Well, so much has happened since I blathered last that it would be difficult to express all the things that have wandered through my brain in the meantime. But, I can certainly attempt a sampling:
* The Democratic race got particularly ugly there for a while (no?) with someone (well, several someones) "playing the race card" rather shamelessly, and I don't think it was the black guy...Yup, I agree with the opinion of various other observers who think that Clinton et al. (esp. the ex-president) were subtly, but very intentionally, trying to remind voters that, oh, in case you didn't notice, Barack Obama is black. I think the Clintons made a strategic decision of sorts to go ahead and p.o. the darker-skinned citizens of South Carolina, which they were almost certainly gonna lose anyway, so that they could pigeonhole Obama, so to speak, as "the black candidate" for the rest of the country. Any doubts about whether this was really intentional should've been put to rest when Bill "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" Clinton made the brilliant observation that Jesse Jackson had also won South Carolina primaries on account (by Clinton's obvious implication) of his being black...this, after the race-baiting had already been given significant scrutiny in the run-up to the vote.
Kinda reminds me why I was just a little bit happy to see that bastard get impeached, even if it was by a gaggle of Republican hypocrites. But hey, whatever it takes to win, right?
The question, of course, is whether it will help or hurt Billary come Tuesday. It obviously hurt in SC, but alas, I tend to think it might serve its purpose to some extent in other parts of the country (i.e., all the parts where blacks don't make up 50% of the electorate, which is most of them). Of course, in an earlier post, I submitted that I was somewhat hopeful that most of America was past the point where it would let racism be an issue, and to some extent, I retain that hope. What I was forgetting, I think, is how much politics is a game of fractions and tiny perceentages -- in a very close contest, it's hardly necessary that the Clintons' slimy, racist appeals be bought by a significant minority, let alone majority, of voters. If only, say, five percent here and there are primitive enough to be swayed by such nastiness, that could be more than enough to get her the nom in the long run.
But again, I really don't know if it will have the intended effect. It could even backfire -- let's hope so. (Of course, to be precise, I am speaking about overall numbers; obviously, it *has* angered a great many individuals who might have voted for H.C. otherwise, but it may be that they will be outnumbered, overall, by those who still can't cotton to some "uppity negro" aspiring to the *White* House.)
And of course, the race issue is just one aspect of the contest overall, such that we'll never be able to disentagle it entirely from all the other perceived pros and cons that might sway people to vote for one or the other. For example, a great many women, especially older ones, seem inclined to vote for Clinton for the relatively positive (though not necessarily much less stupid) reason that she is a she. Even absent the race-baiting, that - and the many other perceived pros and cons of both candidates - might be enough to give her a victory.
Indeed, though I (like virtually *everyone* else, I assume) have done pretty poorly with the electoral prognosticating in this particulary wild primary season, I am inclined to believe that the lady Clinton enjoys a slight (but even slight can be significant) advantage going into this most critical of rounds. Because, much as one might sometimes wish that general population was more tuned in to what's happening in the world, the fact is that the vast majority barely know, as Randy Newman might put it, their asses from a hole in the ground, and while Obama may be all the rage amongst the relatively well-educated and informed (and exit polls suggest that to be the case) most people, by definitional neccesity, are relatively clueless and dim-witted. But then, even the most ignorant of voters (excluding the deaf ones) could hardly have failed to hear the name Clinton repeated ad nauseam on their boobtubes these last 15 or so years...And so, methinks that in these 20-some Super Tuesday states she could well have that same dreaded name-recognition advantage that contrubted hugely to burdening the country with another loser Bush presidency these past 7 years.
Yes, it seems that in spite of the enormous crowds he continues to attract, Clinton could well beat Obama by a bit overall come Tuesday. Again, of course, I hope I'm wrong, and certainly there are some signs that could be taken as indictating that he is closingthe gap, but if I absolutely had to put money on it, I'd expect her to have a lead come Wednesday.
That said, and as I've alluded to in the title of this post, it seems that whoever wins on Tuesday is extremely unlikely to do so by a big enough outcome to make the ultimate outcome a certainty. Whatever happens Tuesday, it seems that neither Obama or Clinton will be able to make a credible claim on the nomination 'til many weeks later, at the earliest.
* 'Course, that's on the Dem side. The 'Publicans' nominee may well be decided, more or less, within the week. Or rather, to be precise, it may well have been decided, in effect, when wacky old John McCain managed to knock Romney off yet again in Florida. Yup, in spite of the distaste, if not downright hatred, he seems to inspire in conservative blowhards like Limbaugh and, uh, what's-his-name...the religious twit who thought Spongebob promoted homosexuality -- Oh yeah, Dobson...it seems that the old bugger has managed to come out atop the extremely crowded Republican field. Not bad for a guy who many people had written off as done for back in the summer, though I have to think it has more to do with the 'Publicans identity issues and the crowded, long-unsettled field than McCain's own appeal to most Republican voters. They just couldn't quite buy Romney's latter-day conversion (haha) to basic Republican planks like being anti-gay and anti-abortion, not to mention his freaky-deaky Mormonism, and, as one of this blog's readers pointed out, I guess enough of the party establishment likewise couldn't stomach the more populist aspects of Huckabee's candidacy to swing their support behind him. And so, with votes being split several ways in every primary, guess McCain just emerged as the not particularly popular, but least un-popular choice for early 'Publican voters. And, at least by all appearances, and especially with Huckabee still in the race to siphon away some of the religious-nut votes, it don't look like Romney will have a chance to catch McCain. And indeed, since most o' the Republican contests are winner-take-all, as opposed to proportionally awarded like the Dem ones, it's quite possible that McCain will come out of Tuesday with a virtual lock on the nomination.
