Enter your email address to subscribe to Irregular Times and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 485 other subscribers

Irregular Times Newsletters

Click here to subscribe to any or all of our six topical e-mail newsletters:
  1. Social Movement Actions,
  2. Credulity and Faith,
  3. Election News,
  4. This Week in Congress,
  5. Tech Dispatch and
  6. our latest Political Stickers and Such

Contact Us

We can be contacted via retorts@irregulartimes.com

Democrats, What Is The Appeal Of Proposed 2016 Candidates?

On Friday, CNN released the results of a poll that suggests a concentration of support for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election. Vice President Joseph Biden is positioned in second place in the poll, with the support of 12 percent of poll respondents. Senator Elizabeth Warren received 7 percent.

elizabeth warren for president buttonGovernors Andrew Cuomo and Martin O’Malley were also included in the poll, but both polled below the level of poll respondents supporting the general category of “someone else”.

Although he has been promoted as having “folksiness”, Governor Brian Schweitzer was not included in the poll. Neither was Senator Amy Klobuchar, who seems to think that her support for NSA spying against Americans makes her an excellent choice to succeed Barack Obama.

Democrats, what makes any of these politicians a good choice – not just the best choice among those who are running, or a popular choice, but an actual good choice to become the next President of the United States?

5 comments to Democrats, What Is The Appeal Of Proposed 2016 Candidates?

  • Democrats use the fact they aren’t Republicans as their only argument. This is the only one needed in a two party system. They can ignore all other alternatives and even the issues, because the two party system makes all such stuff useless. All independent and third party candidates will be ignored. Attack ads run on getting votes by saying your opponent is bad is a reason to vote for you by being the only alternative basically.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016

    Hillary Clinton or any other Democrat will run by saying that Chris Christie or any other Republican shouldn’t be President and vice versa.

    The forbidden question in our system “What actually would make you a good President rather than the best out of two choices? What makes you better than Jesse Ventura, Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, Bernie Sanders, Roseanne Barr or anyone else at being President?

  • I think the Democrats should run Weiner and the Republicans can run Sanford. They can all meet up after Weiner plays best man to Sanford’s wedding with his Argentinian wife. Edwards and Barney Fwank can double date with their favorite best buds as well, as they all head for the big ‘group’ honeymoon in Cancun…

  • Tom

    Ah yes, as George Carlin says, “the illusion of choice.” Now that corporate Amerikkka has completely taken over the government through Citizens United, corruption and money, do you still want to imagine that “we the people” have any say at all in “our” government? After everything Snowden has revealed, do you still think you have privacy?

  • Tom

    read this and the comments:

    http://collapseofindustrialcivilization.com/2013/12/02/for-sale-baby-shoes-never-worn/

    (begins)

    Despite mounting evidence of our grim reality, the world’s psychopathic leadership remains willfully deaf, dumb, and blind to the unfolding global ecocide and humanicide. A persistent sounding of the alarm by a tiny minority of the population only seems to have irritated and offended those in the elite class who are pressing the fossil-fueled industrial machine onward, full steam ahead. However, it’s not a cliff we are headed towards because surely the psychopaths would have hidden their parachutes underneath their business suits. There will be no Bottleneck for humans because we’re headed toward the black hole of extinction from which nobody gets out alive. Yes, they’ll be a few hangers-on for a brief period until there is only one lone straggler… and then darkness for the human species along with 99% of all other life. We’re doomed by a pathocracy:

    …from Greek pathos, “feeling, pain, suffering”; and kratos, “rule”

    A totalitarian form of government in which absolute political power is held by a psychopathic elite, and their effect on the people is such that the entire society is ruled and motivated by purely pathological values.

    A pathocracy can take many forms and can insinuate itself covertly into any seemingly just system or ideology. As such it can masquerade under the guise of a democracy or theocracy as well as more openly oppressive regimes…

    (following this is the evidence that we’re on our way out – sooner than you may think)

  • Tom

    On the Obama administration (remember how important it was to elect him over McCain?)

    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/12/veteran-cnn-reporter-obama-white-house-hostile-media-u-s-history.html

    Veteran CNN, New York Times and CBS Reporters: Obama Administration Is the Most “Manipulative”, “Control Freak”, “Secretive”, “Hostile to Media” In HISTORY

    Posted on December 2, 2013 by WashingtonsBlog

    Veteran Journalists Reveal that – Contrary to It’s Claims of “Openness” and “Transparency” – This Administration Is the Most Closed Ever

    Long-time CNN political reporter Bob Franken (now with MSNBC) said last week:

    FRANKEN: Well, let’s use the “P” word here. This is propaganda when it comes from the White House: government covering the government. It’s not what you’re supposed to do in the United States of America. But we have an administration, every president gets to the point where he dislikes the press. It’s that simple. And every administration tries to manipulate the press. But this is the most hostile to the media that has been in United States history. Not only do we have this thing where they’re…

    [Interviewer]: Wait, you would go that far?

    FRANKEN: I would go that far.

    [Interviewer]: The most hostile in history?

    FRANKEN: The most hostile because first of all, we have the situation where they are in fact shutting out the press. And by the way, when they say you can’t have every photographer in, they know full-well that there’s a thing called a pool, which is to say you have one representative from each of the media that represents all of them and shares the pictures and the sound and all that kind of thing. So that’s totally disingenuous, which is a polite word.

    But the reason I say most hostile is because of the Justice Department moves that they’ve made against the press. Obviously they have a contempt for the journalistic process. Those of us who are in journalism, of course, believe that it is vital if you’re going to have informed electorate as opposed to one that’s been propagandized.

    Many other veteran reporters agree. For example, the Washington Post reported recently:

    With the passage of the Patriot Act after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, a vast expansion of intelligence agencies and their powers, the aggressive exploitation of intrusive digital surveillance capabilities, the excessive classification of public documents and officials’ sophisticated control of the news media’s access to the workings of government, journalists who cover national security are facing vast and unprecedented challenges in their efforts to hold the government accountable to its citizens. They find that government officials are increasingly fearful of talking to them, and they worry that their communications with sources can be monitored at any time.So what are they doing? Many reporters covering national security and government policy in Washington these days are taking precautions to keep their sources from becoming casualties in the Obama administration’s war on leaks. They and their remaining government sources often avoid telephone conversations and e-mail exchanges, arranging furtive one-on-one meetings instead. A few news organizations have even set up separate computer networks and safe rooms for journalists trained in encryption and other ways to thwart surveillance.

    “I worry now about calling somebody because the contact can be found out through a check of phone records or e-mails,” said veteran national security journalist R. Jeffrey Smith of the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit accountability news organization. “It leaves a digital trail that makes it easier for government to monitor those contacts.”

    “We have to think more about when we use cellphones, when we use e-mail and when we need to meet sources in person,” said Michael Oreskes, senior managing editor of the Associated Press. “We need to be more and more aware that government can track our work without talking to our reporters, without letting us know.”

    These concerns, expressed by numerous journalists I interviewed, are well-founded. Relying on the 1917 Espionage Act, which was rarely invoked before President Obama took office, this administration has secretly used the phone and e-mail records of government officials and reporters to identify and prosecute government sources for national security stories.

    [it goes on]

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>