Desperate Houseflies: The Magazine

Feel free to pull out your trusty fly swatter and comment on what is posted here, realizing that this odd collection of writers may prove as difficult to kill as houseflies and are presumably just as pesky. “Desperate Houseflies” is a magazine that intends to publish weekly articles on subjects such as politics, literature, history, sports, photography, religion, and no telling what else. We’ll see what happens.

Thursday, January 11, 2007

Campaign 2008

Juvenal’s poetry garnered attention, as did the picture of Saddam’s demise. What could get the Houseflies going again? I’ll try a little presidential politics to see if that works…

We are only 22 months away from the election, so it is time of course to pick your poison. I’ll give you 13 choices (unlucky, of course) on each side:

DEMOCRATS:
* Joseph Biden
* Wesley Clark
* Hillary Rodham Clinton
* Christopher Dodd
* John Edwards
* Al Gore
* Mike Gravel
* John Kerry
* Dennis Kucinich
* Barack Obama
* Bill Richardson
* Al Sharpton
* Tom Vilsack

REPUBLICANS:
* Sam Brownback
* John Cox
* James Gilmore
* Newt Gingrich
* Rudy Giuliani
* Chuck Hagel
* Mike Huckabee
* Duncan Hunter
* John McCain
* George Pataki
* Mitt Romney
* Tom Tancredo
* Tommy Thompson

Let the comment board go where she wishes…

* Maybe a few guesses at who will win each side (& the overall winner)

* Maybe a few guesses at who SHOULD win each side (& overall)

* Maybe a few fun ideas of who it would be fun to see debate each other

What do you think?

29 Comments:

Blogger juvenal_urbino said...

I'd like to see a loser-leave-town debate with Sam Brownback, Newt Gingrich, Duncan Hunter, John McCain, and Mitt Romney on one side, and Al Sharpton alone on the other.

8:46 AM  
Blogger juvenal_urbino said...

More seriously, I think we can eliminate these as having absolutely no shot:

DEMOCRATS:
* Chris Dodd
* Mike Gravel
* Dennis Kucinich
* Al Sharpton
* Tom Vilsack

REPUBLICANS:
* John Cox
* James Gilmore
* George Pataki
* Tom Tancredo
* Tommy Thompson

Of the rest, I think the general election matchup that would be most unfortunate for the country would be a Clinton-Gingrich race.

I wonder if anybody will be able to get elected without laying out a detailed and explicit plan for how to solve the Iraq mess, and signing an oath to it in their own blood.

12:18 PM  
Blogger Scott said...

It'll be Mike Huckabee for the GOP

http://www.mikehuckabeepresident2008.blogspot.com

1:20 PM  
Blogger juvenal_urbino said...

Republicans? McCain or Giuliani.

I have a hard time imagining how Giuliani could win the GOP nomination. If he does, it'll represent a tectonic shift in GOP politics. (Or a tectonic shift in his positions.)

Huckabee, I think, has a better shot at the nomination than Giuliani does, you poor dears. McCain seems to be the clear front-runner, though -- if he hasn't gotten himself too far on the losing side of the Iraq issue, that is.

Do you guys think Kerry has a shot?

At the Dem nomination? Sadly, I think he does. Not a good shot, but he can't be declared a total non-starter, I think. (And if he gets it, the 2004 general election results suggest he's got a shot at winning it all. He ran a horrible campaign and only barely lost.)

I like what I've seen from Obama thus far. I don't always agree with him, but he's bright, curious, a leader, and he's got sand. I don't know if he's got the foreign policy chops to win it all in '08, though. Maybe if he picked up somebody like Clark or Biden for a running-mate.

My ideal candidate would have John Edwards' domestic approach and something like Chuck Hagel's foreign policy approach and toughness. As it is, I think Edwards is just too darn nice to be successful as a president.

2:25 PM  
Blogger juvenal_urbino said...

President Huckabee sounds like a John Grisham novel.

"A chicken in every pot, and a double-wide in every yard."

You could get Rudy & Hillary together to discuss the sanctity of marriage.

Somehow I don't think Rudy wants to broach that subject with Hillary. His Secret Service detail can't be that big.

3:31 PM  
Blogger Terry Austin said...

I just assumed that "I Heart Huckabee" comment was spam. Was it actually legit?

Speaking of legit, I just want to remind everyone here that I turned 35 late last year. So, you know, I'm eligible as a write-in.

5:31 PM  
Blogger juvenal_urbino said...

Was it actually legit?

Who knows? Rev. Gov. Huckabee, peace be upon him, does seem to be generally considered a serious candidate for the nomination, though.