* And of course, while that may dismay a lot of right-wingers, McCain may well be his party's best candidate for the general election, given his appeal to people who aren't, y'know, stoopid right-wingers. Like I've said meself, for example, while I find a good deal of McCain's actions and positions to be highly hypocritical, to say nothing of flat wrong in various cases, he certainly strikes me as the least of the potential Republican evils. Indeed, if it comes down to a contest b/t him and Clintons, I can't say, at this point, that I'd vote for her, or even necessarily prefer her. Probably wouldn't vote for him either, but honestly, much as I disagree with some of his postions (he *is* still a Republican, after all, in spite of what some of his own part's critics might say), I think he has shown himself to moderate and sensible enough for the most part that I prolly wouldn't mind the fact that he's anti-abortion, for example (cos hey, Roe v. Wade ain't gonna get overturned anyway, and if it ever does, let's face it, that'd be the Republicans writing their own political death warrant until it were reinstated again)...And then there's the fact that I find Clinton herself pretty damn dislikable.
And, as to much of the preceding paragraph, I daresay a lotta voters may feel the same way. I mean, I still think that Clinton should be able to beat McCain or any other Republican in a general, but given the antipathy she inspires in so many and his own popularity with moderates and independents, I think the old guy would have a pretty decent chance of beating her.
* Now, if it were Obama against McCain on the other hand, I tend to think McCain would have a harder time. True, I the whole race issue still seems to be a bit of an unknown, but I think that Obama's relative youth and charisma would contrast too strongly with the septagenarian for him to keep up, particulary given the fact that Obama (unlike Clinton) has himself proven to be pretty popular with moderates and independents alike.
...
Oh, but who knows what will happen? As I've said before, I can see no option better than an Obama v. McCain general, and it looks like at least half of that combo may get locked in on Tuesday, but as all the craziness thus far has amply demonstrated, there's just no tellin' what'll actually end up happenin'.
Whatever it is, I reckon I'll weigh-in with my own thoughts on it sometime in the aftermath, but for now, I reckon I'm ready to just see what them crazy American voters have to say.
***
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Primary Weigh-in -- Spoke Too Soon
As I watched the results come in from the Democratic primary, I had to wonder what had happened to those polls showing Obama with a substantial lead: Had his supporters thought it was in the bag and gotten complacent? Had too many independents decided to vote for McCain in what figured to be a closer race? Had those contrarian New Hampshireites simply decided they weren't going to let Iowa and the media tell them who they were gonna vote for? Had Hillary's "tearing up" moment, which I can't help but see as at least partially calculated, actually succeeded in swaying voters to her cause?
Well, the dissection continues, and other theories have been floated (including what may be the most troubling: the so-called Bradley Effect), but in any case it seems likely that a number of factors came together to give Clinton a thin win after a fat victory had been predicted for Obama. And so, it looks like I may have spoken too soon in my previous post. That said, I think Obama's chances are still quite good, but things definitely look a lot tougher than they would have if Clinton had been sent reeling by back-to-back losses. Now, instead of a virtual cakewalk to the nomination, Obama looks to have a much tougher road ahead, and there is a significant chance that Hillary could be the nominee instead.
I can't help but think that that would be a terrible mistake on the part of Democrats. While I do believe that even Hillary ought to be able to beat the Republican nominee, I think there would be a much greater risk that she wouldn't, given the extreme antipathy she generates among most Republicans and even some independents. What's more, while I don't think there are huge policy differences between her and Obama, I think that an Obama presidency would do a lot more to repair America's image around the world and speak more directly to some of the things that are genuinely good about this country and the way it works.
So, will Democratic voters see it that way? I certainly hope so, but it's up to Obama and his people to make that case. It shouldn't be too difficult. After all, he was the one who got unprecented numbers of young people to caucus in Iowa, and he was the one who got tremendous support from independents both there and in New Hampshire. Clearly, he is the one who inspires the broadest range of voters, and therefore the Democrat with the best chance of taking the presidency in a general election.
That said, as Mayor Quimby once noted, and as the voters of New Hampshire so recently proved, people really are just "a bunch of fickle mushheads." It remains to be seen, then, whether primary voters in the rest of the country will see the light. I think Obama still has a good shot at taking Nevada and (even moreso) South Carolina, which would give him some advantage heading into Super Tuesday. But even if he does take both of those, I certainly won't be counting any more chickens before they're hatched. That, above all, is the lesson of New Hampshire.
Well, the dissection continues, and other theories have been floated (including what may be the most troubling: the so-called Bradley Effect), but in any case it seems likely that a number of factors came together to give Clinton a thin win after a fat victory had been predicted for Obama. And so, it looks like I may have spoken too soon in my previous post. That said, I think Obama's chances are still quite good, but things definitely look a lot tougher than they would have if Clinton had been sent reeling by back-to-back losses. Now, instead of a virtual cakewalk to the nomination, Obama looks to have a much tougher road ahead, and there is a significant chance that Hillary could be the nominee instead.
I can't help but think that that would be a terrible mistake on the part of Democrats. While I do believe that even Hillary ought to be able to beat the Republican nominee, I think there would be a much greater risk that she wouldn't, given the extreme antipathy she generates among most Republicans and even some independents. What's more, while I don't think there are huge policy differences between her and Obama, I think that an Obama presidency would do a lot more to repair America's image around the world and speak more directly to some of the things that are genuinely good about this country and the way it works.
So, will Democratic voters see it that way? I certainly hope so, but it's up to Obama and his people to make that case. It shouldn't be too difficult. After all, he was the one who got unprecented numbers of young people to caucus in Iowa, and he was the one who got tremendous support from independents both there and in New Hampshire. Clearly, he is the one who inspires the broadest range of voters, and therefore the Democrat with the best chance of taking the presidency in a general election.
