But wouldn't be easy to argue the popular candidates are popular because they have the money? Hillary is as popular as she is because of her fame, which came as a result of being married to the president. It isn't as if she holds views, or has powers which no other human could possess.
This would be a good time for someone far more knowledgeable than me to discuss the common differences between who gets popular or not. I often feel the popular and unpopular don't always differ that much as people, or even by policy.
It's easy to say it's only money that creates that difference, and I do feel that's a big part of it. But I'd had to just resign to the thought that it's the only reason.
But wouldn't be easy to argue the popular candidates are popular because they have the money?
Hillary Clinton was the wife of a famous president.
Barrack Obama was a candidate for the senate and made a great speech at the Democratic Convention in 2004.
John Edwards made a previous bid for the presidency.
Bill Richardson, Joseph Biden and Chris Dodd have been leading stars of the Democratic party for years and have been sought out by the national press for years for commentary on current events.
Dennis Kucinich has a dedicated ideological following because of his exagerated rhetoric. Mike Gravel became famous for his service as a senator in ending the Vietnam War and his campaign to devolve national government to direct mandate via ballot propositions.
I therefore conclude that none of them are famous because they have money.
Well, come on. Run an ad in the papers and myspace and attend all the televised forums hosted by the party. I didn't know it cost half a million for a 30 second ad but, geez, I'd rather the candidates haded out bullet-point fliers on their particular qualities and that we that.
You mean like all the candidates currently at less than 5% in the polls are doing?
Well, yes. How do we know Hillary Clinton's not an idiot when she can afford the best campaign managers, fact checkers, speech writers and coaches, and image consultants?
Clearly, we need to put a $5 million ceiling on contributions to all candidates so all have an equal chance. We need to make the job of commander in chief so undesirable and spartan that only the intellectuals and duty-bound will want the position. Live in the White House? $400, 000 annual salary? Please, the president should work in a cubicle on the 26th floor for $18 an hour like the rest of us.
But wouldn't be easy to argue the popular candidates are popular because they have the money?
Hillary Clinton was the wife of a famous president.
Barrack Obama was a candidate for the senate and made a great speech at the Democratic Convention in 2004.
John Edwards made a previous bid for the presidency.
Bill Richardson, Joseph Biden and Chris Dodd have been leading stars of the Democratic party for years and have been sought out by the national press for years for commentary on current events.
Dennis Kucinich has a dedicated ideological following because of his exagerated rhetoric. Mike Gravel became famous for his service as a senator in ending the Vietnam War and his campaign to devolve national government to direct mandate via ballot propositions.
I therefore conclude that none of them are famous because they have money.
Yes, but Hillary's husband had a lot of money to be president. Obama's candidacy wasn't just fueled by charm and ideas. John Edward's previous bid for candidacy likewise wasn't funded by good wishes.
And so on.
Heavy, heavy funds still drive the largest contenders. Or at least a political history, which also was heavily funded.
But, this is still me throwing out ideas without facts. I don't know how exactly they all came to be presidential candidates. They just, decided they would? I'm sure a lot of people want to be president. If anyone could be president, there'd be a hell of a time choosing between some possible 150 million potentials.
Why is it that you guys are assuming all politicians are corrupt? You guys watch too much tv.
Well pretty much all US politicians are crooks. There's, like, ten Congresspeople who don't take money from certain interests, and then immediately vote in a manner that is favourable to those interests. Nowadays Congress is basically this machine that steals all the billions of dollars in taxes you give the government to defend your security, and improve your infrastructure, and ensure proper healthcare and education, and then either gives that money to corporations, or uses it to enrich said corporations. Some of them don't even pretend to care what the average citizen thinks anymore. It's a lot like how British Columbia works, except worse because it affects about 70 times as many people. Don't you read the paper?
But wouldn't be easy to argue the popular candidates are popular because they have the money?
Hillary Clinton was the wife of a famous president.
Barrack Obama was a candidate for the senate and made a great speech at the Democratic Convention in 2004.
John Edwards made a previous bid for the presidency.
Bill Richardson, Joseph Biden and Chris Dodd have been leading stars of the Democratic party for years and have been sought out by the national press for years for commentary on current events.
Dennis Kucinich has a dedicated ideological following because of his exagerated rhetoric. Mike Gravel became famous for his service as a senator in ending the Vietnam War and his campaign to devolve national government to direct mandate via ballot propositions.
I therefore conclude that none of them are famous because they have money.
Yes, but Hillary's husband had a lot of money to be president. Obama's candidacy wasn't just fueled by charm and ideas. John Edward's previous bid for candidacy likewise wasn't funded by good wishes.
And so on.
Heavy, heavy funds still drive the largest contenders. Or at least a political history, which also was heavily funded.
