The Democrats

[stephenvegas]

Tonight here in Las Vegas, the main Democratic presidential candidates will be at UNLV (where I went to college) for a nationally televised debate.

So I was wondering, who do you think will win the presidential nomination for the Democrats in 2008?

[Trent Lawless]

I think Hillary is faltering recently because people are finally making the connection between her and politics-as-usual thinking. Obama might be energizing, but ultimately he's too inexperienced for this post. Give him a few years and I like him a lot.

So you're left with the guy who's high enough in the polls that actually takes stands on important things, and while no candidate is perfect, I've never felt as strongly about a presidential candidate as I do about John Edwards. We've gotta elect this guy if we want to get anything meaningful done.

And now all the Republicans can slam me.

[gatekeeper]

I'm hoping for John Edwards but it'll be Hilary or Obama.

[Chewey]

I actually like Bill Richardson, perhaps in part because we did our undergraduate years at the same school, but I also like what I know of him in New Mexico. As a guy with a degree in international relations, I have also had an immense amount of respect for Joe Biden, who was one of the leaders of the Senate Foreign Relations committee for years.

However, realistically I think Edwards will get it because of the whole appeal of being a southern democrat.

I like Obama better personally... let's not forget that Edwards too was a first-term senator the last time he ran for president in 2004, and before that he was a leading candidate to be Al Gore's running mate in 2000 when he had even less experience than Obama has now, yet people didn't dog him nearly as much for his inexperience.

[hofclemens]

Hill but I dont think she is the right person for the job or has the best chance to beat the republican nominee

[Trent Lawless]

hofclemens said:

Hill but I dont think she is the right person for the job or has the best chance to beat the republican nominee

I think it all depends on who that nominee is. If you're talking about Mitt Romney, then I think the race is a lot closer than her against Rudy. Rudy's probably going to alienate a lot of social conservatives, with his past stands on social issues, although with the endorsement from Pat Robertson last week, that might count for something in the evangelicals' eyes. But if John Kerry was a flip-flopper, Rudy's on his way to outdistancing him in that regard by a mile if he keeps it up.

[Knapik]

gatekeeper said:

I'm hoping for John Edwards but it'll be Hilary or Obama.

Ditto.

[Wildfire]

I was really impressed by Joe Biden at the debate... its too back CNN is pushing Hillary so much, It'd be a really good race if there was more impartial coverage.

[Trent Lawless]

Whoever wins, they should make Joe Biden Secretary of State. He's got a phenomenal grasp of foreign policy and definitely should be listened to.

[Chewey]

markcpc said:

Whoever wins, they should make Joe Biden Secretary of State. He's got a phenomenal grasp of foreign policy and definitely should be listened to.

Oh hell yeah.

[daytondave]

As one of the right-wing evangelicals here... I am fascinated by the race on the Democrat side, even if I don't particularly like any of the candidates.

Hillary is just too calculating and political for my liking, Obama is too inexperienced, and Edwards' background as a trial lawyer makes my skin crawl. Of the three, I think Edwards would be the best president.

If I were forced to vote Democratic, I would probably pick Biden but I agree that he isn't getting enough attention to mount a serious charge.

I can't say I'm thrilled with the Republican candidates either. I was strongly hoping Newt Gingrich would get into the race. Maybe Mike Huckabee can make a charge as a strong conservative voice.

[Trent Lawless]

I only ask out of curiosity and not as an attack, but why does the fact that Edwards was a trial lawyer bother you? I think I can guess, but I'm the type of guy who likes explanations (such as what you said about Hillary [calculating] and Obama [inexperienced], both of which I tend to agree with) rather than opinions.

I don't mind Huckabee so much on the Republican side but do have some reservations on his social stands. (But that's just me being an east coast lefty. Huckabee is principled enough to stick to his guns and not waffle, but his stand on evolution is quite ... remarkable in the 21st century, IMO.) Put a gun to my head and I might vote for Ron Paul. (And no, that's not an invitation to do so!)

