Well, I had a good long post ready on Friday, and then Blogger crapped out on me; not expecting Blogger to do that, I didn't copy my text, and I lost the post. I haven't been in the mood to re-post it; needless to say, it's basically more of the same stuff that I have written previously and in the comments to everyone else's posts. On the subject of Obama, I think he certainly can win. This question of "electability" is one that seems strange to me: "can he/she win" seems to be something the media comes up with; they asked the same thing about Bill Clinton. Any of the three top tier candidates in the Democratic field could most certainly win. Even Hillary Clinton.
As for me personally, Obama is my favorite candidate right now (of those that are running). I'd count the top tier candidates as Obama, Edwards and Clinton, and I prefer them in that order. I'm not the biggest fan of Clinton; I'd maybe even prefer a couple of the second tiered candidates to her (Richardson, Dodd, possibly Vilsack). I feel that way about Hillary for a few reasons. First, she represents a part of the Democratic party that I think should be purged: the more "Republican-lite, DLC wing." I remember, I think in 2003 or 2004, when Howard Dean said he represented "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party"; that's what he meant. There are two parts of the party, and as much as I like Bill Clinton, and as much as I do actually like Hillary Clinton, I don't think she would be the best President. The second thing is her calculating and triangulating: it seriously troubles me. She seems to take no strong, principled stands on things, until, of course, her stand has been fully tested and when her handlers think it is politically sound to say. I've been much more impressed with Obama's ideas, which seem to be actually saying something, and with his quick and effective replies to attacks. (There's an anecdote about seeing Hillary speak in one of these comments threads that details her sort of hollow rhetoric; contrast that with Obama's speeches, which are truly inspiring and linger long after they are over). Hillary's stance on the war is particularly troubling; she is obviously against it now, and she speaks out against it, but she also adopts some of the Right's bullshit rhetoric (such as equating 9/11 with Iraq), and she will just not say that she was wrong to vote for the war. This seems to clearly be to not completely alienate those who might still be for the war. This is a huge mistake; those people are not likely to vote for Hillary in the first place; and as she tries unsuccessfully to pander to them, she is turning off those who would actually vote for her, as they move to one of the other two candidates. The Iraq War, which is one of the biggest policy blunders probably in history, was a mistake; for some reason, in DC, we seem to allow people to fail upwards; do we really want to PROMOTE someone who was so wrong? Edwards, of course, squeaks by because he has consistently said he was wrong and it was a mistake; Obama was not in the US Senate at the time, but has the virtue of having come out strongly against the war from his podium as a state senator. (I can somewhat excuse Democrats who voted for the war; it was somewhat close to 9/11, the country wanted something to be done and had fallen for the president's bullshit intelligence and was seeming to somewhat rally around Bush, etc.- it was a political decision, and very few seemed to see what a blunder this would be; Howard Dean was someone who seemed to see exactly what was going to happen, as did Obama.) So I am not for Hillary; but, if she is the nominee, I will vote for her with no problem.
One way or another, I think Obama will be on the ticket. Edwards has made it clear he isn't running for Vice President and didn't care for it the first time; he could change his mind. But I think, if Obama doesn't get the presidential nod, he'll be on the ticket as VP, and then in four or eight years, he will be the prohibitive favorite. I would, personally, love to see Gore come in, and have a Gore/Obama ticket. Out of those already in the game, I'd be into an Edwards/Obama ticket, or possibly an Obama/Clinton ticket as a second choice. I will also predict something now: barring a catastrophic mistake on the part of the congressional Democrats, if a Democrat wins the White House in 2008, I predict Democratic leadership for quite a while- I might even say a generation (again, barring any real big fuckups). The GOP ran Washington and this country into the ground for the past 12 years, and the country is trending Democratic; with the Dem field this exciting (and the GOP field decidedly not exciting), if a Dem wins, I predict a Democratic era for a while.
