I'll start with the Republicans...
Almost universally a joke.
- McCain - he may actually come back from the dead and win this thing (not Iowa, the whole thing). As perhaps the least insane (though plenty insane) candidate, and a perennial media favorite (he's such a 'maverick'!) he's got a lot going for him again. And as people come to know the rest of what the clown car disgorged, he only looks better.
- Huckabee - much of the charm of Bill Clinton, but dumb as a box of hammers. He really doesn't know anything about any policies. His tax ideas are terrible. He has less than zero foreign policy understanding. And forcing the parole of a serial rapist who went on to murder and kill almost immediately never looks good.
- Romney - truly the Manchurian candidate. I never fell for his shtick when he ran for governor when many on the left did. Few politicians in history have taken pandering to his level. He might not even be a terrible president (at least he would be an improvement) but good lord he his a talking Ken doll when he campaigns.
- Ron Paul - not since Ross Perot have we had this kind of character to entertain us. But, where Perot was a kooky pragmatist, Ron Paul is simply insane, even if you think he's right on the war. He believes the Civil War to have been a bad decision, and of course in the abstract it WAS a bad decision, but that's not the frame in which he argues it was a bad decision. He thinks another few decades of slavery would have been preferable. That's just the tip of the iceberg as far as his insanity goes.
- Fred Thompson - even lazier than George "Crawford vacation" Bush, and that's saying a lot. He truly seems to have believed that he just had to say he was running and the nomination would be his.
- Giuliani - less than a month to go in his candidacy, after which he will sit at home in a rocking chair under a wool blanket occasionally yelling "911" to no on in particular.
- Are there other insane people running? Yes, but who cares.
- Clinton - I am strongly against her campaign based on two things. Nothing is less democratic than ruling families. What is this, India? Then there is her hawkishness. Not only has she never expressed regret at her vote for authorizing the use of force, she essentially voted for the same thing in regards to Iran just a couple of months ago. if she believes that the war was a good idea, but waged poorly (in fact anyone who believes this) she is insane. If you assume that general Shinseki was right in saying that 400,000 troops were needed then the whole deal is off. There never were that many troops to send (short of a draft), so without mustering the cursed army of the dead the whole thing was a non-starter and anyone who says otherwise believes in magical ponies and leprechauns. Clinton seems to be that person, and is surrounded by advisors who are similarly deluded.
- Obama - still at the top of my list, though losing some ground based on his recent attempts to attack the other candidates using Republican memes about the evils of trial lawyers, and many of the urban legends about the Clinton administration. I still like him as a personality, and as a personification of someone who got ahead by achieving and generally doing the right thing. I still fear for his safety in the general election (something I wrote about years ago). I believe there are people in this country still that would kill him rather than see a black person elected president.
- Edwards -if not for his tendency to come across as a bit of a used car salesmen, pretty much everything else is something I could get behind. He's running the most populist/progressive campaign that isn't insane (Dennis Kucinich) and hitting all the right buttons. I would happily support him should it come down to him against Clinton.
- Bidodardson - lots of individual traits to like amongst these folks, but the nature of our election campaigns renders them entirely meaningless.
- Kucinich - really needs to move to Canada. Not even I am as liberal as he is.
- Anyone else...Gravel...I'd like to see Gravel and Ron Paul wrestle.
I hope the Iowans get a much needed respite from the relentless onslaught, and then on to NH, where I get a little blowback living on the border.
15 comments:
Interesting. Agreed on all counts, though I was not aware of the depth of your opposition to Clinton, beyond the "ruling families thing." Is the "hawkish" thing something that you've sort of pieced together over time, or have you held it against her all along?
I may actually send that along to a couple of Clinton supporters that I know.
I agree on just about everything else except for a couple of things:
- The dismissal of Guiliani's candidacy. I think you have a long history of overestimating the American public's ability to see through fraud/idiocy. I do realize how the order of the caucuses & primaries do not bode well for him. He could be essentially a non-factor by the time FL comes around.
- Edwards. Agreed that he is for all the right things. I really don't like how he is a totally different candidate now than he was in 2004. That really sucks, and it does nothing to change that "used car salesman" perception of him I just can't shake.
- RichBidDodd: Lots of individual things to like, but their individual flaws - of which they each have many - would be all the more pronounced, were they figuring more prominently in this race.
I'll admit to overestimating the American people's willingness to vote for charlatans and assholes, but the facts are clear about Giuliani, at least so far as the Republican primaries are concerned. The more exposure he has, the worse he does. The more people get to know him, the more they realize he's not for them, and that varies depending on the various cults within the Republican electorate. he has things for everyone to hate. The only thing he's got that they all love is a hatred of brown people.
He's way too liberal for the evangelicals.
Too authoritarian for the keep off my lawn types.
I'm not sure his economic policies are coherent enough for the big business greed mongers to decide, though he's been involved in plenty of sweetheart deals and corruption, so they probably like that.
The Clinton hawk thing has developed over time, and runs a distant second to the dynasty thing as I do believe she would do generally the right thing with foreign policy, just not nearly as good as Edwards or Obama.
Very interesting stuff. In a general sweep I agree with all of your statements though I may still like Clinton a little better than you (not saying she's got my vote though), I may like Edwards LESS than you and you likely know much much more about the lesser candidates than I.
It is sad though. Very sad. That not a single candidate seems to REALLY stand out. I got a chuckle out of the Rudy 911 crack - he may be doing that for the rest of his life.
I'll look out for the hawk qualities.
also - I do not mean to use this blog, but I just saw your thing about The Bourne Ultimatum - I saw it last night. Fun, fast, exciting movie.
I also saw Resident Evil Three - why why. Terrible.
I gotta say, this is one bizarre year. Living here, you'd think Iowa was deciding the presidency tonight. As it is, I'm looking forward to standing around a grade school gym for three hours, waiting to be counted so I can go home.
Maybe I'll blog about this tonight.
Stephen - I hope you do.
MT - I watched BU last night too - crazy! Have not watched the RE movies.
Pat: I find myself agreeing on your main points. Especially your stance on Clinton: it's not that she's a woman, although that wink-nudge argument permeates the landscape here. I'm just not with her on the issues that count, and her big argument... "I'm ready to start on DAY ONE"... makes her sound as if she's applying for the opening at Jiffy Lube, or worse.. that she was sorta the president anyway. In which case, I must abide by the Constitution and support another candidate by default.
When Clinton returns as president, maybe they'll return all the W keys they stole from the keyboards when the left office.
(they never stole W's from the keyboards or did any unusual amount of damage to the White House no matter what we were all told when Bush took office - it was investigated and found to be a...total and utter lie. Bushco got off to quite a start)
I like Edwards and Romney the best. Maybe they can morph into one canidate? I would C tonight but I have another obligation.
Hee. I remember that W thing.
Really. Worst President... Ever? At leat in my lifetime, yes. I never expected to see any president treat the public with such utter contempt.
Lots of people remember it. Most of them think it actually happened.
IT DID NOT.
It was something cooked up to make Clinton look bad.
that is CRAZY!!! More proof that there are greater, higher powers at work in our worlds. Sorry still on the same movie in the same night thing - wow!
In terms of damage done, I almost don't see how you could argue worst. president. ever.
There may have been some utterly ineffectual ones (Hayes), but never one who has wrought catastrophe on such a global scale.
And done it so cynically.
And still have the solid 25 percent of the country who believe Bush dines with Jesus and will ascend to the right hand of the Father.
Or, at least, the 25 percent of the country who will support the president no matter what he does.
Post a Comment