[Aquinas]

markcpc said:

I only ask out of curiosity and not as an attack, but why does the fact that Edwards was a trial lawyer bother you? I think I can guess, but I'm the type of guy who likes explanations (such as what you said about Hillary [calculating] and Obama [inexperienced], both of which I tend to agree with) rather than opinions.

I don't mind Huckabee so much on the Republican side but do have some reservations on his social stands. (But that's just me being an east coast lefty. Huckabee is principled enough to stick to his guns and not waffle, but his stand on evolution is quite ... remarkable in the 21st century, IMO.) Put a gun to my head and I might vote for Ron Paul. (And no, that's not an invitation to do so!)

I can offer my explanation to that because I have the same issue. And I'll admit up front that a lot of it is being judgmental and making stereotypes.

When I think of trial lawyers, the word "bottomfeeders" comes to my mind. I think a lot of them make their riches on suits that are exploitations of the legal system and just not "right". You know, the idiot who burns their mouth on coffee and sues the chain.

I couple that with the impression I've always had of Edwards that he is a carefully-groomed, slimey politician. If I were left-leaning, I may well get over those perceptions, but I'm a right-leaner and don't like Edwardsian politics anyway.

I'm doing a little research myself on Huckabee. I'd say I'm a Fred Thompson guy tenatively right now. Newt definitely if he ran. I'm not big on Guiliani....am mostly okay with Romney.....

[Trent Lawless]

aquinas said:

I couple that with the impression I've always had of Edwards that he is a carefully-groomed, slimey politician. If I were left-leaning, I may well get over those perceptions, but I'm a right-leaner and don't like Edwardsian politics anyway.

Fair enough, but again, that's more of an opinion based on looks and not issues. Based on what you've said about who you're looking at among the Republicans, I can tell that you do look at issues, so I'm just wondering what issue is it about Edwards himself (not trial lawyers in general and not about his looks) that is disconcerting to you. And remember that if we didn't have trial lawyers, we'd all be in a heap of trouble. Not condoning unreasonably huge or frivolous lawsuits, just sayin' that there but for the grace of God go we.

Now I'm having a discussion with two folks. This could get confusing!

[daytondave]

markcpc said:

I only ask out of curiosity and not as an attack, but why does the fact that Edwards was a trial lawyer bother you? I think I can guess, but I'm the type of guy who likes explanations (such as what you said about Hillary [calculating] and Obama [inexperienced], both of which I tend to agree with) rather than opinions.

Because the medical system is in desperate need of tort reform, and Edwards made a wad off of medical malpractice.

The legal system in this country exists primarily to benefit lawyers, and trial attorneys most strongly. The Oval Office is the last place we need one!

[Trent Lawless]

Thanks for the clarification, Dave. I can understand your stand on this, but since I'm neither a physician nor a lawyer, I'm just looking at his positions from the stand of an outsider. It sounds to me like Edwards wants the health-care industry to be geared toward the consumer (witness his stand on the insurance industry), and honestly, that's what I think it should be.

But I do agree doctors should also be protected from excessive and frivolous malpractice suits. As a personal example, when our second child was born, my wife had to switch obstetricians because the husband/wife ob/gyn team that delivered our older son was no longer delivering babies. Their malpractice insurance was too high for them to want to do that anymore. They hadn't been (successfully) sued as far as I know, and we never had any problems with them -- in fact, we liked them a lot better than the ob. we wound up going to! But at the same time, doctors shouldn't be immune from having to account for egregious and avoidable errors. Otherwise it's like they're above the law.

As I said, I'm not in either field, so I wouldn't know where to draw the line without learning more about it. But I can completely see where you're coming from.

Out of curiosity, and not to change the thread to "The Republicans," what is it about Huckabee that you like? I read an article about him in National Review magazine a few months ago that was generally positive of him.

[Chewey]

daytondave said:

Because the medical system is in desperate need of tort reform, and Edwards made a wad off of medical malpractice.

