2008 Election Talk

[shmeep]

Okay, I held off talking about this for as long as I could, but I just can't do it anymore. I am surrounded by politics in my part of the country and most of my interpreting gigs are for the government so this is what I've been eating, sleeping, and breathing for the last several months. I got into a very interesting discussion with Mags yesterday and she double dog dared me to bring it to the board and see what some of you think about it.

You see, Mags supports Hillary and I support Obama. Mags brought up the issue of Obama's perceived lack of experience and I responded and she dared me to post my response and get it going over here. Here's what I told her:

admin said:

About Hillary, I can see your point about her and I don't dislike her. If she's the one, I'll support her wholeheartedly and I'll know she'll be better than anything the Republicans can put out there but...I'm not excited about her. She doesn't inspire me and I see her as a person who tries to please her audience at all costs. She's a quintessential politician. That's not necessarily bad, I guess, and she does have some good ideas about healtcare but...I would really like a clean slate this time. Edwards just seems smarmy to me and you're right about him not having a shot. Part of me likes him, but...nah.

I understand the perception that Obama is inexperienced. Clinton's campaign has gone to great pains to emphasize that point repeatedly, but I'm not sold on it. I find him impressive and inspiring. Here's a quote about a recent Daily Show appearance:

Barack Obama took the oblique reference to new heights on the Daily Show last night, when host Jon Stewart asked how the young Democratic presidential candidate plans to challenge the notion that he is inexperienced.

"When people talk about experience, what they really want to know is, 'Does he have good judgment?'" Obama said.

One hopes that more experience means better judgment, he said, but "everybody knows a lot of 50-, 60- and 70-year-olds that don't have good judgment, because they keep on making the same mistakes over and over again."

He then cited all the experienced people--Cheney, Rumsfield, etc...--who came on board with Bush "and look what happened." Excellent point.

So...Any of the Dems would be great. We have a good selection. I like Biden and Kucinich (hee) and Richardson is as experienced as anyone could wish for (running mate, anyone?) but Obama is the only one who is brilliant AND inspires me. I would love to have an inspiring leader for a change. Hillary's voice and that flat "E" she speaks in (or whatever note that is) is grating but that isn't as important as her disturbing recent Iran vote (did she learn nothing from giving Bush the authority to invade Iraq?) and how she somehow got Obama's kindergarten teacher to say he wanted to be president when he was five and how she's using that against him in the campaign. I'm not impressed with her tactics. They seem beneath her and make her seem desperate. It would be a hoot to have Bill in the public eye again. I miss him, but he'll create as many problems as he will solve. He can't be controlled and he's constantly doing and saying things that may not be appropriate. It amuses me, but it also ignites the Republicans and unites them against the Dems and we don't need that. I like that the Republican party is crumbling and I want it to stay that way for a while--just until the religious "Jesus Camp" right releases its hold on the entire party.

One point to consider is that the Republicans want Hillary to be the nominee because of how polarizing she is and how few crossover votes there will be. Even if she does get in, it won't be with a mandate and her favorables will never be above 50% so she may be as ineffective as Bush, no matter how many good ideas she has. Obama, on the other hand, is appealing to a larger group and has far fewer people who say they will never vote for him no matter what. I know a lot of Republicans who aren't appalled by him as they are by Hillary so that could be good for the country, if my sampling is any indication.

Now that the Iowa caucus is over, I'm even more excited about the upcoming election. Here's what I thought of the speeches I saw last night:

McCain: congratulated Huckabee and emphasized the importance of keeping positive while taking jabs at Romney by pointing out that Huckabee didn't buy votes or go negative (as Romney did). Kind of cracked me up.

Edwards: gave a very odd speech that wasn't at all conceding anything. I don't get this guy. He gives practically the same speech every time he opens his mouth. Exact quotes even pop up in the debates. If I have to hear about that guy with the cleft palate who couldn't talk until the surgery he got in his fifties one more time...Who is advising this guy, anyway?

Clinton: gave a very gracious if uninspiring speech. Used the word "change" a million times, which seemed odd in light of the fact that change is Obama's big theme and that Hillary was standing on stage surrounded by the exact people who were prominent in her husband's administration so...change? Didn't look like it to me, unless she was congratulating Iowa for choosing the candidate who actually DOES represent change.

