Quote from: KoltarAny of these four get elected and the country is just going to coast on autopilot for 4 years - which is a bad thing.

Er...no.  With three out of "these four" expressing more centrist and moderate platform philosophies, you might start to see more bi-partisan cooperation in the House and Senate.  And, whomever is elected, you won't see much of anything go on autopilot.

!i!

Quote from: KoltarThe four remaining candidates just seem rather lackluster.

Nothing bold or forward-looking about any of them . Barack Obama comes close, but in other areas I think of him as rather weak.

A Thompson & Rice ticket would have been more interesting for the Republicans than what we are now likely to wind up with.
 Its not that white guys in suits are boring - its just that these particular two feel like yesterday's news.

Any of these four get elected and the country is just going to coast on autopilot for 4 years - which is a bad thing.


- Ed C.

You're kidding, right?  Thompson is the most lackluster politician since Millard Fillmore.  He barely did anything during his years in the senate, and barely even bothered to campaign for president.

Romney was also rather dull IMO.

I think you are short-changing Huckabee quite a bit.  He is a rather good orator and I enjoyed his speeches even if I disagreed with most everything he stands for.

I'll give you that McCain is dull.  Or if not dull, just kind of creepy in a living mummy kind of way.  He gives off a sense of elderly-ness in a way I never felt from Reagan or Bob Dole.   He's not quite to pre-death Strom Thurmond territory, but he looks close.

As for the Democrats, Hillary isn't dull, she's just irritating.  I agree with you that if she is elected it will be 4 more years of the usual nonsense.  I find Obama quite inspiring (a point of light, if you will).

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaEr...no.  With three out of "these four" expressing more centrist and moderate platform philosophies, you might start to see more bi-partisan cooperation in the House and Senate.  And, whomever is elected, you won't see much of anything go on autopilot.

!i!

If it's one thing I can't stand, it's the House and/or Senate getting anything done.

I heard a guy say today, to my amusement, "Why is it every time I see a political supporter hold up a sign that says 'change', I think they want all of mine."

Exactly - saying Change!! means nothing. Changing something just for the sake of saying you made a "Change!" is bullshit.

Actual progress  is what needed. A change for the nbetter or a change in things that actually means something.

The old Gallagher joke about government is mostly true. The opposite of Progress is congress.

- Ed C.

I just jumped on the Obama bandwagon:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQr9ezr8UeA

Yeah, looks like the Democratic caucuses here in Washington State are going to be interesting this Saturday.  We've suddenly become quite the national focal point.

!i!

Quote from: KoltarExactly - saying Change!! means nothing. Changing something just for the sake of saying you made a "Change!" is bullshit.

Actual progress  is what needed. A change for the nbetter or a change in things that actually means something.
- Ed C.

The impression I'm getting is that 'change' is just a catch-all term for saying 'We will have totally different priorities for national direction than what we've had.'

I thought "Change!" meant "We're still coasting on "anyone but Bush '04"

But about the Hilary hate... didn't we already have this conversation about media bias? (lefty chixxxors are hot, right wingers are crazy etc...)

Quote from: Malleus ArianorumI thought "Change!" meant "We're still coasting on "anyone but Bush '04"

Maybe. But I'd really like the next four years to be dedicated to recovering the goodwill of other nations and curbing the worst excesses of the last two administrations. In that context, 'change' would mean something to me.

Of course, it's easy just to shout for change. I'm not sure any candidate will follow through on a promise like that.

But at least anyone who gets elected won't be Bush this time. He was an utter shit of a leader that should of been impeached.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaYeah, looks like the Democratic caucuses here in Washington State are going to be interesting this Saturday.  We've suddenly become quite the national focal point.

Well, we attended the local pricinct caucus earlier today, and the general report from this end of town was that it was swaying decisively toward Obama.  In an unexpected turn of events, I was elected as a delegate to the county and congressional district caucuses.  I really need to bone up on the significant differences between Clinton and Obama, as my constituents fully expect me to sway other delegates to my elected candidate (and, no, I won't divulge exactly who it is).

!i!

Wow!  Obama swept Washington, Nebraska, the Virgin Islands, and Louisiana!

He's got the "mo", it would seem...

In Washington, news outlets are calling it a "2-to-1" win, but it looks closer to a 3-to-1 lead.*

It's important to note that, with caucuses, delegates to the national convention haven't been selected yet.  For instance, delegates elected yesterday go on to county and congressional district caucuses, where delegates will be elected to go on to the state caucus, at which delegates will be elcted to attend the national convention.  Sides can still switch back and forth over the next few months.

!i!

[*Edit: 2-to-1 looks like a fair estmate State-wide after all -- roughly 67% or 68% for Obama, 32% of delegates for Clinton.  My 3-to-1 observation was based more on local reports.]

Quote from: Zachary The FirstWow!  Obama swept Washington, Nebraska, the Virgin Islands, and Louisiana!

He's got the "mo", it would seem...

Don't get too excited... remember, Nebraska went for Dukakis in '88...

Quote from: SpikeDon't get too excited... remember, Nebraska went for Dukakis in '88...

Not really excitement, despite the exclamation point.  Surprise, a bit, yeah.