Let me offer a little advice that could change the debate over the next 2 years. Don't call (or describe) anyone on the American Left as "liberal" or "progressive". In any political dictionary these terms have become so corrupted that they truly confuse the proles. Call Obama a Marxist, an Economic Fascist, a Collectivist, if you like, but don't call him a Jeffersonian Liberal. He's just not!

Call Obama a Marxist, an Economic Fascist, a Collectivist, if you like, but don't call him a Jeffersonian Liberal.

Just shows you how political language has evolved. What we used to call a "liberal" is now a "libertarian", or sometimes a "classical liberal".

Support him or oppose him, Obama's record in the Senate and in the Illinois legislature needs to be examined for what it is.

You really shouldn't play the experience card. Yes, it's something that must be debated during the campaign, but the only experience your almighty infallible Mr. Bush had when he started running was a failed congressional run and a little over one term as Texas governor. Obama has his time is the Illinois state legislature and his Senate term (which, admittedly, is only one third over).

If experience is that important, then conservative should've overwhelmingly supported Gore over Bush in 2000.

"Democrats would be monumentally stupid to nominate anyone else because ONLY Obama can win at least two or three States won by President Bush twice."

What about Richardson? I think he'd be the Dems strongest candidate electorally, the skeletons in his closet notwithstanding.

Gar Wood

Oh please, please nominate this pretender to the throne. I double dog dare the Democrats. Flash, meet pan.

Gar,

It is the skeletons which would do him in - I don't think that the Democrats will nominate someone with those questions in his background. Obama also has a his skeletons (what Democrat doesn't?), but the MSM will be relentless in suppressing them. Plus, there is just the romance of Obama for Democrats...Bill Richardson might be the first credible Hispanic candidate, but "Bill Richardson", as a name, just doesn't get the multi-culti leftwing juices flowing as well as "Barak Obama".

Richardson would be the best President the Democrats could come up with, but I doubt he'll get out of the early primaries - UNLESS Hillary and Obama eat each other alive over the next 12 months...there is that outside chance that he could be the compromise candidate between those two.

One thing being left uncommented on is that even though both parties have their frontrunners, none of them are as prohibitive as Gore and Bush were in 2000 (the last time we had an open field). In both parties, we could end up with brokered conventions...much to the delight of political junkies, like me.

Carl,

Careful, they said that about JFK...and that is how Obama is casting himself.

Jeremy,

Executive experience trumps all - and GW had 5 years of it as opposed to Gore's zero (VP doesn't count for executive experience....well, Gore did have a bit...he did make the decision that there was "no controlling legal authority" over his getting envelopes stuffed with cash from monks vowed to poverty).

Mark,

Despite his liabilities, I am willing to wager that Richardson will be the VP choice for Hillary or Obama. His resume is simply too perfect. That would be an unprecedented ticket in either case (no white male), but one that I think could provide a winning edge to Obama but probably not to Hillary. Your thoughts?

"VP doesn't count for executive experience"

I think Mr. Cheney might disagree with you on that one. Jeremy is right...In this day and age, political experience should be a liability to a candidate.

Gar Wood

In 1999, when asked in an interview to name the leaders of three countries, George "Women" Bush manifested an alarming ignorance when he couldn't name the leaders of Pakistan, India and Chechnya. Through sheer luck, he was able to guess the name of the President of Taiwan. "I'm the Deciderator."

blood,

Other than Eisenhower, Nixon and a couple others, Presidents don't rise to the White House with extensive foreign policy experience...but the best Presidents generally have executive experience. What Obama lacks is executive experience. Tell ya what - I know where Bukovina is, I know where Bhutan is and I know what Burkino Faso used to be called...can I be President?

Gar,

If you really think that VP Cheney makes any decisions around the White House, then you have fallen waaaay to far for leftwing propaganda.

Mark,

Your point is well taken. But I find it extremely hard to believe that America would elect a liberal black man or woman as President. Especially given the over the top rhetoric that predominates the far left's language. Obama can pretend to ignore it but it will permeate the election race.

A conservative black man or woman would be no problem with the right experience and leadership credentials. Condi for example.

"If you really think that VP Cheney makes any decisions around the White House, then you have fallen waaaay to far for leftwing propaganda."

Mr. Cheney is having a good laugh at your expense right now.

PS- For the record, Bill Richardson is my preferred candidate. Competence matters.

If experience is that important, then conservative should've overwhelmingly supported Gore over Bush in 2000.