Huckabee: I can't dislike this guy. He's charming and funny and has appeared fearlessly on The Daily Show and the Colbert Report on more than one occasion and was a wonderful guest. Very comfortable and likable. I don't agree with his politics, but I like him personally very much. His speech was lovely and appropriate and wasn't at all negative or divisive--even across party lines.

Obama: Aaaaah! Just wonderful. This guy can speak...and what's wrong with having a president who can do that for a change? He looked presidential and his crowd was excited throughout and I got goosebumps. I don't recall John Kerry ever giving me goosebumps so that struck me as a good sign. I love this guy as I've never loved a politician. Experience is something that comes with the job, but the ability to inspire people is something you either have or you don't. He has it.

Of course Iowa is just the first stop and anything can happen from here, but things sure got off to an interesting start. It would be interesting to see a final Huckabee/Obama showdown to the Whitehouse because both candidates are nice guys who hate to go negative and both are inspiring and likable and both have a gift for public speaking so...wow. Could 2008 finally be when two worthy candidates compete on their own merits? Will it finally not be a battle between the lesser of two evils? I can't wait to see what happens.

[housemouse]

Let me begin by saying I am pulling for Edwards. I think he is the best the dems have to offer (aside from Biden who didn't stand a chance from the beginning - but I have been a supporter of Biden from way back). I think that Edwards has the most real world background of all the candidates. I hate to say this out loud, but here goes. I believe that there are quite a few people in the country who, although they would never admit it to anyone - not even themselves - in the privacy of that voting booth, would never be able to pull the lever for a woman or a person of color. There. I said it. It is sad, but I believe it is true. Personally I would have a harder time pulling the lever of another nutty "Jesus Camp" Christian conservative who will destroy this country even more than Bush already has.

admin said:

McCain: congratulated Huckabee and emphasized the importance of keeping positive while taking jabs at Romney by pointing out that Huckabee didn't buy votes or go negative (as Romney did). Kind of cracked me up.

McCain's time has passed. Sorry John, but that is the truth.

admin said:

Edwards: gave a very odd speech that wasn't at all conceding anything. I don't get this guy. He gives practically the same speech every time he opens his mouth. Exact quotes even pop up in the debates. If I have to hear about that guy with the cleft palate who couldn't talk until the surgery he got in his fifties one more time...Who is advising this guy, anyway?

I like Edwards, I really want him to get the nomination. He hits the same points, but they are good points. Yes, he needs to get a better repertoire of stories, but that will come and I think Edwards is the best candidate out there.

admin said:

Clinton: gave a very gracious if uninspiring speech. Used the word "change" a million times, which seemed odd in light of the fact that change is Obama's big theme and that Hillary was standing on stage surrounded by the exact people who were prominent in her husband's administration so...change? Didn't look like it to me, unless she was congratulating Iowa for choosing the candidate who actually DOES represent change.

I think Hillary was blindsided by the loss. I don't know if she had the chance to regroup before giving her speech. Like you, I don't really see Hillary as the candidate for change, I see her as the candidate of recycling the 90's. Better than Bush? Yes. Change? Not really.

admin said:

Huckabee: I can't dislike this guy. He's charming and funny and has appeared fearlessly on The Daily Show and the Colbert Report on more than one occasion and was a wonderful guest. Very comfortable and likable. I don't agree with his politics, but I like him personally very much. His speech was lovely and appropriate and wasn't at all negative or divisive--even across party lines.

This guy scares the heck out of me - for precisely the reasons you stated. He comes across as folksy and down to earth, but he is full of those right wing conservative views that have caused us nothing but trouble during the last eight years. I wouldn't touch this guy with a ten foot poll. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

admin said:

Obama: Aaaaah! Just wonderful. This guy can speak...and what's wrong with having a president who can do that for a change? He looked presidential and his crowd was excited throughout and I got goosebumps. I don't recall John Kerry ever giving me goosebumps so that struck me as a good sign. I love this guy as I've never loved a politician. Experience is something that comes with the job, but the ability to inspire people is something you either have or you don't. He has it.

He does have it. I like what he has to say. I think he is a great orator and has the whole package.

One person you didn't mention is Romney. That guy is an automatron. I'm pretty sure the guys from Disney created him and sent him out on the campaign trail. He frightens me at least as much as Huckabee.

[maggiethecat]

Aaaaaaaargh! I wrote an impassioned and utterly brilliant response to Shmeep's most excellent post. I was just about to post it and I got bounced off the Net!

So I'll be back later, and now I have Mouse to respond to too.

