Dan seems firmly in the Obama camp, and he's expressed interest in my general views, and possibly some surprise that I am not on board the Obama Express.
To that end, I offer the following:
Obama - from his speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention Obama was a star, and almost immediately there was talk of him as a presidential candidate. I was a huge fan of the speech and what I believed to be the man behind the speech. I'm a sucker for an articulate politician. That said, almost nothing from him since has been as inspiring. He's shown a few examples of spunk, smacking down various smears from Republicans, the media, or his rivals, but otherwise he's been playing things safe in a way that I find wholly uninspiring. I wouldn't say that I'm against him, or even think less of him than any of the others, but he's not pulling away from the pack, for me anyway.
Clinton - I'm against the notion that we have some sort of ruling class in this country - (Bush Clinton Bush Clinton) and so would much rather not have Clinton as our next president. That said, the thought of having Bill back in a significant role is very appealing, particularly if he got to be Secretary of State or some kind of special envoy. I have little against Hillary either personally or politically, I'm just turned off at the notion of Clinton again. Also, nothing turns the Republicans and the media into drooling buffoons than the Clintons and the country would probably be better off staying away from the trash that undeservedly surrounds them. I'm also annoyed by her disingenousness on Iraq (the same could be said of Obama). Shes for keeping something more than 60,000 troops in Iraq to do something, and it's not entirely clear that this number is justified by anything, or that it's a good idea.
Edwards - I applaud his concern for income disparity as that is one of my major issues, but he comes across as a lightweight and worse, something like a car salesman. The ridiculous haircut thing did him no favors and was entirely unjustified. No one seem to ask any of the other candidates how much they spent on haircuts or how often. All of these people are the pampered rich and probably get weekly haircuts, and likely $100+ ones.
Richardson - originally my hope, as his resume is outstanding, but he's turned out to be a terrible campaigner and has said some very stupid things. That said, he truly wants all of the troops out of Iraq and his resume remains amazing.
Biden - smart guy but too much of a Senate windbag.
Dodd - similar to Biden, only albino. And from CT.
Kucinich - personally unappealing while having some good views on the world. Completely and utterly unelectable. Wife strangely hot.
Gravel - oof. Insane. Completely. Batshit. Insane.
Seems like I'm missing one.
One the opposite side the most recent poll shows Republicans favoring 'none of the above' among their candidates even when including Fred Thompson. Truly a greater pack of panderers and authoritarians has never been assembled.
13 comments:
Pat, nice overview, and I think I share some of these thoughts. I, too, don't care much for presidential legacies. But I will say here that whichever candidate can manage to keep from pandering shit-slinging will get 100 Gryffindor points from me. As for the Republicans so far.... feh. Perhaps I'm an Obama-leaner for the moment, but we've got a ways to go yet. And really, if Iowa can stop selecting a second-rate Democratic candidate in the caucus, we could get somewhere this time.
Lightning fast on the response!
I started using Netvibes to see activity on all my blogs of interest. Perhaps that's helping.
I've got you bastards' RSS feed coming into my My Yahoo! page, however I only check in on that every so often.
Pat - Interesting in that, though you claim he is not pulling away from the pack, to read your thoughts I would place you in the Obama camp, if not fervently.
While I agree that I've not heard an incredible amount of substance from Obama (ala Bill Clinton), the guy is kind of learning on the job. He's extremely bright, and the kind of guy I'd trust as much as anyone running to surround himself with knowledgeable advisors (again, like Bill Clinton). I am a sucker for an articulate politician. And I'm also a sucker for an inspirational speaker (when what they inspire aligns with my own views). People with Obama's speaking power don't come along often, and to me it seems like a "rah rah" inspirational type might be just what this country needs right now. Everybody thinks everything sucks. We need someone who can rally the troops (so to speak).
Not fervently, to be sure.
He may wind up being the best choice, but he is not blowing me away. Not by a long shot.
I'm also against empty rhetoric of bringing everyone together. I think the Dems have been fucking this up for years. The simple fact is that the Dems ideas are ones that most Americans are for - things like universal health insurance, using the government to level the playing field, etc - but they have done a terrible job of getting that message across. It's not about some imaginary center position that brings people from both sides, it's simply about stating clearly and unambiguously what Dems stand for and then defending yourself ferociously from the inevitable attacks that come from the right.
The simple fact is that many of our government policies are only favored by a tiny minority of rich white people, but they happen to be skilled as making chicken salad out of chicken shit.
More demonstrative dems. That's what I'm looking for.
Inspriational speakers, yes. Expounders, no. I'm right there with you on that.
That's one of the reasons Obama fits the bill so well, I think.
On a side note, I heard an NPR interview with the Iraq ambassador to the US. Man, he makes a credible case as to why the US should not leave. It's not like he was pandering to our government, either, as he came right out and said, "It's unfair for our government to be held to timetables for progress set by your government. It's tough for us to make progress when our country is in total chaos - chaos, by the way, that you created." Anyway, he quite strongly said that the US had a moral obligation to remain and support the Iraqi police and army. He said the vast majority of Iraqis feel this way.