That said, as Mayor Quimby once noted, and as the voters of New Hampshire so recently proved, people really are just "a bunch of fickle mushheads." It remains to be seen, then, whether primary voters in the rest of the country will see the light. I think Obama still has a good shot at taking Nevada and (even moreso) South Carolina, which would give him some advantage heading into Super Tuesday. But even if he does take both of those, I certainly won't be counting any more chickens before they're hatched. That, above all, is the lesson of New Hampshire.
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Weekly Weigh-in -- The Next President?
So, that Iowa vote was pretty cool, no? I mean, you might've gathered that I'm just a tad cynical about the politics, but I gotta admit there's something kinda, ahem, uplifting about a half-African progressive trouncing the field in a state that's -- what? -- 95% white. And doing it with loads of independents and, better yet, young people.
That last point, though it has been mentioned some, really has gotten short shrift from the MSM coverage that I've seen. After all, since I've been alive, I can't recall a single close election where us young folks (and I think I can still barely say "us" :) didn't seem to have a preference for one candidate, but then got crapped on by everyone b/c we couldn't tear ourselves away from the Xbox to vote for, say, freakin' John Kerry. But in Iowa, it sounds like the youth vote really turned out in droves, not merely for a simple, standard-type vote, but for the absurdly long and messy caucus business. That's huge, and to the extent that it gets the ball rolling, it may just prove to have been a decisive factor in choosing the next president.
Not that I'm one of these people who seem to want to regard Obama as some sort of black messiah. Far from it -- he is a pol, after all, and therefore has to automatically be regarded with some suspicion. Certainly, like all of them, I don't doubt that he's done some double-talking, been a hypocrite here and there, or that he hasn't got a skeleton or two in his closet (main thing I've heard thus far was an overly cozy-sounding real estate deal, though that does seem pretty small-time for the avg. candidate). . .
But, in a relative sense, it's hard to deny that's there's something special about the guy, even if in large part it comes down to charisma and the symbolism of what a win for him would mean. His candidacy is truly a phenomenon of sorts at this point, and genuinely unlike anything I've ever seen in the American political world.
But the question remains: can he be stopped? Frankly, I doubt it very much. Certainly, New Hampshire is the last chance for Clinton to save herself -- if she loses there, it's almost impossible to imagine her winning in South Carolina since about half of its Dem voters are black. (And while Clinton can maybe take Nevada -- I really don't know cos I ain't heard much about it -- I get the impression that it doesn't matter too much.) And if she's lost in Iowa, NH, and SC, I think she gets wiped out on Super Tuesday.
So, again, can she win NH? Maybe. The latest polls still show her with a slim lead there, but they were conducted largely before the Iowa result. There's no question that Iowa will give a big boost to Obama, and they're close enough already that it should give him more than enough to deal Clinton's campaign an effectively fatal blow. That is, of course, unless he cocks it up badly somehow in tonight's debate, which I think is extremely unlikely.
In the end, it seems to have come down to this: people just don't like Hilary that much -- she's not gonna inspire people to vote who otherwise might not -- and the opposite is true of Obama. Once it got close in Iowa and he proved that he had a legitimate shot of beating her, people began to rush to support him whilst shrugging their shoulders about her.
So yeah, huge odds on Obama being the Democratic nominee.
As for the Republicans? Well, things remain pretty unclear there. Certainly, I wasn't surprised to see the Huck-ba-crite take Iowa. Don't think he has much chance in NH, which puts it down to McCain or Romney. If the latter loses there -- and my hunch is that he will after the drubbing in Iowa -- it's over for him. But that would leave McCain, the Huckster, and Mayor 9/11 all with some shot at it. As I've said before, I think the bible-thumper would have the inside track there, but it's hard to say for sure at this point.
And would Obama beat any of those guys? I'd give him good odds, for sure, at this point. 'Course, the general election campaign will be a long one, so lots of stuff could happen to change the calculus, but barring any major gaffes on his part or some crazy geo-political event or what not, I'd say he could pretty much walk away with it. That is, of course, unless I've underestimated the latent racism of the American electorate or its ability to be duped by ridiculous cheap shots (granted, one's estimation of the morality and intelligence of John Q. Public is one of those things I've found it's almost impossible to be too cynical about), but I have to think my estimate is close enough.
'Course, someone might shoot him or something -- certainly wouldn't put it past some troglodyte to try -- but I gotta hope that the Secret Service et al. are taking that threat as seriously as they should and will be able to do what's necessary to prevent it.
So right. . . Barack Obama -- the next president(?)
That last point, though it has been mentioned some, really has gotten short shrift from the MSM coverage that I've seen. After all, since I've been alive, I can't recall a single close election where us young folks (and I think I can still barely say "us" :) didn't seem to have a preference for one candidate, but then got crapped on by everyone b/c we couldn't tear ourselves away from the Xbox to vote for, say, freakin' John Kerry. But in Iowa, it sounds like the youth vote really turned out in droves, not merely for a simple, standard-type vote, but for the absurdly long and messy caucus business. That's huge, and to the extent that it gets the ball rolling, it may just prove to have been a decisive factor in choosing the next president.
Not that I'm one of these people who seem to want to regard Obama as some sort of black messiah. Far from it -- he is a pol, after all, and therefore has to automatically be regarded with some suspicion. Certainly, like all of them, I don't doubt that he's done some double-talking, been a hypocrite here and there, or that he hasn't got a skeleton or two in his closet (main thing I've heard thus far was an overly cozy-sounding real estate deal, though that does seem pretty small-time for the avg. candidate). . .
But, in a relative sense, it's hard to deny that's there's something special about the guy, even if in large part it comes down to charisma and the symbolism of what a win for him would mean. His candidacy is truly a phenomenon of sorts at this point, and genuinely unlike anything I've ever seen in the American political world.