Dear Dave,

I will agree that doctors are sometimes unfairly treated by the legal system in America. We live in a culture where we believe we are entitled to have people make us whole again, instead of grateful that someone is out there trying to help us out of a tough situation. While a doctor should be held to meet his duty of care when caring for a patient, the excessive worrying about being sued over a mistake has forced doctors to pay excessive rates for medical insurance and raise the costs of healthcare to the point where many Americans can't even afford it.

It is unfortunate that these days, neither the prestige nor the money that comes with the medical profession is nearly as lucrative as it was twenty years ago. I sympathize that doctors now work longer hours for less pay and are often distrusted by the general public. Any time a family loses a loved one, they are understandably upset, but in America they are also encouraged to join any and all of the doctors as defendants to the suit.

I agree, John Edwards has a reputation for being a particularly sleazy, if not successful, ambulance chaser prior to his political career. I weigh this against him, but at the same time it doesn't necessarily mean he'd be a bad person for running the country, after all he was highly successful at what he did. And the money he made was not necessarily made dishonestly.

daytondave said:

The legal system in this country exists primarily to benefit lawyers, and trial attorneys most strongly. The Oval Office is the last place we need one!

The legal system in this country exists primarily to benefit the plaintiff more than the lawyers. I realize this distinction doesn't help you out at all. Yes, I have to defend the rationale for such tort principles as punitive damages, strict liability, and joint and several liability to the Chinese critics of the American legal system on almost a daily basis. They certainly don't make any sense to doctors. But consider this: if you were wronged, and if you suffered huge economic and emotional damages, wouldn't you want to be compensated for that suffering?

Living in China, I am very grateful for the American legal system because I have found that in many countries, you aren't protected nearly as much as we Americans are. Over here, if you get struck by a car by a willful and wanton reckless drunk driver who should reasonably have known better than to get behind the wheel, good luck getting the guy to even pay for all of your medical bills, let alone lost wages and other expenses that you had to incur because of his idiocy.

Many people who have not received a legal education don't think about these things. I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea to put someone in office who does.

So somehow this thread became a matchup between a doctor and a lawyer, lol.

Aaron

[stephenvegas]

About Huckabee for the Republicans, I read today an article that said Ric Flair is one of his biggest celebrity supporters.

[hogan]

aaron168 said:

markcpc said:

Whoever wins, they should make Joe Biden Secretary of State. He's got a phenomenal grasp of foreign policy and definitely should be listened to.

Oh hell yeah.

lol, I think this is the first time I've ever read, "Oh hell yeah" after the mentioning of Joe Biden. This post needs to be copied and pasted to some of the national pundit blogs (although I don't read any of them).

Anyways, I don't think either Hillary nor Rudy will be their party's nomination. I don't think Edwards will either, although he could surprise. He had his chance 4 years ago when people didn't know him well enough. In politics, image is everything and perception is huge and Edwards with his $400 hair cuts and his trial lawyer past is not registering with the public. Plus, when one's wife is ill with cancer, the noble thing is to stay home and quit worrying about "making history" and becoming President. A real man, in my opinion, would bow out and spend time with his family. At least his wife stood up to Ann Coulter, who is a complete nut.

I think Obama will win it. I've met him before. The guy is class all the way and registers with voters like no other Democrat has since Bill Clinton (who, I cannot say is "class"). At any rate, Obama is making great strides in Iowa right now and is cutting into Hillary's lead, according to the pollsters. But the way things change in politics, you never know who will come out of no where.

[Trent Lawless]

hogan said:

Plus, when one's wife is ill with cancer, the noble thing is to stay home and quit worrying about "making history" and becoming President. A real man, in my opinion, would bow out and spend time with his family. At least his wife stood up to Ann Coulter, who is a complete nut.

Elizabeth Edwards doesn't want him to quit. He considered it strongly but her backing made the difference for him. That's love right there. Doesn't that resonate with a lot of people? I say kudos to them for not playing the "cancer card" every chance they get, because you know some candidates would.

I don't know if you're right about Obama, but I don't know that you're wrong, either. I wouldn't be upset with him as president. As long as he makes Joe Biden Secretary of State. Oh hell yeah. ;D