I didn't have that impression at all until the interview. I guess the morality/logic of staying/pulling out has everthing to do with the credibility of that last statement of his.
Regardless, I fear that the issue is way WAY to politicized for anyone to depart from the party line at this point. And Gods-own-truth of the matter may well be why Obama & Clinton are using the rhetoric of "bring the troops home" while actually planning to leave a large contingent. If their main message was anything but "bring the troops home" they might as well write off the nomination and quit right now.
Read/hear the Iraqi ambassador's interview here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12103627
I heard that interview as well.
I do have misgivings about walking away from a disaster we created leaving thousands to suffer, but are we really doing any good?
Are we the source of more suffering than we are stopping? And is there any real chance that they will come to some acceptable compromise while we are there?
I don't know the answer to those questions, and there are so many people acting in bad faith through this that it's hard to know what is the right answer. It doesn't seem like the Iraqis have enough interest to do what's best for anyone other than their narrow interest group. Of course, the same is true here, but god damn an awful lot of people suffer while the privileged jockey for positions of personal power.
To that end I give you Ahmed Chalabi and Dick Cheney.
So, you see the answer is not that clear cut, and again I suggest that what appears to be talking about both sides of the mouth might actually be astute policymaking on the part of Obama?Clinton.
I know, though. There are not too many issues about which I have misgivings, but Iraq is a kerfluffle of the highest order. I love how Al Franken used to say the Bush administration's position was always: "All right, we got you into this mess. Now how are you gonna get us out?" It goes without saying, I guess, that were I the president in 2001, we never would have invaded. But that is neither here nor there. By God's own truth, I don't know what we should do. But were I in power now, here'd be my plan:
- "Benchmark" is becoming a way overused term, but if there is one arena where they really need to be enforced, it would be in the behavior of the Iraqi parliament. These jokers are taking a month off for vacation this summer, feuding, and by all appearances quite corrupt. I'd have the state of this political body evaluated by an non-partisan, international organization and held accountable for not being able to get itself together. The will of these guys to bring about positive change in their own country should go a long way in determining how willing we are to continue to sacrifice our young men & women, as well as our national treasury, to this possibly futile cause.
- Much, MUCH effort going into studying exactly what the Iraqi people DO want, and what WILL happen if we leave in various scenarios.
- Dismantle the permanent bases, and make a PR blitz about that action.
- Find out if the various warring factions would be interested in a country divided up into three separate countries. Personally, this has always seemed to much like a simplistic Star Trek-sort of solution. I mean, do you really think all these people would be willing to uproot themselves from their homes and move into their new Shiite, Sunni, Kurdish territories? I can't imagine the complexity & possible ruin of such a plan, as resources, sacred sites, etc. begin to be contested.
- Other things would/will occur to me, I'm sure. But I've got a 40-hour a week job that doesn't allow me to just sit and type about this shit all day. But me simply saying, "Study the situation" puts me about a mile and a half ahead of anything else that is going on, or has gone on within the White House over the past seven infuriating, mind-blowing years.
Very interesting - good stuff - on the Clinton note - I do like the idea of getting Bill back on the World Stage - I think it is much needed - and as far as the gossip and having a dynasty - I am trying not to let those be reasons against - though I see your point, but alas, could it be that it takes a Clinton to clean up a Bush? Let the trimming begin!
Not clear cut at all. I can be convinced in either direction depending on the speaker.
As to sage policy making by Clinton/Obama - on that I call BS. Until that Tribune article you sent me I hadn't heard anything comprehensive from Obama, just the crap about ending the war.
If he really wants to change things he needs to just come out and say what he believes, and in excruciating detail, and then deal with the Romneys/RNC spokespeople of the world who go for the cheapshots.
I think what most people want is someone who comes across as a credible thinker with convictions, and not some gladhanding nincompoop that only talks in generalities.
I think what most people want is someone who comes across as a credible thinker with convictions, and not some gladhanding nincompoop that only talks in generalities.
Oh yes, I think the last two presidential elections has proven that beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Bush didn't win the 2000 election, and even then there was a backlash against Clinton and Gore campaigned like an nincompoop.
2004 was all about 'terra' and fear and Kerry campaigned like a nincompoop.
Democrats will lose if they don't stop being afraid of being Democrats.
For what it's worth Obama has used Democrat(ic) or Progressive exacly 2 times in 18 campaign e-mails.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/7/19/41732/9263
What's up with that?
Well, they speak of "post-partisanship," as being something that's appealing to mainstream America. Not bothering with the actual terms "Progressive" or "Democrat" doesn't bother me so much, as long as you don't waffle on your progressive policy stances. As you said, they align with most Americans' views. If they are ever labeled "progressive" or "liberal" or whatever, more of these politicians should point out that is was progressives that got women the right to vote, ended prohibition, built the interstate highway system, and ended segregation, among other things. "So call me a liberal, if you want!" they could then say.
Post a Comment