But the question remains: can he be stopped? Frankly, I doubt it very much. Certainly, New Hampshire is the last chance for Clinton to save herself -- if she loses there, it's almost impossible to imagine her winning in South Carolina since about half of its Dem voters are black. (And while Clinton can maybe take Nevada -- I really don't know cos I ain't heard much about it -- I get the impression that it doesn't matter too much.) And if she's lost in Iowa, NH, and SC, I think she gets wiped out on Super Tuesday.
So, again, can she win NH? Maybe. The latest polls still show her with a slim lead there, but they were conducted largely before the Iowa result. There's no question that Iowa will give a big boost to Obama, and they're close enough already that it should give him more than enough to deal Clinton's campaign an effectively fatal blow. That is, of course, unless he cocks it up badly somehow in tonight's debate, which I think is extremely unlikely.
In the end, it seems to have come down to this: people just don't like Hilary that much -- she's not gonna inspire people to vote who otherwise might not -- and the opposite is true of Obama. Once it got close in Iowa and he proved that he had a legitimate shot of beating her, people began to rush to support him whilst shrugging their shoulders about her.
So yeah, huge odds on Obama being the Democratic nominee.
As for the Republicans? Well, things remain pretty unclear there. Certainly, I wasn't surprised to see the Huck-ba-crite take Iowa. Don't think he has much chance in NH, which puts it down to McCain or Romney. If the latter loses there -- and my hunch is that he will after the drubbing in Iowa -- it's over for him. But that would leave McCain, the Huckster, and Mayor 9/11 all with some shot at it. As I've said before, I think the bible-thumper would have the inside track there, but it's hard to say for sure at this point.
And would Obama beat any of those guys? I'd give him good odds, for sure, at this point. 'Course, the general election campaign will be a long one, so lots of stuff could happen to change the calculus, but barring any major gaffes on his part or some crazy geo-political event or what not, I'd say he could pretty much walk away with it. That is, of course, unless I've underestimated the latent racism of the American electorate or its ability to be duped by ridiculous cheap shots (granted, one's estimation of the morality and intelligence of John Q. Public is one of those things I've found it's almost impossible to be too cynical about), but I have to think my estimate is close enough.
'Course, someone might shoot him or something -- certainly wouldn't put it past some troglodyte to try -- but I gotta hope that the Secret Service et al. are taking that threat as seriously as they should and will be able to do what's necessary to prevent it.
So right. . . Barack Obama -- the next president(?)
Sunday, December 23, 2007
The Weekly Weigh-in -- Foresight is 20/200
Yes, as this nomination thing really comes to head here, I think it's fair to say that my prognostications of only two months ago may prove to be way way off. Then again, that was what a lot of people were thinking, and, while the rather distasteful general election contest I then saw as likely may not come to pass, I do think I'd picked up on a few of the things that might keep it from doing so.
But let's get specific, shall we? In short, Clinton and Giuliani's respective roads to a nominationjust look a heck of a lot less clear than they did back then. Indeed, they look downright treacherous. In fact, the way things look now, I'd say there's a pretty solid chance that ol' Rudy will be nothing but an afterthought in a month or two. Put simply, it seems like his somewhat odious personal life, coupled with the fact that he wasn't much of a blood-red Republican anyway (oh, and maybe that the whole terrorism/war issue, upon which almost all of his supposed appeal was based, has, somewhat inexplicably, become far less of an important issue for primary voters), has finally caught up with him, and a month or two too soon for his lofty ambitions. Of course, his strategy for a while has been to ignore the first state or two and hope that no one else can pick up the momentum from wins there to stop him in bigger states where he was (until recently, at least) more popular than all the other contenders. And, that might yet work, but, given the way he's been sinking like a rock, polling wise, in even those states (Florida, for example) suggests that he will not be saved by them.
But, then again, things are still incredibly fluid in the whole Republican race. As there were hints of even back in October, the Right-wingers have been rushing towards Huckabee as he seems to be the only semi-viable option who isn't Giuliani, the Mormon, McCain, or some other RINO ("Republican in Name Only"). At least in Iowa, that is. There, I think it will be extremely difficult for Romney to stop Huckabee's surge, especially if he keeps making mistakes -- like saying he "saw" his father march with Martin Luther King, and then having to say he meant "saw" in a "figurative" sense because, well, that probably never really happened -- that point out the fact that he's, y'know, a liar. So, yeah, I see Huckabee taking Iowa pretty convincingly, in spite of the numerous negative stories that are now starting to surface about him (more on that later).
But, apparently the good people of New Hampshire don't have much use for Bible-thumping hicks, so Huckabee doesn't look like he's got a great shot there (unless, of course, he gets a huge boost from an Iowa win). As it stands, Romney still has the lead in polls in the Granite State. But, who's that, roaring up on the outside?! . . . Why, it's 98-years-young John McCain, making a last-ditch sprint for the prize that his, ahem, illegitimate black baby (Karl Rove was the mother -- go figure) kept him from claiming way back in 2000. Seems that with Romney faltering, folks who don't find the Huck-ba-crite too appealing are now giving the old man a seventh look. Coluld it be that he will ride a second New Hampshire win all the way to the White House? Well, probably not, but in any case, it looks fairly likely that the winner of Iowa and New Hampshire will not be one and the same individual, which suggests that things on the Republican side could remain up in the air for quite some time. And so, there might yet be some hope for hizonner Giuliani's big-state plan yet.
But, that's not what I'm predicitng (yes, I still dare to hazard wild, meaningless guesses). No, I think that, as nasty as he apparently is himself, and as unlikely as it might have seemed only few months ago, good ol' Mike "Gomer" Huckabee, will probably get the nomination, if only because I can't imagine any of the other contenders, with all their flaws (both utterly real and simply "in the eyes of" typical Republican voters), being able to stop his momentum. He is, far more than any of the others, truly one of them . . . even if he has helped release a murderer from prison, taken money from cigarette makers while in office (uh, see that same link above), helped protect his son from getting prosecuted for animal cruelty, helped a drunk driver get out of jail in exchange for political donations, and . . . well, the list, apparently, goes on and on. But golly, he shure does love him some Jesus, so, y'know, he's basically the perfect Republican candidate.
