I wonder if Keith Olbermann like Dubya?

[JMK]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15321167/

Pretty scathing article, though I wonder how much of it is alarmist?

Of special note, since this is a Star Wars forum.........there were many theories out there that suggested that some Sith beliefs were references to Bush's own (i.e. "If you're not with me, then you're my enemy!" - Bush had a very similar quote IIRC, after the war on terror had begun.)

Predictably Lucas denied any parallels, but this, from the link above could add more speculative fuel to the fire:


...And we have been here when President Franklin D. Roosevelt insisted that Executive Order 9066 was necessary to save American lives, only to watch him use that order to imprison and pauperize 110,000 Americans...

I don't think I need to explain what I'm referencing here, do I? ;)

There's also the implication that Bush lied and cheated his way to greater power...just as our friend Palpatine had done.

Just starting up a new thread...it's been a lame day. :)

[Lion El' Jonson]

I have a feeling that it's influenced by the November elections coming up. That article is almost entirely alarmist, in my opinion. President Bush is definitely not one of our better Presidents; I respected him for at least showing a bit of backbone during his first term, but now he has become a wet noodle that tries to pander to both sides and ends up pleasing nobody. I think the Republicans will breathe a sigh of relief that Dubya is out, and the Democrats will try to capitalize on the mess our President has made.

Is there any politician who has never lied or cheated to achieve what he wanted? The question Olbermann asks has been repeated countless times throughout the history of mankind: is it alright to infringe on the rights of the few to benefit the many? Presidents have historically done what they thought was necessary at the time; when those decisions didn't work, or when they didn't take action, they were criticized; when everything played out alright, they became known as some of the greatest leaders in our nation's history.

Did we do the wrong thing at times? Sure. I'm half asian, and have ancestors who were interred in the camps, as well as a grandfather who fought against his birthplace (Japan) as a tail-gunner in the US Army-Air Corps. I don't think you will find many people who will deny that what we did was wrong, but at the time it was supported.

During the Cold War, the prevailing idea was that it would be better to practice Mutually Assured Destruction than to allow the world to fall under the Iron Curtain. Had a war begun, it's likely that most of us wouldn't exist at all.

As to the core point of this thread: I think the resemblances between real-life and Star Wars are interesting, but hardly something to cry foul over. In my opinion, George W. Bush's comment of "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists" was just wrong. You can't just polarize an issue like that. For that matter, Hillary Clinton said the same thing after 9/11. If George Lucas was using the reference to explain Anakin's clear-cut viewpoint, then I think it's perfectly acceptable. It becomes controversial only if it seems clear that Lucas intended for it to be a political statement.

As an aside: I hate how divided this country has become. Democrat, Republican, Liberal, Conservative...who cares? The parties are extremely similiar if one takes a step back from all of the mudflinging, and compared to some nations that border on socialism, America is extremely conservative and market-oriented. Everything is analyzed as a political statement these days. In my opinion, no matter which sides controls the Legislative body of the government after the dust settles, it won't make very much of a difference. With Republican control, what have we really gotten? I don't think the Democrats are gonna be able to push things one way or the other without their own President in the White House. Even during the days of Clinton, when Republicans controlled the Senate, it seemed that the nation leaned one direction based on what the President supported.

And then, one little question: Who actually likes Hillary Clinton? ^_^;

[Loklorien s'Ilancy]

I'm going to admit straight out that I'm not an avid follower of politics and the 'he said she said' highschool behavior that, I believe, Capitol Hill has degenerated into. My knowledge of politics itself is pretty minimal, at least in terms of what's going on currently. That doesn't mean I don't have an opinion about what happens in that arena, it's just not as finely tuned as others'.

I miss the days of common sense :(

[Lion El' Jonson]

I miss the days of common sense :(


That said it better than the pile of crap I babbled on about. :lol

[Sanis Prent]

I have a feeling that it's influenced by the November elections coming up. That article is almost entirely alarmist, in my opinion. President Bush is definitely not one of our better Presidents; I respected him for at least showing a bit of backbone during his first term, but now he has become a wet noodle that tries to pander to both sides and ends up pleasing nobody. I think the Republicans will breathe a sigh of relief that Dubya is out, and the Democrats will try to capitalize on the mess our President has made.