As if conservatives are gonna vote for a far-left kook, Jermy.

If you really think that VP Cheney makes any decisions around the White House, then you have fallen waaaay to far for leftwing propaganda.

Uh, Mark, he fell long ago.

It matters not who gets the nomination if the DemocRAT party; the bootlickers, while vocal over their opposition to this candidate or that, will unite behind any of the kooks who are nominated.

Big Ears has no experience and does not deserve consideration, but since we're living 1974 all over again, the DBM and the Jesse Hijackson/Al Sharktonite will push for Obama-sama.

Hitlery will win the nomination, and unless we wake up, she will be our next president. She's got the support of the kooks, the dumbed-down college idiots, and the young, dumbed-down so-called feministas. Hard to beat...

PS- For the record, Bill Richardson is my preferred candidate. Competence matters.

For the record, noone cares. Bill Richardson is no more competent than the rest of the kooks...

My first time visiting here, so my apologies for asking.

This is satire, right? And I thought irony was dead....thanks for the chuckles.

I'm guessing that Wilcox is not a Westerner---those of us who neighbor New Mexico and even spend time there know that to call Richardson "competent" is laughable. And if you think you know about the skeletons in Richardson's closet, you have a BIG surprise ahead of you.

bloody seems awfully imprssed by the oldest of the LLL talking points. He seems to think it funny, or insulting, to spin the W in Bush's name into "Women"----did that make sense to ANYONE???? Aside from explaining blood's ongoing sexual problems, it was just plain stupid.

But Bush was a very successful and COMPETENT governor, gaining the respect and support of many Democrats in Texas in addition to the admiration of his own party. So he didn't have some names at the tip of his tongue. Big deal. It may have impressed the easily led and eager to slur (look how long blood has clung to it) but to everyone else it was a non-issue.

Besides, blood, look at your Fellow Traveller, Socialist Gar, who proudly declaims what is probably going to be a rallying cry for the Budding Socialists of his party: "In this day and age, political experience should be a liability to a candidate."

That makes sense to me. After all, in this day and age, political knowledge seems to be a liability to the LLL----experience shouldn't be far behind.

RiverRat, I like the way you think. I refuse to use the word "liberal" to refer to the most ILLiberal movement in the country. If I must, I at least capitalize it, to differentiate between the political moniker Liberal and the word itself, which is in direct contradiction to the politics of those who have hijacked it.

They are Socialists, hiding behind the weasel words "liberal" and even "progressive". I'll agree to call them "Budding Socialists" as I am sure they are so historically and politically ignorant they may not realize the tenets of the radical Left movement that has caught them up are those of Socialism. So BS it is, for now.

Speaking of them calling themselves "progressive", have you noticed that they are in fact totally REgressive? It's the much-condemned Right that is truly PROgressive, wanting changes made, promoting Social Security reform, election reform, tax reform, educational advancement through school vouchers, and so on. It's the BS contingent fighting like crazy (literally and figuratively) to STOP progress, clinging to an outmoded and antiproductive union model, hanging on to ineffective educational models, dedicated to a Social Security system which has been failing for decades (but which is cherished because it does not depend on capitalism) and so on. It's the "PROGRESSIVES" who want to either stall us where we are, or drag us backward.

Mark, Keefer,

Since when is believing that Cheney has tremendous influence in the White House tantamount to buying left-wing propaganda? Please explain. Back to the original discussion, Gore did have influence in the White House. To base presidential credentials solely on executive experience, and then to deny that Gore has that experience from his service as VP is absurd.

Gar Wood

Almiranta,

"That makes sense to me. After all, in this day and age, political knowledge seems to be a liability to the LLL----experience shouldn't be far behind."

Was that a joke? You so funny!!1! Except for those who have served as VPs, every single elected president since Carter has run against Washington as a political outsider. In this age of consistent BS coming from Washington, a reformer, outsider candidate would be nice. Sadly, all the candidates that we have now are Senators and a former mayor who is married to his 2nd cousin and enjoys spending time in drag.

Gar Wood

Reading your posts and the comments from the regulars is like listening to Bush. You know that whatever he says, the opposite is true. It's the same with you guys. When you give "advice" to the democrats, as to who they should support, we all know instinctively that you, like your president, are lying.

Thanks for being consistent...

Given how little power the Texas Governor's office actually represents, I hardly think that Dubya's "5 years" trumps Gore's "zero."

test