Meanwhile, things are almost as wacky with the Dummocrats (heh heh, "Dummocrats") . . . Seems like the once "inevitable" Hillary is suddenly looking a lot more evitable. Indeed, she just may not come out of Iowa with a win. Obama has surged, and what's even wackier, even John Edwards looks to have a pretty good shot -- in the Buckeye state, at least (and if he can win there, well, who knows?). In short, it's looking like a three-way race down to the wire, after Hillary had a huge lead only a couple months ago. As it is, I'd say her odds of still getting the nomination are considerably better than Giuliani's, but that said, I wouldn't say they're significantly better than Obama's or more than mildly better than Edwards' at this point. She's been trending downward recently, while the two guys have been on the rise. She may be able to halt her slide sufficiently to pull it out, but frankly, I hope not. I think both Edwards and Obama would be better candidates in a general election, and since my main hope (such as it is) is that one Dummocrat or another will win next November, I've definitely got a preference for those two.
The good news, far as that goes, and as I've noted before, is that I don't think the eventual Republican winner, whoever it may be, will have good odds of beating the eventual Dem nom, whoever that is. And that includes the Huck-ba-crite, especially as the aforementioned skeletons would get far more scrutiny in the long, long general campaign. That said, I would definitely feel a lot more relaxed about things if it's Obama or Edwards against Huckabee or whoever, given Hillary's own extremely high negatives.
In any case, the one thing I'm certain of, with only a week and a half to go before Iowa votes, is that no prediction at this point would be anything but guesswork. It is just too jumbled up to say anything with much certainty. Which, when it comes to the flaming-car-crash spectacle that is politics, should make things fairly exciting in the weeks to come.
My own preference, to say it again, would be for an Obama-McCain matchup (especially since McCain, for all his past hypocrisies, is the only Republican contender I could actually stomach being the next president -- though my gut has built up an incredibly strong tolerance in the last few years for some reason), but I guess I'll just have to call that an Xmas wish at this point.
And that being said, I think I'll hold off on commenting further on the whole wacky process, at least until after the Iowa results come in. In the meantime, I just wanna sit back and watch the flaming wreckage :^) . . .
But let's get specific, shall we? In short, Clinton and Giuliani's respective roads to a nominationjust look a heck of a lot less clear than they did back then. Indeed, they look downright treacherous. In fact, the way things look now, I'd say there's a pretty solid chance that ol' Rudy will be nothing but an afterthought in a month or two. Put simply, it seems like his somewhat odious personal life, coupled with the fact that he wasn't much of a blood-red Republican anyway (oh, and maybe that the whole terrorism/war issue, upon which almost all of his supposed appeal was based, has, somewhat inexplicably, become far less of an important issue for primary voters), has finally caught up with him, and a month or two too soon for his lofty ambitions. Of course, his strategy for a while has been to ignore the first state or two and hope that no one else can pick up the momentum from wins there to stop him in bigger states where he was (until recently, at least) more popular than all the other contenders. And, that might yet work, but, given the way he's been sinking like a rock, polling wise, in even those states (Florida, for example) suggests that he will not be saved by them.
But, then again, things are still incredibly fluid in the whole Republican race. As there were hints of even back in October, the Right-wingers have been rushing towards Huckabee as he seems to be the only semi-viable option who isn't Giuliani, the Mormon, McCain, or some other RINO ("Republican in Name Only"). At least in Iowa, that is. There, I think it will be extremely difficult for Romney to stop Huckabee's surge, especially if he keeps making mistakes -- like saying he "saw" his father march with Martin Luther King, and then having to say he meant "saw" in a "figurative" sense because, well, that probably never really happened -- that point out the fact that he's, y'know, a liar. So, yeah, I see Huckabee taking Iowa pretty convincingly, in spite of the numerous negative stories that are now starting to surface about him (more on that later).
But, apparently the good people of New Hampshire don't have much use for Bible-thumping hicks, so Huckabee doesn't look like he's got a great shot there (unless, of course, he gets a huge boost from an Iowa win). As it stands, Romney still has the lead in polls in the Granite State. But, who's that, roaring up on the outside?! . . . Why, it's 98-years-young John McCain, making a last-ditch sprint for the prize that his, ahem, illegitimate black baby (Karl Rove was the mother -- go figure) kept him from claiming way back in 2000. Seems that with Romney faltering, folks who don't find the Huck-ba-crite too appealing are now giving the old man a seventh look. Coluld it be that he will ride a second New Hampshire win all the way to the White House? Well, probably not, but in any case, it looks fairly likely that the winner of Iowa and New Hampshire will not be one and the same individual, which suggests that things on the Republican side could remain up in the air for quite some time. And so, there might yet be some hope for hizonner Giuliani's big-state plan yet.
But, that's not what I'm predicitng (yes, I still dare to hazard wild, meaningless guesses). No, I think that, as nasty as he apparently is himself, and as unlikely as it might have seemed only few months ago, good ol' Mike "Gomer" Huckabee, will probably get the nomination, if only because I can't imagine any of the other contenders, with all their flaws (both utterly real and simply "in the eyes of" typical Republican voters), being able to stop his momentum. He is, far more than any of the others, truly one of them . . . even if he has helped release a murderer from prison, taken money from cigarette makers while in office (uh, see that same link above), helped protect his son from getting prosecuted for animal cruelty, helped a drunk driver get out of jail in exchange for political donations, and . . . well, the list, apparently, goes on and on. But golly, he shure does love him some Jesus, so, y'know, he's basically the perfect Republican candidate.
