In terms of Presidential politics, today is second in importance only to the November general elections. In football terms, it’s much like the championship round of the playoffs. There is a huge difference, however, in that today’s elections don’t guarantee one candidate or another will lock up their respective party nominations.
For my part, I prefer Obama to Clinton. I figure either would be capable. But Obama’s “something new” really appeals to me. I don’t believe in a grand, non-partisan, ponies and flowers for everybody kind of politics, but we may have “jumped the shark” on the whole Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton thing. And Obama seems stronger on “that vision thing” than Hillary Clinton even if Hillary might be the more accomplished bureaucrat.
On the GOP side, I find myself rooting for Romney – but not for any rational reason. I honestly have no clue how Romney and McCain wold compare to each other as President. But, I had one view of McCain when he was running for President in 2000, and he turned out not to be that guy. I’ve never had any particular view of Romney, so I never had any faith in the Mittster to lose.
When you compare their major accomplishments, it IS hard to pick between Clinton and Obama, isn’t it?
Did you use their experience in significant executive positions as the tiebreaker?
I have voted Republican in every POTUS election that I have been of age to do so. However, my voting matrix at this time is:
Obama vs Romney: Obama
Obama vs McCain: Undecided
Clinton vs McCain: McCain
Clinton vs Romney: Write-in vote for Mayor McCheese.
That prompted a vision of a make-believe future history article:
“When Mayor McCheese won his stunning upset victory by one vote, few could imagine the horrors that would follow. When the slave camps inevitably emerged, the living began to envy the dead.”
O.k. – less a history article and more a True Hollywood Story narrative.
Parker, to me your quip about executive positions carries echoes of the Bush 2000 campaign which would put “the grownups in charge.” The MBA President, Dubya, would surround himself with the vast experience of the likes of Cheney and Rumsfeld. From my point of view, that hasn’t worked out so well.
Quip?
How could it possibly be a quip, when it is so transparently obvious that you are faced with the difficult choice between the two most worthy Democrats in the county?
And, of course, the Republicans too have winnowed the field so that only the most brightly shining lights remain – how will they choose among such towering examples of both virtue and skill?
[Jason – do you have any links to Mayor McCheese’s record?]
OW! OW! The sarcasm. It BURNS!
I think Mayor McCheese was “America’s Mayor” way before Rudy was.
Hamburglar was “America’s Crook” before Nixon.
And before the Scowl (Cheney), there was the Grimace…
On a serious note, we elected the Gov of a major Southern state, who promised to bring us compassionate conservatism and unity. We got Mr. Doofus and his gang that couldn’t shoot straight while running up HUGE DEBT.
I’d just as soon take a chance on the real thing for a change. A man who has actually been successful at all he has done, from Law School (Harvard Law Review Editor) to Community Organizing in South Side Chicago– not an easy area to the state senate of Illinois while it was Republican controlled. He knows how to inspire people to get things done. And look at the huge outpouring of new energized voters.
It seems to me that Clinton and McCain are returns to the past. And Romney doesn’t know what his position is on any given day. Huckabee is quickly becoming the lunatic fringe with Ron Paul. (Which one is it that wants to replace with Constitution with the Bible? Will someone beam Paul back to Mars along with Kucinich?)
The most exciting day of this year is TODAY. GO-BAMA!
I posted elsewhere that I don’t think Obama will pull it off because I’m like a beaten dog with respect to Presidential Politics. If I want it, it can’t happen.
It feels like today will be a big day for Obama. Aren’t the polls mostly moving in his direction? I don’t think today will settle anything, which is probably bad for Clinton.
I with ya on post #9.
Hm, I feel that Clinton and Romney are the ones that are the returns to the past. Both seem to be willing to say whatever they can to get elected.
As for McCain, while he has been corrupted by politics by playing them, I think of it like an undercover NARC cop who has to sometimes do drugs. He is fighting it, and has sometimes gone too far to the dark side to do it.
Obama is no guiltless there either. I have no idea how you can stand for change and stand beside Ted Kennedy. I about lost my breakfast when I heard Ted say “We need change!” while endorsing Obama. That guy IS the establishment!
Back to McCain, the simple fact that he supports the war and the “surge” when every poll has war support in the 30’s or below shows me he isn’t totally lost to politics. That takes balls to say when you know that 2/3 of the people that you want to vote for you disagree with what you’re saying. I’m not sure if I agree or disagree with his view on that, and the events of the war between now and November will be telling.
Parker, McCheese’s bio can be found here.
Some highlights:
However, his bio shows him as deceased, so it looks like I’m on the hunt for a new backup candidate…
I’m getting the feeling that the idea that we have been blessed with candidates who all have qualities beyond any reasonable expectation for mere mortals…
…is somehow not the consensus view.
If not McCheese, how about Ronald?
And please – no cheap shots about being able to work closely with the ‘other clowns’…
Not a chance in hell. Clowns are scary.
Let’s not forget that Obama single-handedly derailed the mighty Keyes locomotive.
