness” of life, the “evils” of big business, the never-shrinking scourge of racism and homophobia, and the inevitable...

Democratic or republican [ 2 Answers ]

Is Iowa considered democratic or republican

Las Vegas Democratic debate. [ 6 Answers ]

The recent Democratic debate, held in Las Vegas, provided little action with exception of the first fifteen minutes in which Obama came out on the offensive and Hillary Clinton returned fire making Obama appear sheepishly at a loss. Personally I disagreed on a fair portion of the issues with the...


View more questions Search