Meanwhile, things are almost as wacky with the Dummocrats (heh heh, "Dummocrats") . . . Seems like the once "inevitable" Hillary is suddenly looking a lot more evitable. Indeed, she just may not come out of Iowa with a win. Obama has surged, and what's even wackier, even John Edwards looks to have a pretty good shot -- in the Buckeye state, at least (and if he can win there, well, who knows?). In short, it's looking like a three-way race down to the wire, after Hillary had a huge lead only a couple months ago. As it is, I'd say her odds of still getting the nomination are considerably better than Giuliani's, but that said, I wouldn't say they're significantly better than Obama's or more than mildly better than Edwards' at this point. She's been trending downward recently, while the two guys have been on the rise. She may be able to halt her slide sufficiently to pull it out, but frankly, I hope not. I think both Edwards and Obama would be better candidates in a general election, and since my main hope (such as it is) is that one Dummocrat or another will win next November, I've definitely got a preference for those two.
The good news, far as that goes, and as I've noted before, is that I don't think the eventual Republican winner, whoever it may be, will have good odds of beating the eventual Dem nom, whoever that is. And that includes the Huck-ba-crite, especially as the aforementioned skeletons would get far more scrutiny in the long, long general campaign. That said, I would definitely feel a lot more relaxed about things if it's Obama or Edwards against Huckabee or whoever, given Hillary's own extremely high negatives.
In any case, the one thing I'm certain of, with only a week and a half to go before Iowa votes, is that no prediction at this point would be anything but guesswork. It is just too jumbled up to say anything with much certainty. Which, when it comes to the flaming-car-crash spectacle that is politics, should make things fairly exciting in the weeks to come.
My own preference, to say it again, would be for an Obama-McCain matchup (especially since McCain, for all his past hypocrisies, is the only Republican contender I could actually stomach being the next president -- though my gut has built up an incredibly strong tolerance in the last few years for some reason), but I guess I'll just have to call that an Xmas wish at this point.
And that being said, I think I'll hold off on commenting further on the whole wacky process, at least until after the Iowa results come in. In the meantime, I just wanna sit back and watch the flaming wreckage :^) . . .
Friday, November 30, 2007
Weekly Weigh-in - Shams and Charlatans
[Heh heh -- I actually wrote this post last weekend but hadn't gotten around to posting it yet because I still wanted to add some links. Anyhow, I still haven't added the links -- and it's a little too late this evening to do that -- but I wanted to go ahead and post it anyway...I've got a little more commentary on this at the end of the post...]
-- As news broke this week about the agreement to think about someday reaching a peace agreement for the Middle East, I was mildly amazed, yet again, by how the media continues to treat these things as if they were anything other than completely pointless political theater. I don't wanna dwell on this - frankly, it doesn't deserve more than a passing mention - but anyone who thinks that whatever Abbas, Bush, and Olmert agreed to will amount to anything substantial vis-a-vis peace between Israel and the Palestinians is - how shall I put this? - an idiot. Moreso, because not one of those three "leaders" is in any position domestically to dictate the shape of future negotiations. Nonetheless, the media in general treated their b.s. summit like it was the big news of the day. Collective stupidity.
-- On another subject, watching the Republican debate the other day made me realize that I despise Mitt Romney nearly as much as I do Giuliani. Or maybe "realize" is not the word. Maybe it just confirmed it for me.
Anyone who knows even a little bit about Giuliani's extremely shady friends will understand why I detest the little creep. Frankly, it would be hard for anyone to sink as low in my estimation, but Romney is certainly taking a shot at it. One need only look at clips from his debates when he ran for senator and governor and then listen to what he says now to see him as the lowliest of political weasels.
For example, it was only in 2002 - yes, only five years ago - that Romney basically insisted that he was pro-choice and would never, ever, never change his support for a woman's right to an abortion. Indeed, he struck an extremely sanctimonious tone when his opponent dared to question his commitment to that position. Yet now, after he's decided that he's pro-life (on account of he figures he has to be to win the GOP nomination), he acts as though he is equally offended when someone questions his commitment to pro-life policies. And it's not just on abortion that Romney has taken vastly different opinions in the past to the ones he now professes.
In short, he is a liar, pure and simple (that is, an even more brazen one than his competitors). He has no convictions whatsoever. His only interest is in power. Well, Joseph Smith, at least, would be proud.
All of this said, it does make me a little more concerned for the Dems chances of winning the Whitehouse next fall. Truth is, I would like nothing better than to see either Romney or Giuliani take the nomination because I am fairly sure that either would sink in the general election when closer scrutiny is given to the things they have said and done in the past. As it stands, however, that scrutiny may be coming early enough to prevent both of them from even getting the nomination. Huckabee, who seems more and more like the likely alternative, doubtless has baggage of his own (google the name Wayne Dumond, for one thing), but, as far as I know, it really can't compare with the dead weight that Giuliani and Romney are dragging behind them, and Huckabee, being more genuinely conservative (or so it would seem), should be far better able to unite the right side of the electorate in a way that could be more problematic for the Democratic nominee, especially if it's Clinton. I'd still like to think that people wouldn't want to elect some bible-thumping Huck-ba-crite, but if it's a choice between a clearly cynical, unlikable former first lady and a relatively charming former lard-ass, I'd certainly be a little more worried.
As it is, I kinda hope one of the two scumbags - um, talking about Romney and Giuliani again here - will actually manage to hold off Huckabee for the nomination. Given their amazing negatives, I'd think that would almost make it a lock for the Democrat, even if it is Clinton.
-- As news broke this week about the agreement to think about someday reaching a peace agreement for the Middle East, I was mildly amazed, yet again, by how the media continues to treat these things as if they were anything other than completely pointless political theater. I don't wanna dwell on this - frankly, it doesn't deserve more than a passing mention - but anyone who thinks that whatever Abbas, Bush, and Olmert agreed to will amount to anything substantial vis-a-vis peace between Israel and the Palestinians is - how shall I put this? - an idiot. Moreso, because not one of those three "leaders" is in any position domestically to dictate the shape of future negotiations. Nonetheless, the media in general treated their b.s. summit like it was the big news of the day. Collective stupidity.