[matilda]

OOOOhhhh ...

This is such interesting 'inside' commentary for a political junkie on this side of politics. Thanks!

Far be it from me to comment on someone else's election except to say go you Democrats.

The thing is, all 3 of your leading candidates look good from here -so whoever you guys pick, you'll be sure to be running someone great.

I so hope you win - I can't tell you how much things have changed here so very quickly. It takes a while to sink in (it still is) but somehow everything just feels nicer.

Interestingly, in terms of your discussion about a winning candidate, our winning candidate (albeit in a Westminster system) is very Edwards-like - 45+, straight, Protestant, Anglo-Celtic descent white guy, steady, not too threatening etc.


Happy 08!

Matilda

can't wait to see response Maggie ... !

[mlm828]

Karma to shmeep for starting this thread! I saw it this morning, but didn’t have time to chime in until now.

For me, the most important qualification for the Democratic nominee is the ability to win in November. We also need a candidate whose coattails are big and strong enough to preserve or – even better – increase the Democratic majorities in Congress. Only then will we be able to begin to repair the awful damage which Bush and his gang have inflicted on our country and the world.

I am not yet a strong supporter of any of the Democratic candidates – any of whom would, in my opinion, be a huge improvement over the incumbent. Like mouse, I am concerned, with respect to Obama and Hillary, that there are a number of bigots who would never vote for a woman or a personal of color. However, I suspect that most of these individuals wouldn’t vote for a Democrat, in any event. I have to say I, too, found Obama’s speech last night uplifting. Is it really possible that a politician can succeed in 2008 by appealing to the best in people instead of the worst?

I think Hillary Clinton would make a good President, and I would vote for her if she is the Democratic nominee. However, I am worried that she is the most vulnerable of all the candidates to the type of smear tactics which the Republicans have used successfully in recent elections. I anticipate they would stop at nothing to keep her out of the White House.

Looking strictly at qualifications, one could argue Bill Richardson is the best qualified to be President – at least in the realm of foreign affairs. If Obama is the nominee, I wonder if Richardson might be considered for VP, to answer critics who claim Obama lacks foreign policy experience.

housemouse said:

admin said:

Huckabee: I can't dislike this guy. He's charming and funny and has appeared fearlessly on The Daily Show and the Colbert Report on more than one occasion and was a wonderful guest. Very comfortable and likable. I don't agree with his politics, but I like him personally very much. His speech was lovely and appropriate and wasn't at all negative or divisive--even across party lines.

This guy scares the heck out of me - for precisely the reasons you stated. He comes across as folksy and down to earth, but he is full of those right wing conservative views that have caused us nothing but trouble during the last eight years. I wouldn't touch this guy with a ten foot poll. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

I totally agree with mouse that the prospect of “President Huckabee” is quite terrifying. Until last night, I had discounted him, believing he could not be elected. I doubt he can repeat his Iowa results in New Hampshire. If he stays in or close to the lead, I would not be surprised to see the true powers in the Republican Party – the neo-cons and big business and other big-money interests – get together to support one of the other candidates in order to stop him. These groups aren’t really interested in the evangelicals’ social issues – except to use them to hoodwink the evangelicals into voting against their own interests – and I suspect they would fear a Huckabee presidency as much as mouse and I do – albeit for very different reasons.

We only need to look as far back as Ronald Reagan to see how much harm can be done by a personable fellow who is a good communicator -- but who also has bought the right wing party line. Many of our present-day problems can be traced directly to his policies, which have basically created a welfare state for corporations, while the rest of us are on our own. And don't get me started on the ploy of buying votes by cutting taxes while recklessly spending us deeper and deeper into debt. Who do you think the Shrub learned that from?

[Deleted]

I'm with Mouse and Martha - President Huckabee? If that happens, I'm moving to Paris for four years (hey, Martha! Paul Hastings has a Paris office and I have a valid passport!!) Admittedly, I haven't had the time to watch what's been going on, but I will chime in to say please, PLEASE can we get a Democrat in office? I've said it before how ashamed and appauled I've been over the past 8 years; I am embracing this election with elan and enthusiasm!!!!! Sadly, we do live in a nation of major bigotry and I, too, fear that most would not vote for a woman nor a man of color. It's disgraceful. I like Hillary and I like Obama, so I'm a bit torn, and in desperate need of catching up, which I will - so that's why I cannot lend too much to this thread right now, except to ask: how many more days, Mouse? (I can't wait!!!)

