Monday, February 04, 2008

Time to Choose

When faced with the devil-you-know vs. the devil-you-don't dilemma, the folks where I come from generally choose the better known devil. We're Midwesterners, you see, practical to a fault, and not all that trusting of the visionary types.

Neither Obama nor Clinton is my perfect choice for president. I would have chosen Edwards, had he still been in the race. Still, by this time tomorrow I will have voted in the Democrat primary. Even as I write this, I'm unsure which level I'll pull.

As I see it, the pros for Hillary include the facts that she's brilliant, well-informed, tough, liberal (relatively), and connected. She has impressively substantive answers to policy questions, and clearly she's worked hard to be ready to be president. I believe she can walk in and be ready on day one to run the country. I believe electing her will improve the image of the US around the world. And, to a point, I believe she will run the country well.

The cons for Hillary include the facts that she gets peevish and downright mean under pressure. The dirty political tricks she resorts to when times get tough (what she considers the "fun" part of the game) reveal to my mind that when the sh*t hits the fan, she'll play fast and loose with the truth. In other words, she'll lie as easily as she breathes. She also carries considerable baggage, will perpetuate the highly divisive tensions in Washington (if not elevate them to record levels, which would indeed be quite the accomplishment), and will rally the Republicans around their candidate and fill his coffers with cash like no one else.

In other words, once she gets there, as long as things are running smoothly, I believe she'll be a good president. The road to the White House for her will be undoubtedly bloody, though, and should she be cornered while in the Oval Office, you can expect all nature of underhanded dealings and bold-faced lies to follow.

The pros for Obama include he truly does embody change. (I know Hillary does because she's a woman, but that's as far as her change quotient goes.) Obama's face alone will send signals throughout the world that the Bush era and all its hideous belligerence and arrogance are over. Listening to Obama speak is to believe you might be witnessing the next Abraham Lincoln. He was voted the most liberal Senator (something I see as a pro for him, but then so will the Republican pundits for their candidate), he is liked by moderates and discouraged Republicans (suggesting he really can bridge the partisan gap that's eating away at our ability to move the country forward on critical issues like the environment, healthcare, Iraq, etc.), and he retains grace under pressure (at least much more so than Clinton seems to). Also, it may be unfair to compare, because he wasn't in the Senate then, but he was opposed to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and that's a solid indication of good judgment in my book.

His cons include he's not the wonky wonder Clinton is (i.e., he doesn't seem to dream policy stats and legislative details), he's untested under real pressure, his Healthcare plan is doomed to fall short of reaching universal coverage I'm now convinced (but remains a far cry better than any GOP plan), and despite how powerfully poetic his prose is, I'm not convinced he is tough or patient enough to endure the attacks the GOP has lying in wait for him should he take the White House. His wife has already complained about the strains of the campaign trail, but if she thinks the primary is tough, wait until the big snakes in DC start striking in earnest.

In other words, he's incredibly appealing on paper and on stage, but he's a bit too blank a screen and I'm afraid I'm projecting much more substance up there than really exists. I know this will sound masochistic, but now that we're down to two choices, I wish there were weeks if not months more of debates between them.

But that's not the case. I have to choose tomorrow. If I had to choose this very second, I'd choose Obama. We'll see....

Labels: politics


Blogger Mark Creegan said...

Barry makes some good points. Not that Im trying to convince you to go for my man Obama;)

2/04/2008 09:55:00 AM  
Blogger Joanne Mattera said...

The only reason Barack doesn't have Hillary's baggage is that he doesn't have her experience. Give him a few years; he'll be toting just as many trunks. I'm pleased to have a choice between two qualified candidates, to feel comfortable in the nomination of either one, and to help make history in the process.

I'm voting for Hillary. She's not perfect, for the reasons that Barry notes, but she'll do the job, baggage and all.

2/04/2008 10:07:00 AM  
Anonymous Franklin said...