-- On another subject, watching the Republican debate the other day made me realize that I despise Mitt Romney nearly as much as I do Giuliani. Or maybe "realize" is not the word. Maybe it just confirmed it for me.
Anyone who knows even a little bit about Giuliani's extremely shady friends will understand why I detest the little creep. Frankly, it would be hard for anyone to sink as low in my estimation, but Romney is certainly taking a shot at it. One need only look at clips from his debates when he ran for senator and governor and then listen to what he says now to see him as the lowliest of political weasels.
For example, it was only in 2002 - yes, only five years ago - that Romney basically insisted that he was pro-choice and would never, ever, never change his support for a woman's right to an abortion. Indeed, he struck an extremely sanctimonious tone when his opponent dared to question his commitment to that position. Yet now, after he's decided that he's pro-life (on account of he figures he has to be to win the GOP nomination), he acts as though he is equally offended when someone questions his commitment to pro-life policies. And it's not just on abortion that Romney has taken vastly different opinions in the past to the ones he now professes.
In short, he is a liar, pure and simple (that is, an even more brazen one than his competitors). He has no convictions whatsoever. His only interest is in power. Well, Joseph Smith, at least, would be proud.
All of this said, it does make me a little more concerned for the Dems chances of winning the Whitehouse next fall. Truth is, I would like nothing better than to see either Romney or Giuliani take the nomination because I am fairly sure that either would sink in the general election when closer scrutiny is given to the things they have said and done in the past. As it stands, however, that scrutiny may be coming early enough to prevent both of them from even getting the nomination. Huckabee, who seems more and more like the likely alternative, doubtless has baggage of his own (google the name Wayne Dumond, for one thing), but, as far as I know, it really can't compare with the dead weight that Giuliani and Romney are dragging behind them, and Huckabee, being more genuinely conservative (or so it would seem), should be far better able to unite the right side of the electorate in a way that could be more problematic for the Democratic nominee, especially if it's Clinton. I'd still like to think that people wouldn't want to elect some bible-thumping Huck-ba-crite, but if it's a choice between a clearly cynical, unlikable former first lady and a relatively charming former lard-ass, I'd certainly be a little more worried.
As it is, I kinda hope one of the two scumbags - um, talking about Romney and Giuliani again here - will actually manage to hold off Huckabee for the nomination. Given their amazing negatives, I'd think that would almost make it a lock for the Democrat, even if it is Clinton.
[So...that little parenthetical about Wayne Dumond...looks like now that Huckabee's aiming for the lead, turns out he's getting a little scrutiny of his own. And it's revealing some pretty ugly things about the Dumond case. Besides the fact that Huckabee pushed for the release of Dumond, a convicted rapist, from prison, and Dumond then went on, after his release, to rape and murder another woman -- all of which I knew -- it now sounds as though Huckabee has repeatedly lied about his efforts to get Dumond released, and -- this is the really crazy part -- that Huckabee pushed for the release at the behest of a bunch of right-wing Bill Clinton haters who thought Dumond was innocent (or something?) because one of his victims was a distant relative of Clinton! Whaaaaa? Yup, it is some super crazy sounding shit, but the info I read on it sounds pretty much on the up and up...In any case, it's definitely clear that Huckabee pushed for Dumond's release, in spite of Dumond's victims telling him that Dumond would attack again if released, and Dumond went on, as those victims had said he would, to rape and murder another victim...Looks like Huckabee has his own Willie Horton.
And the upshot of it all, at least in broad political terms? Well, I'm a lot less worried that the Democratic nominee, whoever it is, will have trouble beating the Republican nominee...That is, at least, assuming it's Giuliani, Romney, or Huckabee, which it looks like it will be at this point (there really isn't enough time for anyone else to get the nom, it seems, unless it's that wacky old McCain, and I really don't think his odds are good). Looks all the top three Republican contenders have some really gnarly skeletons in their closets, so that should make things pretty easy for the Dem.]
Friday, November 16, 2007
The Weekly Weigh-in - Racism by Proxy
You may have heard about the recent "swiftboat" style attacks against Obama. There's the critique that he's not patriotic enough because he didn't put his hand over his heart during the pledge of allegiance. Besides the fact that this is about as close to a non-issue as one can get (and, by the by, the pledge is a jingoistic bit of idiocy better suited to a police state than the United States; I never say it), Obama pointed out that the photo in question was actually taken during the playing of the national anthem, not the pledge. Nonetheless, stupid people continue to ask him about it during his campaign stops.
More disturbing still, I think, is the email suggesting that Obama is some sort of closeted Muslim. Besides the fact, once again, that the charge has no basis in truth, the fact that it has gotten a fair amount of traction has forced me to rethink the race issue as it relates to Obama's candidacy. See, I have felt since before he announced that while there are doubtless some people out there who won't vote for Obama for the simple fact that they are racists, I figured that the majority of Americans were evolved enough, so to speak, that he could still win in spite of the troglodytes. And, I still believe that, so long as the attacks are transparently racist.
This "he's a Muslim" attack, though, as loathsome as it is, makes me wonder if Obama's adversaries haven't found a way, whether inadvertently or intentionally, to subtly make Obama's race an issue. Call it racism by proxy. See, they can't, successfully anyways, get people not to vote for him by calling him the N-word. Indeed, I like to think that might cause some people to vote for him who might not have otherwise, if only to take a stand, of sorts, agains racism. But, lots of people wouldn't have a problem with not voting for someone purely b/c he's a Muslim. And, come to think of it, that Obama feller kinda looks like one o' them Muslims - kinda brown, if you catch my drift...
