My problem is simple. I don't know which Democratic candidate to favor.
Hillary Clinton seems easily eliminated from the list; tepid as always, she was the last to decline the Fox/CBC debate, and thus should be considered least worthy of our votes. Gutless and overly-calculating, she would probably lose in the general -- and even if she won, she would polarize the citizenry as would no other. The idea of replacing a Republican dynasty with a Democratic dynasty makes nearly everyone uneasy.
And yet...
I say this with the subtle hint of crow flavoring my breath, since I long ago predicted that she neither could nor would win the nomination. But what if she did? And what if she prevailed against Guiliani or McCain or Thompson or Romney?
Her administration would be, in essence, a third Bill Clinton administration -- not a bad thing. Bill Clinton brought us out of the economic doldrums at a time when all seemed hopeless. We need that kind of experience, since the economic woes soon to beset us are more to be feared than were the problems of 1992.
If experience counts -- and it does -- then Hillary deserves consideration.
That's why I'm leery of Obama. He presents us with a fresh face at a perilous time when "fresh" may not be the attribute I'm seeking.
He's a good man and a good communicator. He will surely choose wise advisors if selected as the candidate. If he does not achieve the nomination, he will be the logical first choice for Vice President.
But...President? I am unconvinced.
John Edwards. Frankly, his experience level is almost as unimpressive as Obama's. On the other hand, since he currently holds no office, he has been bolder than either Clinton or Obama have been; he was, for example, the first to snub Fox. (Obama may be fresh, but he hasn't always shown true boldness -- as is perhaps inevitable for a sitting Senator.) Courage is a virtue we need as much as experience, and Edwards simply has more of the stuff than his competitors do. I admire his stands on global warming and health care.
I also respect the Rasmussen poll which says that Edwards can beat any Republican candidate. We need a winner. We cannot support someone who merely ought to win; we must throw everything we have behind someone who will win.
On the other hand: Edwards managed the impressive trick of losing a debate to the singularly unlovable Dick Cheney. That fact does not inspire confidence.
Al Gore? I hope he reconsiders; I hope he gets into this thing. The vote I cast for him was the proudest of my life, with the possible exception of my vote for Kerry. He exceeds Hillary in the experience category, and the last six years have, I imagine, taught him a renewed appreciation for political courage. And he won once before.
Wes Clarke? He commands respect as a military man, and is probably the Democrat most likely to carry southern states. We should all honor his efforts to forestall an attack on Iran. This country could use a noted warrior who says that war is not the answer.
To be honest, I do not dislike any of these individuals. But which one is most deserving of our support?
13 comments:
"But which one is most deserving of our support?"
Tough question Joe, especially when so much of the campaigning from both parties is being done in foreign countries such as No. Korea and Israel.
Hey, I watched the Edwards/Cheney debate, and I thought Edwards sliced and diced the VP. In fact, it was probably the most enjoyable political debate I've ever seen. Edwards is a charismatic trial attorney and knows how to play to the jury.
Have you been asked yet, as a majorblogger, to submit any questions for the Primary debates? You should have the candidates tell us what they think about WTC # 7. JK!
All seriousness aside, I expect to wake up any day now to learn that our POTUS is Pelosi. So the minor issue becomes who's her VPOTUS. Whatever, thanks for getting The Mother of All Elections going here while you're still here!
(I'm not 'anonymous' but I can't get in as 'AitchD')
I'm going to go way, way out on a limb here, Joe, and say to kick back and wait on picking a candidate to endorse until after September passes. I just have this...feeling that neither Obama, Hillary, or Edwards is going to wind up the nominee.
One of the frustrating things about our liberal media is that, though Edwards beats the favored Republicans in a head to head, he's still considered and treated as a third world candidate within the Democratic party.
It kinda seems some powerful people don't want him to be considered.
I kinda like him, but was pretty dissapointed to hear him campaign in Israel saying "all options" were on the table with regard to Iran.
Personally I like Hillary, and I suspect many Democrats seem to have fallen hook, line, and sinker for the rights "swift boating" over her (that began before we knew what swift boating was). Sure she does things we may not like, but who doesn't? It's an interest exercise to wonder why the blogosphere takes the rights side with Hillary but Al Gore, my #1 choice, has been redeemed
Having known many trial lawyers in my life, I can tell you there are no more passionate, articulate, and aggressive advocates to be found. For sure, some are passionate, articulate, and agressive in the pursuit of money, but the vast majority really care about their clients, and enjoy sticking it to "the man".