One of the reasons I decided to register Republican and vote for Ron Paul is because any of Clinton, Obama, and Edwards would be fine Democratic nominees, while on the other side, only Paul is standing up for civil liberties and the rule of law. But if I were voting Dem, I would pick Obama. If Obama's major liability is his lack of experience, then Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz would have been presidential material - Obama said something to that effect himself. Obama's rhetoric indicates that he understands what the United States is about. One could regard rhetoric and showmanship as mere theatrics, but after eight years under a president with no rhetorical skills, I've come to think that the ability to communicate translates into (or at least correlates somewhat to) the ability to lead. Every other candidate in the race has been copying Obama's theme of change, including the vile and plastic Romney. Obama also has ideas about how to use technology to improve the transparency of government, and you don't hear those kind of fresh ideas coming out of Clinton. Obama can bring on expertise comparable to Clinton's in the form of advisers - I think Clinton would make an excellent Chief of Staff - and make wise decisions between the advice of experts.

My main problem with Clinton is that the founders went out of their way to prevent rule from passing to wives and children, and a Clinton presidency undermines that as much as Chimptard. When the Dem campaign went negative, a lot of what happened demonstrated the collective lack of Clintonian scruples and high ideals when push comes to shove. Go Obama.

2/04/2008 10:22:00 AM  
Blogger Steven Kaplan said...

"Peevish and downright mean under pressure" is a good assessment for Hillary. It also reminds me of Tom Brady's face and demeanor yesterday during the Stupid Bowl. He was sacked so many times by Giant defenders that he started barking at his own front line, as well as pointing disapprovingly at his receivers. He was not a happy camper. Which is atypical. He is usually very cool and collected. But then, he is usually on the winning side.

Because of Obama's superior oratorical skills, his handsome and balanced presence, and his potential status as the fulfillment of a national destiny to finally elect a black president, we are inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. But we don't really know if he will have grace under pressure, because he has never needed to confront world class stress. That would have to wait for his presidency.

The same argument -- inexperience, especially with the brinkmanship of the Cold War -- was used by Nixon against JFK during the 1960 campaign. Of course, Kennedy did pretty well when tested, when his back was up against the wall during the Cuban missile crisis.

There is one factor that Obama brings that no other candidate can claim. His name and his face, at the helm of our troubled nation, would do a lot to defuse terrorism, and to humanize America's image in what used to be called the Third World.

2/04/2008 10:23:00 AM  
Blogger Joseph Giannasio said...

Don't fall in to the trap of the Clinton's.

I am amazed at how deluded people can be to believe she personally has any experience other than being the wife of one of the sleaziest politicians in American History, and coming in a close second to him, and how people still think Bill was a victim and play the moral relativity card that who cares what he did, the economy was good when he was President, I've never voted my pocket book because the fact is there is very little a President can do for the economy, and I would say all in all Bush did a good job making it look like he did something for the economy.

I'm not convinced he is tough or patient enough to endure the attacks the GOP has lying in wait for him should he take the White House.

The GOP have an arsenal built over the last 16 years against The Clinton's. How well will she fare when Whitewater resurfaces, Vince Neil?...yes even Monica. Obama is giving her such a free pass.

If Obama could stand up to the scrutiny of the Clinton Sleaze machine, He'll have no problem with the GOP, especially if it's Mc Cain, who runs a relatively clean campaign.

once she gets there, as long as things are running smoothly, I believe she'll be a good president.

Beavis and Butthead could be good Pesidents if things are running smoothly. When does D.C. run smoothly?

The cons for Hillary include the facts that she gets peevish and downright mean under pressure.

When isn't a President under pressure?