Speaking of the GOP field, it's very interesting; the Democratic field is extremely exciting and is seriously getting people pumped up, while the GOP field is problematic to Republicans and conservatives. The situation seems to be that an extremely socially conservative candidate couldn't win the general election, but a more moderate Republican can't get through the GOP primary. Their top tiered candidates are not seeming to move people- I have read many blogs and articles that seem to have conservatives not very happy with their choices, and I've seen this on television as well. Who've they got? Mccain, who the conservative base does not seem to trust- no matter how much he runs to the HARD right, and no matter how much he completely lies and flip-flops through this campaign season. Giuliani, who absolutely doesn't have the experience to be president; he is really a candidate who is even out there because of one day- and as soon as this thing gets rolling, we're going to see all of the real dirt on him, and the incompetence of much of his mayorship that got brushed under the rug when 9/11 happened. Besides that, I also think that his positions on things will scare away much of the GOP base. And then we have Romney, who is a Mormon; I'm sorry, but that's going to kill him in this race. I'm not saying that's right, but I don't think a Mormon will get through the GOP primary. And then the other candidates, such as Duncan Hunter, or Mike Huckabee, are just not well known enough that even if they do have more conservative credentials that might get them through the GOP primary, I don't see them breaking the wave that is Obama, or any of the other nationally well-known Dem candidates. So it's really unfortunate for the Republic party, and really fortunate for those who would like to see the Dems take back the WH and solidify their hold on Congress in '08 (the GOP has many more Senate seats up for grabs in 08 than the Dems do, so it seems likely that the Dems will strengthen their razor-thin hold on the Senate).
And lastly, for someone who said they thought they could see themselves voting Mccain, here's a couple of links that you (and everyone) should take a look at. Yes, it's from a left-wing website, but the content speaks for itself. Mccain is a liar and, in my opinion, a dangerous candidate. This image of him from the 2000 primaries as a "maverick" and a moderate is increasingly false. His Iraq War bullshit is also troubling.
That's pretty much what I said the first time in the post that Blogger ate; except the first time it was probably not as riddled with mistakes and was less stream-of-consciousness, but hey, it's late.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
McCain is definitely the real threat from the Republicans, simply because so many Democrats believe that he is a moderate. I remember back in 2000, before he dropped out, thinking that while I wanted Gore to win, if McCain were to be elected, it wouldn't be so bad. Lots of people felt that way.
Then there were the rumors that John Kerry was going to choose McCain as his running mate back in 2004. Again, this is something that makes people think, "Wow! He's so liberal he almost got on the Democratic ticket!"
I went ahead and posted that video from therealmccain.com so that more people would have a chance to see what a flip-flopping panderer the man is.
A practical note: McCain will be 72 come election time. That has to be a liability, ideologies aside.
True. Reagan was 69 when he was first elected, and he was the oldest to be elected thus far.
Of course, Dole was 73 when he ran against Clinton. He didn't win, but he was still the Republican nominee.
Here's what I liked about McCain. Part of this imagine is his PR, part is our media, part is true, and part I've likely made up in my own mind.
I'd support a candidate who had been a POW, and come back sane(?) and successful. I'd support someone who was equally comfortable collaborating (and conflicting) with both sides of the aisle. I'd support someone who will tell you the truth, even when it's not what you want to hear. I'd support someone who could take a tough stance against torturing POWs because he'd been there. I'd support a republican who pisses off the christian conservatives and who Jesus would never vote for. I'd support a republican who's not afraid to break ranks when needed.
Obviously, that republican is not John McCain. I don't recall the last time I watched the news or any news show, so clearly I'm not up-to-date on the candidates. If what you are all saying about John McCain (and what he himself has said) is true, then clearly I would not vote for him. Whichever candidate I vote for, I will do considerably more research on than I've done to date. I do think that he is a threat though, because I suspect that others may share my misinformed feelings for him and I think a lot of people will vote based on feelings, not logic.
It's interesting. I've been very liberal for about 8 years. In most circles, I'm considered an extremist. Lately though, I feel myself disagreeing with the left. Mainly on the Iraq issue. I was against the war in Iraq from the very beginning and I have remained against it every step along the way. I was not in the least unsure, I knew that it was wrong and it would lead to disastrous consequences. That said, I am not comfortable with any of the ideas put forth by either side for how to end this. I will not get into the details now, because it is a whole other issue. I will say though that I have a hard time respecting people who refuse to take responsibility for their actions, and I believe that all of us share responsibility for what has happened in Iraq, even me who was against it from the beginning.
Melissa
P.S.
Gore/Obama! That would be my dream ticket! What the latest on Gore? He's still deadset against running, right?
