The stock market is way up so far today (that can change in an instant, or a week, or...), and the Utilities average is particularly strong. If this continues, we won't have a market meltdown, and the Democrats can add No Market Crash to their list of otherwise-self-inflicted woes. Hillary is sounding increasingly petulant, and Obama is trying to maintain his cool in the face of some pretty nasty attacks. And what Hillary's people are doing is nothing compared to what Barack can expect, should he get the nomination, from the Karl Roves of the Republican party. In the meantime, John McCain can keep his own hands clean from direct dirt, if his handlers (and, yes, he needs handlers) succeed in positioning him.
Right now it doesn't look good for the Democrats, whose propensity for self-immolation goes back at least to the 1968 convention in Chicago. Probably further.
In addition to--or perhaps because of--the current campaigning, the press is making Hillary sound like a spoiled child and Barack look like he has things to hide, especially about his former pastor. Or maybe she is behaving badly, and maybe BO does have things to hide. I'm not enamored of either, though I started out months ago thinking Hillary would make a fine president.
As one of my former poker buddies used to say, however, "All is fluid." In poker that meant money going to one player now can just as easily and quickly shift to another and then another, and so on. In politics, McCain's increasing popularity as the alternative to either Democratic potential candidate can also change, once the Democrats actually select a candidate and IF they can heal the wounds they have self-inflicted (a big "if"). Right now it doesn't look good. But as my second favorite line from GwtW goes, "Tomorrow is another day."
My favorite line, of course, is "As God is my witness, I shall never go hungry again."
Showing posts with label Bill and Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bill and Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Friday, March 21, 2008
#14 President McCain has indicated...
Well, that got your attention. And that's what we'll be hearing for the next four years if HRC and BO keep doing a number on each other. In all fairness, to me it sounds as if Hillary is shrill and nasty and all those bad things, though Barack is apparently beginning to tire of being her punching bag and is starting to respond in kind.
Once again, the Democrats have seemingly believed that they will do better as underdogs, as Bill Clinton had been sixteen years ago (my word! has it been that long??), and so, from a "can't lose" position, the Dems have seized the initiative, thrown themselves into the mud, and decided to sling it -- at each other. I cannot believe how stupidly both sides, and especially HRC once her advisors and she realized that she wasn't going to waltz into the White House, have behaved. Worse, now that the media realizes that it probably has been giving Obama a free ride, the reporters are looking for anything that may smell in his background and behavior.
Meanwhile, McCain is getting the free ride. No, I'm not thinking of moving to Canada, eh? I don't like some of McCain's proposed statements, but the new desk chair I got for our anniversary would make a better president than dubya has been, even without me in it. Maybe especially without me in it.
If the election were held right now, President McCain would take office in January 2009. My hope is that the Democrats will start behaving more credibly as presidential candidates, that they will coalesce and support whoever gets the nomination, and that we'll have a Democrat in the White House and more Democrats in the House and the Senate come January. My hope right now also is that I'll win the lottery, and live happily ever after. Yes, yes, I know the punchline: "meet me halfway: buy a ticket." Right now, none of these hopes looks good. But it's a long time until November 4, and American memories can be short. Look how John McCain has been resurrected from the number that Rove's Raiders did on him just eight short years ago.
The Democrats need to start acting like they actually want to win the White House, not because HRC and BO want to be president but because Democratic policies are GOOD for America, and dubya's policies have been bad for America. To win the White House, they need to make nice to one another, and to look at the numbers.
And that brings me to Ed Rendell.
Ed Rendell, governor of Pennsylvania, has been publicly touted as a possible Vice Presidential choice. He’d be excellent. Except it would be a waste of that spot to give it to someone from Pennsylvania. The Democrats MUST win PA to win the presidential election, but if they can’t win it without using the VP slot on the ticket to do so, they probably won’t win the election. They need to give the VP slot to someone who can bring with him a red state. The Democrats have to keep PA in the blue column without using the VP prize to do so.
And, as Liz Sidoti has written (AP, March 4, 2008), “As Ohio goes, so goes the nation — at least for the past 44 years.” Take a hint, donkeys: Ted Strickland or Sherrod Brown. But wait. There's more.
They're going to have trouble holding Minnesota in the blue column this year, especially if Governor Pawlenty is the Republican VP candidate. If they lose MN, they will need to win Ohio AND Florida. The Democratic delegates need to decide which of those two states the Democrats can win in November without using the VP position, and then choose an elected official from the other state as the VP. That leaves Jim Webb of Virginia out of the loop, and I don't like that idea, but right now I think they need both OH and FL, to provide some additional security against the possibility of losing MN.
