The inevitability of Hillary as a presidential candidate

[bascule]

I really hate thinking about this... but as far as I can tell any Democratic success, and many failures, inevitably seem to lead to this

 

According to the polls Hillary is set to claim either the #1 or #2 spot at the primaries. Even if Obama wins, she's likely to get the VP slot. About the only way out of this, as far as I can tell, is a Gore/Obama ticket (yeah, I'll keep dreaming)

 

I think in all likelyhood we'll see either an Obama/Clinton ticket or a Clinton/Obama one. In the latter case, Hillary is the presidential candidate.

 

In the former, either they win or they don't. If they win, then it would seem almost inevitable that Hillary, as VP, would seek the presidential nomination.

 

If they lose, then Hillary would be in Edwards shoes now. This is perhaps the only scenario I can think of where she may fade to the background (besides an Obama/Hillary ticket getting defeated after 1 term), and it's not a particularly favorable one for me.

[ParanoiA]

Both parties are about as silly, shallow, plastic and predictable as can be. Neither of them have a candidate I'd trust a dime of my personal money with - so why would I vote to trust billions of our money and our children's lives with them?

 

I take that back, the republicans have Ron Paul - they don't want him, but they got him. Neither party wants any Ron Pauls in their primaries because honesty and integrity are the enemies of a successful politician.

[Sisyphus]

It's hard to imagine Hillary as a VP candidate. On the other hand, there's Chris Rock's "we'll never have a black vice president" sketch, so I don't know...

[ecoli]

 

I take that back, the republicans have Ron Paul - they don't want him, but they got him. Neither party wants any Ron Paul's in their primaries because honesty and integrity are the enemies of a successful politician.

 

Ron Paul won't run as an independent, though. I've heard a few people say that they were considering registering republican to vote for Dr. Paul in the primaries, but not enough for him to win, I'm thinking.

 

I'm hoping he'll be able to keep the other pols honest... but it seems as if (for example) Guiliani's patriotic, but illogical rhetoric is more than enough to drown him out.

[Martin]

I really hate thinking about this... but as far as I can tell any Democratic success, and many failures, inevitably seem to lead to this

...

 

I heard Richardson the governor of New Mexico talking to the Commonwealth Club of California, and answering questions, on the radio Friday evening.

 

When you have had enough gloomy thoughts, bascule, think of something that isn't dreadful for a change.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Richardson

[ParanoiA]

Ron Paul won't run as an independent, though. I've heard a few people say that they were considering registering republican to vote for Dr. Paul in the primaries, but not enough for him to win, I'm thinking.

 

I'm hoping he'll be able to keep the other pols honest... but it seems as if (for example) Guiliani's patriotic, but illogical rhetoric is more than enough to drown him out.

 

You know, I've never paid much attention to the primaries in the past, so I don't know if this is common or not, but I find it interesting that a number of media outlets and various politicians have named him the winner of the republican debates so far - by a good margin too.

 

In Ron Paul I see the "adult" politician. The real McCoy. He lectures when he speaks. He doesn't dumb down his language so you can keep up. He doesn't just repeat himself, he explains himself. And he's not afraid to say exactly what he stands for.

 

In the rest I just see teenie bopper politicians. They got all the great one liners. They got the capitalist money machine churning them along. They'll keep it all nice and simple so the sheeple can understand them when they pander to their issues and pay lip service to the american public's required list of stuff candidates must pretend to care about - all with a car saleman's smile.

 

I admit, Dr. Paul might not be a winner right now, if ever, but he has been a congressman in Texas (of all places) for 10 years. Somebody is listening, and now that they've seen his actions, they're still electing him.

[SkepticLance]

The truth is that we are discussing a problem with democracy. Any democratic election on a national scale is essentially 'trial by television'.

 

We look at how the candidates perform in TV interviews, and at what TV journalists report about them. Generally, the candidate with the most television charisma wins. The truth is that the vast majority of voters have no way of judging how good one politician or another might be.

 

Some people, like those who contribute to this forum, are careful thinkers and examine the issues. But most people vote for whoever gives them the best 'warm fuzzies.' This is something that all politicians understand, and they all have spin doctors who work on warm fuzziness.

 

At the end of the day, we get the leaders we deserve, and that does not say much.

[ParanoiA]

At the end of the day, we get the leaders we deserve, and that does not say much.

 

Amen...

[ecoli]

The truth is that we are discussing a problem with democracy. Any democratic election on a national scale is essentially 'trial by television'.

 

We look at how the candidates perform in TV interviews, and at what TV journalists report about them. Generally, the candidate with the most television charisma wins. The truth is that the vast majority of voters have no way of judging how good one politician or another might be.

 

Some people, like those who contribute to this forum, are careful thinkers and examine the issues. But most people vote for whoever gives them the best 'warm fuzzies.' This is something that all politicians understand, and they all have spin doctors who work on warm fuzziness.

 

At the end of the day, we get the leaders we deserve, and that does not say much.