Alarmist? Alarmist can be said for many things. When you outright eliminate the requirement to hear writs of Habeas Corpus, I think you should have been ringing alarm bells long before.

Bush knows that he's fast becoming a lame duck, maybe faster than any president in modern memory. That should not ever forgive this sin against us.

If you think this is alarmist, we've already disappeared one US Citizen on such reasoning. Do you think it will end there? I sure as hell don't. Here's one depressing thing to remember. Power surrendered to the government is rarely, if ever, returned to the people. We've sold ourselves far too cheaply for a false promise of security, and laid our civil liberties on the chopping block. Anybody who reacts with no less than full, contemptuous revulsion is acting against the American ideal itself.



Is there any politician who has never lied or cheated to achieve what he wanted? The question Olbermann asks has been repeated countless times throughout the history of mankind: is it alright to infringe on the rights of the few to benefit the many? Presidents have historically done what they thought was necessary at the time; when those decisions didn't work, or when they didn't take action, they were criticized; when everything played out alright, they became known as some of the greatest leaders in our nation's history.

This kind of populism is worthless though. It basically says that if mob consensus and hindsight clear a president's actions, then they're okay. The founders of our country took great pains to protect us from tyranny, both of absolutist nature, and the more subtle kind, which is tyranny of the mob. You will note that we are not a pure democracy. We are a democratic republic. Pure democracy is the realm of populism, where the majority in an issue will carry their will no matter what. That isn't what this country is about, and we should be exceedingly careful not to give a leader a blank check just because his actions are popular with the people.


Did we do the wrong thing at times? Sure. I'm half asian, and have ancestors who were interred in the camps, as well as a grandfather who fought against his birthplace (Japan) as a tail-gunner in the US Army-Air Corps. I don't think you will find many people who will deny that what we did was wrong, but at the time it was supported.

The ends do not justify the means. This is a dangerous line of thought you're embarking on.


During the Cold War, the prevailing idea was that it would be better to practice Mutually Assured Destruction than to allow the world to fall under the Iron Curtain. Had a war begun, it's likely that most of us wouldn't exist at all.

MAD was a side-effect issue of a full nuclear exchange, in which theater-level nuclear weapons would be deployed against sites either actively involved in delivering weapons, or support sites capable of fueling enemy war effort.


As to the core point of this thread: I think the resemblances between real-life and Star Wars are interesting, but hardly something to cry foul over. In my opinion, George W. Bush's comment of "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists" was just wrong. You can't just polarize an issue like that. For that matter, Hillary Clinton said the same thing after 9/11. If George Lucas was using the reference to explain Anakin's clear-cut viewpoint, then I think it's perfectly acceptable. It becomes controversial only if it seems clear that Lucas intended for it to be a political statement.

Linking this to Hillary as well does nothing to suggest a universal truth. Hillary Clinton is nearly as reviled as Bush is, and there is no chain of logic to connect a derogatory connotation with the president to implied support of Senator Clinton.


As an aside: I hate how divided this country has become. Democrat, Republican, Liberal, Conservative...who cares? The parties are extremely similiar if one takes a step back from all of the mudflinging, and compared to some nations that border on socialism, America is extremely conservative and market-oriented. Everything is analyzed as a political statement these days. In my opinion, no matter which sides controls the Legislative body of the government after the dust settles, it won't make very much of a difference. With Republican control, what have we really gotten? I don't think the Democrats are gonna be able to push things one way or the other without their own President in the White House. Even during the days of Clinton, when Republicans controlled the Senate, it seemed that the nation leaned one direction based on what the President supported.

Pushing things isn't the issue. What differences we have should be nurtured. That's how real politics works. You don't get anything passed with singular party control of all three government branches except a party line. I'm not advocating a democratic party takeover of the federal government, because that would be 1993 all over again.



And then, one little question: Who actually likes Hillary Clinton? ^_^;

Only idiots.

[Lion El' Jonson]

Oh, believe me Sanis, I agree completely; there's definitely something wrong going on here. I don't support the fact that the government has taken steps to eliminate one of the founding ideals of our nation.