However, all is fluid, and come October, especially if the stock market has really tanked, the picture could be vastly different.
triton
Once again, the Democrats have seemingly believed that they will do better as underdogs, as Bill Clinton had been sixteen years ago (my word! has it been that long??), and so, from a "can't lose" position, the Dems have seized the initiative, thrown themselves into the mud, and decided to sling it -- at each other. I cannot believe how stupidly both sides, and especially HRC once her advisors and she realized that she wasn't going to waltz into the White House, have behaved. Worse, now that the media realizes that it probably has been giving Obama a free ride, the reporters are looking for anything that may smell in his background and behavior.
Meanwhile, McCain is getting the free ride. No, I'm not thinking of moving to Canada, eh? I don't like some of McCain's proposed statements, but the new desk chair I got for our anniversary would make a better president than dubya has been, even without me in it. Maybe especially without me in it.
If the election were held right now, President McCain would take office in January 2009. My hope is that the Democrats will start behaving more credibly as presidential candidates, that they will coalesce and support whoever gets the nomination, and that we'll have a Democrat in the White House and more Democrats in the House and the Senate come January. My hope right now also is that I'll win the lottery, and live happily ever after. Yes, yes, I know the punchline: "meet me halfway: buy a ticket." Right now, none of these hopes looks good. But it's a long time until November 4, and American memories can be short. Look how John McCain has been resurrected from the number that Rove's Raiders did on him just eight short years ago.
The Democrats need to start acting like they actually want to win the White House, not because HRC and BO want to be president but because Democratic policies are GOOD for America, and dubya's policies have been bad for America. To win the White House, they need to make nice to one another, and to look at the numbers.
And that brings me to Ed Rendell.
Ed Rendell, governor of Pennsylvania, has been publicly touted as a possible Vice Presidential choice. He’d be excellent. Except it would be a waste of that spot to give it to someone from Pennsylvania. The Democrats MUST win PA to win the presidential election, but if they can’t win it without using the VP slot on the ticket to do so, they probably won’t win the election. They need to give the VP slot to someone who can bring with him a red state. The Democrats have to keep PA in the blue column without using the VP prize to do so.
And, as Liz Sidoti has written (AP, March 4, 2008), “As Ohio goes, so goes the nation — at least for the past 44 years.” Take a hint, donkeys: Ted Strickland or Sherrod Brown. But wait. There's more.
They're going to have trouble holding Minnesota in the blue column this year, especially if Governor Pawlenty is the Republican VP candidate. If they lose MN, they will need to win Ohio AND Florida. The Democratic delegates need to decide which of those two states the Democrats can win in November without using the VP position, and then choose an elected official from the other state as the VP. That leaves Jim Webb of Virginia out of the loop, and I don't like that idea, but right now I think they need both OH and FL, to provide some additional security against the possibility of losing MN.
However, all is fluid, and come October, especially if the stock market has really tanked, the picture could be vastly different.
triton
Thursday, February 21, 2008
#8 The Senators, Part 1
In post #5 I talked about the Super Delegates, and how they could contribute to a major split in the Democratic party. It’s beginning to appear that they won’t. Over the past two weeks, several of the SDs previously committed to Senator Clinton have quietly (and in some recent cases not so quietly) shifted to uncommitted or directly to Senator Obama. If this movement continues, Obama could have enough pledged delegates from the primaries, caucuses, and Super Delegates to win the nomination on the first vote at the convention. Some ugly statements or actions may occur while this happens, and after (during?) the convention, but I think the scene won’t be as ugly as it would be if one candidate won most of the primaries and caucuses and the other candidate won the nomination because of Super Delegate support.
A Few of the Senators
Iowa is up for grabs in November’s election. That’s one of the reasons in post #7 that I mentioned Chet Culver, the current Democratic governor. Culver isn’t very well known, but the Democratic senator, Tom Harkin, is. The state’s seven electoral votes went Republican in 2004 by a narrow margin. If he were the VP nominee, Harkin might be able to swing the state to the Democrats this year. To my way of thinking, Harkin is a total good guy: author and chief sponsor of the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990; favoring legalized abortion (while supporting education and contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancies); supporting embryonic stem cell research; and, my personal favorite, rated “F” by the NRA and the Gun Owners of America.
While he is 68 years old, I don’t see age as a factor. He is still three years younger than the putative Republican nominee for president.
