I got a great response to my Iowa post in an e mail today. My response to which seemed a good post script to it. So here's most of what I wrote back:
I am also leaning toward Obama. The problem will be, if he has the political skills to avoid what happened to Carter, who thought by telling the truth to his fellow citizens and firing some CIA and other intelligence organization bad apples, his problems were solved.
But "Americans" (in quote because I don't like the way those of us in the USA monopolize a term that could equally apply to Canadians, Mexicans, and various Central and South Americans) didn't like the truth. And all the fired rogue intelligence agents did was join with some cohorts still in the intelligence agencies to make trouble for Carter, including the Iran hostages, who, as we all know, were not released until Reagan took office so he could get credit, and it was the rightwing CIA agents who had been fired by Carter who made all that possible and went on to wage the secret war in Nicaraqua etc.
Bill Clinton was not only intellectually brilliant, he also was an incredible politician. he made some missteps, especially with the military, but the rightwingers could never get around him or undermine him the way they could Carter. Which is why they were so happy when the Monica thing happened to finally have a pretense to get rid of him (the Whitewater debacle turning out to have no legal standing at all, otherwise the Clintons would still be behind bars, especially after the rightwingers really got control of all branches of govermentl under Bush junior).
Hilary is definitely smart enough and has the political skills, combined with her husband's and their network, to keep the rightwing from undermining her presidency the way they did Carter's and tried to do to Bill's but failed, even after Monica came along. If Hilary were elected president, they would definitely try to undermine her, and pounce on every misstep of hers. But as we know, she makes very few, which is what makes her so much less inspiring than Obama, because she seems to be playing it safe, which comes off as sometimes stilted or pandering or old school.
Obama may truly have the best shot at changing things, because of the inspiration he generates as an African-American who does not use the race card to guilt out white Americans, but rather symbolizes finally growing beyond playing race cards at all, and because he is very smart and has the experience of a grass roots neighborhood oragnizer who knows how to create networks of regular folks, and how to speak for and to them without condescension or smugness.
His problem will be, as I said in an earlier post, getting too caught up in the details as well as the philosophy of reform. It was trying to micromanage the details that got Carter in trouble, and it was longwinded wonky explanations of reform positions that torpedoed Gore's winning by a larger and indisputable margin, and sometimes got in Bill and Hilary Clinton's way in terms of winning converts to certain reforms, like their plan for universal healthcare, etc.
So as it now stands, like I said, any Democrat would be better than any Republican, I believe, and I could easily vote for any of them still in the race (though Richardson, despite his experience and positions I mostly agree with, has seemed way too lackluster to accomplish much on the international stage of most powerful position in the world).
Among the Republicans, McCain remains the least offensive from my perspective, despite disagreement on some important policies. I have no doubt that his own war experience would keep him from saber rattling or from unprovoked attacks on other nations, for instance (despite his support of "the surge").
And after him, Huckabee, though he scares the bejesus out of most of my friends because of his fundamentalist Christian beliefs. But his populist and compassionate statements on several economic issues, including immigration (which is a social and cultural issue as well, but has been de facto handled the way it has been for economic reasons obviously) make him more palatable than the rest of the republican field after McCain.
And even Romney wouldn't be the worst Republican to win, though I doubt he has a chance anymore. But Thompson and Giulliani would be as dangerous and possibly as damaging as what we're trying to get away from in the present administration.
It'll soon be a lot clearer.
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I am curious why you chose to omit reference to Edwards in this post and didn't expand upon why you doubt his ability to "take on" the corporations that owns our country (in a previous post).
Not only was his career as a trial lawyer was built upon beating the daylights out of major corporations, unlike Obama and Hillary, he hasn't accepted campaign funds front major oil, pharma and multinational corporate lobbyists. Besides Kucinich, he is the only Dem candidate who isn't afraid to talk about corporate oligarchy.
I think we need a candidate willing to take a populist hard-line (like Teddy Roosevelt) and get angry. I don’t hear any other electable democratic candidate doing that.
Our next leader will need passion and grit to dismantle the corporate stronghold. Obama and Hillary take the safe road of holding hands and singing kuabaya with the corporate machine.
Edwards may have the passion, and the experience of taking on corporations in courtrooms, but getting a corporation that rakes in billions and billions a year to fork over a few million in a court case is totally different than stopping the influence of corporations on our government, i.e. politicians, laws, foreign policy (oil e.g.) etc., the "stranglehold" as he says, they have on our world. But as Hilary correctly pointed out last night in the New Hampshire debates, talking about it and doing it are two different things. And first of all, I'm not sure a man who relies on his experience as a trial lawyer can use that to win an election with voters who for the most part distrust lawyers more than they do politicians. Second of all, no president could change the way corporations rule our world without the help of the courts, both houses of congress, the justice department, the various intelligence and police agencies, federally and locally, etc. etc. It would take a revolution, ala Russia c. 1917, to bring about the kind of change Edwards talks so passionately about and we all want. What can be accomplished is what Teddy Roosevelt helped lead, not the elimination of corporate excess, greed, power, influence on government etc. which never went away under him or anyone else, but the dimunation of their growth, i.e. breaking up monopolies etc. into smaller corporations and thus diminishing their power to some extent. New laws can be passed, but it will take enormous political skill to pull off, laws that regulate the way corporate influence can be used etc. What Edwards wants is what I want, what you want, what probably in the end most "Americans" want, but it cannot be achieved in the ways he claims he will do it—no corporation is going to lie down and let one man, no matter what the polls say or how many people support his efforts, eliminate their power and influence in the world. But a coallition of congressional representatives and senators, of justice department officials and federal judges and the Supreme Court by the way, etc. will be needed. Who can best bring that about so that at least corporate power can be limited and corporate mergers can be reversed and prevented etc. an-ex trial lawyer with a limited consituency and political experience? Sorry, I don't think that is possible, plus I think Edwards is beatable by the Republicans in a way Obama and Hilary may not be. It's a matter of degree, they all bring negatives to the table in terms of broad appeal, but fortunately this year so do the Republicans. Who has the best shot though of reversing much of the downward slide Bush jr. caused? I think Hilary does, because of her smarts, both politically and intellectually, and what I believe are her core beliefs, but a lot of people despise her for various reasons including the seeming smugness of her and her husband's political operatives and of her at times seemingly superior attitude, and even without all that her just being a woman. I think Obama has a shot because he represents the future in a palpable way that can't be ignored, i.e. his "race"—which does indeed inspire many people, hopefully enough to win. And he too is smart and politically savy, though not as experienced on the national and international level as Hilary. I think his use of "the bully pulpit" of the presidency, (which is what Edwards is proposing to do and why he references Teddy Roosevelt for which that term of created) Obama's use I'm talking about, would have more power and moral authority simply because he would be our first African-American president and could call on a much broader coallition of forces than either Hilary or Edwards and because he generally carries himself in a way that says he is aware of that and allows us to be too. I could go on forever, obviously. But I guess my final point is, don't mistake my assessing who has the best chance to win and/or accomplish their goals with what I would like to see happen. What I would like to see happen is a Democrat win the presidency, and right now, I think Hilary or Obama have the best shot.
Post a Comment