And for my money, "I [heart] Huckabees" should have been a serious candidate for an Oscar. A brainy hoot, is what it is.

7:17 PM  
Blogger Michael Lasley said...

Is this the best our country can do? I'd say the Republican nomination is McCain's to lose. Guliani shouldn't have a chance, but I think Whitney's right in that his money will get him a long way. Plus a lot of people love the guy. Democrats...I don't think Kerry has a shot. I don't know enough about Obama, but I think there's substance to him. Clinton will have a shot at it, but I think too many people dislike her for her to win (and I think Sandi's asked several times why that is, but I can't remember the answers). I'd like to see Richardson in there somewhere, personally.

7:38 PM  
Blogger juvenal_urbino said...

Me, too. I've always thought Richardson really had his head screwed on straight. But he doesn't seem to be getting much traction, mixaphorically speaking, with the constitchency.

My own problem with Hillary as a candidate is I can't figure out what she stands for -- what she's willing to go to the wall for. (I'm trying to work more metaphors than you can shake a stick at into this post.) I know a lot of people had that problem with her husband, but, personally, I never did. He struck me as someone who was willing to "triangulate" -- the term that's come to be almost synonymous with his name -- tactically, but not strategically. Strategically, he was always headed in the same direction.

I can't tell that that's the case with Hillary. She seems to be interested in power for power's sake, success for success's sake. And like Newt, she seems deeply, deeply embittered and distrustful, which I think is dangerous in a president.

8:31 PM  
Blogger Michael Lasley said...

Agreed on all points, JU. Hillary is in dire need of someone to help her in the PR department. I was young when Clinton was Governor of AR, but seems like she wasn't overly liked even back then.

Richardson, though. I don't understand why he doesn't get more airtime. Maybe he needs some PR help as well. Or maybe he's just not overly interested in the job. I'd like to see him on the ticket somewhere though.

I should do my homework on Biden, as he seems to be someone worth strong consideration from Dems.

9:20 PM  
Blogger juvenal_urbino said...

I don't think most Arkansans' dislike of Hillary, back in the day, had much to do with policy. She was just an uppity woman. One o' them ERA types, what wanted to keep her maiden name.

Dem primary voters don't seem to dislike Richardson, from what I can tell. They're just indifferent. Dunno why.

I like Biden, but the Democratic base seems to absolutely hate him. Not at Joe Lieberman levels, but pretty hotly. I've never been able to figure that one out, either.

10:19 PM  
Blogger Al Sturgeon said...

Enjoying the discussion, mostly because I'm FAR from an expert in this discussion, but I'm interested.

I'm a left-leaning American that generally likes Obama. I have the vague feeling that it may be one or two elections before his time, though. I also generally like Edwards as a candidate, and I was interested to see you guys talk about Richardson because his candidacy intrigues me. As silly as it sounds, I think candidates from the Southwest may be interesting (non-New England & non-South, but not California). I'm speaking of the general voter here.

I like Hillary overall, but I think she's too polarizing a figure to be the best candidate.

On the right side, oddly enough I see one choice: John McCain. First of all, the Republicans are in trouble this go around and they need someone that can garner crossover votes. And I'd think about voting for McCain.

So I guess I'm pulling for McCain vs. Edwards or Obama or Richardson.

4:23 AM  
Blogger Terry Austin said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

7:03 AM  
Blogger Terry Austin said...

Since he's among many people on these lists I've never heard of, is Mike Gravel's last name pronounced as it is spelled (like the collection of rocks) or is it GRAY-vuhl (or somesuch)?

'Cause I think "President Gravel" or even "Vice President Gravel" sounds really tough. Pair him with Al Gore and you've got a sweet campaign bumpersticker.

7:08 AM  
Blogger Sandi said...

I tried to post a nice long comment and the computer ate it and I don't feel like retyping it.

Redux:
- Obama - indifferent
- Hillary - dear God no
- Huckabee - is he really a Republican?
- Edwards - I like him
- Vilsack and Richardson - we need a governor from a red or purple state so thumbs up
- McCain - has nomination locked up, his election to lose
- Brownback - would love it if he got the nom, he's a freak and too extreme for the average American voter
- you win elections by capturing the center, period, Poli Sci 101

8:02 AM  
Blogger Sandi said...

Oh, and Al, you cannot vote for McCain!!! He spoke at Bob Jones. That's all you need to know about his integrity.

8:03 AM  
Blogger Al Sturgeon said...

Speaking of it being McCain's to lose, I just saw the headline, "McCain Defends Bush Iraq Strategy."

I didn't read the article, though.