Y’know, with all due respect to our excellent host and y’all, some of you are just pulling an old man’s leg out of sheer boredom, am I right? Like wanton boys to flies? You ought to be ashamed. Clinton and Romney are shape-shifters? Okay, Mitt’s position papers ought to carry a warning label for people subject to positional vertigo, but Senator Clinton has clung to that Iraqi War vote she could have easily distanced herself from and which has hurt her badly on the trail. What has she said “just to get elected”? She’s the most detailed, and probably the best, candidate on policy. And no, I’m not a Clinton supporter.
McCain, who’s now the longest-running candidate since Reagan’s sixteen years, threw his lot in with the war in late ’03 (after warning about its excesses before the fact) as the only way to get nominated in 2008. Small wonder he’s doubled-down since. If he’s benefitted most from this “the surge is working” bs he’s the one who’s judgement is most questionable, and the one who’s most vulnerable in January 2009 when we hand the new guy the bill.
It just seems like campaigns become more hyperreal with every cycle, to the point that this one, which ought to be about the issues if any in my lifetime was, is now about what color wallpaper we’d like in our hospice room.
Dog said:
She hasn’t distanced herself?
“On NBC’s “Today” show, Mrs. Clinton renounces her war vote unequivocally for the first time: “I certainly wouldn’t have voted that way.”
No, she can’t erase her voting record, but she sure has tried to explain how she voted “yes” but meant “I support the UN”.
This morning on Meet the Press, Hillary Clinton defended her 2002 vote for the Iraq war resolution, saying that she “thought it was a vote to put inspectors back in” so Saddam Hussein could not go unchecked.
Point is, I just flat don’t trust her or Romney. I think McCain and Obama are honest people that have sometimes played politics.
At this level, it is an image contest anyhow, and two of them have a terriable image from my POV, and the other two are only a little tarnished.
This isn’t like a local election where I can vote for the lady that will block the new Wal-Mart or the guy that would build a new firehouse on my side of town and expect them to do it.
Oh, and I want my hospice room purple.
Jason, to be honest with you, that’s exactly the sort of thing I’m talking about–at 11AM she’ll “say anything to get elected”; at 3 it’s that you don’t trust her because of something she said on the Today Show.
We can, if you’d like, agree to disagree on what constitutes “distancing”, but my suggestion is that she’s not run away from her Iraq War resolution vote in twelve months campaigning before Democrats, the majority of whom have disapproved of the war since 2004, and who now disapprove of it overwhelmingly, and it’s cost her votes. She’s got a staff full of liberal hawks as foreign policy advisors. So she now says she’d have voted differently on Iraq–how many people is that true of? That she brings up the UN, well, that was the trade-off after the Democratic leadership got maneuvered into a vote six weeks before the 2002 elections–military authorization in return for the US seeking a new UN resolution; the Bush administration was contending the old Gulf War resolutions were sufficient. I happen to recall, since I was screaming bloody murder about the incompetent Democratic leadership at the time.
Explaining a vote is a far cry from distancing yourself from it, which she could have done with little fallout a year or more ago. I’m not saying she isn’t calculating, or urging you to trust her; I’m just amazed at the persistence of the script. John McCain was practically the only Senator of either party publicly criticizing the war effort in March 2003; by the campaign of ’04 he’d decided he’d better get his hawk credentials shined back up. But somehow he’s “an honest guy who may have played a little politics” and Senator Clinton is a pandering shape-shifter on par with Mitt Romney.
Whatever case can be made for disparate media treatment between Clinton and Obama, I think McCain holds the gold standard in this respect. The media news personalities just love St. John McCain and resolutely refuse to see Weathervane McCain.
Here are a couple points on Ted Kennedy’s behalf. Of course he’s the establishment,but he’s the liberal establishment and liberals have been out of power and also been discredited on principle for a long tme.I would also point out that our so-called liberal era in government was a time when compromise and getting things done was the M.O.Maybe we’ve never actually had a true liberal era of government. Having an historic liberal such as Ted kennedy actually in charge of policy would be a big change( and conservative spokespeople have pointed that out as a warning to their side} Kennedy has played the political game too,such as co-operating,and giving in too much, on the infamous education bill with the Bush administration. There’s so much characterization of issues rather than weighing the substance of issues,that Kennedy has become identifed with a broken political system,which he has surely contributed to make worse. But Kennedy is the venerable old veteran,and I always look to see what his view is on any issue.I still sit mesmerized when he addresses Congress or gives a speech on C-span or elsewhere. We’re all looking forward to a new era in straight-forward presentation of issues,if there ever has been such a thing.
And I was delighted that Ted and other Kennedy’s endorsed Obama and went against the Democratic establishment,who support Clinton.
Doghouse,
I’m sorry I didn’t take time at 3:00 to go into all of my reasons, but it does amount to much more than “something she said on the Today show”.
Another example would be her changing the primary rules to work the system to her advantage.
Yet another example would be her choice to become a New York senator. She chose that area for political reasons, not because she has some great mission to represent the people of New York.
I’m not trying to convince you, but I have many other reasons beyond what I’m willing to look up source links for on a blog of why Clinton and Romney are two sides of the same coin in MY view.