Hillary couldn't get Healthcare passed in "92" with a popular Democrat president, and both Democrat House and Senate, but let's face it if FDR was resurrected tomorrow I doubt he'd be able to get a Universal Healtcare system passed, not to mention with both Clinton and Obama getting wheel barrels full of cash from Insurance companies, we'd just wind up with another bad bill written by an industry under the pretense that it will help us, and in the long run we get screwed.

the wonky wonder

The what???? :)

but in all honesty as an Independent if it came down to Mc Cain Clinton, I'd have to go with Mc Cain, especially since if it did Anne Coulter would be Supporting Clinton
because in her words "She's the real Conservative of the two" and that's the biggest problem with her.

I especially like that Ted and Carolyn Kennedy outright told the Clinton's to stop using JFK references and when they didn't stop he pretty much named Obama JFK's Legacy.

Who had very little experience when he took office.

2/04/2008 10:54:00 AM  
Blogger Joerg Colberg said...

For me as someone who follows US politics closely but who also is an outsider (since I'm not a citizen and have a European background), it's frankly quite surprising to see how people can't make up their minds between Clinton and Obama. Irrespective of how similar they really are: Clinton voted for the Iraq war and is unapologetic about it, whereas Obama opposed it (but now - just like Clinton - has to apply the same Pottery Barn rule). Do you want someone as President who, like Hillary Clinton, made such an enormous error in judgement (with disastrous consequences) and then refuses to even acknowledge it? If you think that's the kind of President you want, vote for her. Otherwise, vote for Obama.

2/04/2008 11:11:00 AM  
Blogger highlowbetween said...

Hill will never win the national election in my opinion. You will be amazed by the hate machine that will be unleashed.

2/04/2008 11:34:00 AM  
Anonymous Barry said...

Franklin: Ron Paul?!

He's a racist crazy man. Here is one good example:

2/04/2008 11:51:00 AM  
Blogger Donna Dodson said...

i think hillary could improve her campaign if she were to come out about the differences between the way bill ran things and how she would- where was she while he was running things- how would she have done things differently, in other words, i dont think she and bill are the same person... i think obama would be risky under fire and i am not sure what he would be able to do or what vision he has for the country- think of president truman whos wife bess never wanted to live at the white house- he was hired to do a dirty job that no one else wanted to do...

2/04/2008 11:59:00 AM  
Blogger Steven Kaplan said...

And what about the great dream of a Hill-Obama ticket? The great compromise, so the two of them can stop bashing each other and concentrate their fire on McCain (or, if one can even imagine it, on Mitt the Shit). Of course, this will never happen. Hill is not comfy with Obama, and Obama would be insane to enter a second Billary administration (or would it now be called HillaBill?), where he would become as marginalized as Al Gore.

One point about Obama. He seems less compromised, somehow above the dirt, only because he has had less time to get dirty. But it will stick to him just as easily as to any other pol, whether it is derived from the internal corruption of his own administration or from the dirty tricks foisted onto him by the mad dog right wing hate machine. No knight in shining armor is immune from being fully bashed, dented and besmeared with shit. So if you want to retain your vision of the immaculate Barack, get him out of the race right now.

2/04/2008 12:04:00 PM  
Anonymous pearlygirl said...

It might help you to know that Barack Obama is the only candidate, Democrat or Republican, with an arts policy. It includes more funding for arts in education, the NEA, and health insurance for artists!

Click here for more info:

2/04/2008 12:04:00 PM  
Blogger Edward_ said...

Have to second Barry's concern about Paul. He let a newsletter with his name on it circulate with the most hideous of racist comments and then argues that he didn't author it or approve it. Even if you buy that answer, this lack of oversight hardly recommends him for the job, IMO.

2/04/2008 12:05:00 PM  
Anonymous Franklin said...

The newsletters were unfortunate and pretty much indefensible. On the other hand, the head of the Austin NAACP came out in Paul's defense in January and dismissed the charges of racism as a political smear job. Paul's MLK moneybomb raised $1.8 million, and when questioned about his feelings towards blacks, he talked about ending the War on Drugs, which is one of the last bastions of institutionalized racism, and far worse than choosing to associate with knuckleheads for a period ending in the early '90s.

