Rahm 2016--what do you think? (votes, campaign, Democrats, vice president)

[wutitiz]

Rahm Emanuel 2016? « The Greenroom
I didn't realize it, but his name has popped up from time to time as a possible 2016 contender. He would arguably be more qualified in terms of direct experience than anyone in a long while. He was in the Clinton Admin, Chief of staff for Obama, and now getting his CEO experience as Mayor of Chicago. He also served in the US House for a while.

He's got some sleaze factor in his background, having made millions as an investment banker after leaving the Clinton admin, in spite of having zero banking background (his college degree was 'communications' or some such thing). He also had ties to a BP exec, who gave him a free luxury apartment to stay in in DC. I think he's less of an ideologue and more of a wheeler-dealer/typical Chicago pol than Obama.

I figure that if he decides to go for it, the nomination would be his on a silver platter. Don't forget to include a set of razor sharp steak knives on that platter, Dems....

[Nicholas van Rijn]

Originally Posted by wutitiz

Rahm Emanuel 2016? « The Greenroom
I didn't realize it, but his name has popped up from time to time as a possible 2016 contender. He would arguably be more qualified in terms of direct experience than anyone in a long while. He was in the Clinton Admin, Chief of staff for Obama, and now getting his CEO experience as Mayor of Chicago. He also served in the US House for a while.

He's got some sleaze factor in his background, having made millions as an investment banker after leaving the Clinton admin, in spite of having zero banking background (his college degree was 'communications' or some such thing). He also had ties to a BP exec, who gave him a free luxury apartment to stay in in DC. I think he's less of an ideologue and more of a wheeler-dealer/typical Chicago pol than Obama.

I figure that if he decides to go for it, the nomination would be his on a silver platter. Don't forget to include a set of razor sharp steak knives on that platter, Dems....

Hardly.

Emanuel may have useful experience. But that's not the question. Nominees in the modern American political system need to be Vice President, Governor or Senator to reach the Presidency. Arguably, just the right general in a time of war could do it (Petraeus was a plausible example, before his exercise in political immolation). Maybe the right mayor of New York. Chicago? No. There are reasons no one -- not even a mayor of New York -- has ever used a mayorship as a launching pad to the Presidency. And as far as I know, not even to a major-party nomination.

If you think Emanuel is a nomination lock, you profoundly misunderstand the way Democrats select nominees.

[wutitiz]

Originally Posted by Nicholas van Rijn

Hardly.

Emanuel may have useful experience. But that's not the question. Nominees in the modern American political system need to be Vice President, Governor or Senator to reach the Presidency. Arguably, just the right general in a time of war could do it (Petraeus was a plausible example, before his exercise in political immolation). Maybe the right mayor of New York. Chicago? No. There are reasons no one -- not even a mayor of New York -- has ever used a mayorship as a launching pad to the Presidency. And as far as I know, not even to a major-party nomination.

If you think Emanuel is a nomination lock, you profoundly misunderstand the way Democrats select nominees.

Normally I would say good point, but I don't see any ex-VPs, Sens, or Govs on the horizon for the Dems in 2016. I don't think Hillary is going to run. Who else is out there--you tell me? The only reason Obama took Biden in 2008 was because the D bench was so weak remember the D field: (Edwards, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, Richardson). And a lot of the top D leadership is aging and unlikely to run (Pelosi, Reid, Durbin, Feinstein). .

I don't know whether Biden will want to run, but he will be 74, and I don't think many D's would be enthused about him. He was marginal at best as a VP pick.

Other possible options would be Elizabeth Warren, or getting Chris Christie to switch, both long shots.
Maybe the the D's can come up with another young unknown like they did with Obama in 2008. I'll believe it when I see it. Till then I figure that Rahm would have the inside track. Where do you come up with this rule that an NYC mayor could do it, but not a Chicago mayor?

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by wutitiz

Normally I would say good point, but I don't see any ex-VPs, Sens, or Govs on the horizon for the Dems in 2016. I don't think Hillary is going to run. Who else is out there--you tell me? The only reason Obama took Biden in 2008 was because the D bench was so weak remember the D field: (Edwards, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, Richardson). And a lot of the top D leadership is aging and unlikely to run (Pelosi, Reid, Durbin, Feinstein). .

I don't know whether Biden will want to run, but he will be 74, and I don't think many D's would be enthused about him. He was marginal at best as a VP pick.

