Edwards is reportedly dropping out of the race. That leaves me wondering who the hëll I’m going to vote for in the Democratic primary. I feel as if Clinton has too much baggage and Obama is too inexperienced, particularly if it means going up against an old hand like McCain.
Actually, a McCain/Obama race would be eerily similar to the final season of “West Wing,” which depicted a seasoned Republican with some centrist and even liberal views (Alan Alda’s Arnie Vinnick) going up against a younger, less experienced but naively idealistic Congressman who was distinctly a non-WASP (Jimmy Smits’ Matt Santos). In that showdown, Santos won…except that wasn’t the original scenario. Originally, and more realistically, Vinnick was going to win. But the death of Leo McGarry (paralleling the real life passing of actor John Spencer) prompted the producers to change the intended outcome because the felt it would be just too much tragedy and loss to dump on both Santos and his campaign manager, Josh (Bradley Whitford).
Obama, of course, won’t have that scenario available to him. Which means that if is Obama/McCain, and all things remain equal, the West Wing scenario dictates that McCain will win.
PAD
• 
If Hillary led by hammering home her position on healthcare, I think she could clean up. But she won’t, so it ain’t gonna happen.
I wouldn’t necessarily put money behind that. The main reason Clinton hasn’t been leading with her health care plan was Edwards; his plan was better, and she was vulnerable on that front. With him gone, she can bring home the fact that hers is actually a much, much, oh god so much, better system than Obama’s – and highlighting that might be enough, in terms of winning.
“but he was sincere and had integrity”
This always makes me giggle. The man started a war based on outright lies, then when his lies stood revealed, he retroactively changed the reason we had gone over there. (I might have bought the “we had crappy intelligence” line, if, upon learning of this obvious error, Bush had said “Oh, s###, we were seriously wrong. I’m calling for a full congressional probe into our intelligence gathering system, and we’re pulling out immediately”). Then he let his vice president offer no-bid rebuilding contracts to his former employers.
Also, we really need to stop talking about “vision” as if it’s a good thing in and of itself. Stalin had a vision. Charles Manson had a vision. Unthinking, unyeilding commitment to a bad idea is not an admirable trait. I’m not saying politicians should change everything about themselves depending on how the wind is blowing, but listening to the voices of the people you supposedly represent is not a sign of wish-washyness. In fact, in a democracy, it’s supposed to be REQUIRED.
All that said, I’m pretty happy with the way things are shaping up. If I had to pick a Republican, this is the one. I disagree with his war position in the extreme, but he’s consistently opposed torturing non-combatants even as the other GOP candidates crack 24 jokes, and I feel he’s at least honest about where he stands, even if he resorts to the company line. Michigan is a perfect example. McCain told the voters that, look, our industry has taken some hits, the world is changing, some jobs are gone, and we need to figure out how to deal with that. Romney’s promise? “No, no, no, all the jobs willcome back! Trust me, we can make the world just like 1965 all over again!” Truly frightening, not only because this is supposed to be the candidate who understands the economy, but because it once again illustrates that people will vote for pleasing lies much more quickly than hard truths.
Still pulling for Obama, though. Agree on the experience issue, but think he has reasonable views on just about everything, and a real potential for change. If he stacks his cabinet with the correct experts, and I think he will, then I don’t think the youth will truly be a problem. I mean, after all, we had a habitual liar and a moron in office at one time, but his coldly calculating VP managed to effectively run the count- okay, bad example, but you get what I’m saying.
“but he was sincere and had integrity”
You’ve gotta be kidding.
Wouldn’t a Clinton/Obama Democratic Superticket (or a Obma/Clinton superticket, whatever) just crush any and all Republican opposition? Well? Wouldn’t it?
Bush was incredibly sincere.
Sincerity just means he believes what he’s saying. That’s a quality that is useful because he helps people get ahead, it makes people believe in you, but it’s not a virtue. Both bad people and good can be sincere.