2/04/2008 12:32:00 PM  
Anonymous Franklin said...

By the way, there is one Clinton whom I'd really like to see in the White House: George Clinton.

2/04/2008 12:38:00 PM  
Blogger David said...

I find the experience issue to be a non-issue. No president is expected to be an expert on all aspects of foreign and domestic policy. They surround themselves with experts who, for better or for worse, share their values.

What's important is that they have the right vision, and enough clarity and charisma to inspire other people to work together with them toward their goals.

2/04/2008 12:41:00 PM  
Blogger George said...

I find it interesting, the ongoing allusions to the Republican Gestapo’s attack dogs. One more piece of evidence that this country has run off the tracks of inspiration and honor and is bumping along on the ties of corruption and deceit.

America is desperate for the inspiration to solve contentious policy issues. All the candidates have policy positions, what will matter is their ability to inspire, organize and if necessary, compromise, in order to have these issues passed into law.

Our new president must seek to restore American honor in the world, to re-establish American policies based upon trust over tyranny, upon morality over might.

Our new president must inspire hope for the future, a future obscured by more uncertainty than ever before. The new president must inspire the young of America to take an interest in politics, in policy and in service to this country.

Barack Obama is the future.

2/04/2008 01:08:00 PM  
Blogger zipthwung said...

Bill Clinton was not the first nor the last president to sneak a little chicken and biscuit – we are after all human, is all we are. Could Hillary “crododile” Clinton defeat Barak “the bulb” Obama? Tune in turn turn turn off and turn on again – its called e-lectricity and its coming to a town near you!

One of the reasons I decided to register Democrat and vote for Nader is because I want to throw my vote away. But if I were voting Reb, I mean Republican, I would pick Ru Paul, anyone who can hide their nuts like that has got to be good for something in the international arena. If you can talk the talk, you can probably walk the walk, though the proof is in the pudding. And oh what pudding we will made!

Change is in the air, flung from on high to plummet 100 floors at terminal velocity, hopefully into a conservative pundit’s pineal gland (forever night) so it‘s not surprising that change is the idea that lit the flintlock that ignited the fires that shot the ball that hit the side of the barn that renders the indians into a mighty glue. But what use glue without a broken tea cup to mend? Does time move backwards? Will we cry about it?

When Rambo rescued McCaine from the jungles of Borneo, we cheered – for not two decades later there had been a failed attempt to rescue Jim Jones from his followers. “No arms for hostages”, Jimmy Carter said, and he was right before anyone, unblemished, and with a fresh take on historicity, though he nearly gave the country away in the haze of stagflation to China, and with it the cold war, and with that the sleeping giant awoke and toppled the Patriots like Dominoes.

2/04/2008 01:18:00 PM  
OpenID deborahfisher said...

As HLIB already eloquently stated:

Clinton is not electable on a national level because she's got a cynical and divisive history.

Obama! I can't wait to vote tomorrow!

2/04/2008 01:30:00 PM  
Blogger JD said...

Yes to Obama over Clinton, for all of the above reasons. Here are a few more:

1. She voted for the awful bankruptcy bill, a gift to the credit card companies; Obama voted no. Most people declaring bankruptcy are low-income and middle class folks who are wiped out by a healthcare disaster.
2. She co-sponsored, with a republican senator, a pandering anti-flag-burning bill in 2005.
3. She voted to call the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a "terrorist" organization, a bill clearly designed to enable Bush to strike at Iran. She is a HAWK, or at least panders to hawks. I'm not sure which is worse.
4. Obama brings African Americans to the polls (look at the South Carolina primary!). This, in addition to his appeal to "centrists," makes him more likely to win in November. If he wins one or two major southern states, the Repugs are TOAST. We want the Rethugs to be toast.

2/04/2008 01:33:00 PM  
Blogger George said...

