Poll Position
Jan. 8th, 2008 05:41 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
penfield"Democracy substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few."
-- George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman, "The Revolutionist's Handbook"
The New Hampshire Primary, the primary Primary, takes place today. An estimated half-million mostly white independent-minded maple syrup enthusiasts are expected to trudge to the voting booths and burn them for warmth -- but not before they have cast their votes for the leaders of the Democratic and Republican parties.
No estimates are in yet, but based on the state motto ("Live Free or Die") I would guess that John McCain will be the big winner, since I'm pretty sure that is his campaign slogan. He will narrowly edge out Ron Paul ("Live Tax-Free or Die"), Rudy Giuliani ("Live Free or Die from 9/11"), Mike Huckabee ("Live Free, Beginning at the Moment of Conception") and Mitt Romney ("Live Free or Die or Don't and Keep Living, Depending on What Time It Is.").
On the Democratic side, I foresee Hillary Clinton finishing neck-and-neck with Barack Obama, although the image is a little fuzzy; it may be hands-around-neck. John Edwards will concede this race and focus on South Carolina, while Bill Richardson enjoys a hot dog.
With a few exceptions I have tried not to be overtly political in this space, for fear of alienating potential readers. Well, readers, prepare to be alienated. (If a Republican ultimately wins the White House, illegally alienated readers should prepare to be deported.)
Barack Obama for President, 2008
It is admittedly difficult for me to endorse a candidate[1] who so lacks depth and breadth of policy experience. His proposals to address some key issues have lacked both detail and nuance, and his performance in debate and other extemporaneous question-and-answer sessions have done little to fill in the blanks. In another year -- under different circumstances and against different opponents -- he would be a weak candidate.
But this campaign requires me to ask myself what a president should be. Should the President be a detail-oriented political general like Clinton? Should he be gentle-souled diplomat like Richardson? Should he be an incendiary reformer like Edwards? I don't think so. Not right now. I think we need a president who will lead by his example and ideals, who will make us proud to be Americans again, and I think Barack Obama is that person.
There is an temptation to make the easy comparison of Obama to John F. Kennedy. Both were legislative lightweights, shadowed by bigotry (Obama with his African-Americanism, Kennedy with his Catholicism) and casually (if somewhat untraditionally) attractive. Both rose to prominence with their charm in one-one-one interactions and their ability to rally the young and disaffected, reshaping the Democratic party after a decade of turmoil. Most acutely, both men were posessed of an inspirational message that moved people to believe in their ideals and act on them.
Kennedy's presidency is not well-regarded in history books; his successes (Cuban Missle Crisis, the space program) were largely mitigated by his failures (Bay of Pigs, Vietnam), and the manifestation of his most noble effort, the Civil Rights Act, did not become reality until after his death. Still, he retains a prominent place in the nation's consciousness for the inspiration he provided to so many people and the martyrdom that transformed it into canon. He was a figurehead president, at a time when America needed one. Obama could be that kind of national symbol.
But I think another comparison is equally valid: there was another man, initially considered a political naif, who reshaped his party and forged a bond with the American people using the power of rhetoric and optimism, whose policy objectives were embryonic but who stayed true to his fiercely held convictions and surrounded himself with gifted experts to implement his greater vision. Ronald Reagan reenergized a flagging nation and renewed confidence in the free world. His policies may have been out of whack or out of touch with the American people -- I'm in no position to debate that -- but he was successful at implementing them.
Obama can be that kind of leader as well, reinvigorating the American people this time with Democratic principles of transparent government, available health care and public education, and global community.
While his broad, perhaps even callow approach to policy is a flaw in his campaign, and may in fact be whittled down as the election season wears on, I see it as a kind of strength. What the Bush Administration has illustrated is that slavish, unilateral commitment to specific policy solutions is an uneducated and unnecessarily adversarial method of government. Obama's focus on broader principles rather than mandates and fiats allows him to be flexible and nimble within the confines of executive power. The important thing is that I believe in him.
I don't believe in Bill Richardson, though no other Democrat is as "qualified" to be President as he is. His terms as legislator and governor notwithstanding, his greatest skill and his most impressive achievements are as a foreign diplomat. America could use a diplomat who understands the delicate art of statesmanship, after years of Condoleezza Rice's "al dente" strategy. But I am troubled by his casual, matter-of-fact approach to foreign and domestic policy, which seems to substitute obviousness for substance. Obama's reform proposals may be protoplasmic but they are governed by overarching goals and principles. Richardson sounds like he has the answers but hasn't thought them all the way through, and he isn't enough of a gifted speaker to sell "I don't know" to the American people.