Do the ends justify the means? Of course not. And while your point regarding the fact that we're responsible for giving our leaders a blank check is well taken, knowing that you are right is worthless when you lack the power necessary to make the change. This country has been whipped into a mob mentality; everyone has to be democratic or republican; everyone has to have an opinion. People are absolutely convinced that they are right.

In truth, I have a feeling that Americans don't support this act. The voting 50% that support the Republican party, however, are exceedingly unlikely to raise an issue over this if it jeopardizes their chance in the elections.

Forget Hillary Clinton, my point was that it's stupid to see things so black and white, and if Lucas used the concept to emphasize Anakin's conversion, then it's perfectly fine.

I have no idea whether the original topic of this post was the new act just signed into effect, or the parallels between Star Wars and political observations. ^_^;

[JMK]

Like any post, it was meant to generate discussion. Whichever direction it takes is fine with me. :) Especially if its with well thought out posts such as there have been so far.

[Sanis Prent]

Do the ends justify the means? Of course not. And while your point regarding the fact that we're responsible for giving our leaders a blank check is well taken, knowing that you are right is worthless when you lack the power necessary to make the change. This country has been whipped into a mob mentality; everyone has to be democratic or republican; everyone has to have an opinion. People are absolutely convinced that they are right.

In truth, I have a feeling that Americans don't support this act. The voting 50% that support the Republican party, however, are exceedingly unlikely to raise an issue over this if it jeopardizes their chance in the elections.

You think it's split even keel? Not anymore it isn't. Honestly, you've got maybe 30% of people in this country that vote the party line, and perhaps 70% that are disenfranchised by either party and either vote with the best fit for that given year, or do not vote at all. Right now, I'm pretty sure you'd get a better rep by being a leper than by being a Republican. No, I don't trust the Democratic party line either, but in a winner-take-all style of election as we use, the best thing we can hope for is for nobody to have an advantage, and for our government to be ruled by discord and strife, so that the only crap they can actually pass is the kind of crap that should probably see the light of day. With bipartisan-mired government, things like the Patriot Act and the Assault Weapons Ban DO NOT HAPPEN. At least, not without a long, drawn-out fight.

We still have the means to make the change. I still believe in the democratic process, and the power of a vote. If I didn't believe this anymore, I wouldn't even be talking about this with you or anybody else, because the time for talk would be over.



Forget Hillary Clinton, my point was that it's stupid to see things so black and white, and if Lucas used the concept to emphasize Anakin's conversion, then it's perfectly fine.

I have no idea whether the original topic of this post was the new act just signed into effect, or the parallels between Star Wars and political observations. ^_^;

I think the comparison should paint Bush as Chancellor Valorum, because the fool is either going to be a lame duck for two years, impeached, or even censured, depending on how the next few weeks goes.

The jerk you really should worry about is a snake like John McCain, because that fool has far more popular acclaim than Bush ever had, is a combat veteran, which is almost a sacrosanct thing here, and above all, has absolutely zero scruples that ordinary human beings should possess. He's already sold out everything he claims to support, so I have little doubt he has the potential to be three times the tyrant that Bush ever was.

[Lion El' Jonson]

You think it's split even keel? Not anymore it isn't. Honestly, you've got maybe 30% of people in this country that vote the party line, and perhaps 70% that are disenfranchised by either party and either vote with the best fit for that given year, or do not vote at all.

I was wary of using a number, just because facts like that don't really come off the top of my head. I think, however, that unless you can show the nation what a snake President Bush has become, in a meaningful way that relates to everybody across the country, no change will come of it. People just don't care if it doesn't happen to them.

Heck, as soon as some fanatic nutjobs destroy a bridge, or crack open a nuclear power plant, we're just gonna see more of the same. Perhaps not to the same extent (we're running out of countries to invade), but it'll have the same upswell of support for whoever promises action, regardless of the costs.

Is it stupid? Yes.

[Jedieb]

Alarmist? Alarmist can be said for many things. When you outright eliminate the requirement to hear writs of Habeas Corpus, I think you should have been ringing alarm bells long before.