Another important issue is who will choose the next Supreme Court Justices?

Unless you want to turn the clock back fifty years, there is NO WAY we should allow these choices to be made by a Republican.

2/04/2008 01:37:00 PM  
Blogger Paddy Johnson said...

I don't get a vote, because i'm Canadian, but I too would have voted for Edwards were he still in the race.

2/04/2008 01:40:00 PM  
Blogger Mark Creegan said...

I have never been concerned about Obama's lack of experience/naivety whatever, because, as a devotee of West Wing, I know that we elect all the peeps around the candidate as well, and I am sure he will choose very capable, experienced people.

2/04/2008 01:42:00 PM  
Blogger David said...

What do you all think about running mates? Not for the Republicans, of course (who cares?), but whom do you think would be good choices for the two Democrats?

2/04/2008 01:43:00 PM  
Blogger George said...

David: Obama+Edwards

2/04/2008 01:45:00 PM  
Blogger Edward_ said...

I'm not so sure about Obama+Edwards, actually. I think if we go with Obama, we need to commit to a collaborative (reaching across the aisles) approach, and Edwards is so combative, I suspect he'll be frustrated as VP. I think combative would have been appropriate, given how royally the current administration has screwed things up and empowered the multinationals, etc. but I don't think the conflict within the Executive Branch will serve moving forward well.

I think Obama+Richardson is an interesting idea. Richardson's diplomatic muscle (not an oxymoron, so I'm told) will aid Obama's vision, and he'll help shore up the Hispanic vote.

2/04/2008 01:53:00 PM  
Anonymous Franklin said...

Obama plus a relatively unknown, Schwarzenegger-style, centrist, anti-war Republican. (Richardson qualifies.)

2/04/2008 01:57:00 PM  
Blogger George said...

Ed, hmm. I was thinking Edwards would allow Obama to move a bit towards the center-right, with Edwards covering the left flank. With a bit more thought on it, maybe Edwards would be better in some other role.

2/04/2008 02:09:00 PM  
Blogger Joseph Giannasio said...

The trap of calculating who can or can't win is not the best way to cast your vote, it's part of the same old manipulative game that has been politics as usual, cast your vote for the person who you think/feel can face the issues the next President will face.

restoring civil liberties

bring together a deeply divided nation

a current and possible future war due to energy dependency, and near sighted energy policies

an imperial size military with bases world wide.

take the steps to stop the desire of terrorists to attack, over the insanity of an un-winnable war on terror

start acting on the ideals of America, over the rationalized pandering to corporate interest, and acting in the best interest of humanity, not the doctrines, and ethos of capitalism

and maybe get back on track to realize the farewell words of a former president.

that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings. Those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; and that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth; and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.

2/04/2008 02:10:00 PM  
Blogger Pretty Lady said...


2/04/2008 02:37:00 PM  
Blogger zipthwung said...

Obama is unsafe at any speeed I'm afraid. Or maybe not. But if wishes were trees I'd own a saw mill.

2/04/2008 03:16:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was for Joe Biden, I wish he had had a fair shot. His experience would make him an amazing running mate.

I hope that, whatever the outcome of this election, people would acknowledge that attitudes towards Clinton (not your well-informed attitudes, but "those others" out there) reveal a very real sexism that is still an omnipresent undercurrent in our country. We haven't come as far as we think we have, baby:


2/04/2008 03:45:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One of my first strong memories is of being herded into the basement of my elementary school during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Everyone was terrified. JFK handled it well but it wouldn't have even happened if he hadn't been seen as young and inexperienced. As gifted as he was as a speaker, his legacy was enacted after his death by LBJ. Without that catastrophe, civil rights legislation would not have passed, at least not when it did. Kennedy didn't know how to manipulate Washington. LBJ did.

