I Can’t Believe It’s Already Time To Talk About ‘08
There will be light blogging around here for the next few weeks while I attend to projects that have been long neglected on the domestic front. Thanks to global warming, I can add clipping back all my plants and flowers to the list since many are already starting to bloom. Spring seems to come earlier and earlier each year, kind of like the race for the Presidency every four years.
I’ve been trying to ignore the fact that the race for the Democratic nomination has already begun, but that is getting harder and harder to do. I can’t imagine why anyone would want to be President, but I’m even more perplexed as to why anyone would jump in so early and add almost a years worth of scrutiny and attacks to an already long and grueling campaign. I’m just glad there are at least a few people out there crazy enough to want this job.
Last week I wrote about the blogger controversy over at the Edwards’ campaign and some took that as an indication that I’m pushing an Edwards ticket. Nothing could be further from the truth. I’m still looking, and there’s a lot I still need to know before I jump on anyone’s bandwagon. The only thing I know for sure right now is that it would take a lot for me to become okay with Hillary Clinton. I don’t think there’s enough I don’t know about Hillary for me to change my mind about her at this point. I don’t trust her, it’s as simple as that. I honestly believe that triangulation politics have weakened the Democratic Party and have resulted in the marginalizing of the left for far too long. Hillary Clinton appears to be following in her husband’s footsteps and triangulating for her political life, and I want none of it.
I appreciate that John Edwards is at least attempting to engage the country in a discussion about poverty and the growing disparity of wealth, but I still have some serious problems with his culpability in the Iraq debacle. Saying his vote was a mistake is great, but anyone who voted to authorize this war has shown that they have serious problems when it comes to judgment. While I like that he’s shining a spotlight on poverty at a time when poverty is America’s dirty little secret, I’m not convinced that John Edwards is the right leader for our critical times.
Barack Obama is simply captivating. He’s got a great personal story, he’s good-looking, charismatic and he’s capturing the imaginations of Americans searching for a new start. He’s young, he’s bright and he seems to be giving it to us straight. If his lack of experience is the one big mark against him, his authenticity and good judgment on the war are his two greatest strengths. Like Jesse Jackson said, “all of my heart leans toward Barack.” I’m just waiting for more details for my brain before I follow my heart that has lead me astray far too many times in the past.
The big question is still, will Al Gore jump into the race? It certainly seems as if his campaign is in full swing, albeit in a completely different way. If Gore decides to run for President, he doesn’t need to jump in early since he’ll land in the front of the pack as soon as he announces, whenever that is. And talk about the perfect leader for our times! The last six years have been nothing, if not proof of what a terrible mistake we’ve made. All of the damage that has been caused by Bush can be repaired by Gore. It would give the American people a chance for a do-over. Most Americans wish the Bush presidency were simply over already. Electing Gore could make it seem as if it never even happened. I’m not saying that that’s a healthy impulse, but hey, we’re not exactly the picture of health these days. We need someone who can hit the ground running, who has credibility on the world stage and who understands how government works. The last six years have been wasted when it comes to global warming, energy independence and peace in the Middle East. We need rapid movement on all of these fronts and Gore is already an experienced driver, pointed in the right direction.
Gore/Obama! Now that's a ticket I could get behind.
posted by The (liberal)Girl Next Door @ 9:31 AM
6 Comments:
I agree it is too early to be running for election. This is, what, three months after the mid-terms?
But then we have store displays of Halloween stuff before Labour Day. Christmas begins before October 31st. Try to buy a winter coat in February. Sheesh, we just had a blizzard and the windows are filled with bikini-clad mannequins.
Perpetual Revolution, Perpetual War, Perpetual Advertising, Perpetual Campaigning. It is all part of the great distraction to prevent wild cards and sudden wind changes.
In Canada, two provinces have adopted fixed elections: British Columbia and Ontario. Parliamentary governments don't use fixed elections normally. A writ is dropped and the election happens between 36 and 76 days later. Short and sweet. However, there are signs of perpetual campaigning creeping in and it always benefits the party of business which can spend and spend.
One thing that's frustrating about a long campaign is that a politician is similar to a vaudevillian or comedian. They have only so much material and repeat themselves before each fresh audience. But the Internet Age means that the material can become stale within days.
I hope and pray Algore joins the race. On a little side note, does anyone else think that the people represented by those Senators running for President are getting a raw deal?