I don't believe in Hillary Clinton, though her experience and her platform are appealing and I believe she has done well by her constituents in my native New York. And while I find her to be excessively calculating, stubborn and confrontational, I don't necessarily believe that her "likeability," or lack thereof, would necessarly doom her in a general election (unless she opposes McCain). My overriding fear is that she is too polarizing a figure within the political and policy world to achieve her goals, reasonable as they may be. To wit: I work in a field where the animosity and distrust is so deeply entrenched that her proposed plan for expanding retirement savings -- which, on its face, is not unreasonable -- was met by industry representatives with the kind of vitriol usually reserved for sex offenders. If you think the country is divided now -- between red states/blue states, rich/poor, religious/secular, etc. -- a President Hillary Clinton would only deepen the fault lines.
Speaking of "two Americas," I don't believe in John Edwards, even though his sparkly blue eyes make me melt. He's a lawyer, which is bad enough, but he's a lawyer who loves litigation -- who got rich from it -- and for whom every discussion is a toothy rhetorical battle. His message is as divisive as Clinton's personality, and his incessant campaign invective about lobbyists and special interests is as misguided as it is misleading. If you're going to vote for Edwards, you might as well vote for Ron Paul -- at least with Paul, everyone would be on the same side of anarchy.
I don't believe in John McCain, though I would probably vote for him before Edwards. His commitment to the country is unquestionable. His approach to the immigration issue was rational, his authoritative condemnation of torture has been crucial and his outspoken defense of the Iraq troop surge was admirable. Still, there are things beyond his mere Republicanism that trouble me, such as: his domestic policy. He doesn't seem to have one. Will he just make it up as he goes along? Also, while I defensively supported his iconoclastic run for president in 2000, thinking him a man of principle, his backpedaling on the "agents of intolerance" statement leaves me wondering how many of his ideals he would compromise for the sake of power. And finally, the guy is 71 years old, most of those years rough. Can he stand up to the increasingly physical rigors of the job? Will his cranky, stubborn side trump his reputation as a consensus builder? Will state dinners be moved up to 4:00 p.m.?
As for the rest of the lineup: Romney is a cardboard cutout. Paul is a cartoon character. Giuliani's campaign is a disaster, just like the rest of his life. Thompson has nothing to offer except mystery. Huckabee's abiding simplicity scares me, mostly because I think he can win. That's it for "viable" candidates.
This is probably the most important election of my lifetime. (Well, sort of. It turns out that 2000 was the most important election of my lifetime, but nobody knew it then. O hindsight, you fair-weather friend.) As a person with a voice and a pulpit, I feel compelled to use them. I am supporting Barack Obama in 2008.
May the best president win.
-- George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman, "The Revolutionist's Handbook"
The New Hampshire Primary, the primary Primary, takes place today. An estimated half-million mostly white independent-minded maple syrup enthusiasts are expected to trudge to the voting booths and burn them for warmth -- but not before they have cast their votes for the leaders of the Democratic and Republican parties.
No estimates are in yet, but based on the state motto ("Live Free or Die") I would guess that John McCain will be the big winner, since I'm pretty sure that is his campaign slogan. He will narrowly edge out Ron Paul ("Live Tax-Free or Die"), Rudy Giuliani ("Live Free or Die from 9/11"), Mike Huckabee ("Live Free, Beginning at the Moment of Conception") and Mitt Romney ("Live Free or Die or Don't and Keep Living, Depending on What Time It Is.").
On the Democratic side, I foresee Hillary Clinton finishing neck-and-neck with Barack Obama, although the image is a little fuzzy; it may be hands-around-neck. John Edwards will concede this race and focus on South Carolina, while Bill Richardson enjoys a hot dog.
With a few exceptions I have tried not to be overtly political in this space, for fear of alienating potential readers. Well, readers, prepare to be alienated. (If a Republican ultimately wins the White House, illegally alienated readers should prepare to be deported.)
Barack Obama for President, 2008
It is admittedly difficult for me to endorse a candidate[1] who so lacks depth and breadth of policy experience. His proposals to address some key issues have lacked both detail and nuance, and his performance in debate and other extemporaneous question-and-answer sessions have done little to fill in the blanks. In another year -- under different circumstances and against different opponents -- he would be a weak candidate.
But this campaign requires me to ask myself what a president should be. Should the President be a detail-oriented political general like Clinton? Should he be gentle-souled diplomat like Richardson? Should he be an incendiary reformer like Edwards? I don't think so. Not right now. I think we need a president who will lead by his example and ideals, who will make us proud to be Americans again, and I think Barack Obama is that person.
There is an temptation to make the easy comparison of Obama to John F. Kennedy. Both were legislative lightweights, shadowed by bigotry (Obama with his African-Americanism, Kennedy with his Catholicism) and casually (if somewhat untraditionally) attractive. Both rose to prominence with their charm in one-one-one interactions and their ability to rally the young and disaffected, reshaping the Democratic party after a decade of turmoil. Most acutely, both men were posessed of an inspirational message that moved people to believe in their ideals and act on them.