My main concern about this election is that I've experienced wave after wave of "change" - Carter was elected because everyone wanted an outsider. He's a smart, good man who failed miserably because he didn't understand how Washington worked. After the hostages being held in the Middle East for so long, America wanted someone who made them feel good about themselves. We elected Reagan. And so on and so on. After eight years of a president who delegates authority to others, the stampede is for another man who is not a manager. A friend told me she wanted hope, she didn't care who filled in the slots in his daybook. If W hadn't left this country in such an appalling mess in Iraq, in the economy, with the environment, I probably would take a chance on Obama. Hope would make us all feel better about not rising up and rebelling against W. Clinton, though, will clean up the mess as efficiently as anyone out there. For 2008, she has my vote.

Regardless of the outcome, I will vote for the Democrat in November.

2/04/2008 05:34:00 PM  
Blogger David said...

Carter was elected because everyone wanted an outsider. He's a smart, good man who failed miserably because he didn't understand how Washington worked.

I agree. But Obama is in the Senate (in Washington), not a state governor. He's not an outsider. And I'll bet he can get all the inside information and advice he needs from Ted Kennedy. And John Kerry. I'm not worried.

PS - You must have gone to a better elementary school than I did. We all crouched in the hall :)

2/04/2008 06:06:00 PM  
Anonymous ondine-nyc said...

The Democrats are now as corrupt as the Republicans (or have folks been asleep since the mid-terms?). Obama and Hillary are corporate-owned, lock stock and barrel. Check their rumps and you'll find the bar codes.

Vote 3rd Party! We need at least 4 or 5 national Party's as the 2 we have are riddled with grime and need to be brought to their knees or real change will never happen in this country. The Party that has let you down repeatedly these past 2 years is not riding in on a white steed, there is blood on all their hands.

Downtowns in the US will fill up immediately to celebrate any sports championship (my town last night) yet the same folks won't show up to protest the war, demand impeachment or insist we stop shredding the Constitution.

Sadly, we have the government we deserve.

2/04/2008 06:59:00 PM  
Anonymous dcfa said...

The REAL question is who can beat the republican nom... Give me an H!!!

Dan Cooney

2/04/2008 08:48:00 PM  
Blogger patrick said...

Thanks so much Edward for a thoughtful post. I think it really sums up how a lot of people are thinking these days. People are confused...and they are not sure where to cast their vote.

I'm not here to slam a thought down your throat, although, I feel that passionate about our choice. I think we do have a great choice, a solid choice, and I'm always moved by people who think we're where we were in every election we've every had.

You see, I remember this same conversation when John Kerry was running for President, and even though no one would admit it now, I remember when everyone thought Al Gore would not be a great president...and it's so easy now, to look back and take the safe road of saying, well, I was always unsure...but...

Not to imply that is your stance, but indecision, at this point, is difficult for me to hear because we've had 7 years of the worst shit we as a nation could ever be put through...we as a nation should know by now what it is that we want...and that should be a leader who can bring about change, not because the word sounds good, but because the word means so much to so many people. We need a leader who can make change really happen in a real way.

Not for one day have I ever doubted since I heard that she had thrown her hat in the ring that she was the right choice for us now, even though I knew it would be hard for her because of how people feel, but I just had to say, that Hillary is the right person to really make things happen for people who need it most...US!

Thanks Edward, for opening the dialogue, it's important that people express their opinions...however, it's time to make a choice, I hope it's for the right change, and not just change.

2/04/2008 09:03:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


and when i think about McCain vs Obama, with all of the Kennedy comparisons, i have flashbacks to the Loyd Bentsen smackdown of Dan Quayle.

that said, any of them - Hillary Obama McCain or Bloomberg - will be a welcome change after Bush.

2/04/2008 09:18:00 PM  
Blogger BAD said...

what kind of artist would you rather work with? one who is affable and can talk persuasively (if vaguely) about his art, or one who is obsessed (almost maniacally so) with media, colors, forms and theories? (assuming they are both decent artists, and the second has a few more exhibitions on her CV)

2/04/2008 10:31:00 PM  
Blogger zipthwung said...