We know that Bush was sincere when he said that Iraq was behind 9/11 because he asked his terrorism Tsar, Richard Clark, if Saddam was behind it on the day it happened. When Clark told him that it certainly wasn’t Saddam, Bush told him to check anyway because he was sure it was Saddam. So Bush was totally sincere.
Competent, on the other hand…
> it’s never impossible to snatch defeat from the jaws of certain victory.
Oh yeah. In ’88 the ruling Conservatives were despised and the media was certain they’d get the boot as the Liberals had an insurmountable lead going into the elections.
Unfortunately, the Liberals had kept as leader the same idiot who helped cost them the ’84 election with the end result that he cost them the ’88 one, too, in spite of everyone’s being sure it couldn’t happen. The Conservatives went back in with a strong majority.
Alex B – Precisely. Experience in politics often means learning how to do things badly or for the wrong reasons. Consider a couple of Conservative MPs who crossed the floor to join the Liberals in ’90 to vote against a new tax the Conservatives wanted to bring in. Yet, those same two MPs were strangely silent when the Liberals took power in the ’93 elections and showed they had no intentions of following through on their oft-stated promise to scrap it. Oh, wait, those two MPs were now in Cabinet. At least we know what their integrity sold for.
That kind of ‘experience’ I can do without, thank you.
I’ve got to say, it’d be a real struggle for Hillary to beat McCain. McCain has always had a certain amount of support from independents and moderates across the aisle (as does Obama). Hillary… not so much. And McCain can turn every argument Hillary has used to promote her own candidacy against her (experience, ready on day one, etc). Certainly Hillary would do a heck of a lot to unite and reinvigorate the Republican base. And in an election where voters say they want change, who has a better shot– a party machine candidate trying to restore a dynasty, or a more independent candidate with a rep as a “straight talker”?
Posted by: Jason M. Bryant
Bush was incredibly sincere.
Sincerity just means he believes what he’s saying. That’s a quality that is useful because he helps people get ahead, it makes people believe in you, but it’s not a virtue. Both bad people and good can be sincere.
Han Solo’s Third Axiom of Business:
I think this race has more to do with Survivor/Big Brother reality TV than an Aaron Sorkin series.
I liked McCain in 2000 – he was a break from the GOP but then Georgie Porgie sauntered in and all the lapdogs yipped behind him…as for people calling Obama “inexperienced”- he has had as much if not more statesmanship than GWB had, and he earned it off his hard work and not daddy’s connections.
Hillary has experience heeling behind Schumer, and voting hawkishly and practicing Bill’s well-developed strategy of “win at all costs, hide the dead høøkër in the closet”. My prediction: she loses the nomination to Obama, comes yipping after his heels, and finally kicks Bill and his Uranium-mining bllood money taking foundation.
“I have to feel a little bad for Ralph Nader. he was a liberal hero and everybody applauded when he said stuff like there wasn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the two parties.”
I’m not stating that Nader didn’t say that but I do remember George Wallace saying, there wasn’t a nickel’s worth of difference between the two parties in 1968. This was when he mounted a third party campaign opposing Nixon and Humphrey.
Now that I’ve considered it further, with Edwards gone, Hillary is now positioned to turn radical on a dime. The only benefit to holding her status quo creds was to distinguish herself from the fresher and more radical candidates. I heard that at the last democratic debate, Hillary and Edwards talked in private for about 20 minutes. Maybe she made a generous offer to Edwards to simply drop out so she could be free to out-radical Obama.
Now that I’ve considered it further, with Edwards gone, Hillary is now positioned to turn radical on a dime. The only benefit to holding her status quo creds was to distinguish herself from the fresher and more radical candidates. I heard that at the last democratic debate, Hillary and Edwards talked in private for about 20 minutes. Maybe she made a generous offer to Edwards to simply drop out so she could be free to out-radical Obama.
The problem with that trick though is it would feed into the narrative of Hillary as a cynical opportunist, turning a lot more people off and giving credence to Obama’s message that she’ll “Say anything and change nothing.”
I don’t think it’s a winning strategy.
After thinking about it, no president in my (albeit short) life won on experience, with the exception of George H.W. Bush.