 

And from that perspective, it hardly matters which 'warm fuzzy' we get, because most of them are going to be a puppet for the same special interest groups anyway.

 

Someone like Ron Paul isn't going to pander to them, and as such won't get their money, and won't be competitive in the overall race. Therefore, anybody who has the potential to break the cycle, won't get a chance to.

[ParanoiA]

Someone like Ron Paul isn't going to pander to them, and as such won't get their money, and won't be competitive in the overall race. Therefore, anybody who has the potential to break the cycle, won't get a chance to.

 

And that, exactly that, is why I get pissy and pessimistic around election time. It's that time when you hear folks, co-workers, friends, everybody talks about how wonderful it would be for a real candidate that isn't bought and sold by "the machine" - and I just sit quietly shaking my head, thinking to myself "then why don't you put your money where your mouth is and quit voting for these salesmen".

 

Reminds me alot about how GWB got re-elected, yet nobody voted for him. Can't find anyone to admit they voted him in, yet he managed to get about half the country's votes. I don't want to hear any of these idiots cry and moan about the leadership we have, when every time they have a chance to practice what they preach, they vote for the salesman.

[abskebabs]

I've hear recently that Michael Bloomberg may well run as an independent candidate. Were this to happen would you guys, harbour any hope that he could perhaps instill some positive change if elected? He doesn't really need extra money, and could possibly finance his own political campaign, so he would be free of other corporate interests. However, I acknowledge he may have vested interests of his own for getting elected...

[jackson33]

There is still some time, before the 08 poles close, but for some time and as of today IMO, the elections of 08, are Hillary Clinton's to lose. As a die hard, Conservative/Republican/Capitalist, I see no electable republican in the race or on the horizon. I would like to see a Newt/Thompson ticket from what available, however thats very unlikely...

 

Obama IMO is running for the 2012 or maybe 2016, with his current campaign.

Hillary, would, never accept the second spot on any ticket.

[armygas]

One of the few things in my perspective in her favor is the fact she "states" she will support a dramatic increase in funding Autism research.

[imp]

Both parties are about as silly, shallow, plastic and predictable as can be. Neither of them have a candidate I'd trust a dime of my personal money with - so why would I vote to trust billions of our money and our children's lives with them?

 

I take that back, the republicans have Ron Paul - they don't want him, but they got him. Neither party wants any Ron Pauls in their primaries because honesty and integrity are the enemies of a successful politician.

 

Your definition of a successful politician apparently eludes me. "Successful" politically, then, implies lacking honesty and integrity?

 

To me, a successful politician would be a good manager of large groups of people, one having such ability without being a manipulator of people. Using my definition, then, reveals factually that political ambition can be paralleled with parasitism. imp

[ParanoiA]

Your definition of a successful politician apparently eludes me. "Successful" politically, then, implies lacking honesty and integrity?

 

To me, a successful politician would be a good manager of large groups of people, one having such ability without being a manipulator of people. Using my definition, then, reveals factually that political ambition can be paralleled with parasitism. imp

 

By success, I mean by getting elected and staying elected. A successful politician in america is someone who appears to be all things to all people - generally speaking. For instance, a real person makes mistakes when they talk and doesn't write 100 pages of drivel to sound smart and talk like a robot during delivery.

 

The only way a politician can speak for 45 minutes and not say anything wrong is to basically say nothing at all - which is exactly what we get - 45 minutes of talking that could be reduced to 3 minutes of meat and potatoes.

 

We are really silly people. We are regularly lied to by media 24/7 and we accept it. Burger King's food doesn't look like on the commercials. Life insurance companies don't really care about me. And AT&T doesn't really have a force of thousands of friendly, pretty people totally dedicated to kissing my ass like they show on the commercials.

 

Successful politicians are people who understand that and play that game. Most would argue that's just how things are and they are doing what they have to do to get elected. I say that's exactly why I don't want them.

 

Ron Paul is probably more like them than I realize, but I appreciate his effort to try to be "real". When he talks, it's not sideways or pandering, it's straight forward and if you don't agree then you just don't agree. There are a couple of things I don't agree with Ron Paul about, but then there's at least that many things I don't agree with in any politician - so I'll take the guy that puts his money where his mouth is and votes like he preaches.

[Sisyphus]

Your definition of a successful politician apparently eludes me.

 

He means "able to win political office."

[SkepticLance]

"Successful politician", able to win office, and good leader, an asset to the nation, are two quite different things.

 

There are three qualities needed for a good leader.

 

1. Charisma. Without being able to look good on television, the person simply fails to get elected.

 

2. Competence. Once in a position of leadership, the job is essentially becoming a decision making machine. Data in and decisins out. A competent leader produces good decisions.

 

3. Benevolence. Adolf Hitler had qualities 1 and 2, but no benevolence, and was a disaster. Benevolence means using the other talents to the benefit of the people, and I mean all people - not just Americans.

 

The sad reality, though, is that only quality 1 is needed for getting elected. Competence is quite lacking with the current American President, and benevolence is a rarity.