POLITICAL HAY
So, with all the horse racing that's going on, 2008 is shaping up to be a bitter battle of oversized egos. The fact is, anyone who thinks they should be President has to be a bit of an ego maniac.
That said, there are certainly more and less appealing ego maniacs. For my money right now, John Edwards is the candidate of choice. To be honest, I'd be okay with any of the top three Democrats but Edwards is the only one that's been puttng out substantial policies and positions. He's also the only one talking about poverty and the vast economic disparity that's crippling this country. Most importantly, he's the only one to say he never should have given Bush the authority to go to war. He accepts responsibility for voting to authorize force and says it was a mistake. Only he and John Kerry (as far as I know) have done that. Heck, Hillary still justifies her vote... a vote that she backed up with these statements:
"Intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program . . . "
"If left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security. "
Saddam has "given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members,”
Which are not that far off from Bush's pre-war claims. It's like they called each other beforehand to see what the other would say.
Look, I'd love to see a woman or black President. Obama and Hillary are clearly smart people who will, in many ways, support policies I agree with (Obama more than Hillary... who is actually quite conservative). So, I have to balance my desire to see historical firsts against the virtues of the candidates running.
Ultimately, my problem with Hillary and Obama is that they never stake out firm territory on any issue. About a year and half ago Molly Ivins --a brilliant and caustic wit whose writing I will sorely miss-- expressed most of my reservations with Hillary. Her essential criticism was that Clinton acted as if triangulation were a position. It's not. It's a political tactic. Hillary, time and again, refuses to lead on almost any issue. She hems and haws and talks a good game but rarely sets the bar on, well, anything. It's all about calculating the odds and appealing to the widest audience and never ever admitting you made a mistake. But Molly said it so much better than I.
Obama, is almost as bad. He seems to be in a contest with Hillary over who will blink first on the issues. I like that he's trying to avoid partisan politics but, dude, give us a straight answer on something and lead on an issue, any issue, just once. I really evaluate my candidates by their ability to directly answer questions asked of them and neither Obama or Hillary will do that.
Check out how each of the three answered questions about the environment from Move On. Only Edwards would commit to a 35 mpg standard for cars. Actually, he said he supported 40 mpg. Comapre candidate answers here.
So, for now, Edwards gets my support. I don't like everything about him but I certainly like his personal story, his willingness to put forward strong positions and his ability to directly answer many of the questions put to him.
Which brings me to the haircut. I mean, come on. Are you going to tell me Hillary doesn't pay big bucks for her ever-changing stylings? That Mitt Romney doesn't have a staff of primpers? Here's an interesting question: Why did the media make such a big deal of Edwards $300 haircut but totally ignore Romney's $300 make-up artist? Read about it here.
You know what really gives me the creeps about that Romney guy? He looks like a game show host. A creepy game show host. And he believes Jesus took a boat to America.
If the message is that these guys are vain...well, duh! They think they should be President. What I care about is how they'll handle the job. To figure that out they need to give me straight, decisive answers. Edwards. more often than not, does that.
End of political ramble. More fun posts coming...
So, with all the horse racing that's going on, 2008 is shaping up to be a bitter battle of oversized egos. The fact is, anyone who thinks they should be President has to be a bit of an ego maniac.
That said, there are certainly more and less appealing ego maniacs. For my money right now, John Edwards is the candidate of choice. To be honest, I'd be okay with any of the top three Democrats but Edwards is the only one that's been puttng out substantial policies and positions. He's also the only one talking about poverty and the vast economic disparity that's crippling this country. Most importantly, he's the only one to say he never should have given Bush the authority to go to war. He accepts responsibility for voting to authorize force and says it was a mistake. Only he and John Kerry (as far as I know) have done that. Heck, Hillary still justifies her vote... a vote that she backed up with these statements:
"Intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program . . . "
"If left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security. "
Saddam has "given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members,”
Which are not that far off from Bush's pre-war claims. It's like they called each other beforehand to see what the other would say.
Look, I'd love to see a woman or black President. Obama and Hillary are clearly smart people who will, in many ways, support policies I agree with (Obama more than Hillary... who is actually quite conservative). So, I have to balance my desire to see historical firsts against the virtues of the candidates running.
Ultimately, my problem with Hillary and Obama is that they never stake out firm territory on any issue. About a year and half ago Molly Ivins --a brilliant and caustic wit whose writing I will sorely miss-- expressed most of my reservations with Hillary. Her essential criticism was that Clinton acted as if triangulation were a position. It's not. It's a political tactic. Hillary, time and again, refuses to lead on almost any issue. She hems and haws and talks a good game but rarely sets the bar on, well, anything. It's all about calculating the odds and appealing to the widest audience and never ever admitting you made a mistake. But Molly said it so much better than I.
Obama, is almost as bad. He seems to be in a contest with Hillary over who will blink first on the issues. I like that he's trying to avoid partisan politics but, dude, give us a straight answer on something and lead on an issue, any issue, just once. I really evaluate my candidates by their ability to directly answer questions asked of them and neither Obama or Hillary will do that.
Check out how each of the three answered questions about the environment from Move On. Only Edwards would commit to a 35 mpg standard for cars. Actually, he said he supported 40 mpg. Comapre candidate answers here.
So, for now, Edwards gets my support. I don't like everything about him but I certainly like his personal story, his willingness to put forward strong positions and his ability to directly answer many of the questions put to him.
Which brings me to the haircut. I mean, come on. Are you going to tell me Hillary doesn't pay big bucks for her ever-changing stylings? That Mitt Romney doesn't have a staff of primpers? Here's an interesting question: Why did the media make such a big deal of Edwards $300 haircut but totally ignore Romney's $300 make-up artist? Read about it here.
You know what really gives me the creeps about that Romney guy? He looks like a game show host. A creepy game show host. And he believes Jesus took a boat to America.
If the message is that these guys are vain...well, duh! They think they should be President. What I care about is how they'll handle the job. To figure that out they need to give me straight, decisive answers. Edwards. more often than not, does that.
End of political ramble. More fun posts coming...
No comments:
Post a Comment