Reagan was a governor of California, Clinton was governor of Arkansas, George Bush was governor of Texas. Their opponents: Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, Al Gore, and John Kerry all ran promoting their experience and pragmatism over naive idealism.
Just food for thought.
I liked Edwards.
The thought that McCain can beat Obama entirely overlooks the movement that Obama has started, and the wide array of people voting for him. At the caucuses in Iowa, you saw people of all ages, creeds and colors in Obama’s camp — this, in an overwhelming white state. I was sitting between a middle-aged black man and a young white woman with a nose piercing.
Sorry, but if Obama gets the nomination and goes up against McCain, it’s Obama who’s going to win the White House, no question about it.
Addendum to my last post… what, we think that Clinton has a better chance than Obama of beating McCain? How? She starts out with half the country loathing her. By now I’ve met I-don’t-know-how many Republicans who’ve said they’ll vote for Obama, but would do anything to stop Hillary winning… which tells you something.
I really hope you’re right about Obama triumphing over McCain. I REALLY hope so.
Well, that NH woman to whom Hillary gave the teary-eyed reply said she voted for Obama because she felt Hillary staged her vulnerable moment. Hillary still won NH. Hillary can list beating the cynical opportunist narrative on her resumé.
Well, that NH woman to whom Hillary gave the teary-eyed reply said she voted for Obama because she felt Hillary staged her vulnerable moment. Hillary still won NH. Hillary can list beating the cynical opportunist narrative on her resumé.
She won NH, but only marginally (unlike Obama’s blowout in SC). A dramatic shift in tone would probably be seen as brazen and obvious opportunism as opposed to discrete weepiness.
Edwards would not make a good VP canidate. During the last election, Cheney cleaned his clock during the debates. As far as an Clinton/Obama campaign, i think they have crossed a line when they attacked each other. Neither really seems to like the other. I see Ðìçk Morris being right. She’ll when the nomination, and she has the ability to beat McCain mainly because the Cons have abandoned him. I still see Obama as the president someday and I have felt this way since he was first elected Senator.
Has anyone noticed the flip-flop on the conservatives about their choice in candidates? First they supported Rudy. They pushed him over and over again on Sean and Rush. When Romney emerged, they left Rudy behind. Now that McCain has emerged as the frontrunner, they attacked him as if he was Hilary. Are they nuts or is it just me?
Am I the only one that noticed the Neo-Cons attack McCain on immigration when he created a bill that went along the same lines as President Bush’s view?
Has anyone noticed the flip-flop on the conservatives about their choice in candidates?
THE conservatives? Which ones? The evangelicals have been a big part of Huckabees’s support. The National review crowd liked Thompson and Romney quite a bit. Some of the hardcore true believers even think a futile Ron Paul candidacy would be like Goldwater in 64–a loser but one that leads to better things.
As for as them leaving Rudy…Rudy ran one of the worst campaigns in recent history. That’s what happens when you run a lousy campaign. People don’t vote for you.
Anyway, how would it be a flip flop for the people who didn’t like McCain to STILL not like McCain? Me, I see it as short sighted–better to get someone who you might only agree with half the time than one who you agree with 25% of the time…but some argue that they’d rather have the GOP go down to defeat with McCain in the hopes that it will never again nominate a moderate. It’s not a view I’d share.
Am I the only one that noticed the Neo-Cons attack McCain on immigration when he created a bill that went along the same lines as President Bush’s view?
You’re quite right but then again the conservatives who hate McCain’s view on immigration have also been very vocal in their hate for Bush’s position as well, so that’s no surprise.
After thinking about it, no president in my (albeit short) life won on experience, with the exception of George H.W. Bush.
Well, for the most part, when people talk about experience, they are talking about governors, as they have at least held a position comparable to president, and that is governor of a state.
When’s the last time a Senator won the White House? Kennedy? Yeah, it hasn’t gone well for them as a whole lately, but we’ll get probably get one this year.
The thought that McCain can beat Obama entirely overlooks the movement that Obama has started, and the wide array of people voting for him.