I do see three problems, however, with his being the VP candidate:
(1) in an election focusing on “change” (Obama has been emphasizing this particular discussion, and Clinton has embraced the word), Harkin represents the entrenched insider. Look at the length of his public service, with an excellent record to be sure, but hardly reflecting the idea of change: elected to the House of Representatives in 1974; re-elected in ’76, ’78, ’80, ’82; elected to the Senate in 1984, re-elected in ’90, ’96, and 2002.
(2) his senate term is up this year, and the current smart money is on his running for re-election. If he does run for VP, he will not run for senate, the Democrats could lose that seat and, depending on other senatorial contests, they could lose their majority in the Senate.
(3) OMYGOD is he “liberal.” As VP nominee to either BO or HRC, Harkin would provide no balance on the ticket. In an ideal world that would be wonderful. However, in the real world, the Democrats will need to convince some of the centrists to vote blue. An Obama/Harkin or Clinton/Harkin ticket would just about abandon the center of the political spectrum to John McCain and whichever Irving Pell he selects as his running mate, unless he chooses Mike Huckabee, in which case McCain will have ceded the center.
Although I would love to see Tom Harkin as Vice President, even as President, he isn’t a magician, and thus likely cannot change red into blue on the national level.
--sigh--
Pennsylvania, however much we view it as a blue state, was just barely blue in 2004. Kerry beat dubya by fewer than 145,000 votes out of the nearly six million votes cast. Although Robert Casey Jr is the Democratic senator, and the state has a Democratic governor, I would hope that with either BO or HRC heading the ticket, Pennsylvania would go Democratic without using the VP position to solidify it.
Minnesota is a strange state right now. Hubert Humprey, Walter Mondale, and the late Paul Wellstone notwithstanding, its governor and one senator, Norm Coleman, are Republicans. Amy Klobuchar is the Democratic senator, having taken office in January 2007. And the state went for Kerry pretty narrowly four years ago, by fewer than 100,000 votes. This is not a definite blue state this year, and will need some serious campaigning. But Sen. Klobuchar is not a likely VP candidate.
Next post: five states whose Senators are “lookin’ good, Mr. Kottaire!” (quoted from Freddie “Boom Boom” Washington, from the long-ago TV sitcom, “Welcome Back, Kotter”—this blog is eclectic, if nothing else.)
triton
A Few of the Senators
Iowa is up for grabs in November’s election. That’s one of the reasons in post #7 that I mentioned Chet Culver, the current Democratic governor. Culver isn’t very well known, but the Democratic senator, Tom Harkin, is. The state’s seven electoral votes went Republican in 2004 by a narrow margin. If he were the VP nominee, Harkin might be able to swing the state to the Democrats this year. To my way of thinking, Harkin is a total good guy: author and chief sponsor of the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990; favoring legalized abortion (while supporting education and contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancies); supporting embryonic stem cell research; and, my personal favorite, rated “F” by the NRA and the Gun Owners of America.
While he is 68 years old, I don’t see age as a factor. He is still three years younger than the putative Republican nominee for president.
I do see three problems, however, with his being the VP candidate:
(1) in an election focusing on “change” (Obama has been emphasizing this particular discussion, and Clinton has embraced the word), Harkin represents the entrenched insider. Look at the length of his public service, with an excellent record to be sure, but hardly reflecting the idea of change: elected to the House of Representatives in 1974; re-elected in ’76, ’78, ’80, ’82; elected to the Senate in 1984, re-elected in ’90, ’96, and 2002.
(2) his senate term is up this year, and the current smart money is on his running for re-election. If he does run for VP, he will not run for senate, the Democrats could lose that seat and, depending on other senatorial contests, they could lose their majority in the Senate.
(3) OMYGOD is he “liberal.” As VP nominee to either BO or HRC, Harkin would provide no balance on the ticket. In an ideal world that would be wonderful. However, in the real world, the Democrats will need to convince some of the centrists to vote blue. An Obama/Harkin or Clinton/Harkin ticket would just about abandon the center of the political spectrum to John McCain and whichever Irving Pell he selects as his running mate, unless he chooses Mike Huckabee, in which case McCain will have ceded the center.
Although I would love to see Tom Harkin as Vice President, even as President, he isn’t a magician, and thus likely cannot change red into blue on the national level.