Bush knows that he's fast becoming a lame duck, maybe faster than any president in modern memory. That should not ever forgive this sin against us.

If you think this is alarmist, we've already disappeared one US Citizen on such reasoning. Do you think it will end there? I sure as hell don't. Here's one depressing thing to remember. Power surrendered to the government is rarely, if ever, returned to the people. We've sold ourselves far too cheaply for a false promise of security, and laid our civil liberties on the chopping block. Anybody who reacts with no less than full, contemptuous revulsion is acting against the American ideal itself.




This kind of populism is worthless though. It basically says that if mob consensus and hindsight clear a president's actions, then they're okay. The founders of our country took great pains to protect us from tyranny, both of absolutist nature, and the more subtle kind, which is tyranny of the mob. You will note that we are not a pure democracy. We are a democratic republic. Pure democracy is the realm of populism, where the majority in an issue will carry their will no matter what. That isn't what this country is about, and we should be exceedingly careful not to give a leader a blank check just because his actions are popular with the people.



The ends do not justify the means. This is a dangerous line of thought you're embarking on.



MAD was a side-effect issue of a full nuclear exchange, in which theater-level nuclear weapons would be deployed against sites either actively involved in delivering weapons, or support sites capable of fueling enemy war effort.



Linking this to Hillary as well does nothing to suggest a universal truth. Hillary Clinton is nearly as reviled as Bush is, and there is no chain of logic to connect a derogatory connotation with the president to implied support of Senator Clinton.



Pushing things isn't the issue. What differences we have should be nurtured. That's how real politics works. You don't get anything passed with singular party control of all three government branches except a party line. I'm not advocating a democratic party takeover of the federal government, because that would be 1993 all over again.




Only idiots.

Me 'um like Hillary Clinton. She seem like goodem candidate! Plus, there's the bonus that having another Clinton back in office will cause diehard Dubya supporters more pain that anything imaginiable. Sweet, sweet, sweet, payback.

McCain v. Hillary, that's what the early betting looks like. Maybe someone else will emerge, but I doubt it. Guys like Obama haven't been around long enough and McCain may have sown up the nomination by selling out to Bush.

[Sanis Prent]

Me 'um like Hillary Clinton. She seem like goodem candidate! Plus, there's the bonus that having another Clinton back in office will cause diehard Dubya supporters more pain that anything imaginiable. Sweet, sweet, sweet, payback.

You can't be serious. She's a terrible candidate and seems completely artificial in every sense. That, and she's a lot closer to the Republican party line than most Democrats who aren't Zell Miller. Ugh.

Then there's also the whole issue that she brings way too much polarization into the mix already. Most people who had beef with Bill Clinton had it directed to Hillary by proxy. There's no way she can carry the kind of national consensus to gain the presidency by causing that kind of polarization from the get-go. And that's without her simply being a horrible person to give the nod to.


McCain v. Hillary, that's what the early betting looks like. Maybe someone else will emerge, but I doubt it. Guys like Obama haven't been around long enough and McCain may have sown up the nomination by selling out to Bush.

It's either McCain or Giuliani, and both are pretty crappy choices. The Democrats would do a lot better with somebody like Russ Feingold getting the nod, but I have no faith in them giving the nod to a truly capable candidate unfortunately.

[Pierce Tondry]

I'd have to agree with Charley on this one. Hilary Clinton isn't going to see the Oval Office from behind the desk unless she's giving whoever's in there favors from beneath that desk. But with her not having a strong position, I'm not clear on who the Democrats will field because I haven't cared about their party for nigh on 8 years now.

What makes you think Giuliani, Chuck?

[Sanis Prent]

Giuliani has been building on this ever since 9/11, and he's been vetted for over a year to be prepped to get the GOP nod. He isn't a shoe-in, but he's about even with McCain for the bid, I think.

That I think the whispered Democrats are so terrible is a possibly good thing. They could give the nod to a dark horse like Obama or Feingold, and they honestly need to push somebody who can breathe a little life into things.