One can only hope. After all, something else the right-wing is rooting for is another poor turnout of younger voters – if the young show up to vote this year, and I hope they do, it will certainly change the dynamic of the election.
I liked McCain in 2000 – he was a break from the GOP but then Georgie Porgie sauntered in and all the lapdogs yipped behind him…as for people calling Obama “inexperienced”- he has had as much if not more statesmanship than GWB had, and he earned it off his hard work and not daddy’s connections.
Oh, now come on. You can’t compare a term in a state house, and a 1/3-term as a US Senator, to 6 years executive experience as Governor of Texas. Bush may not be popular, but even that’s a reach.
Oh, now come on. You can’t compare a term in a state house, and a 1/3-term as a US Senator, to 6 years executive experience as Governor of Texas. Bush may not be popular, but even that’s a reach.
You know that Texas uses a “weak executive” model for its governorship, right? Bush’s years as governor are not nearly as significant as first glance might lead to think.
And considering his previous abyssmal record as a company executive, does anyone really think he’d have been governor if not for his last name?
“You can’t compare a term in a state house, and a 1/3-term as a US Senator, to 6 years executive experience as Governor of Texas.”
There’s a saying in cop circles (and in a number of others as well I’ve no doubt) that says something about preferring to be backed up by a one year rookie with ten year’s of experience rather then a ten year vet with one year of experience. Basically, that’s saying that a guy that shows the ability to learn, adapt, grow and apply any lessons learned to constantly and consistently grow into or beyond his position is greatly preferable to some clown who has decided that he’s learned everything he needed to know and has stopped learning, growing or adapting to his environment in his first year (or less) on the job. That’s not only a foolish person, but that’s also likely a dangerous one.
From everything that I’ve read of Bush’s time as Governor of Texas, Bush was a six year Governor with one year (or less) of experience. From what I’ve had to live through with Bush, Bush has shown that he’s an eight year President with one year’s (or less) experience as Governor of Texas. I’m sure the jury is way more then just still out on whether or not he’s even begun to show enough growth, learning or experience to be seen as having grown into even the first week of being the POTUS in anything other then the name.
Could Obama do better? Hëll, who really knows without a crystal ball? but I do know that, thanks to Bush’s stellar performance as POTUS, Obama can hardly do any worse.
I’d personally prefer Obama over Clinton, but I’d support either one over McCain or whomever the GOP nominee turns out to be.
I do think that Obama has a better shot at winning against McCain than Clinton, though. Obama has a charisma to him that neither Clinton nor McCain possesses. Polls are showing that people are fed up with the current state of politics, and Obama has been able to secure an identity as NOT being part that problem — whereas Clinton and McCain are both thoroughly entrenched in the current system.
Obama would also be stronger than Clinton on the Iraq issue. Clinton’s shown support for the war in the past, which would make a strong anti-war position seem like flip-flopping now, whereas Obama has been anti-war from the start. And with war disapproval at 70% or higher in polls, Obama has the edge over McCain’s war-hawk stance.
Also, I think that Clinton just inspires more *hate* in Republican voters than Obama does. She represents everything the GOP disliked about the Clinton 90’s, even more than Bill himself, and it seems to me that her getting the nomination would result in a higher republican turnout, people who would be determined to *stop* her at all costs. Obama doesn’t seem to inspire that sort of fear or loathing, on the other hand — and his aforementioned charisma might even win over some folks who would otherwise be anti-Hilary centrist voters.
Heard on the radio today, Thom Hartmann, I believe. (paraphrased)
Bush was in the Reserves. Never finished his final year and went on a binge. Bush was involved with an oil company that failed (or almost failed). He left it for some of his dad’s friend to clean up.
He owned a baseball team. They are still trying to clean up that mess. Now he was president, and he is leaving another mess for others to clean up. All around, he’s been a loser.
I admit that I’m posting without reading all the comments here, so please indulge me if I replow some ground.