8:21 AM  
Blogger Unicorn said...

I want McCain as the Dems' opponent. He was once appealing to me as the best choice if the Democrats failed, but his recent switch to support Bush and the contention that this is a battle that can be won by force has made me change my mind.
I think if he's the candidate it will be a boon to the Dems.

8:52 AM  
Blogger juvenal_urbino said...

I have to say that, aside from giving him props for being willing to use the "d" word ("draft" -- although I notice he hasn't used it since the '08 positioning started getting serious), I'm not a big McCain fan, either. For all his talk about the "straight-talk express," he seems to share Hillary's lack of core principles. He pulls the maverick routine when it's politically expedient.

I'm not as convinced as others here that the nomination is his to lose. As I said, I think he's the front-runner, but he's got real problems and there's a long way to go. Perhaps the biggest one is that his party is moving away from him on the most important issue: Iraq.

- you win elections by capturing the center, period, Poli Sci 101

That's traditionally been true, Sandi, and I'd like to think it's still true, but Karl Rove must've CLEP'd out of PS101, because he won 2 presidential elections by running hard to the right and telling everyone else to go jump in the lake. That's why, as much as I want to agree with you about a Brownback candidacy, I'm leary; I just don't trust the voters' judgment that much, anymore.

9:40 AM  
Blogger juvenal_urbino said...

"McCain Defends Bush Iraq Strategy."

Yeah. McCain and Lieberman think it's brilliant. Here's hoping they're right.

9:41 AM  
Blogger DeJon Redd said...

Right now I'm leaning towards Edwards.

The clincher for me is his work since the '04 election. He could've led the DNC, instead he went to UNC-Chapel Hill and directed the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity.

Maybe I'm a sucker, but I get a bit of a Bobby Kennedy vibe from him.

He has his warts, but he seems like the best option at the moment.

12:29 PM  
Blogger DeJon Redd said...

And at the risk of sound adolescent, is our country really ready for a "President Vilsack?!"

12:31 PM  
Blogger Terry Austin said...

There's a risk associated with sounding adolescent? I might've lived my life differently if I'd known this sooner.

(Makes fart noise, giggles, chases shiny object stage left...)

1:19 PM  
Blogger juvenal_urbino said...

There's a risk associated with sounding adolescent?

You might get a racy text message from a congressman, is all.

2:32 PM  
Blogger Sandi said...

I don't think Bush ran hard right at all, esp. in 2000 ("compassionate conservative", "uniter not divider" etc.). At least not in the general election. In 2000 I distinctly remember that there was a perception that he was moderate. In 2004, he won in large part by (1) scaring people about terrorism; and (2) painting John Kerry as too liberal. So I think he still used the time-tested technique of capturing the center.

The same struggle would apply in a Brownback/Clinton or Brownback/Obama election -- Brownback would try to clean up his image (maybe! my perception is that he is quite extreme, and I don't know how much of a politician he is) and paint the Dem candidate as too left. This has worked so well for them so many times I doubt they would take the risk of openly running hard right. So the question would be whether the Dem candidate would be successful in educating people who don't know who Brownback is about his extreme views.

2:46 PM  
Blogger juvenal_urbino said...

I get a bit of a Bobby Kennedy vibe from him.

Interesting. I get more of a Jimmy Carter vibe.

3:44 PM  
Blogger DeJon Redd said...

I get more of a Jimmy Carter vibe.

touché

Perhaps he's Jimmy Carter sans stagflation?

6:29 PM  
Blogger juvenal_urbino said...

And Billy.

All I really meant by the comparison to Carter is that Carter's performance as president, I think, suffered from the fact of his basic decency and niceness.

It seems to take a certain toughness to work with Congress, and if it's lacking, both branches (as well as the country) suffer. That was the case with Carter, I think. I think it's also the case with Bush, btw, though he lacks it for different reasons. He's just been [un]fortunate in having 6 yrs. of congresses that wanted nothing more than they wanted to follow him.

Anyway, that's the sense in which Edwards reminds me more of Carter than RFK. Edwards has a similar commitment to social justice as the later RFK (which I LOVE), but RFK could be a real SOB when he needed/wanted to get something done. I'm not sure Edwards has that in him.

8:49 PM  
Blogger juvenal_urbino said...

I saw an interview with Huckabee on C-SPAN this weekend. He seems to be trying to present himself as sort of a flat-tax compassionate conservative, if such a thing is possible. A GOP version of Jesse Jackson, if you will, complete with alliterative and/or rhyming and/or witty-in-a-sermonizing-sort-of-way policy points.

4:17 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Locations of visitors to this page