[Jedieb]

You can't be serious. She's a terrible candidate and seems completely artificial in every sense. That, and she's a lot closer to the Republican party line than most Democrats who aren't Zell Miller. Ugh.

Then there's also the whole issue that she brings way too much polarization into the mix already. Most people who had beef with Bill Clinton had it directed to Hillary by proxy. There's no way she can carry the kind of national consensus to gain the presidency by causing that kind of polarization from the get-go. And that's without her simply being a horrible person to give the nod to.



It's either McCain or Giuliani, and both are pretty crappy choices. The Democrats would do a lot better with somebody like Russ Feingold getting the nod, but I have no faith in them giving the nod to a truly capable candidate unfortunately.
If she were closer to Republicans on many issues that would actually be a plus because she would be seen as a moderate and not a far left Dem. She's a bitch. Big friggin' deal. If she were a man she'd be known as tough, aggressive, etc. Everything points to her being in the lead for the nomination. Would I rather have a less polarizing Democrat? Yes, but right now I don't see anyone in the party stepping up to stop her. Hell, she's already got a war chest of $40M. The biggest problem that Hillary faces is that the number of voters who haven't made up their minds on her is the smallest of ANY candidate out there. Even McCain would be introducing himself to a certain percentage of voters, but not Hillary. Right now Guiliani is in the mix, but there's no telling if he's really going to run.

If the religous right gets fed up with the Republicans and stays home and the Republicans nominate a dud then she could win. Right now, I don't see anyone in the Democratic party stepping up to stop her if she decides to run and I think she will.

[Jedieb]

Some of the early front runners;
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15247438/

[Jedi Master Carr]

Some of the early front runners;
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15247438/

Its way too early to know who is going to run. When Bill Clinton ran he was a completely unknown 2 years before his election. I have a candidate who I think might come out of no where and it is the former governor of Virginia, Mark Warner. He is thinking of runing and he has a very powerful fiancial baker (the same person who backed Clinton). I would rather a governor get the nod they have better chances of winning.
As for this act, well I think it is horrible, but it could be declared unconstutional by the courts. My worry is it will be abused. And Bush will be a lame duck in 3 weeks when the Democrats take back the House and maybe even the Senate.

[Sanis Prent]

Warner isn't running. He announced that weeks ago.

[Jedieb]

Warner announced he wasn't running just over a week ago. It was a pretty big shock because he'd raised a lot of money and was still making calls and moves as recently as a month ago. Many people felt that Warner was the strongest anti-Hillary candidate out there. Don't count Warner out though. He's actually put himself in the perfect position to eventually land himself the VP nomination. He can cash in a lot of favors by supporting the eventual nominee and he's sure to make a speech at the 08 convention. He'll stay above the fray of the nomination process so he'll be a clean viable choice for VP.

The guy who can make a lot of noise is Obama. Watch what he does after the midterm elections. He's getting a lot of good press right now and he's not denying he may run. If he decides to go for it there's no telling how much of an impact he may have. Then there's the last two nominees, Gore and Kerry. I actually think Gore has a much better chance than Kerry does, but at this point I think the party is desperate for a new face.

[Pierce Tondry]

Gore? As in, lol lockbox Al Gore? GOD no.

I would take Kerry over Gore, but I'm still not sure Kerry is that great of a candidate. Either way, I've heard nothing but good things about Obama and would prefer to see him run than anyone else based off that alone.

I grant you that stance doesn't have strong reasoning behind it, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to track politics right now. I've got other things to worry about.

[Jedieb]

Gore? As in, lol lockbox Al Gore? GOD no.

I would take Kerry over Gore, but I'm still not sure Kerry is that great of a candidate. Either way, I've heard nothing but good things about Obama and would prefer to see him run than anyone else based off that alone.

I grant you that stance doesn't have strong reasoning behind it, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to track politics right now. I've got other things to worry about.

That's one of Obama's strengths, he's a fresh face and it demonstrates a huge weakness for both Gore and Kerry, the 'been there, done that' factor.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Warner announced he wasn't running just over a week ago. It was a pretty big shock because he'd raised a lot of money and was still making calls and moves as recently as a month ago. Many people felt that Warner was the strongest anti-Hillary candidate out there. Don't count Warner out though. He's actually put himself in the perfect position to eventually land himself the VP nomination. He can cash in a lot of favors by supporting the eventual nominee and he's sure to make a speech at the 08 convention. He'll stay above the fray of the nomination process so he'll be a clean viable choice for VP.