--sigh--
Pennsylvania, however much we view it as a blue state, was just barely blue in 2004. Kerry beat dubya by fewer than 145,000 votes out of the nearly six million votes cast. Although Robert Casey Jr is the Democratic senator, and the state has a Democratic governor, I would hope that with either BO or HRC heading the ticket, Pennsylvania would go Democratic without using the VP position to solidify it.
Minnesota is a strange state right now. Hubert Humprey, Walter Mondale, and the late Paul Wellstone notwithstanding, its governor and one senator, Norm Coleman, are Republicans. Amy Klobuchar is the Democratic senator, having taken office in January 2007. And the state went for Kerry pretty narrowly four years ago, by fewer than 100,000 votes. This is not a definite blue state this year, and will need some serious campaigning. But Sen. Klobuchar is not a likely VP candidate.
Next post: five states whose Senators are “lookin’ good, Mr. Kottaire!” (quoted from Freddie “Boom Boom” Washington, from the long-ago TV sitcom, “Welcome Back, Kotter”—this blog is eclectic, if nothing else.)
triton
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
#5 Super Delegates could be a Super Pain in...
There are between 796 and 842 Democratic Super Delegates (depending on whose numbers you wish to accept): Democratic party members and elected officials who vote at the convention but are not subject to obeying the results of caucuses or primaries. Put as baldly as I can: if neither HRC nor BO comes into the convention with the nomination in hand, the Democrats may be in bad baaaaaaaad trouble. If Hillary maintains her current lead in Super Delegates, and is nominated by their convention votes, expect a major rift in some segments of the party over the first African-American who came so close but was denied by the party power-structure. If Barack gets enough Super Delegates to gain the nomination, expect Bill and Hillary to have a hissy-fit and perhaps even walk out (emotionally, if not physically).
Who are these Super Delegates? “The category includes Democratic governors and members of Congress, former presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, former vice president Al Gore, retired congressional leaders such as Dick Gephardt, and all Democratic National Committee members, some of whom are appointed by party chairman Howard Dean” (quoted from Tom Curry, of MSNBC.com). Given the folk and categories listed in Curry’s paragraph, I believe—currently—that Hillary will continue to attract the larger share of the SuperDs. Many of them owe at least part of their political success to President Clinton, and he may be calling in those IOUs.
What may change things, however, is an increasing recognition (if there IS an increasing recognition) that she can’t beat John McCain. SuperDs have announced in favor of candidates in the past but have then changed their minds when political reality hit them; most recently, it happened to Howard Dean in 2004, when the officially “unpledged” but Dean-allied SuperDs began to understand that Dean couldn’t beat dubya, and dropped their support. It could happen again this year.
I hope it doesn’t come to that. And it won’t if…BO or HRC can cleanly lock up the nomination before the convention. Right now, that’s unlikely to happen, though it is still mathematically possible. The way the Democrats provide proportional delegates based on one’s success in primaries and caucuses, even with HRC “losing” to BO in state votes, she’s still earning delegates, and if a strong enough majority of SuperDs support her, we could have the Democratic convention equivalent of 2000’s Gore vs. Bush popular vote/electoral vote inversion.
Sometimes it just hurts my head to think of the ways the Democrats can seize defeat while staring in the face of victory. How upset does it make me? It makes me mix metaphors.
On the lighter side: this, from Sunday’s NYTimes—the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), our friends on the front lines at our air fields, have created a blog for folk to be able to yell at them or otherwise communicate, and for a rapport to develop between citizenry and bureaucracy. One early blogger wrote:
“Ever since you started X-raying our shoes, I’ve been forced to carry all my plastic explosives in my pants, which I find most inconvenient.”
It’s good that a sense of humor can survive even the most serious situations. I’ll try to hold on to that thought when I think about SuperDs.
Next time, we begin to look at some of the potential vice presidential candidates, should either Obama or Clinton get the presidential nomination.
Who are these Super Delegates? “The category includes Democratic governors and members of Congress, former presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, former vice president Al Gore, retired congressional leaders such as Dick Gephardt, and all Democratic National Committee members, some of whom are appointed by party chairman Howard Dean” (quoted from Tom Curry, of MSNBC.com). Given the folk and categories listed in Curry’s paragraph, I believe—currently—that Hillary will continue to attract the larger share of the SuperDs. Many of them owe at least part of their political success to President Clinton, and he may be calling in those IOUs.
What may change things, however, is an increasing recognition (if there IS an increasing recognition) that she can’t beat John McCain. SuperDs have announced in favor of candidates in the past but have then changed their minds when political reality hit them; most recently, it happened to Howard Dean in 2004, when the officially “unpledged” but Dean-allied SuperDs began to understand that Dean couldn’t beat dubya, and dropped their support. It could happen again this year.