I just know you are going to make the right decision, in my heart we can't go backwards, forwards then is the only other option, let your heart and your mind be your guide, because your heart is the thing that keeps you alive and without heart you would be dead. But without your mind you are no better than a barnyard chicken so the mind and the heart must be used, and if you use them well, in tandem or even one at a time, you will be able to navigate the oceans of deceit and the rivers of despair beyond the slough of despond into the very center of the earth where chocolate rivers flow between rock candy cliffs and there will be pie in the sky when you die.

2/04/2008 10:48:00 PM  
Blogger David Cauchi said...

You've seen this eh? It asks questions about where you stand on various issues and then shows you which candidate is closest to your position.

2/04/2008 11:21:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

if we're comparing artists to politicians, then Bush is Dash Snow....

2/04/2008 11:22:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Vote 3rd Party! We need at least 4 or 5 national Party's as the 2 we have are riddled with grime and need to be brought to their knees or real change will never happen in this country.

Yes, this worked great in Italy.

HALF the eligible voters DO NOT VOTE.

We don't need more parties.

We need more voters to party.

2/04/2008 11:32:00 PM  
Blogger nat said...

If the candidates were artists...Clinton would be Richard Prince and Obama Jonathan Lasker. Hillary would be ineffectual as a leader--unable to get support from across the aisle for any but her most hawkish policies. What Republican would risk supporting any Clinton initiative with the baggage she brings. Only Obama can get the independent vote in the general election and get moderate Republicans on board with domestic policy. As a left Dem I'd campaign against Hillary if she's nominated. Better an ineffectual Rep. than an ineffectual Dem.

2/05/2008 01:53:00 AM  
Blogger Joseph Giannasio said...

Good point Patrick
You see, I remember this same conversation when John Kerry was running for President, and even though no one would admit it now, I remember when everyone thought Al Gore would not be a great president...

and that's exactly the thoughts I have about HC, and I would have to say the last time I was inspired by a candidate was Bill Clinton in 92, I was in Iowa City (Go Hawkeyes!!!) visiting some friends and we drove an hour and a half to Burlington to hear him speak, he gave his little boy from Hope line the crackling voice "I feel your pain", and lip bite, the works. He spoke about renewal and his covenant with America, he was really inspiring and very charismatic, but there was something lacking and the sleaze was already beginning to show with Gennifer Flowers allegations, which were easy to dismiss, but when he took office and the list grew, Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, it got harder to dismiss, then Lewinsky, and impeachment, and those shots of HC in dark sunglasses doing the walk of shame behind Bill across the south lawn on the way to Marine One (is that how she'll handle a national crisis?), Political baggage is one thing but emotional wreckage reeks havoc and it is all so apparent in her behavior, the cackling dismissive laughter, the as Ed put it peevish and downright mean under pressure especially when things aren't going her way, Can you say "Nervous Breakdown"?

Branch Rickey, the general manager of the Brooklyn Dodgers in the forties had said of how he came to choose Jackie Robinson to be the first Black player in the Major League, There was plenty of talented ball players in the Negro Leagues, some with more talent than Jackie Robinson, but to break the color barrier and prove that blacks could play on the same teams with whites, he knew he needed someone who was not only talented, but had the character to withstand the bigotry of not only the fans but of the other teams, even his own teammates, Rickey reminded Robinson that he would face tremendous racial animus, and insisted that he not take the bait and react angrily. Robinson was aghast: "Do you want a player afraid to fight back?" Rickey replied that he needed a Negro player "with the guts not to fight back." Robinson agreed to abide by Rickey's terms for his first year.

a bit more from Ike's farewell address

Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.
Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.
Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war – as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years – I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.

2/05/2008 02:53:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Vote for Hilary -- she's already done the job once, so let her do it again under her own name.