[housemouse]

mlm828 said:

For me, the most important qualification for the Democratic nominee is the ability to win in November. We also need a candidate whose coattails are big and strong enough to preserve or – even better – increase the Democratic majorities in Congress. Only then will we be able to begin to repair the awful damage which Bush and his gang have inflicted on our country and the world.

I am with you 100% here. No matter who we elect, we HAVE to win in November.

[maggiethecat]

I have to chime in with a few Huckabee comments. Mouse, I'm with you -- this guy scares the pants off me, almost as much as Romney. (I'm still cracking up at your assessment of him as a Disney automaton. I can see him staggering down the streeet after aescaping from the Hall of Presidents.)

Anyway, I caught Huckabee the other night, very late, on a rerun of the Craig Ferguson show. And he's funny. And personable. And has great comic timing. In fact, he's so delightful as a personality -- or at least he was with Craig, who could make a log seem entertaining -- that you have to stop and think,"Danger, Will Robinson. Right wing woman-hating, Supreme Court-packing, Constitution-subverting REPUBLICAN."

Here's a great line from this week's New Yorker magazine, from wonderful column entitled "Bhutto and the Candidates," which rates the various candidates on their grasp opf foreign policy. After giving high marks to Joe Biden, the writer says:

In this, he presents a helpful contrast to, say, Mike Huckabee who, in his various blithe displays of global ignorance during his campaign, has served to make the man he hopes to succeed seem the incarnation of Talleyrand.

Great. The New Yorker, which despises Shrub as much as I do, thinks Huckabee is even more ignorant. And here I thought that wasn't possible.

[shmeep]

Don't get me wrong. I never thought Huckabee should be elected. I was just interested in the prospect of a presidential election with two candidates who hate going negative. Really, Huckabee still has a long way to go to get the nomination. He won't do so well in New Hampshire, for example. Really, all his win did was to throw the Republican party into more confusion, which is always good fun to watch. It would be fascinating if no one clear frontrunner emerges in their party until the Republican Convention. I'm watching with great interest.

Still...I couldn't say he would be WORSE than Bush. Having been raised in an environment that is akin to, but not exactly like, the "Jesus Camp" branch of the relisious right, Huckabee strikes me as a solid Baptist. Moral. Well meaning. I don't agree with the guy, but he seems like a good person. He publicly critized Bush's policy in Iraq, calling it "arrogant," so that's at least some improvement. Really, any of the Dems and most of the Republicans would be better than what we have now--but I'm 100% behind the Dems taking this one.

Guilliani scares me more than Huckabee, in all honesty. He would be better for the country socially, but running his entire campaign on fear and 9/11 shows me he will continue on with Bush's foreign policy and that's the worst thing about Bush's presidency.

But on to more interesting topics, Mouse...I'm curious about something you said the other day. I've been wondering about this for a while, actually, so I'd like to know how an Edwards supporter would respond. Obama is pegged as having no experience, Clinton is pegged as having plenty of experience, and Edwards...I guess it's implied that he has a good amount of experience, but we don't hear much about this. Just what is it about his background that qualifies him above Obama? He served one Senate term and then didn't run again because he was running for VP--and we sure could have used him in the senate that second term. His seat was taken by a Republican. Obama is more than halfway through his first senate term and I don't see that Edward's career before the Senate was any more impressive than Obama's so...tell me about this wonderful background and experience. Is it just that he has all that Obama has but is white and therefore more electable? I know you hated making that point, but it's a valid one and one many others have wondered about during this process.

I want to point out that Iowa is an almost entirely white state and they gave Obama a clear victory. He's probably responsible for the record voter turnout. This tells me electibility won't be a problem as far as he is concerned. He has a far broader appeal across party lines than Clinton does and, as I think Martha pointed out above, anyone who wouldn't vote for him based on race probably wouldn't be voting Democrat in the first place so he doesn't lose many numbers on that count. I think his clear win in a white state has shown all the people who were holding back because they had doubts about a black being a viable candidate against the Republicans that he's really in this. Momentum is on his side now. Anything can happen, but it's sure looking like a likely Obama victory in '08 to me at this point. I may have a different take if the next few primaries don't follow the same path but...it's looking good for my guy.

I love that out of the three admins here, one of us supports each of the three frontrunners. It makes for interesting conversation, to say the least. Really, they're all good and I would be proud to have any one of them as president but...I'm an Obama girl.

