since World War II.
Discuss.
I think she can win. I think the Clinton vision of the Democratic Party is one that can get it elected. Her effect on the opposition is remarkable; six years ago, she was barely taken seriously as a New Yorker. Now her origins, and even her political aspirations, are barely an issue. She's capable of talking to Republicans, of claiming and holding the center of today (as opposed to the center ca. 1976, which is what a lot of Dems seem to mean when they talk about the "center"). She understands the pitfalls of the presidency. She's got a husband with a lot of international goodwill whom she can dispatch throughout the world in a pinch.
I know she only cares about getting elected and may have no moral center. I prefer that to the current alternatives, who have a moral center of pure evil, and who don't seem to give a shit about getting elected.
I think Obama would be the new Kerry. He'll seem great in the early primaries, and have folks wincing by August.
Election prediction: Dems get House, Senate a tie (i.e. Republican -- because GOP hangs on in Tennessee and Virginia). If I am wrong, it will be because the "undecided" voters simply stay home.
Monday, October 30, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
"Winnability" is ass-backwards thinking. Who would make the best President. (Given: they can't be a dog.) Keep it simple. Trust the people.
Did Kerry ever seem that great? I think what made him attractive is that the Democrats perceived themselves as weak on defense and he had the military background, which (fairly or not) was neutralized by the Swifties.
Maybe a similar dynamic is in place with Obama. The Democrats know they're weak with religious people, Obama can speak the language of faith with credibility, so he looks attractive. And that could be undone by a commercial with people from his church who talk about what a rotten Christian he is.
But honestly, I think the enthusiasm for Obama is more about his strengths than that he can paper over the party's perceived weakenesses
Oh, I'm sick about the Democratic party these days.
Think about it - Kerry, who seemed like a reasonable candidate, couldn't beat the man who is arguably the least competent or qualified since, I dunno, Grover Cleveland?
There's not a candidate in the field right now that I think has a legitimate shot at the presidency. I think either McCain or Romney (people are underestimating him - wait till you see him debate. It's rare that someone looks so fucking presidential - a striking contrast to the nucular man).
Hillary would be a fine president. For better or worse, she's absolutely unelectable. Obama, as you point out, is unproven, and he's peaking way too early. The only way he'd have a shot, I think, would be to build momentum at just the right time, throughout the primaries. He peaks now, the Republicans get to take potshots at him for far too long for him to be a tenable candidate. He doesn’t have the track record to withstand the focused attack.
So, who are we left with? Kerry? Gore? The guys who couldn't beat one of the most eminently beatable candidates in recent history?
I’m still hoping for someone out of left field; a governor, or even a Soros-funded academic - someone with that magical combination of intelligence, charisma, and expertise*.
What I’m afraid of, though, is that the people with the most integrity are, by and large, the same people who won’t submit to the requisite collusion with a broken system in order to get elected. If the playing field has devolved to the point that only the morally dubious are willing to step up to the plate, then the Republicans will always come out on top. The paychecks are bigger.
*Confession: I still fantasize about a George Stephanopoulos candidacy.
Obama has charisma, which, yes, should only get you so far, but Bush has been elected twice in part because he speaks in a way that connects with a significant portion of the population (Clinton has well). People here him talk and think he "gets it" -- that he understands what people are struggling with.
Because of this Administration's failure to do so, whoever is the next president is probably going to need to ask for some considerable sacrifice from the American people -- maybe increased taxes or reduced benefits, maybe a loss of face from a withrawl from Iraq.
I don't believe Gore or Kerry could inspire sacrifice. Bush would be iffy. But I think Barack Obama currently could.
Honestly I'm not conerned about someone peaking too early. If the problem is that he's too green, now's the time to battle-test him. We'll find out soone enough what he's made of. I'd rather find out now that when he's in office.
Okay, August – I’ll do my best with this one.
1. She's smart. Smart doesn't suck.
I hope you’re right. We just elected a man who seemed to take pride in his inability to pronounce certain words, and who seemed to be making a concerted appeal to the faith-based folks who would prefer to win arguments with statements such as; “Well, in my heart I just know it to be true.” I thought it was interesting that even one of the Kossacks criticized me for being too academic, or something. There’s a strong sentiment of anti-intellectualism in this country.
2. The Mr. looks a whole lot better now than he did six years ago.
Again, I hope you’re right. The Mr. Always looked good to me. People absolutely hate saying they were wrong, though – don’t they? They hate it so much, in fact, that I’m betting they won’t. Cognitive dissonance/face-saving stuff. Easier to believe Clinton was an immoral crook than to believe you were duped by Republican lies.
3. She's got a proven ability to turn people who hate her. Edwards (e.g.) may have more natuaral support initially, but it's amazing some of the allies Hillary has found here in New York.
Don’t buy it. I had an interesting conversation with a couple I know well, the other night, who are young, intellectual conservatives. Having been acquainted with them for a long time, I was surprised to hear them talk positively about the possibility of socialized medicine (I did some work, indirectly, related to this during Clinton’s attempt to socialize medicine). I was surprised because they’d been so dead against it when this was being talked about before. I have a lot to say on the whole issue, but the gist is – I though it had a shot, in large part because of the way Hillary was being lionized on the hill. Within 9 months, she was the liberal devil incarnate in those same halls. This couple is well connected politically, and were talking about the reports they heard, allegedly from that time, of how Hillary alienated people up there (interestingly, the same political insider spoke to me at that time about how respected she was). My roundabout point – the spin is powerful, persistent, and consistently working against her.
As an aside, Ira Magaziner (allegedly, again) alienated people. Hillary is now getting credit for any offense he may have caused. Lovely.
4. Her past is by now a non-issue. I think most of us are pretty sure she did something unethical in AK, and none of us want to hear about it.
It was never about the ethics – it was about people looking for ammunition to buttress their desire to dislike her. Otherwise, people would’ve waited until after the investigations to form an opinion. Particularly in the public consciousness, people too often confuse the directionality of opinion formation and evidence gathering. The people who hate her really hate her. I think this represents an insurmountable barrier to her electability.
5. Therefore, TK, you're going to have to do a little more to show me she's unelectable. I know there's an enormous amount of vitriol thrown her way, but she's taken it so far and it's hard to imagine how it could get worse.
Uhm, she’s taken it in a liberal state. A national election is an entirely context.
Best president since WWII was kind of a joke, since there have been so many dogs that it doesn't seem (to me) like the bar is that high. Mainly I'm reacting to the "anybody but Hillary" sentiment among Dems, which I simply don't understand.
In my case, it’s based entirely on my impression of the odds she could be elected in a national race. With the exception of some of her willingness to compromise on issues I would have thought would be core values (my same objection to her husband, like on the issue of welfare “reform”), I think she’s dandy.
I think your bold election analysis is pretty damn good.
I do give the kossacks credit – I just think they’re a bunch of bigots. That they happen to share many of my beliefs doesn’t make them any less bigoted, or me any more comfortable. I like it that we share goals at least, though.
I don’t know border Southern state society well enough to make any argument, though it seems I do remember a time when the South was synonymous with the Democratic party. As far as voting and lifestyle choices are concerned, I must say – I find it very ironic that an area of the country that made a concerted attempt to develop something very much like strong socialism (early Mormon culture) is almost unanimously Republican. Thank God [irony intended] that almost everyone in the opposition votes Democrat – we get at least one Representative, and a mayor or two, we can be proud of.
Frankly, I’m skeptical about Obama pulling it off as well. I’m still hoping another candidate will come out of the woodwork, because frankly, I’m not seeing anyone who could take either McCain or Romney.
Post a Comment