I hope it doesn’t come to that. And it won’t if…BO or HRC can cleanly lock up the nomination before the convention. Right now, that’s unlikely to happen, though it is still mathematically possible. The way the Democrats provide proportional delegates based on one’s success in primaries and caucuses, even with HRC “losing” to BO in state votes, she’s still earning delegates, and if a strong enough majority of SuperDs support her, we could have the Democratic convention equivalent of 2000’s Gore vs. Bush popular vote/electoral vote inversion.
Sometimes it just hurts my head to think of the ways the Democrats can seize defeat while staring in the face of victory. How upset does it make me? It makes me mix metaphors.
On the lighter side: this, from Sunday’s NYTimes—the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), our friends on the front lines at our air fields, have created a blog for folk to be able to yell at them or otherwise communicate, and for a rapport to develop between citizenry and bureaucracy. One early blogger wrote:
“Ever since you started X-raying our shoes, I’ve been forced to carry all my plastic explosives in my pants, which I find most inconvenient.”
It’s good that a sense of humor can survive even the most serious situations. I’ll try to hold on to that thought when I think about SuperDs.
Next time, we begin to look at some of the potential vice presidential candidates, should either Obama or Clinton get the presidential nomination.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
#4 McCaikabee could be a problem....
“Moreover” (as one of my university students once BEGAN his out-of-class essay for me years ago), I really am trying to keep these posts shorter. But it’s not happening with this one.
So I uncovered that this student, who began his essay with “Moreover,” had copied it wholesale from US News and World Report. But for some reason he had started with paragraph two of the article. Cleverly, I had suspected early on that there was a problem with his paper. It was similar to the problem a friend of ours encountered years earlier as she began reading a plagiarized paper turned in by one of her high school students: “We British….”
A potential problem for the Democrats is a Republican McCaikabee ticket. John McCain is desperately trying to showcase his conservative credentials in order to sew up the nomination. Normally, I would think, ‘Hallelujah! We can grab the center of the political spectrum where we should have been in 2000 and 2004 as well!’
Well, Not So Fast, Blogger!. Both Hillary and Obama have no credibility as centrists. They have been branded as liberals and Barack, at least, has been voted the Senate’s most liberal member. That doesn’t particularly bother me: in my current state of residence, I look like a liberal. But I’m not the problem. I’m voting Democratic whichever one is nominated. Hell, I’m voting Democratic even if no one is nominated. The problem is that a lot of folk out there won’t vote for perceived liberals.
A potentially bigger problem for the Democrats is that McCain isn’t really a deep-down, dyed-in-the-wool, across-the-board conservative, and that’s why he’s having so much trouble convincing his own party’s base that he is. Oh, sure, he takes some political stands that conservatives take, but he also takes some stands that they oppose. To me that makes him more independent/not-partyline/perhaps-even-centrist. Oops.
Possible Republican Strategy?
Right now, here’s my thinking, subject to change of course, since I’m not running for president and don’t have to endure the shouts of “HE’S FLIPFLOPPING!” Several TV analysts on Super Tuesday stated that, if the Republicans were smart, they’d at least consider a McCain-Huckabee ticket.
It is true that Huckabee appeals to significant portions of the far right, with particular power in the south, and only in part because he’s from Arkansas: more to the point, his religious views resonate with a large minority of voters, and his fiscal views can pick up enough other voters to carry perhaps all of the old confederacy, with the possible exception of Florida (and even FL, we may remember, has had trouble deciding its electoral preferences, or at least how to cast a vote for them).
Of course, Republican strategists may be put off by the January Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll that showed forty-five percent of Americans have concerns about an evangelical Christian as president. On the other hand, that leaves fifty-five percent of Americans surveyed who have not stated having such concerns. Besides, Huckabee would be second on the Republican ticket…behind a man nineteen years his senior. Oops…again.
But wait. There’s more: Huckabee has taken positions, online, that may provide specific areas of alarm for moderates, such as evolution and gay marriage. His various websites include the following innocuous-sounding comments:
"I think that the state ought to give students exposure to all points of view. And I would hope that that would be all points of view and not only evolution. I think that they also should be given exposure to the theories not only of evolution but to the basis of those who believe in creationism.... I think [evolution] is something kids ought to be exposed to. I do not necessarily buy into the traditional Darwinian theory, personally. But that does not mean that I’m afraid that somebody might find out what it is."
