Some political stuff
People who know me know that I am vocal about my political leanings and this has both distanced me and drawn me closer to those I know. There are friends I truly care about who completely disagree with me when it comes to ideas of where our country needs to go. I care about them because we have conversations and not arguments about what is the right path. That being said, the question of whom I plan on supporting in the primaries has come up a lot in conversation lately as I am sure it has for many. My own personal answer has evolved quite a bit in the last few months as I also hope it has for many. I’ll admit I fell under the charm of Barack Obama after reading his books¹. I bounced around playing the “Chris Dodd is very progressive, but annoying while Joe Biden is refreshingly honest, yet annoying as well” game. John Edwards has some good ideas, but his Christianity holds him back from being truly progressive in the social realm. I’m confident Bill Richardson will be the Vice Presidential candidate and so I have taken him off my list. Many times I found myself saying, “To hell with it, I’m voting for Dennis Kucinich!” But, one candidate I have never really considered is Hillary Clinton. Maybe I listen to too much Air America radio where Clinton is seen as the centrist “politics as usual” candidate. Maybe it’s because any Clinton supporter I ask answers that she has their vote, “because she can win.” Maybe I just like underdogs. In the last few months I have really felt a dislike for the Clinton juggernaut almost as if she were in a rival party. After Clinton’s third place finish in Iowa, I felt a strange relief. If she does win the nomination, she will have my support despite the lame campaign she has run.² But all of this has left a bad taste in my mouth. That bad taste is a result of the realization that the Democrats are getting closer and closer to choosing that one person to send forth. One person to embody all our hopes and dreams. One person to be our salvation. I had thought that person was pretty much chosen, but then all that changed. Now it may be someone else and am I prepared for it? It’s all starting to scare me. The next President will inherit a world in which many have either vowed to kill us or simply abandoned us. Many pundits have said that the next Presidency will be one of the most important in our history. Maybe they say that every four years, but somehow I think this year it’s true. Are the Democrats up for the challenge? I’m not so sure.
New Hampshire Primary Predictions:
1.John McCain³ 1. Barack Obama
2.Mitt Romney 2.Hillary Clinton
3.Mike Huckabee 3.John Edwards
4.Rudy Giuliani 4.Bill Richardson
Ah, it's over dude. Fred Thompson
¹The Audacity of Hope was written from the standpoint of someone who plans to run for President and therefore lacks a certain inspiration, whereas Dreams of my Father was written prior to Obama’s political career and is much more telling of who the author really is. I also admit I listened to his books which might have added to the mystique as Obama reads them himself and his voice is really dreamy.
²Hillary did show some emotion at a recent event in New Hampshire, which did inspire me. I know she is better than her campaign portrays her and hopefully a national campaign, if there is one, will show the “I’m a smart woman with some good ideas, but I’ve got problems just like you such as how to raise an upstanding daughter and have an independent career while my husband is a bit of a scumbag” side of Hillary. She needs to play up her relationship to the new ‘silent majority.”
³44th President of the United States, John McCain
posted by Bill Eseltine at Monday, January 07, 2008
12 Comments:
This is a very good post and I share some of your views. It is a given, for me, that I will support the eventual Democratic nominee. My personal preference for who should be the nominee, however, has shifted around a lot. I started out with what seemed like the default choice, Hillary Clinton. I was, and remain, a big fan of President Clinton and it might be that I was hoping that just having him close to the Oval Office might bring back some of the magic from the go-go nineties.
I briefly flirted with the Obama campaign before I came to the opinion that his resumé is a little bit light. I also thought, I guess in the spirit of what you wrote above ("…a world in which many have either vowed to kill us or simply abandoned us."), that we need someone who can be more of a hard-ass than Obama might be capable of being. This also brought me back to Clinton. Another major reason for my loyalty to the Clinton campaign was my conditioned fear response (from '00 and '04) of the Republican general election campaign and the dirty fighting that that would entail. I wasn't sure that Obama had it in him to fight back. But I knew that the Clintons did. I could practically see James Carville saddling up for one more time.
After a while, though, the style of Clinton's campaign started to turn me off. Yes, she would be tough. Let's face it, though--she's not a dynamic speaker. This became especially apparent when President Clinton would appear with her at events. Maybe she wasn't a lock for the general. Her negatives will always be very high. So, I started looking around again.
I do have a weak spot for Joe Biden. The combination of his years of foreign policy experience (there's something to be said for actually knowing what you're talking about) combined with his proclivity for running off at the mouth makes him an attractive choice for me. The trouble is, his shot at this was in 1988. And he screwed it up then.
So, do I join the cult of personality that is erupting around Obama? Or…
About six months ago John Edwards started throwing bombs. I decided to ignore the unpleasant parts of his campaign: His association with the Kerry campaign (maybe the worst presidential campaigns I can remember), his occasionally naked pandering ("Mah daddy worked in the mill everah day of his lahf.") and the fact that he was on public financing meant that he would be crippled and unable to compete money-wise with the Republican nominee. I started focusing on what he was saying--and I got sucked in.