Maybe it’s because I live in Nebraska, but I don’t think either Hillary or Obama are electable. Although Hillary might fare better in a Presidential campaign since she’s has first hand experience with GOP smear tactics, there’s also no doubt that she would unite the GOP base against her.
Obama, rightly or wrongly, has been too easily tagged as “inexperienced”. I also suspect he would end up much like the deer in the headlights that Kerry was when confronted with the right wing media machine/echo chamber.
As for Edwards, I like his message, but I suspect he would have been presented by the GOP as someone who planned to take 80% of your income and give it to the homeless.
I’m supporting Hillary because I want an adult in charge for once. I don’t want an idealist, an idolog, or someone who can’t keep lust, pride, fear, arrogance, or whatever in check. I want a clear eyed pragmatist in the Oval Office now more than ever.
Since I don’t think Hillary can win, however, I’m rooting for McCain. He is not the same as our current Idiot in Chief. He has spoken out against many of this administration’s policies, and tried to warn his party early on that the Iraq war was being severly mismanaged. He also tried to tell us that there was more to do in Afghanistan at a time when most of us considered that matter successfully closed. Besides, given the number of right wingers who are uncomfortable with the prospect of a McCain canidatecy, the guy has to be doing something right.
If it’s McCain against Clinton, I’ll be okay with it no matter who wins. That’ll be a first for me.
Obama, rightly or wrongly, has been too easily tagged as “inexperienced”. I also suspect he would end up much like the deer in the headlights that Kerry was when confronted with the right wing media machine/echo chamber.
I wondered how well he’d hold up against GOP attacks as well, but considering the well-placed sharp elbows he threw at the Clinton machine, I think he’d do fine.
And if McCain wins the nom, there’ll be enough internecine right wing warfare to drown out any attacks on Obama.
Considering the Clinton machine has already played the race card, the inexperienced card, the drug dealer card the sexist card and the “he’s secretly a muslim” card what exactly will be left for the GOP to throw?
If Obama overcomes the Clintons I’m thinking he will be able to beat McCain. I don’t think Hillary and Bill would dare overtly try to hurt his chances of winning (though Obama losing could arguably put her in a good position for 2012). Obama’s youth will serve him well–McCain looked very tired in the last debate and a tired McCain is a cranky McCain, which will compare poorly to Obama’s natural optimism.
Now throw in any of a number of variables–a terrorist attack, a sudden meltdown of the economy, a scandal from the past–all bets are off. And off course, it all depends on who gets their people out. I’d give Obama the big edge on supporter enthusiasm at this point.
He owned a baseball team. They are still trying to clean up that mess
Actually, the Rangers were very successful under Bush. Their attendance went up, they had their first three (and to date only) post-season appearances in the history of the franchise. They successfully built the new stadium in Arlington as well.
Not that they were that great, but it’s about the best baseball we ever had in North Texas. 🙂
As far as his terms as governor, he was fine. There was very little policy difference between him and Ann Richards (though she broke her promise on the Lottery going to education, plus she was talking seriously in the campaign about a state-wide curfew for minors). Rick Perry has been a big let-down by comparison. The state would have been better off if the Democrats had put NO candidate up, and let the two Independents take him on. Texas will not elect a Democrat as Governor any time soon, but we don’t need Perry any more either.
Just a remainer for all you libs going out to vote for your favorite candidate today…as Richard Daley Sr. once said, “Vote Early and Vote Often.”
I just realized…his son was part of Albore’s campaign in 2000. Wow…no matter Albore kept wanting the ballots counted again…and again…and again…and again…
Wow…no matter Albore kept wanting the ballots counted again…and again…and again…and again…
As opposed to the other sides insistence they not be counted at all?
Nice go at trying to resurrect a controversy 8 years past, but there are more important things to do now.
Go vote.
As opposed to the other sides insistence they not be counted at all?
Or hoping that folks don’t vote at all.
Or making the ballot so confusing that elderly Jewish Americans end up voting for Pat Buchanan.
A small satire for your amusement, in the style of The Onion:
http://erp4it.typepad.com/alphasong/2008/02/producers-of-we.html