Wednesday, January 09, 2008

I mean, my TV Guide interview was six paragraphs about my BOOBS and how they fit into my suit. No one bothered to ask me what I do on the show.

Just a follow-up on my Obama post from Friday. First let me thank you all for the comments to that post. I appreciate y'all taking the time to respond.

I realize that I do a lot of bitching about what I'm against but don't always reveal what I'm for.

My views seem to fairly mirror don and Aaron's - I'd like to see Kucinich as the nominee but realize that Edwards is the only progressive populist with an actual chance at winning the nomination.

Hillary Clinton's been dead to me for a while as someone who has failed a chance at true progressive leadership from a safe position in a "blue" state. I'm very much of the mind that democratic politicians from electorally safe states ought to be pushing a progressive agenda HARD. In that way we can move the center back to, well, the center in American politics.

So that leaves us Obama and Edwards. Both present progressives with a problem in that there's a certain amount of trust necessary in supporting either candidate.

With Obama you have to trust that he will not live up to some of truly inane things he's promised ("saving" social security, making peace with homophobes) towards what can only be considered moderation in the crazy world of Washington. To support Obama I'd have to believe that he would act much more progressively than he's currently promising once in office.

With Edwards it takes a similar leap of faith that he would act on what he's promising were he elected and not turn to Clinton/ Obama style triangulation. Those that support Edwards have to trust that he's not all hat, no cattle.

So then I have to ask myself a few questions. Of the two which candidate is ready to face the Republican slime squad head-on? Which candidate is more likely to bring some sort of mandate towards a progressive agenda if elected to office? Which is the fighter and which is the dreamer?

Sadly I don't find "Barack Obama" to be the answer to these questions.

Update- I started this post before yesterday's primary in which Hillary Clinton won. I'm continually amazed that the discussion surrounding her win is almost completely centered on gender issues and the response to her weeping during a question a couple of days ago. Even among the lefty blogs this issue is open to debate.

Like the issue of race with Obama I find this discussion unseemly. The country is hurdling towards the edge of the cliff with the crazy guy behind the wheel giving it all the gas she's got. Debating whether or not the person we have take over for him should be black or a woman seems insane under these circumstances seems insane. We need to make sure we'll put someone behind the wheel that will turn the car around.

I'm not sure Clinton would or that Obama can. I know that Edwards says he'll try.

I say we give him the chance.


Swinebread said...

Yeah but in debate that does include race and gender... the question of who is bigot and Misogynist become glaringly obvious. It's a good thing to know about someone.

As for Edwards I like his message, but he doesn't have a chance in Hell.

I'd to see him as the Secretary of Labor.

Overdroid said...

I agree. Edwards has no chance. But I'm voting for Kucinich, so why listen to me?

Don Snabulus said...

The primary situation has become ridiculous very quickly. We in Oregon will have no say and that is unfortunate since we are the smartest state in the US. Well, FINE, but it sure ain't Iowa or New Hampshire for the love of Pete (Hi Pete).

I think Edwards' chances are slim (by the design of the DLC and the corporate media) and it sucks, but it is the way it is. I can't believe how many Kucinich supporters I know and yet he polls around 1 percent. Talk about weird. Don't get it.

Nonethless, Kucinich and Paul are just not allowed in the game. Kucinich "believes in UFOs" and Paul "endorses Nazis" even though the former factoid is extremely misleading and the latter is an outright lie. I know because that is what TV and the Net focus on instead of issues.

Same with Obama's race and Hillary's crying (what about Giulani's crying 9-11 Wolf!)

But I digress, though I am not sure from what.

Whoever get (s)elected, I hope they stay the frick out of Iraq and do at least a few things that resemble smart.

Dean Wormer said...

I guess that's what it all comes down to - odds.

Obviously I'm willing to compromise some because the candidate I most closely identify with is Kucinich. He'd be the person I'd vote for in a perfect world.

But I'm also playing the odds towards a progressive agenda. Edwards is the only major candidate who might be able to accomplish such an agenda if he made it into the White House. Obama and Clinton would be DOA. Obama's seriously delusional about the current state of American politics, IMHO.

don- polls keep splitting like they are and we may have a say. But I'm not personally going to like the two choices at that point.