"I support and have always supported passage of a federal constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. As President, I will fight for passage of this amendment. My personal belief is that marriage is between one man and one woman, for life."
Well, okay, they’re actually NOT innocuous-sounding. And they sure as heck aren’t innocuous. But they’re very appealing to extreme-right conservatives.
Thus, in a general election against an Obama- or Hillary-led ticket, McCain could try to take the middle ground, and Huckabee could try to secure the further right (furthest right?) for the Republican ticket. Look at a red and blue map from the last two elections, and you’ll see it favoring the GOP again. Third “Oops.” Unless…
Possible Democratic Strategy?
The Democrats may have blown it already, with two perceived liberals the only potential presidential nominees left in the campaign. At the very least, whoever is on the Democratic ticket will have to hold on to the blue states, and win at least one midsized red state, or two or three small red states in order to get the electoral votes needed. I don’t think an Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama ticket will succeed.
Obama may be electable IF (and this is a big If) the young people who have flocked to his campaign continue at his side, and actually register and vote. They have large numbers. The current Democratic nomination process, reformed after the 1968 nominating process that subverted the significance of Eugene McCarthy’s anti-war youth following, could result in an Obama nomination. And a continued strong showing of new young voters could propel him to victory. I like his policies, and would be happy to vote for him. My vote, however, and the vote of both of my friends, may not be enough.
Right now at least, I believe that Hillary is less electable than Barack. Legitimately or not, she has been portrayed as divisive, and folk are currently buying that picture. I find that so incredibly ironic: dubya ran in 2000 as a Uniter (even before he called himself the Decider), but the only thing he has successfully united is the strongest opposition to a president’s policies since Viet Nam.
My concern is that people won’t listen to what Hillary Clinton’s policy points are, and hence won’t recognize that her proposals are reasonable and humane. Further, her position on health care is vital to our future, and to our children’s futures, and to their children’s futures.
With either of these senators at the head of the ticket, the Democrats will need a moderate (i.e., centrist) vice-presidential candidate. Preferably a popular and moderate Democrat from a red state. If we look in the right places, several medium-to-strong possibilities emerge. Over the next several posts we can begin to look.
So I uncovered that this student, who began his essay with “Moreover,” had copied it wholesale from US News and World Report. But for some reason he had started with paragraph two of the article. Cleverly, I had suspected early on that there was a problem with his paper. It was similar to the problem a friend of ours encountered years earlier as she began reading a plagiarized paper turned in by one of her high school students: “We British….”
A potential problem for the Democrats is a Republican McCaikabee ticket. John McCain is desperately trying to showcase his conservative credentials in order to sew up the nomination. Normally, I would think, ‘Hallelujah! We can grab the center of the political spectrum where we should have been in 2000 and 2004 as well!’
Well, Not So Fast, Blogger!. Both Hillary and Obama have no credibility as centrists. They have been branded as liberals and Barack, at least, has been voted the Senate’s most liberal member. That doesn’t particularly bother me: in my current state of residence, I look like a liberal. But I’m not the problem. I’m voting Democratic whichever one is nominated. Hell, I’m voting Democratic even if no one is nominated. The problem is that a lot of folk out there won’t vote for perceived liberals.
A potentially bigger problem for the Democrats is that McCain isn’t really a deep-down, dyed-in-the-wool, across-the-board conservative, and that’s why he’s having so much trouble convincing his own party’s base that he is. Oh, sure, he takes some political stands that conservatives take, but he also takes some stands that they oppose. To me that makes him more independent/not-partyline/perhaps-even-centrist. Oops.
Possible Republican Strategy?
Right now, here’s my thinking, subject to change of course, since I’m not running for president and don’t have to endure the shouts of “HE’S FLIPFLOPPING!” Several TV analysts on Super Tuesday stated that, if the Republicans were smart, they’d at least consider a McCain-Huckabee ticket.
It is true that Huckabee appeals to significant portions of the far right, with particular power in the south, and only in part because he’s from Arkansas: more to the point, his religious views resonate with a large minority of voters, and his fiscal views can pick up enough other voters to carry perhaps all of the old confederacy, with the possible exception of Florida (and even FL, we may remember, has had trouble deciding its electoral preferences, or at least how to cast a vote for them).
Of course, Republican strategists may be put off by the January Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll that showed forty-five percent of Americans have concerns about an evangelical Christian as president. On the other hand, that leaves fifty-five percent of Americans surveyed who have not stated having such concerns. Besides, Huckabee would be second on the Republican ticket…behind a man nineteen years his senior. Oops…again.