By all accounts, Edwards was highly successful at his chosen profession. He seems like a real person. Frankly, I would vote for him just to have Elizabeth as an advisor to the president. There are accounts that she vehemently objected to his voting for the AUMF, but was overridden by his "consultants". If Edwards has any sense, and I think he does, he's learned his lesson and will listen to her next time he's faced with such an important decision. His newfound boldness is probably an indicator that he already is.
And let's face it. NO ONE can be elected in this country if they speak out forcefully against anything having to do with Israel. I think we can discern in Edwards a true compassion that will lead him into doing the right thing about that once he's in office. Hillary certainly will not. I'm not sure about Obama.
Wes Clark is not able to carry the south. I live here, his name is never ever mentioned ... he is old news. Edwards is someone that people in his real home state, South Carolina, do not esp trust but many of our elected people are supporting him. Edwards is allowing 500 of his neighbors with a chronic illness to be disenfranchised from the American health system for their chronic illness all the while his wife speaks about hers. Why is cancer more important than other illnesses Mr. Edwards.... and if you believe that humans deserve medical care, could ya help your neighbors be allowed to go to the doctor for their problems and will ya tell Blue Cross Blue Shield to stop profitting from Lyme Disease and make them pay to treat this ZOONOTIC illness too. Hey Cannon.... look up Bioweapons anywhere. One of the first facts you see is ZOONOTIC agents are used.
No to John Edwards and all his double standards.
anonymous @ 4:o9
Are we supposed to just take your word on this situation with Edwards? I'm not even sure what it is you are saying he's done, or not done. How about some citations, some proof of what you are alleging?
sofla said...
I don't remember Edwards losing to Cheney, either objectively (meaning, in my opinion) or in the after-polling. Cheney's only real zinger line was entirely a lie (never having met Edwards before), and while Edwards didn't have a response ready for such a lie, and maybe should have, there are a lot of possible lies out there, and not having prepped for an oddball lie that would have been hard to have foreseen, wasn't negligence on his part. I remember him doing fine.
Edwards is not necessarily unfavored by the PTB, as he was one of the ones invited to the then-current Bilderburger meeting last election cycle, iirc.
A dark horse out there is Bill Richardson, who, like some others, is probably more prime vice presidential material for this go-round than really a contender for the top spot. Probably Clarke in the same VP contention.
I'm with one of the posters above. It feels like the MSM and its ruling corporations want to squeeze Clinton/Obama down our collective throats. They give polite attention, but do not fawn over every word he utters as they do with C/O.
I also don't remember Edwards ever having a cozy lunch with Rupert Murdoch. No, he was the first to refuse participating in the first "democratic" debate sponsored by the Faux Noise Channel. Notice how everyone else has followed his lead. I do.
Objectively, Bill Richardson is the best candidate. Federal government experience, international experience, and now a popular governor in a dynamic state. Why are we, on the Internet, letting the establishment media and major funders choose who is potential candidates?
I'm for Dennis Kucinich if anyone. I sadly expect the establishment to actively ignore someone with his views- peace, break up monopoly media, functioning utilities. Horribly radical stuff. But Bill Richardson? The man has incredible credentials, and he's ignored completely by the media.
Norman Solomon said it better than I could ever say it in his article today on commondreams.org "Awful Truth about.....".
I agree with him and yet I agree with some commenters here and commondreams.org.
It's hard to get excited about the candidates that are getting all the attention and watch the ones that you really like get ignored.
At the end I may just vote for my favorite candidate(Kucinich)but I don't like the notion of "Ending up with blood on my hands" as one commenter on commondreams.org phrased it by causing a Republican to get elected.
Guess I'll watch and see what transpires between now and then. If only people like me could have a way of knowing how other people like me are going to vote on election day, we might find that we are not such minority.
Joseph,
This could be a worthwhile project for you(provided that you even like or support the underdogs). A real "Bloggies" revolt against having the top three candidates pre-chosen for us by the powers that are(money).
Post a Comment