Melissa
Did you guys see that McCain just said Roe Vs. Wade should be overturned? Another strike against him, methinks.
Gore has said he's not running, but he seems to be skirting around saying it "unequivocally." Kieth Olbermann told a story on his show about when he had Gore on for an interview, after the interview was over, a staff member asked Gore that, if he was asked "real nice" would he consider running (meaning, I'd assume, if the call for him to run was strong), and Gore replied something to the effect of that he would. Then Olbermann joked with him about the cameras still being on, and Gore apparently got a bit worried until Kieth told him they weren't.
I'm still not convinced that Gore will enter the race, and therefore I am concentrating on the candidates who are actually in the race. Some have speculated that Gore might announce something at the Oscars (assuming he wins). I do happen to think that Gore might be considering a run: he's smart enough to know that, no matter how many awards he wins and no matter how popular he gets out there crusading about global warming, there's no more powerful position than President of the United States. I also think, going from the Olbermann incident, and obviously the "Draft Gore" movement, there might be a political calculating going on here: right now, Gore is not in the news. The media is going after Hillary, Obama and Edwards. Gore is well known already, and doesn't have the "loser" label that Kerry (and, in some ways, by extension, Edwards) has- Gore didn't lose the popular vote, and most on the democratic side think that he outright won the election in 2000. So Gore could hang back, continue getting publicity for his documentary and his crusading, continue to get on news shows and talk shows, but not getting concentrated on by the attack dogs like the other three candidates, and he could then suddenly enter the race, maybe late this year. I'd predict he'd certainly suck all of the air out of the room, the other candidates would be somewhat damaged goods after having been viciously attacked (and they are already starting to be quite viciously attacked- the conservative movement is going down in flames and their attacks are getting more shrill, vicious and incomprehensible), Gore will have bypassed all of that. I believe he'd also suck up a bit of the money (though the downside of waiting a while to get in is that the other candidates will have sucked up a bit of the money- Gore obviously has plenty of money already, and whoever he picks as running mate will provide some money to the campaign should he win; he gets free publicity anyways by virtue of almost being a movie star as it is). Then I could see a Gore/Obama ticket. That's my dream ticket; I'm not necessarily holding my breath. Until that happens, I'm concentrating on who's in the race.
I don't know that Mccain will get through the GOP primaries. But there is a WEALTH of shit that will get piled on him; and the Dem candidates look like little darlings compared to him. While I can respect his war service and while I respect what he went through, that's not why we are electing him to office. He's been consistently wrong about every major issue, and he shouldn't get promoted to our highest office. But, should he make it though, it might be easy street for the Dems at that point- it is extremely easy to seek out all kinds of damaging bullshit on Mccain; any kid with Google could go it. Also, he's sticking with the increasingly unpopular Bush; that seems to be unwise at this point.
The other candidates are not much better. Romney is from Massachusetts (the GOP isn't a huge fan of Mass) and is a Mormon; if that doesn't spell death for him, his obvious flip-flopping from his more liberal Republican positions won't sit well with the GOP. Giuliani will get killed when people start really digging up the dirt on him. The other candidates, who might get through the GOP primaries, aren't well known enough to win the general, at least against the very well known Dem candidates.
I'm not too worried about people with regards to not knowing about Mccain, Melissa; they will find out. That's the great thing about campaign season.
Jesus, I can't believe I missed your strange brew quote. Man.
I'm interested in Obama's immigration stance. With more Americans killed by illegal immigrants than have died in the Iraq war over the same time period, does he have any ideas on this issue?
Also, we as Americans pay about 40% of our incomes on some type of taxes (from gas, sales, sin, to income taxes). What are his policies concerning taxes?
And, with Gore's "the sky is falling" mentality, why isn't he preaching against the rebuilding of New Orleans--a city well below sea level? Throwing money away in Iraq at least has the benefit of cheap oil behind it, but New Orleans makes no sense at all if global warming pundits are so sure of "super hurricanes" and severe weather over the next 100 years. It seems like another Love Canal debacle.
Maybe this haziness will clear up as the elections get closer, but I figure we will stay a divided nation no matter who wins. It's sad that we can't have a real third party canadite that isn't a wealthy Dem or Rep, someone of the people.
L8R,
John from Daejeon
Post a Comment