[inuvik]

I'm not entirely sure how US politics works, but this is all over our news too and it is hard to get away from (try as I might ), so I may as well understand it.

Who is electing the candidates in these primaries? Is it only party members, or the general public?

Thanks in advance, this will clear up confusion for me.

[maggiethecat]

I only have time to throw out a quick question. Does anyone have a figure on how many millions of dollars were spent in Iowa for the sake of . . . 300,000 votes?

How many millions of dollars will be wasted on this ridiculous process before November?

INSANITY!

Oh, and I wouldn't worry about Rudy getting anywhere near the nomination. As a twice-divorced Pro-Choice Catholic (isn't that a contradiction in terms?) he's not conservative enough for the heartland. Of coure, he could be a VP nominee, and I'm amused as hell trying to imagine him standing on a platform next to any of the other guys.

[mlm828]

inuvik said:

Who is electing the candidates in these primaries? Is it only party members, or the general public?

Thanks in advance, this will clear up confusion for me.

This may not clear up the confusion, but the short answer is that it varies from state to state. Some states have "closed" primaries, where only voters who have registered as members of a party may vote in that party's primary. Other states have "open" primaries, where anyone may vote in a party's primary (but, I believe, only in one party's primary). As for how caucuses work in this regard, I have no clue. I recall Obama mentioning in his speech that he had received support from Independents and Republicans in Iowa, but I don't know if they had to change their registration to Democratic in order to participate in the caucuses.

[housemouse]

admin said:

But on to more interesting topics, Mouse...I'm curious about something you said the other day. I've been wondering about this for a while, actually, so I'd like to know how an Edwards supporter would respond. Obama is pegged as having no experience, Clinton is pegged as having plenty of experience, and Edwards...I guess it's implied that he has a good amount of experience, but we don't hear much about this. Just what is it about his background that qualifies him above Obama?

I like that John Edwards ran for VP with Kerry, he has some experience with presidential politics. I also like that Edwards is a self-made man. The case that made his career was the case of a little girl who was seriously injured in a swimming pool. He wasn't an ambulance chaser. He doesn't take money from political action committees or lobbyists.

I like Barack Obama, and I will be happy if he wins the nomination. It will renew my faith in the people of America and show that there are not as many closeted bigots out there as I think there are. But watching all three of the front runners during the debates, in interviews, and giving speeches, Edwards has always appealed to me the most. I have always been a fan of Hillary and thought I would lean her way, but she seems to me to be old news. I don't think Hillary would win the election if she got the nomination.

Honestly, I am willing to go on record right now as predicting that John Edwards will be the next president of the United States.

[maggiethecat]

Oh, Mouse, from your lips to God's ears. As I keep saying, I'm not in love with Hillary, I just think, realistically, she's got the best shot and would do a fine -- even admirable -- job given the chance. Clearly, she's the most experienced of the candidates, and that's appealing in troubled times. If I were to let my heart lead, however, my vote would be for Edwards. I like him enormously and always have, and may I say right now that I completely respond to the Southern civility of his demeanor. He wuz brung up good.

I also recommend Elizabeth Edwards's autobiography, the name of which escapes me at the moment. I picked it up on a whim this summer at the library, and it's definitely worth reading. It's a fast read -- I ran through it in two nights, I think.

[Duchess of Lashes]

housemouse said:

Honestly, I am willing to go on record right now as predicting that John Edwards will be the next president of the United States.

If I had a voice that mattered in this whole process, my vote would be with Edwards too - have really liked him since the days of Kerry/Edwards. What he has done with his life, and the message he brings because of his life, is inspirational. With more exposure, Obama has been growing on me - he seems well-groomed to be at the forefront but so little is really known about his "political experience" and I wonder if that won't be a hindrance this time round. He presents well and he is, without question, passionate. But is that enough? And while I too would love to see a woman President, I am just not sure that Hillary is the right candidate to lead the Democratic Party at this time. She has also had to take a much different stance lately, almost hardened after having been "beat up" in the media and in the polls, and I am not sure that is the best light in which to deliver her message. I do hope she continues to fight as doing so demands the best out of her Democratic opponents.

Alas, I don't have that voice - I can't vote in this country - so it doesn't really matter what I think. (And I would have considered karma for the prediction, Mouse - and the hope that you might be right - but it seems to me you might have more than enough already!)