I hate to admit it, but I haven't been keeping up with the candidates lately, and I had to do a bit of research before writing this (As it's Mon afternoon, and I have to post this on Tues, it hasn't given me much time). However, after watching a few videos and reading a few articles, I think I've cobbled enough info together to write a reasonable enough post.
Hope. That's the main tenet in Obama's speeches, and one that will help power his campaign. I hate to say it, but I think one of the main reasons the Democratic candidates have lost over the last couple of years is that they didn't inspire a passion in people. Both Gore and Kerry came across as robots, and though Dean came off looking like a lunatic in his famous little scream speech, at least there was a passion coming through. There have been early criticisms that it's just fluff, and with the exception of his proposed bill to bring troops home, he hasn't laid out plans for his other platforms such as health care. I don't think he HAS to lay out all his plans just yet. His idealism is inspiring, and using that should help him gain a lot of support (but I agree, he'll have to eventually).
As far as electability goes, there are some issues. The biggest one is race, and it's this topic that might be a little backwards than one would initially think. I was watching the Colbert Report this morning, and there was a woman on who was saying that Obama didn't have a lot of support from the black community because he isn't their definition of black. He isn't descended from slaves (West African slaves specifically), and thus didn't have the same upbringing and challenges that most in the black community have had. He has a white mother, and was apparently raised around her parents, thus having a predominantly white upbringing. This is great for attracting white votes - he has the skin color, but the upbringing (some would say personality) of a white person. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson had the opposite problem, they had black support, but alienated the white votes. Recent polls show that Obama only has 20% of the black vote, meanwhile Clinton is in the lead in black polls, getting at least 60% I think.
Speaking of Hillary, she has a bit of an edge, mainly just with name recognition. Through her 8 years as first lady, and now her time in the senate, there's not a person in the U.S. who hasn't heard of her. Of course that can also be her pitfall. There are people out there who think she's Satan incarnate, and I highly doubt that Obama or Edwards has generated that kind of hatred against them. She also has Bill though, and there are tons of people who would vote her in just to have him back in the White House in some form. Unfortunately, I think that she doesn't have as much of a chance because she's a woman. Black men got the right to vote before women did, and I don't see the election of president being much different.
I supported Edwards in the 2004 election. Mainly it was because my roommate Lindsey was working for his campaign, and needed the help, but I also thought he had the charisma to win. Sadly, he was a bit of a one-trick pony (son of a mill worker), but he did secure the nomination for vice president. I think it was a ploy to win the southern votes, but it backfired because (if memory serves me correctly) before the nomination Kerry was farther ahead in the polls than he was. It seems he's learned a lot since then, but some of the stigma from the last campaign may still be attached. It's the same thing Al Gore will have to face - they've already lost one election, why bet on them a second time? (Gore though has the advantage of technically having won his election, and if he runs again, the people might have enough momentum this time to make sure there's no doubt if he wins).
Another hot topic is experience. While I'm sure it's nice to have, is it always necessary? Right now we have a president who already has served one term AND has a father who served - plenty of experience right? Look how fucked over we are. While I think experience can be important in making decisions, that's what advisers are for. I haven't seen it yet, but I would have to laugh if Edwards ever criticizes Obama for using the "Washington outsider" play, as it was the one he used in the last election.
As far as Obama's Christianity, it can't hurt right? OK, well actually I suppose it could. It will be a key tool in attracting the conservative religious votes, but he can't overplay it and lose the people who aren't religious. Of course, if he ends up being the Democratic nominee, then that won't be as much of a worry, because I think the non-religious would vote for him regardless, just to get a Democrat in office.
As of right now, I'm still not throwing my support towards any particular candidate - I still need to find out more.
Hope. That's the main tenet in Obama's speeches, and one that will help power his campaign. I hate to say it, but I think one of the main reasons the Democratic candidates have lost over the last couple of years is that they didn't inspire a passion in people. Both Gore and Kerry came across as robots, and though Dean came off looking like a lunatic in his famous little scream speech, at least there was a passion coming through. There have been early criticisms that it's just fluff, and with the exception of his proposed bill to bring troops home, he hasn't laid out plans for his other platforms such as health care. I don't think he HAS to lay out all his plans just yet. His idealism is inspiring, and using that should help him gain a lot of support (but I agree, he'll have to eventually).
As far as electability goes, there are some issues. The biggest one is race, and it's this topic that might be a little backwards than one would initially think. I was watching the Colbert Report this morning, and there was a woman on who was saying that Obama didn't have a lot of support from the black community because he isn't their definition of black. He isn't descended from slaves (West African slaves specifically), and thus didn't have the same upbringing and challenges that most in the black community have had. He has a white mother, and was apparently raised around her parents, thus having a predominantly white upbringing. This is great for attracting white votes - he has the skin color, but the upbringing (some would say personality) of a white person. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson had the opposite problem, they had black support, but alienated the white votes. Recent polls show that Obama only has 20% of the black vote, meanwhile Clinton is in the lead in black polls, getting at least 60% I think.
