(If you're having trouble viewing the video, click here.)
Showing posts with label John McCain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John McCain. Show all posts
Monday, February 19, 2007
Sunday, February 18, 2007
No way, eh! Radiation has made me an enemy of civilization!
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.
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:
Posts (Atom)