Kennedy's presidency is not well-regarded in history books; his successes (Cuban Missle Crisis, the space program) were largely mitigated by his failures (Bay of Pigs, Vietnam), and the manifestation of his most noble effort, the Civil Rights Act, did not become reality until after his death. Still, he retains a prominent place in the nation's consciousness for the inspiration he provided to so many people and the martyrdom that transformed it into canon. He was a figurehead president, at a time when America needed one. Obama could be that kind of national symbol.
But I think another comparison is equally valid: there was another man, initially considered a political naif, who reshaped his party and forged a bond with the American people using the power of rhetoric and optimism, whose policy objectives were embryonic but who stayed true to his fiercely held convictions and surrounded himself with gifted experts to implement his greater vision. Ronald Reagan reenergized a flagging nation and renewed confidence in the free world. His policies may have been out of whack or out of touch with the American people -- I'm in no position to debate that -- but he was successful at implementing them.
Obama can be that kind of leader as well, reinvigorating the American people this time with Democratic principles of transparent government, available health care and public education, and global community.
While his broad, perhaps even callow approach to policy is a flaw in his campaign, and may in fact be whittled down as the election season wears on, I see it as a kind of strength. What the Bush Administration has illustrated is that slavish, unilateral commitment to specific policy solutions is an uneducated and unnecessarily adversarial method of government. Obama's focus on broader principles rather than mandates and fiats allows him to be flexible and nimble within the confines of executive power. The important thing is that I believe in him.
I don't believe in Bill Richardson, though no other Democrat is as "qualified" to be President as he is. His terms as legislator and governor notwithstanding, his greatest skill and his most impressive achievements are as a foreign diplomat. America could use a diplomat who understands the delicate art of statesmanship, after years of Condoleezza Rice's "al dente" strategy. But I am troubled by his casual, matter-of-fact approach to foreign and domestic policy, which seems to substitute obviousness for substance. Obama's reform proposals may be protoplasmic but they are governed by overarching goals and principles. Richardson sounds like he has the answers but hasn't thought them all the way through, and he isn't enough of a gifted speaker to sell "I don't know" to the American people.
I don't believe in Hillary Clinton, though her experience and her platform are appealing and I believe she has done well by her constituents in my native New York. And while I find her to be excessively calculating, stubborn and confrontational, I don't necessarily believe that her "likeability," or lack thereof, would necessarly doom her in a general election (unless she opposes McCain). My overriding fear is that she is too polarizing a figure within the political and policy world to achieve her goals, reasonable as they may be. To wit: I work in a field where the animosity and distrust is so deeply entrenched that her proposed plan for expanding retirement savings -- which, on its face, is not unreasonable -- was met by industry representatives with the kind of vitriol usually reserved for sex offenders. If you think the country is divided now -- between red states/blue states, rich/poor, religious/secular, etc. -- a President Hillary Clinton would only deepen the fault lines.
Speaking of "two Americas," I don't believe in John Edwards, even though his sparkly blue eyes make me melt. He's a lawyer, which is bad enough, but he's a lawyer who loves litigation -- who got rich from it -- and for whom every discussion is a toothy rhetorical battle. His message is as divisive as Clinton's personality, and his incessant campaign invective about lobbyists and special interests is as misguided as it is misleading. If you're going to vote for Edwards, you might as well vote for Ron Paul -- at least with Paul, everyone would be on the same side of anarchy.
I don't believe in John McCain, though I would probably vote for him before Edwards. His commitment to the country is unquestionable. His approach to the immigration issue was rational, his authoritative condemnation of torture has been crucial and his outspoken defense of the Iraq troop surge was admirable. Still, there are things beyond his mere Republicanism that trouble me, such as: his domestic policy. He doesn't seem to have one. Will he just make it up as he goes along? Also, while I defensively supported his iconoclastic run for president in 2000, thinking him a man of principle, his backpedaling on the "agents of intolerance" statement leaves me wondering how many of his ideals he would compromise for the sake of power. And finally, the guy is 71 years old, most of those years rough. Can he stand up to the increasingly physical rigors of the job? Will his cranky, stubborn side trump his reputation as a consensus builder? Will state dinners be moved up to 4:00 p.m.?
As for the rest of the lineup: Romney is a cardboard cutout. Paul is a cartoon character. Giuliani's campaign is a disaster, just like the rest of his life. Thompson has nothing to offer except mystery. Huckabee's abiding simplicity scares me, mostly because I think he can win. That's it for "viable" candidates.
This is probably the most important election of my lifetime. (Well, sort of. It turns out that 2000 was the most important election of my lifetime, but nobody knew it then. O hindsight, you fair-weather friend.) As a person with a voice and a pulpit, I feel compelled to use them. I am supporting Barack Obama in 2008.
May the best president win.