The guy who can make a lot of noise is Obama. Watch what he does after the midterm elections. He's getting a lot of good press right now and he's not denying he may run. If he decides to go for it there's no telling how much of an impact he may have. Then there's the last two nominees, Gore and Kerry. I actually think Gore has a much better chance than Kerry does, but at this point I think the party is desperate for a new face.

I didn't hear that. I am not sure how I missed that. I wonder why? I thought he would have been perfect. How about John Edwards then? I know he was the VP nod last time but he is somebody I think that could be a great candidate.

[Sanis Prent]

Why? He's old news, like Kerry and Gore. How exactly would he be a good candidate? The Democrats need to put somebody on the ticket who isn't a previous ticket loser.

[Pierce Tondry]

Well said. Voters clearly weren't swayed one way or the other by him (Edwards) last election. The name recognition of a loser isn't going to get him anything in another election.

[Jedieb]

There are only so many choices out there. Established politicians with name recognition already have the apparatus and money in place to make serious runs. That what it takes to run. In a pollyanna world each election would bring a ton of fresh new faces and puppies for everyone. Multiple election losers have won in the past and that gives guys like Kerry and Gore hope. I don't think either one of them could win the nomination, but I wouldn't be surprised if one or both of them ran again.

[Lion El' Jonson]

I think Obama's problem is that he's too fresh of a face.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Why? He's old news, like Kerry and Gore. How exactly would he be a good candidate? The Democrats need to put somebody on the ticket who isn't a previous ticket loser.

He didn't matter in the last election. The Vice President is meaningless. There has only been one election in the last 40 years where it mattered.

[Jedieb]

I think Obama's problem is that he's too fresh of a face.

By the time 08 comes around he'll have had about as much political experience as Dubya had. Wait a minute, that might not be the best example...

[Jaime Tomahawk]

I think Obama's problem is that he's too fresh of a face.

Given how corrupt, lying and pandering to corporations experienced politicians usually are, I'll take the fresh face any day. At least he wont be so blatantly corrupt.... yet. And at least he isnt also blatantly stupid.

Did you know one of your F.I.N.E. politicians actually said Australia is a nuclear threat to the USA???? As if we would do that, ...... maybe we'll bomb your backsides with Fosters, but nuclear?

[Pierce Tondry]

Mark, you alone are a nuclear threat to the southern hemisphere. If there's at least one other person like you in Aussieland to cover the north half of the world, I think that politician was right.

[Sanis Prent]

I think Obama's problem is that he's too fresh of a face.

Presidential candidates that come from the Senate are usually freshmen or have only a few terms under their belt. The idea is to run early so that you don't have too long of a voting record which can be used against you in a campaign. Obama's fresh face is an asset, if anything.

That, and he's done pretty damn well for the short time he's been in office. He hasn't pushed much high profile legislation, and arguably he's more of a policy wonk than a glitz and glamour guy, but his bills, and his voting record, show a very strong pattern of consensus-building and bipartisan diplomacy. He's palled around with Senator Lugar in Indiana and Senator Coburn in Oklahoma on some low profile, but very smart bills.

If the guy didn't come straight out of the Chicago machine, he'd probably have my vote no questions asked. Right now, he's certainly the most attractive choice among the ones widely considered at this point. I've got reservations about him, sure, but unless the miraculous happens like Russ Feingold throwing his hat in the ring, then I'll vote Obama.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I like Obama. I would vote for him in a heartbeat. Feingold would be great, but I don't see it happening.

[Jedieb]

Well, Kerry's found yet another way to help Republicans on the eve of a big election. His "study hard or you'll get stuck in Iraq" joke is probably pissing off the DNC see even more than it's 'offending' the President.

[Zem Vymes]

Yeah, I just slapped my hand to my forehead at that one. I know what he was trying to say, but it just came off as a very condescending remark, especially with Kerry's acute lack of oratory skills. There's something about him that just feels comfortable talking down to folks, even if he doesn't intend to, it seems.