2/05/2008 04:55:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Done. I surprised myself. I voted for Obama. I couldn't get over the fact that her husband betrayed gays. I will never forgive him. She will do the same, I just know...

2/05/2008 02:46:00 PM  
Blogger David said...

Are you the same Anomymous as the Anonymous just above? All this anonymity is confusing :)

Anyway, it's awfully quiet around here. I hope you're all out there voting.

I noticed this morning that people were lined up at the Democrat booths, and the Republican booths were empty. Of course maybe that's partly because here in California, Independents can vote in the Democratic primary but not in the Republican one. Don't they trust us?

2/05/2008 02:57:00 PM  
Anonymous ondine-nyc said...

Yes, this worked great in Italy.

Oh, so because Italy has always been a fractured country it's because of 3rd and 4th Party's?

LOL, then why does it work well for Scandinavia, France, Switzerland and Germany?

We need more viable political Party's, one size does NOT fit all (and lobbyists can't afford to bribe every party like they buy the 2 we have now).

2/05/2008 07:22:00 PM  
Blogger Joseph Giannasio said...

OK, so the choices were made, the votes cast, and in the fallout of super Tuesday, the only things clear are
John Mc Cain will most likely be the GOP candidate, The Bible Belt Hates Romney, if Mc Cain gets the nomination there's a good chance Rush Limbaugh will have a stroke (keep your fingers crossed), Caroline Kennedy actually speaks, and apparently a Ted Kennedy endorsement has no influence in a state he's been Senator of in five decades?

What we don't have is a clear picture of what's happening in the democratic primary, if you look at it in total states won Tuesday Obama has the majority,

Clinton 8
Obama 13

counting 1
(we'll know more when New Mexico wakes from Siesta)

add the previous races

Clinton 10
Obama 15

(Clinton won Florida and Michigan but because of DNC rules as of now aren't being seated at the convention)

The total number of popular votes on Tuesday of about 14.5 million votes Clinton has .04% lead with New Mexico still counting(they had to pause counting for their afternoon siesta ), total delegates won on tuesday so far

Clinton 803
Obama 803

with 75 from Tues to still be awarded

add the previous delegates won excluding Florida and Michigan (what will happen with those who knows)

Clinton 851
Obama 866

Now to make your head spin Super Delegates (not some caped hero ready to save the day, actually the opposite, some of which are elected officials, some just some how connected to the Democratic party, their votes so far are more like endorsements, they could change.

Clinton 201
Obama 112
Undelared 451

which makes combined

Clinton 1052
Obama 978

So basically we're looking at a situation that could be as divisive and disenfranchising to voters as the 2000 election where Obama could win the majority of proportioned delegates (those representing actual voters) and to further complicate things caucuses don't tally popular votes just proportion delegates according to districts)so Clinton could have less proportioned delegates the appearance of more popular votes, and because of super delegates it would be possible for Clinton to get the nomination.
speculation is in this case it is likely to be a Clinton\Obama ticket
(not my first choice but might be the best solution to this quandary of having two strong candidates that each happen to be potential demographic firsts and I would vote for it over a Mc Cain/Huckabee or Romney ticket)
It seems unlikely there would be an Obama/Clinton ticket though who knows.

after all the conflicting delegate numbers I saw on Wed I googled the the heck out of the topic and watched endless streaming video to try to make sense of it all
(Tim Russert gives the most un-biased analysis and seems to love the process as an artist loves their muse, Anne Coulter is the most entertaining in a train wreck sort of way, and an aged more tempered Pat Buchanan has the best punchlines.)

on a lemonade from lemons point
I did figure out if Mc Cain does win we might be able to convince the GOP that Embryonic stem cell research will eventually lead to the ability to clone Ronald Reagan, assuring legislative support and a hefty chunk of change.

*statistics gathered from 2008 Democratic Convention Watch

2/07/2008 03:57:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home