But, this is still me throwing out ideas without facts. I don't know how exactly they all came to be presidential candidates. They just, decided they would? I'm sure a lot of people want to be president. If anyone could be president, there'd be a hell of a time choosing between some possible 150 million potentials.
Yes, but something draws that heavy funding.
Most of the people running decided to be president because they have careers in public service and the chance for them to run came. I'd say it is about ambition.
Why is it that you guys are assuming all politicians are corrupt? You guys watch too much tv.
Well pretty much all US politicians are crooks. There's, like, ten Congresspeople who don't take money from certain interests, and then immediately vote in a manner that is favourable to those interests. Nowadays Congress is basically this machine that steals all the billions of dollars in taxes you give the government to defend your security, and improve your infrastructure, and ensure proper healthcare and education, and then either gives that money to corporations, or uses it to enrich said corporations. Some of them don't even pretend to care what the average citizen thinks anymore. It's a lot like how British Columbia works, except worse because it affects about 70 times as many people. [Don't you read the paper?
Man, Gordo is a douchebag, but his sudden turn toward green policy is nice.
By law individuals can only contribute $2100 per election. That 52 million Hillary has in contributions? It came from 25,000+ people.
Canada has similar restrictions ($1000/year to a political party and another $1000/year to a riding association), but we also have fairly stringent campaign spending policies. Elections Canada is currently in a dispute with the Tories over their alleged $1 million dollars in overspending during the last election - I've never heard of any kind of spending restrictions in the States. Are there such things?
You know, connections in society, while not being the sole means of access to opportunities, are certainly lifelines on tap that just about anyone could benefit from greatly. And when it comes to making connections in high places, the oval office is one of the better places to be.
The reason to become the President is so that you can find out the location of the Ruler of the Universe so you can go ask him some questions... err wait that is the reason to become President of the Galaxy and you do have to get brain surgery done on yourself first.... hmmm nevermind
The past is a fiction designed to account for the discrepancies in one's immediate physical sensations and one's state of mind.
Posts
This would be a good time for someone far more knowledgeable than me to discuss the common differences between who gets popular or not. I often feel the popular and unpopular don't always differ that much as people, or even by policy.
It's easy to say it's only money that creates that difference, and I do feel that's a big part of it. But I'd had to just resign to the thought that it's the only reason.
Hillary Clinton was the wife of a famous president.
Barrack Obama was a candidate for the senate and made a great speech at the Democratic Convention in 2004.
John Edwards made a previous bid for the presidency.
Bill Richardson, Joseph Biden and Chris Dodd have been leading stars of the Democratic party for years and have been sought out by the national press for years for commentary on current events.
Dennis Kucinich has a dedicated ideological following because of his exagerated rhetoric. Mike Gravel became famous for his service as a senator in ending the Vietnam War and his campaign to devolve national government to direct mandate via ballot propositions.
I therefore conclude that none of them are famous because they have money.
Well, yes. How do we know Hillary Clinton's not an idiot when she can afford the best campaign managers, fact checkers, speech writers and coaches, and image consultants?
Clearly, we need to put a $5 million ceiling on contributions to all candidates so all have an equal chance. We need to make the job of commander in chief so undesirable and spartan that only the intellectuals and duty-bound will want the position. Live in the White House? $400, 000 annual salary? Please, the president should work in a cubicle on the 26th floor for $18 an hour like the rest of us.
....
That was sarcasm.
Yes, but Hillary's husband had a lot of money to be president. Obama's candidacy wasn't just fueled by charm and ideas. John Edward's previous bid for candidacy likewise wasn't funded by good wishes.
And so on.
Heavy, heavy funds still drive the largest contenders. Or at least a political history, which also was heavily funded.
But, this is still me throwing out ideas without facts. I don't know how exactly they all came to be presidential candidates. They just, decided they would? I'm sure a lot of people want to be president. If anyone could be president, there'd be a hell of a time choosing between some possible 150 million potentials.
Yes, but something draws that heavy funding.
Most of the people running decided to be president because they have careers in public service and the chance for them to run came. I'd say it is about ambition.
Man, Gordo is a douchebag, but his sudden turn toward green policy is nice.
Canada has similar restrictions ($1000/year to a political party and another $1000/year to a riding association), but we also have fairly stringent campaign spending policies. Elections Canada is currently in a dispute with the Tories over their alleged $1 million dollars in overspending during the last election - I've never heard of any kind of spending restrictions in the States. Are there such things?
Because you'd be the freakin' PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES! How would that not be awesome?
XBL: QuazarX
The past is a fiction designed to account for the discrepancies in one's immediate physical sensations and one's state of mind.
Time is an illusion, lunch time doubly so.
R.I.P Douglas Adams