What Edwards is saying is powerful, though. It's pure populism--you and me versus the giant corporations and their Republican cronies. The fact that Obama wasn't really addressing these issues was floating around in the back of my mind but didn't really crystalize until Paul Krugman started hammering it on a daily basis. It would be easy to misread what Krugman is saying (and I guess, I am saying) as "Democrats shouldn't be as conciliatory as Obama would be. We need revenge for the past seven years!" But that's not it.
The behavior of the Bush administration in particular and the Republicans in general has been extraordinary. They have worked to change the rules in such ways as to attempt to give themselves permanent advantages (Think of the Texas redistricting and their attempts to change how California allocates electoral votes). Think of the precedents set to consolidate power under the Unitary Executive theory. The Republicans haven't been playing the same game--they've changed the rules. Because of this, compromise isn't an option.
The next Democratic President will need to tear down this mechanism that the Republicans have set in motion. And by definition that will require some partisan warfare. So, when Obama talks about being post-partisan and bringing people from both sides of the aisle together I get suspicious. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have been attempting to govern through compromise with the Republicans, too. What we've seen is that the word "bipartisan" is just a shorthand way of saying "The Republicans get whatever they want out of the Democrats". How has that worked out for you?
Edwards doesn't have the money, though. I suspect that Obama is going to thrash Clinton in New Hampshire tonight. That pretty much leaves us with Obama. And I don't want this to sound as negative as it probably does. I think he is a great candidate. I'll be happy to get on board if that's how things go--The Obama train is where all the cute girls are anyway.
I think that we'll have to hold his feet to the fire on progressive ideals, though.
Holy shit WALL OF TEXT
Yeah, I like John Edwards too. But it doesn't matter. The Republican dirty tricks department will never allow a Democratic win. 7 years of Bush has allowed too many people in too many places capable of making changes where they are needed on election night. It didn't happen in the mid-terms (all that much) but it'll happen in November.
This is a test to see if Chris Sabo keeps coming up!
Bill,
A year ago I would have agreed with your pessimism about the Republican dirty tricks department. I think the last year, though, has been so costly to the Republicans--They really are reeling. I think in this circumstance that a Democrat can win. Look at the turnout disparity between Democrats and Republicans in Iowa. Early reports out of New Hampshire show that Democrats are running out of ballots. If this can keep up, it may not be a close enough election for the Republicans to cheat.
Part of what I have been wrestling with w/r/t choosing a candidate is general election strategy. I think the last couple of elections (Rove-based elections) have conditioned us that the way to win is to shore up your base, wage a culture war and win 51%-49%. I think that John Edwards could probably do that. Obama, however, might be able to peel off more independents and republicans and win with something looking like a mandate. With an Obama presidency and a strengthened Democratic majority in both houses of Congress there would be the opportunity to correct the excesses of the last seven years. Subpoenas that would stick, for instance. Prosecutions that would get jail time for those involved. That sort of thing. That is, if Obama has the stomach for that sort of thing. And that is what I am still not sure of.
And if you think it's just me that thinks that bipartisanship is a Republican scam, check out this awesome video of Kennedy laying the smack down:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAGyT-z9SlA
That was beautiful.
So, in short. I think that you're wrong. I think that this is the election that Democrats actually can win. Remind me I said this once the Republicans and the Sons of Rove have turned Barack Obama into Barack Hussein Osama, Democratic crackhead raised in a madrassa.
There are those who say Obama will never win because he's black. I say that who ever even considers not voting for him because of this probably isn't going to vote Democratic anyway. It's a mute point. But...but, he does need to sway the independent vote and these are the people who claim to hate partisan politics. Obama needs to play the bipartisan game until he wins. Then...then he can to begin purge Washington.
"moot" sorry, didn't catch that one.
Also, some intern at Air America needs to count the number of times the phrase "Barack Osama" is uttered by Fox News between now and November. Can someone get on this please?
How about those Seahawks?
Hey Adam. How are you?
I'm watching JaMarcus Russell play the bipartisan game until he can purge the NFL.
bill, make a new post so I can write more stuff.
Last night I had a dream that I was visiting Michael Degnan in prison. I'm not sure what he had done but he seemed pretty down about it all. Maybe manslaughter? He didn't seem any more down than he usualy does, though.
His cell seemed more like a Texas steel cage match, or sort of like the cage that Hannibal Lecter was in in the later portions of Silence of the Lambs.
What was weirder about this situation was that all of the other prisoners had downs syndrome. They all seemed to be preparing shanks, too. No one seemed to care about this.
Michael was wearing what I suspect is the Shawshank outfit. Denim shirt, jeans.
I asked him if he needed me to send him any books and he already had a list prepared. I know the conventional wisdom is that you can't read in dreams so I don't know if I couldn't read his list or if I've just forgotten it.
Post a Comment
<< Home