But wait. There’s more: Huckabee has taken positions, online, that may provide specific areas of alarm for moderates, such as evolution and gay marriage. His various websites include the following innocuous-sounding comments:
"I think that the state ought to give students exposure to all points of view. And I would hope that that would be all points of view and not only evolution. I think that they also should be given exposure to the theories not only of evolution but to the basis of those who believe in creationism.... I think [evolution] is something kids ought to be exposed to. I do not necessarily buy into the traditional Darwinian theory, personally. But that does not mean that I’m afraid that somebody might find out what it is."
"I support and have always supported passage of a federal constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. As President, I will fight for passage of this amendment. My personal belief is that marriage is between one man and one woman, for life."
Well, okay, they’re actually NOT innocuous-sounding. And they sure as heck aren’t innocuous. But they’re very appealing to extreme-right conservatives.
Thus, in a general election against an Obama- or Hillary-led ticket, McCain could try to take the middle ground, and Huckabee could try to secure the further right (furthest right?) for the Republican ticket. Look at a red and blue map from the last two elections, and you’ll see it favoring the GOP again. Third “Oops.” Unless…
Possible Democratic Strategy?
The Democrats may have blown it already, with two perceived liberals the only potential presidential nominees left in the campaign. At the very least, whoever is on the Democratic ticket will have to hold on to the blue states, and win at least one midsized red state, or two or three small red states in order to get the electoral votes needed. I don’t think an Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama ticket will succeed.
Obama may be electable IF (and this is a big If) the young people who have flocked to his campaign continue at his side, and actually register and vote. They have large numbers. The current Democratic nomination process, reformed after the 1968 nominating process that subverted the significance of Eugene McCarthy’s anti-war youth following, could result in an Obama nomination. And a continued strong showing of new young voters could propel him to victory. I like his policies, and would be happy to vote for him. My vote, however, and the vote of both of my friends, may not be enough.
Right now at least, I believe that Hillary is less electable than Barack. Legitimately or not, she has been portrayed as divisive, and folk are currently buying that picture. I find that so incredibly ironic: dubya ran in 2000 as a Uniter (even before he called himself the Decider), but the only thing he has successfully united is the strongest opposition to a president’s policies since Viet Nam.
My concern is that people won’t listen to what Hillary Clinton’s policy points are, and hence won’t recognize that her proposals are reasonable and humane. Further, her position on health care is vital to our future, and to our children’s futures, and to their children’s futures.
With either of these senators at the head of the ticket, the Democrats will need a moderate (i.e., centrist) vice-presidential candidate. Preferably a popular and moderate Democrat from a red state. If we look in the right places, several medium-to-strong possibilities emerge. Over the next several posts we can begin to look.
Friday, February 8, 2008
#3 Sad to say, we may owe these last eight years to Bill’s charisma.
I’ve decided to number the posts, just to make them easier to refer to if ever necessary. And here’s a brief followup to the previous post (what would have been #2): for a brief discussion of differences between evangelicals and fundamentalists—and of how so many Americans have strong religious beliefs but don’t actually know what they believe—you may be interested to look at Stephen Prothero’s Religious Literacy (San Franciso: HarperCollins, 2007).
And now post #3:
Our older daughter met Bill Clinton four or five times during and after his presidency. In Columbus, he gave a speech that she attended as part of the group that sponsored him at Ohio State, and she shook his hand. She lost an apple at that time to the Secret Service—perhaps because they thought it might have been a Halloween “treat” with a razor “trick”? Who knows what they thought, but she went hungry while she listened. Several years later, she and her a capella group sang at a fundraiser for his Harlem Business Enterprise (or some similar name) on 125th Street in Manhattan, across from Columbia University, shortly after he left office.
He was “the most electric presence” she has ever met, she told me today. When he entered the Harlem fundraiser, “it was like Elvis had just come into the room.”
My niece was a Bill fan in 1992 even before I had remembered him from his longwinded keynote address at the 1988 Dukakis nominating convention. He atoned for that ’88 debacle in his 1992 Democratic convention acceptance speech, by beginning, “As I was saying….” She recognized long before the rest of the family did just how powerful his charisma was, and she was positive that he had the ability to be a great president.