I believe any Senator the runs should resign from the Senate so the people back in their states can have someone reprenting them. My God, Shrillary was just elected in Novemember and less then a few months after the start of the session she is off campaigning, more concerned with herself then the people in New York. The arrogance of all these politicians to use their government positions to do their business instead of the business of those who elected them.
Seems to be it was a Republican that did the right thing and resigned from the Senate to run in 1996.
Hi Liberal Girl Next Door,
This is my first time to your site. Keep up the good work.
Re: Obama - I had the same feeling about his realtive lack of experience. Then I thought about it ...
What if you had a guy whose father is an ex-President, an ex-VP AND he use to run the CIA. And ... let's say the guy in question used to be the Govenor of a major state. And ... let's say you could surround him with a handful of guys who have been in politics going all the way back to the Ford administration ...
Some would call that experience ...
I would call it A Miserable Failure ... also known as ... The Bush Administration.
JFK had very little experience, especially in the wake of the former Supreme Commander of the WW2 Allied Forces, Dwight Eisenhower. But he got us through the Cuban Missile Crisis.
JFK was willing to talk to almost everyone, yet he was able to recognize personal agendas and navigate accordingly. This is one reason we got through that crisis.
The GWB camp is willing to talk to no one for fear that their true agenda(s) will be revealed. So much for experience.
I think Obama will be able to extract the best from the brightest and add his own smarts to the equation whenever the sh#t hits the fan.
See ya later,
KW
Killer Whale,
Re: JFK - let's not forget the Bay of Pigs and laying the groundwork for Vietnam.
I guess GW unwillingness to talk led to a possible resolution regarding Korea, involving 6 countries. No talking there.
DRM
First - JFK assumed full responsibility for the Bay of Pigs - as he should have.
In a perfect world he would have (a) passed on the whole thing from the start or (b) not cancelled the air support and achieved a better execution of the plan militarily.
But he didn't do either. A mistake was made. If a mistake had to made, it is the obvious preference that he screw up the Bay of Pigs and get the Cuban Missile Crisis right. I am sure that you wouldn't prefer it the other way around. I would say that JFK was not at the point of extracting the best and from the brightest in 1961. By the time the Missile Crisis came around he had apparently learned from his Bay of Pigs mistakes.
Re: North Korea - It is clear that China did the heavy lifting on this. It is unclear what concessions the U.S. granted to China for their effort.
Anyway - what took so long?
This is "then" - from the 1994 Agreed Framework:
"To compensate the DPRK for loss of energy production from further operation of its 5 MW reactor and from abandoning 50 and 200 MW reactors under construction, the consortium will provide the North 500,000 tons of heavy fuel oil annually for use in a specific power plant (50,000 tons in the first three months, and 150,000 tons in the first year of the agreement)."
And this is "now" - Courtesy of Bloomberg News 2/13/2007
"Under the arrangement, North Korea would shut down and seal the (5MW) plutonium-producing Yongbyon facility within 60 days, and in return receive the equivalent of 50,000 tons of heavy fuel oil for electricity production. "
Shut down the 5MW plant and get 50,000 tons of heavy fuel oil then - Shut down the 5MW plant and get 50,000 tons of fuel oil now.
What's the difference? Nothing ...
Except ..."Since Bush turned away from the Agreed Framework, North Korea has reprocessed 8,000 nuclear fuel rods into fissionable material that could be used to produce weapons, ..." (from the same 2/13 Bloomberg article).
The Bush administration spent more time not talking and posturing than talking and getting something done on this issue.
My "not talking" (or maybe better stated - "not listening") comment was directed toward the Bush Administration's handling ot the Iraq invasion.
I will assume - since you are a visitor to a political blog - that you are by now up to speed and very familiar with all of the good advice re: Iraq that was ignored by this administration.
An administration that houses people who have been around for a long time, and has strong relationships with people who have been around for a long time, may be "technically" experienced. But that experience is worthless if they are also misguided and stubborn. As the Bush administration surely is.
KW
DRM,
Forgot about your JFK/Vietnam point for a moment.
You may be interested in this perspective.
"Trapped by Success
The Eisenhower Administration and Vietnam, 1953-61"
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cup/catalog/data/023107/0231073747.HTM
See ya,
KW
Post a Comment
<< Home