Speaking of Hillary, she has a bit of an edge, mainly just with name recognition. Through her 8 years as first lady, and now her time in the senate, there's not a person in the U.S. who hasn't heard of her. Of course that can also be her pitfall. There are people out there who think she's Satan incarnate, and I highly doubt that Obama or Edwards has generated that kind of hatred against them. She also has Bill though, and there are tons of people who would vote her in just to have him back in the White House in some form. Unfortunately, I think that she doesn't have as much of a chance because she's a woman. Black men got the right to vote before women did, and I don't see the election of president being much different.
I supported Edwards in the 2004 election. Mainly it was because my roommate Lindsey was working for his campaign, and needed the help, but I also thought he had the charisma to win. Sadly, he was a bit of a one-trick pony (son of a mill worker), but he did secure the nomination for vice president. I think it was a ploy to win the southern votes, but it backfired because (if memory serves me correctly) before the nomination Kerry was farther ahead in the polls than he was. It seems he's learned a lot since then, but some of the stigma from the last campaign may still be attached. It's the same thing Al Gore will have to face - they've already lost one election, why bet on them a second time? (Gore though has the advantage of technically having won his election, and if he runs again, the people might have enough momentum this time to make sure there's no doubt if he wins).
Another hot topic is experience. While I'm sure it's nice to have, is it always necessary? Right now we have a president who already has served one term AND has a father who served - plenty of experience right? Look how fucked over we are. While I think experience can be important in making decisions, that's what advisers are for. I haven't seen it yet, but I would have to laugh if Edwards ever criticizes Obama for using the "Washington outsider" play, as it was the one he used in the last election.
As far as Obama's Christianity, it can't hurt right? OK, well actually I suppose it could. It will be a key tool in attracting the conservative religious votes, but he can't overplay it and lose the people who aren't religious. Of course, if he ends up being the Democratic nominee, then that won't be as much of a worry, because I think the non-religious would vote for him regardless, just to get a Democrat in office.
As of right now, I'm still not throwing my support towards any particular candidate - I still need to find out more.
3 comments:
Hillary is clearly the most experienced, if one thinks of experience as strictly being in office and whatnot- she was first lady and possibly the most active first lady, if not one of the most, when it came to policy. Those are big points for her in my book.
But another thing about Hillary that is interesting, and this is purely from a campaign perspective, is that she is so extremely well known- what can be said about her that hasn't already? That might come in pretty handy when it comes to attacks from the Right (and even the Left), what can they say to smear her that hasn't already been said for 15 years? She's had books written about her, both good and (some extremely) bad, and they've all said about as bad of things as they possibly could. In fact, just the other day I was watching a rerun of Penn and Teller's Bullshit, the episode dealing with the Bible and the end of the world, and one guest was saying that he thought Hillary Clinton could be the anti-Christ!!!! That's as bad as it gets, no? So smearing her will be difficult, because it's all been way overdone for more than a decade.
That, however, could also work against her. Even though it seems to be a dwindling portion of the electorate, there are still lots of undecideds. Since Hillary is so well known, it will be very difficult to change people's minds who have already made up their mind and opinions on Hillary Clinton. She's going to have a hard time changing people's minds with regards to their opinions of her. But having said that, I'd never underestimate Hillary as a politician; though I tire of what I call her "triangulation," she's obviously formidable, and the GOP have every reason to be scared of her. I might be for Obama at the moment, but I'd very happily vote for Hillary.
One thing I'd like to throw out there into the discussion is: how do you all feel about the sort of political dynasty thing we've got going on? Most of us are all about the same age: I was born in 1980, and since I've been born, there has been either a Bush or a Clinton on every presidential ballot. If Hillary should win, the nation's highest office would have been controlled by either a Bush or a Clinton for 24 years (I'm not counting Bush 41 when he was VP w/ Reagan). And that's only giving Hillary one term; it's 28 years should she serve the full 8 years. Wasn't our system of government built somewhat around trying to prevent any political dynasties? Does any of that bother any of you? (Jeb has always been floated as someone who could run in maybe 2012, or even Jeb's son in 2016 or something- imagine that!)
I would just like to mention that I am not opposed to Hillary or Edwards, it's just that I prefer Obama. And, of course, I will vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is, unless somehow they nominate a total fuckup who is somehow worse than the Republican nominee.
As far as this political dynasty thing goes, I'm not sure how I feel about that. I mean, I'm very much opposed to the Bush dynasty (please don't let Jeb run for pres, please!) but I wouldn't mind a Clinton dynasty at all. And I would certainly be opposed to some sort of law banning "dynasties."
My friend Chris talks about this dynasty issue a bit in the comments section of my blog.
Well, it would be wrong to pass a law "banning dynasties." The voters should be able to pick who they want in most cases- some even oppose term limits, and say that, if the voters wanted, say, Bill Clinton to run again, they should be able to vote for him (I personally am for term limits). But it is troubling to see the same families turning up on the ballot for so long; and I would be against a Clinton dynasty just as I'd be against a Bush dynasty- it has to cut both ways. I like the Clinton's (though not nearly as highly as many people), but we need new people in the White House.
Post a Comment