So, in effect, I think the Muslim charge is a way to piggyback on some (perhaps subconcious in many cases) racist sentiments that some voters have, allowing people to attack Obama's skin color, in effect, withoout attacking it directly.
To put a finer point on it: obviously the charge rests to some degree on the fact that Obama was raised briefly in Indonesia and attended a school there that happened to be majority Muslim, but I don't think the charge would receive nearly the same attention, or any, really, if Obama were white. I mean, a white Muslim - who ever heard of such a thing? (And yes, I realize that there are white Muslims - I'm just trying to outline the thought process of some of the more manipulable voters.)
In the end, I still hope, and think, that enough people would reject this kind of demented attack that he could still win in the general, but, given the degree to which such scurrilous claims, in spite of being completely baseless, do sometimes stick with people, I have to admit that it makes me a little more concerned about his g. e. viability...
Meanwhile, more news recently that seems to suggest that the ole "Huck-ba-crite" might well be a serious contender come caucus time, with a sufficient number of religious conservatives coalescing around him to give Romney and Giuliani a run for their money. And, I also have to wonder if, given the length of this process and Republicans' general inablity to settle on a frontrunner, old McCain might not make a comeback after so many people (myself included) had pretty much written him off. Ultimately, I don't think he has enough time to get back in voters' good graces, but I do think there's a glimmer of hope. And, on a personal note, though I do think he's a hypocrite and an idiot for some of the things he's said and done, I have to admit that I would prefer McCain over all his (legitimate) Republican rivals. I mean, he still sucks, but the thought of him being president is not nearly as stomach-turning to me as the notion of a president Giuliani, Romney, or Hucakbee.
More disturbing still, I think, is the email suggesting that Obama is some sort of closeted Muslim. Besides the fact, once again, that the charge has no basis in truth, the fact that it has gotten a fair amount of traction has forced me to rethink the race issue as it relates to Obama's candidacy. See, I have felt since before he announced that while there are doubtless some people out there who won't vote for Obama for the simple fact that they are racists, I figured that the majority of Americans were evolved enough, so to speak, that he could still win in spite of the troglodytes. And, I still believe that, so long as the attacks are transparently racist.
This "he's a Muslim" attack, though, as loathsome as it is, makes me wonder if Obama's adversaries haven't found a way, whether inadvertently or intentionally, to subtly make Obama's race an issue. Call it racism by proxy. See, they can't, successfully anyways, get people not to vote for him by calling him the N-word. Indeed, I like to think that might cause some people to vote for him who might not have otherwise, if only to take a stand, of sorts, agains racism. But, lots of people wouldn't have a problem with not voting for someone purely b/c he's a Muslim. And, come to think of it, that Obama feller kinda looks like one o' them Muslims - kinda brown, if you catch my drift...
So, in effect, I think the Muslim charge is a way to piggyback on some (perhaps subconcious in many cases) racist sentiments that some voters have, allowing people to attack Obama's skin color, in effect, withoout attacking it directly.
To put a finer point on it: obviously the charge rests to some degree on the fact that Obama was raised briefly in Indonesia and attended a school there that happened to be majority Muslim, but I don't think the charge would receive nearly the same attention, or any, really, if Obama were white. I mean, a white Muslim - who ever heard of such a thing? (And yes, I realize that there are white Muslims - I'm just trying to outline the thought process of some of the more manipulable voters.)
In the end, I still hope, and think, that enough people would reject this kind of demented attack that he could still win in the general, but, given the degree to which such scurrilous claims, in spite of being completely baseless, do sometimes stick with people, I have to admit that it makes me a little more concerned about his g. e. viability...
Meanwhile, more news recently that seems to suggest that the ole "Huck-ba-crite" might well be a serious contender come caucus time, with a sufficient number of religious conservatives coalescing around him to give Romney and Giuliani a run for their money. And, I also have to wonder if, given the length of this process and Republicans' general inablity to settle on a frontrunner, old McCain might not make a comeback after so many people (myself included) had pretty much written him off. Ultimately, I don't think he has enough time to get back in voters' good graces, but I do think there's a glimmer of hope. And, on a personal note, though I do think he's a hypocrite and an idiot for some of the things he's said and done, I have to admit that I would prefer McCain over all his (legitimate) Republican rivals. I mean, he still sucks, but the thought of him being president is not nearly as stomach-turning to me as the notion of a president Giuliani, Romney, or Hucakbee.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
The Weekly Weigh-in -- The Enemy of My Enemy
So, Pakistan seems to be sliding ever closer to calamity. In fact, for the hundreds of activists who have been beaten and arrested in the past few days, things probably feel pretty calamitous already.
Well, apparently the answer for Bush, Rice, et al. is to cluck their tongues reproachfully but not make any serious efforts to punish Musharraf for his naughtiness, lest they inadvertently help to topple his government (which might happen anyway). Frankly, I doubt the world in general will fail to see the hypocrisy, particularly as it comes so close on the heels of the administration's far harsher language and actions against Burma's junta...but of course, the US isn't an ally of that repressive dictatorship.
At this point, though, I'm not sure what else the administration can do.
But speaking again of those Middle East adventures, could it be that this is another area where if we hadn't taken our eye off the ball that is Afghanistan and al-Qaeda, things might not be so screwed up today? Like, maybe if we'd stuck to the utterly legitimate goal of wiping out the Taliban and al-Qaeda, not only would, say, bin Laden be dead or captured by now, but the Musharraf government, not having had to do so much of the military activities along its border for so many years now, might have a much stabler situation on its hands and be much better positioned to handle any internal opposition, particularly from Muslim extremists? Oh, and speaking of extremists, could it be that maybe, just maybe, by attacking a country that most of the world (rightfully) thought had nothing to do with 9/11, the administration might have increased the strength and numbers of radical Muslim groups in the Muslim world, including in Pakistan?
Just wondering.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)