[Jedieb]

After a horrendous October the Republicans are going to try to stretch this for as many news cycles as they can. Anything to get people to stop thinking about Foley and Iraq.

[Zem Vymes]

Too little, too late. That, and the hits keep coming today (literally) with George Allen & his thugs, who bodyslammed an Daily Kos blogger, all on video :lol

[Jedieb]

Here are some pretty surprising poll results for the Democratic Prez candidates. The first number is from an Oct. 29 poll, the second from a Sept. 2 poll. Obama wasn't even listed as a candidate in the Sept poll but he vaults all the way to second place on this latest poll. Clinton, Gore, Keryy, Bayh, Biden, & Feingold all took a hit with Obama in the race. Only Edwards managed to hold his ground and gain a point. This poll was taken before Kerry's latest gaffe so he may find himself in single digits right now. I would think numbers like this have got to be tempting Obama into making up his mind to run.

Clinton 28% 38%
Obama* 17% N/A
Gore 13% 19%
Edwards 13% 12%
Kerry 12% 9%
Bayh 2% 2%
Biden 2% 3%
Feingold 2% 3%
Richardson 2% 3%
Vilsack 1% *
No opinion 8% 8%

[Zem Vymes]

It should be telling that a huge slice of these are political losers, or at least by association. Clinton, Gore, Edwards, Kerry, these are probably getting the push for no reason than people know their names and can namedrop them in a poll. I'm unconvinced of any of their merits, because I still think the Dems need new blood in the race to have a chance in hell. They need somebody that can run a good race, and that the GOP doesn't already have a dossier of mud on in order to shoot them down.

[Ryan Pode]

Mark Warner for President. Former governor of Virginia, because you can't be reelected as governor. He fixed the Virginia economy and is well liked by even the conservatives as he was Governor of Virginia.

[Zem Vymes]

And he's not running either.

[Ryan Pode]

He'll run for President. Don't worry.

[Zem Vymes]

No, he's specifically stated that he isn't running.

[Ryan Pode]

Yes. But, he'll change his mind. Too much public support here.

[Pierce Tondry]

I disagree. I don't think the GOP is interested in giving Warner the nod right now.

[Ryan Pode]

Warner = democrat.

[Pierce Tondry]

BLEH. I knew that, but for some reason I had in mind just now that Mark Warner = George Allen. Don't ask me why.

Replace GOP with Democratic Party.

[Ryan Pode]

Because of Tom Warner.

[Pierce Tondry]

Oh yeah, that guy does exist.

I honestly wouldn't mind seeing Jim Webb win, but VA typically votes conservative so heavily I kinda doubt it will happen.

[Ryan Pode]

I don't know. Allen keeps screwing up, like choking that UVA kid. I voted Webb. I also voted against the marriage amendment.

[Zem Vymes]

Webb is a conservative with a D by his name, so I don't think he has to try to hard to get the conservative vote.

[Ryan Pode]

But he's not George Allen. Allen is a two-time Virignia Governor, he is very well loved by the Conservative base.

[Zem Vymes]

He's also a racist douchebag and a thug, and he's let everybody see his ugly side in broad daylight and on film.

[Ryan Pode]

This is true, but his daughter is hot.

[Jedieb]

Oh yeah, that guy does exist.

I honestly wouldn't mind seeing Jim Webb win, but VA typically votes conservative so heavily I kinda doubt it will happen.

It's neck and neck between Webb and Allen. While Virginia has shown up as a Red state, they also have a long history of electing Democratic senators and Governors. Tuesday is going to be very interesting. How many evangelicals are going to stay home because of recent sex scandals? How many fiscal conservatives will do the same or vote Democratic because of run away spending? And how many people are going to blame the ruling party because of Iraq? The big election is just two days away.

[Ryan Pode]

Where do you live, Jedieb?

[Jedieb]

SW Virginia, Roanoke area. I'm around 3-4 hours SW of you I think.

[Ryan Pode]

Ahh Roanoke. Been there a couple times.