Other possible options would be Elizabeth Warren, or getting Chris Christie to switch, both long shots.
Maybe the the D's can come up with another young unknown like they did with Obama in 2008. I'll believe it when I see it. Till then I figure that Rahm would have the inside track. Where do you come up with this rule that an NYC mayor could do it, but not a Chicago mayor?

Biden was a 30 year vet in the Senate, Edwards was the former VP nominee and You do remember Hillary ran in 2008 right ? That is not a weak field at all, in fact it is a very strong one. Obama took Biden because he needed a blue collar pick.It was either him or Evan Bayh and Bayh turned off the base so he picked Joe.

OH and then there is Bill Richardson,U.S. rep from the state of New Mexico 1983-1997, US Ambassador to the U.N. 1998-1999, U.S. Secretary of Energy 1998-2001, Governor of New Mexico 2003-2008(at the time)

[wutitiz]

Biden ran at least twice for prez and never got any traction for good reason. He had several mini-scandals, in particular the plagiarism. And he was always known as gaffe-prone. Even today I have friends who are staunch dems who don't like him.

Edwards already cracking up in 2008. He begged and pleaded to be either atty gen or secy of state after Obama locked things up, and Team Obama wanted nothing to do with him due to the problems that were already apparent by then. Richardson also was embroiled in corruption charges in New Mexico.

Hillary, ok, but even with Hillary, her primary claim to fame was being Bill's wife. I would agree she proved to be a competent candidate, but she did not have the greatest resume for a prez candidate. Basically a 1 term Senator with zero elected office prior to that.

Unless the Democrats had lucked into a young & exciting, previously little-known Barack Obama, they would have been in trouble.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by wutitiz

Biden ran at least twice for prez and never got any traction for good reason. He had several mini-scandals, in particular the plagiarism. And he was always known as gaffe-prone. Even today I have friends who are staunch dems who don't like him.

Edwards already cracking up in 2008. He begged and pleaded to be either atty gen or secy of state after Obama locked things up, and Team Obama wanted nothing to do with him due to the problems that were already apparent by then. Richardson also was embroiled in corruption charges in New Mexico.

Hillary, ok, but even with Hillary, her primary claim to fame was being Bill's wife. I would agree she proved to be a competent candidate, but she did not have the greatest resume for a prez candidate. Basically a 1 term Senator with zero elected office prior to that.

Unless the Democrats had lucked into a young & exciting, previously little-known Barack Obama, they would have been in trouble.

Biden was not always known as gaffe prone, him being VP is the only thing that brought those gaffes to light the same way it did with GWB. The mini scandals you speak of did not even hold a 24 hour news cycle.

Nothing about Edwards was public before the election, same as Richardson, you are looking back with hindsight, but you knew none of this back then. By the way, the Richardson situation was only an allegation

Im not even sure of your argument against Hillary, you basically called her inexperienced, which is the same said of Obama when in reality, she was more experienced than him and she could have even locked up states like Arkansas, Missouri and Louisiana.more than likely she would have picked Barack as her VP.

Hillary would have been the better candidate, no birther movement, no argument of affirmative action. Hillary would have had 400 electoral votes.

in all honestly, i think any democrat would have won in 2008, the only question was by how much.

[wutitiz]

Not true about Edwards--the story about Rielle Hunter came out before the election and there were rumors swirling among insiders even before then. I don't recall the timing off hand for Richardson, but I suspect you are wrong there too. Biden's plagiarism scandal was actually pretty bad:
Why Biden's plagiarims shouldn't be forgotten. - Slate Magazine

Perhaps it wasn't intensively covered, but the information was out there. He had a history of gaffes prior to the VP gig. Remember his 'Indian accent' gaffee? That was 2006. .

[Bideshi]

Originally Posted by wutitiz;

Other possible options would be Elizabeth Warren, or getting Chris Christie to switch?

Warren's distinguished native American ancestry should give her the edge with minorities , and Christie's traitorous disloyalty should make him a solid Dem pick. If you want a consumate criminal as President, Rahm will be hard to beat, but Eric Holder could give him a run.

[crbcrbrgv]

Originally Posted by Bideshi

Warren's native American ancestry should give her the edge with minorities , and Christie's traitorous disloyalty should make him a solid Dem pick. If you want a consumate criminal as President, Rahm will be hard to beat.

Working together is disloyalty?

Where did you go to Kindergarten?

[Bideshi]

Originally Posted by crbcrbrgv

Working together is disloyalty?

Where did you go to Kindergarten?

He torpedoed Romney's campaign at the most critical juncture. That's disloyalty. I'll ignore the kindergarten comment because I know you libs can only respond with insults.