|
Edited on Mon Jun-04-07 02:57 PM by ludwigb
Hillary Clinton--In debates and television appearances she's come across very well. She seems competent, intelligent, compassionate--she reminds me of my Mom (in a good way). Chances are she would be just as good a president as her husband if not better.
Downsides: She's too divisive. I have not encountered a single convincing argument why Clinton would be more electable than Edwards or Obama. It's a good bet that for every non-voter she'll bring in due to her name-recognition, there will be another non-voter who votes just to vote against her. I'm skeptical that the first female president is going to be a Democrat--there's too much resentment against women in power and specifically against liberal women. Moreover, it looks like she is the favored candidate of Faux News, the MMM, and the DLC, which is worrying. Finally, the USA is not a monarchy--the media's obsession with relatives of ex-presidents is un-American.
Barack Obama--I've read his books and other essays he's written, and I like what I see. At first glance, he appears to be the man for intellectuals and observers who prefer intellectually honest, Dean-type politicians. And the media has very little dirt with which to smear him--this is extremely important. His family is an asset and surely he'll bring new voters to the polls. He is an inspiration to everybody, including Republicans. He's the only big-time candidate who opposed Iraq from the start--this may be a bigger asset than any other.
Downsides: The main objection so far is his failure to distinguish himself in the debates (at least compared to Edwards and Clinton). He often speaks in long, convoluted sentences. I worry that his intellect might become a liability (a silly worry, I know, but there it is). Finally I don't believe he's being sufficiently bold policy-wise, but then again I'm way to the left of the mainstream (at least the mainstream defined by the MMM). Compared to Clinton and Edwards, he's green.
John Edwards--He has a lot going for him. IMO he's won both debates, and this time around his message (the need to resuscitate America's moral authority and focus on inequality issues) is right on target and will resonate with the people. He speaks concretely and forcefully. He's handsome and Southern, and his wife and kids are huge assets. He has the potential to take some Southern states.
Downsides: Although I personally believe he's a good man, he's vulnerable when it comes to the public's perception that he's an opportunist. His vote for the war is a big liability/distraction, especially given the issues he's running on. And he was too easy on Cheney in the 2004 debate--he'll have to go after the GOP mercilessly to convince the American people a change is imperative.
....
So I'm undecided right now between Obama and Edwards. It will probably come down to policy specifics--we'll all have to dig deeper there. Policywise, I lean towards Kucinich (and this is coming from someone who favored Dean in 2004...I guess I've come a long way). Kucinich is the only one who is asking the right questions about Iraq/Iran and why we are there (oil, defense contracts, etc). And I believe his Department of Peace proposal is the single best idea being espoused by any presidential candidate. But Kucinich isn't electable--if we had Kucinich's views combined with Edwards or Obama's good looks and likable personality, then we'd have someone progressives could unite behind (why didn't you run, Russ?). However, progressives will have to swallow their pride and compromise on Edwards or Obama if they want the White House.
Richardson? Based on what I've seen in the debates and TV appearances he isn't ready for primetime. Too many platitudes. Nonetheless he's an asset to the party and I hope he's included in the next administration...if his skills improve, maybe VP. Dodd? Seems like a stand-up guy but not really a serious option, plus I can't forgive his support for Holy Joe. Biden? Sometimes he's fantastic but frequently he's an asshole--remember him being a war propagandist/yes-man back in 2003? Plus he's too cozy with Faux and Deleware special interests. Gravel? He was entertaining at first but he's getting increasingly annoying. He distracts from Kucinich's more vital message.
So there's where I stand. Mostly a Kucinich supporter policy-wise, but I'll end up working for Obama or Edwards because we must win in 2008. So which one should I back? Or am I misreading the field--should I reconsider one of the other candidates?
|