It's been kind of odd watching Obama in the Democratic Horse Race. Hillary started WAY in front of everyone else - and it's pretty clear that she had every intention of running for President when she was able to wangle her way into a Senator's seat. She's been planning this run from 2000, if not longer.
Obama, on the other hand - is a pretty much unkown lightweight. He wasn't on the national radar until the race started this year - yet it's kind of amazing how far he's come and how fast he's progressed. Supposedly he's exceedingly electable (at least to hear some Democrats tell it) but I really believe he's got flaws that are going to provoke a loss in November.
Hillary has the advantage of name recognition - and she's well known in Democratic circles. That may very well be her downfall - she's WELL known. Warts and all - and the DNC leadership is not suicidal. They're familiar with her, and they realize (imho) she's got a chance to make it all the way. She takes the Presidency in 2008, they lose the House and Senate in 2010, and the Presidency in 2012. She'll push the Democrats back 8 years, possibly more.
And that scares the blue willies out of them. She's a foul-tempered, vindictive shrew, I understand - and has a real royalty complex. She's also making noises (lately) about REALLY ticking off OPEC. Think $4 a gallon gas is tough? Let's kick OPEC hard and see how far they'll jack the price up. She's NOT the sort of person you want as President - even if she's of your own nominal political persuasion. So how do you prevent her from going all the way to the White House?
By bringing an irresistable lure to an identity politics love-fest. You bring an intelligent, articulate very liberal black man. In the identity politics heirarchy, race trumps gender. Hillary may not like it - but the hard-core crowd who subscribe to identity politics and would be likely to vote in the primaries would LOVE having a way to prove how unprejudiced they are. (For that matter they could have run Cynthia McKinney - but she's just plain crazy and wouldn't have had a chance against Hillary.) Obama's a charismatic speaker - and Hillary's not terribly likeable. Nor is she left-enough to satisify the exceedingly noisy 'Progressive' crowd. Obama is.
But the qualities that enable Obama to beat Hillary in the Democratic Horse Race won't serve him well on the general election. He IS liberal, and I think there's going to be a fair number of Democrats who will think he's too far to the left. He's articulate - but there's already a good number of folks on the left who are finding that charismatic speeches don't make up for a lack of content and workable ideas. Simply rehashing the same stuff that's been gone over for the last 8 years isn't going to fly.
So he's the Democratic Party's poison pill, to avoid a Hillary takeover. There's always the possibility that McCain will make such a hash of things that the country will WELCOME a Democratic President in 2012, and then they'll be ready.
In the mean time - they'll be rid of Hillary. That, in itself, they may consider a 'win'.
J.
Comments (3)
There are those who are suggesting that Hillary will - in her own inimitable way - support McCain, banking on the fact that if Obama is elected, 2012 is out for her, but if McCain is elected, he won't run for a second term, and she has a good shot at 2012.
Interesting theory. I don't think she's aware yet that she's now 60, and will be 64 in 2012. Of course, she's aware of the numbers, she just isn't aware of the speed of physical changes after age 60. I am concerned about McCain, but generally, it's been my observation that men don't exhibit the aging effects until about 10 years after woment do, so he's still in fairly solid territory. There's also longevity in his family, obviously.
I'd rather have Obama in than Hillary, simply because I have the feeling that she is stronger politically - knows where the bodies are buried - and has the experience to be more effective than he would be. Effectiveness in establishing a socialist program is a bad thing, imo.
If Barr wins the independent nomination, will that effect McCain? If so, might that be a good thing? I wonder. If the GOP is going to lose, I'd rather it be to someone the party has to recognize as a conservative than just simply dissatisfaction causing a no vote.
Thoughts?
Posted by suek | May 13, 2008 12:15 PM
Posted on May 13, 2008 12:15
Ronald Reagan took office at age 68, if memory serves. Served two terms. And in one year per every four thereafter (the average increase in life expectancy) and 74 would not be out of the question for the current set of nominees and 75/76 not out of the question in 2012. If you can't disqualify Sen. McCain based on age, then you can't do it to HRC in four years, even by the Reagan standard.
The D party has a major problem: they have so been subdividing the electorate that they can only get a 'majority' by getting the majority to not vote. Of course the R party has been doing the same thing.
What has changed in the decades since '68 is that the party platform no longer represents much of anything, and the ethics of candidates to actually govern responsibly has gone out the window. The over-privileged Boomer Generation, having gotten the 'best of everything' now want that to the day the last Boomer dies, and that will bankrupt the Nation. We no longer have the demographics that were in place when FDR was in office so the lovely Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, subsidizing health care, and other freebies given out by government are destructive when the Boomers hit... even the existing demographic change pre-WWII would have caused those problems, so it was ill-thought out policy *then*.
Taking out the violin and playing to smaller minorities in attempts to get votes is ignoring the fact that Rome is on fire. The two parties will now point at *anything* save the hard fiscal choices that need to be made to cut-back or end these handouts... instead they start adding more fuel to the fire by looking towards personal enrichment via earmarks and pandering to those that they promise *more* of this putative 'help' to.
The branches of government don't even bother to read their job descriptions any more and want to 'make it up as they go along'. Presidential candidates have no business proposing 'programs' when they are only in the approval and disbursement end of government, along with oversight and accountability. Congresscritters have no business pontificating on creating foreign policy as that is not given to Congress. And the SCOTUS has to actually realize you can't legislate from the bench.
The disingenuous cry of 'strict constructionalism' for the SCOTUS ignores that it is the *last* place in the federal government that needs that as the inane stuff that is outside of the construction of the constitution starts in Congress and the Executive. Point at the SCOTUS *only* and you are not pointing at the problem, which starts at ill made things being done by the other two branches that *get* to the SCOTUS.
Getting a party to do that requires having a party that abides by its platform, has ethical candidates and that actually holds itself accountable to its party members.
Seen one of those around lately?
I'm having problems finding candidates that actually understand their job description - my own Congresscritter took a lovely jaunt to Syria with Nancy to the wonderful land of Assad... against the guy who sets foreign policy for the Nation's wishes. And said Congresscritter has an R by his name! And, believe me, the D side is no better than that.
We will have the first sub-50% turnout in a Presidential election this year, and we can all see why. The NSDAP by percentage of population had more legitimacy via representative democracy than we will get this fall. But if the majority doesn't show up, how representative is it?
Posted by ajacksonian | May 15, 2008 9:30 AM
Posted on May 15, 2008 09:30
Re: SCOTUS
The only good thing about "ruling" by use of SCOTUS fiat is that it is easier to reverse in the future, should we actually decide at some time to return to our governmental "roots". Were some of these changes somehow pushed through as Constitutional Amendments, it would be much more difficult.
Re: voting.
I'm in a blue state. I doubt that my vote will actually have any value, due to the overwhelming number of D voters. I'm debating whether to vote for McCain - who I find unacceptable, but better than the D candidates by a long shot - or Bob Barr, assuming that he's the Libertarian candidate. At least then perhaps there'd be some protest value...
Posted by suek | May 15, 2008 11:27 AM
Posted on May 15, 2008 11:27