She was right. He did have that ability. He also had “hamartia,” part of Aristotle’s discussion from his Poetics, translated variously as ‘tragic flaw’ or ‘error of judgment.’ Whichever translation we use, it is the tragic element in the personality of a prince that causes him to fall from his high place in the world. We all know what that flaw or error was in BC’s case, and it got him impeached for perjury (but not convicted). It also sidetracked what might have been—should have been—an eight year presidency with tremendously beneficial results for our country. Instead of Bill and his brilliance, we ended up with dubya, “Hyperion to a satyr,” as Hamlet lamented about his father and his uncle.
Voters in 2000 turned to dubya in part (in large part, I believe) because he wasn’t associated with the disgraced Clinton administration, and because dubya promised to unite Americans rather than divide them. He failed, as we know, except in one way: he has united us to an amazing extent against his policies. What is his approval rating hanging at--thirty-two percent? If we remember that, in any given presidential election, forty percent of the electorate will vote Democratic, forty percent will vote Republican, and the candidates are fighting over the remaining twenty percent, it’s clear that a significant part of the Republican base (at least 20% of that base, eight percent of the Republican forty percent) disapproves of the job its own candidate has done.
What’s that? What’s that comment over there? You didn’t know there’d be math? Sorry ‘bout that.
I cannot but believe that, to some extent, Hillary is being punished for her husband’s inability to keep his clothes on his body and his mind on his presidency. Yes, yes, I know it’s not fair, and I believe Hillary would make a fine president. But are folk afraid that Bill would play too significant a role in a Clinton II administration? I relish that prospect, not fear it. They are both extremely bright, even brilliant, people, and the combination of putting their minds together with a strong cabinet and other excellent advisors for the good of the country is exactly what we need after bush-cheney. But I suspect I’m in a small small minority in this belief and this hope. It wouldn't be the first time.
And now post #3:
Our older daughter met Bill Clinton four or five times during and after his presidency. In Columbus, he gave a speech that she attended as part of the group that sponsored him at Ohio State, and she shook his hand. She lost an apple at that time to the Secret Service—perhaps because they thought it might have been a Halloween “treat” with a razor “trick”? Who knows what they thought, but she went hungry while she listened. Several years later, she and her a capella group sang at a fundraiser for his Harlem Business Enterprise (or some similar name) on 125th Street in Manhattan, across from Columbia University, shortly after he left office.
He was “the most electric presence” she has ever met, she told me today. When he entered the Harlem fundraiser, “it was like Elvis had just come into the room.”
My niece was a Bill fan in 1992 even before I had remembered him from his longwinded keynote address at the 1988 Dukakis nominating convention. He atoned for that ’88 debacle in his 1992 Democratic convention acceptance speech, by beginning, “As I was saying….” She recognized long before the rest of the family did just how powerful his charisma was, and she was positive that he had the ability to be a great president.
She was right. He did have that ability. He also had “hamartia,” part of Aristotle’s discussion from his Poetics, translated variously as ‘tragic flaw’ or ‘error of judgment.’ Whichever translation we use, it is the tragic element in the personality of a prince that causes him to fall from his high place in the world. We all know what that flaw or error was in BC’s case, and it got him impeached for perjury (but not convicted). It also sidetracked what might have been—should have been—an eight year presidency with tremendously beneficial results for our country. Instead of Bill and his brilliance, we ended up with dubya, “Hyperion to a satyr,” as Hamlet lamented about his father and his uncle.
Voters in 2000 turned to dubya in part (in large part, I believe) because he wasn’t associated with the disgraced Clinton administration, and because dubya promised to unite Americans rather than divide them. He failed, as we know, except in one way: he has united us to an amazing extent against his policies. What is his approval rating hanging at--thirty-two percent? If we remember that, in any given presidential election, forty percent of the electorate will vote Democratic, forty percent will vote Republican, and the candidates are fighting over the remaining twenty percent, it’s clear that a significant part of the Republican base (at least 20% of that base, eight percent of the Republican forty percent) disapproves of the job its own candidate has done.
What’s that? What’s that comment over there? You didn’t know there’d be math? Sorry ‘bout that.
I cannot but believe that, to some extent, Hillary is being punished for her husband’s inability to keep his clothes on his body and his mind on his presidency. Yes, yes, I know it’s not fair, and I believe Hillary would make a fine president. But are folk afraid that Bill would play too significant a role in a Clinton II administration? I relish that prospect, not fear it. They are both extremely bright, even brilliant, people, and the combination of putting their minds together with a strong cabinet and other excellent advisors for the good of the country is exactly what we need after bush-cheney. But I suspect I’m in a small small minority in this belief and this hope. It wouldn't be the first time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)