January 25, 2008

The best Democratic candidate?

I've been thinking about the Democratic primaries and who I want to see on the ticket. I think Hillary Clinton would make a great president. I feel she'd give the underprivileged and overlooked her attention and I admire her health care plan in it's all encompassing scope. Also, at this point, I feel the others don't have a plan - just ideas for health care. I think her leadership style is one that makes sure all of the bases are covered and that she would run the country efficiently. Her ties to corporate America do make me uneasy, but I think it's hard to be a national candidate without some sort of corporate endorsement.

However, here's the thing. I don't think she can get elected. Well, that it wouldn't be easy for her to get elected, especially depending on who the Republicans are running.

Like the rest of the Democratic candidates, Obama promotes himself as an agent of change but he gives an aura of actualizing this change more so than Clinton or Edwards. When you go into the voting booth with change and fresh beginnings being relevant to you, you're less likely to vote for someone who has a family legacy and more likely to choose someone who hasn't had a shot at the White House already.

While I think Clinton would be a great president, I also think Obama would be a great president as well. He'd bring fresh ideas and new outlooks to the position, he can admit his faults easier than the other candidates, and image-wise, he can be very inspiring domestically and internationally for people who are not old, white men (although very easy to argue Clinton can act in the same manner).

I'm using my dad as a sort of litmus test on the electability of each candidate. For as long as I can remember he's voted Republican, although there might be a few independent candidates over the years. But he's mostly voted Republican for their fiscal policies. However, he would vote for Obama. He wouldn't vote for Clinton. In his tone of voice, he used a thoughtful, sincere considerate voice when talking about voting for Obama. He just called Clinton a bitch and left it at that - don't worry, I called him on it and the underlying sexism.

So using my dad as a standard, in an election between Clinton and Romney/Huckabee, I'd like to think he'd vote for Clinton, just because Romney and Fuckabee are such nutjobs. However, put Clinton up against McCain and I'd bet he'd go for McCain every time. To my dad, Obama wins over Romney, Fuckabee and McCain.

Today the New York Times published their endorsements for each party ticket - Clinton and McCain. I think they nailed the issues with the Republican candidates on the head - as a group, McCain stands out as a leader because he's the only one not completely off his rocker. Giuliani touts 9/11 out for political capital and loses respect every time he does it; Fuckabee panders to the religious right for their vote by saying things like since the 10 Commandments can't be changed, we must change the Constitution, plus he's generally incompetent when it comes to foreign policy, and Romney wants those ultra-conservative votes just as much as Fuckabee and will change positions to get them.

However, the craziness of these Republican candidates makes them far more attractive than McCain - because they'll be easier to beat. Put Obama or Clinton against any of those stooges and they'll win. Put them against the somewhat sane McCain, and for Hillary, it'll be a tougher race. I have a glimmer of hope that she can beat McCain, since he still supports the Iraq war and doesn't give any thought to an exit strategy or rebuilding their devastated country.

After the past two presidential elections and the tense neck-in-neck races, I want a resounding election, where voters symbolically throw off the yoke of eight years of war mongering, fear politics, falsified information on foreign "threats," partisan plays, implicit and explicit approval of torture, lost emails and memos, pandering to campaign contributors as opposed to doing what's right, the disregarding of children, women, the lower class, the middle class, immigrants, minorities, the GBLT community, and generally those in need. A big, nationwide "screw you" to Bush and Cheney, the people responsible for the state of Things.

I suppose it really all depends on who comes out on top in the primaries. I'm waiting for my "screw you" moment, though, come November.


Katie said...

I concur, except I have to point out one thing: You said it's hard to be national candidate without corporate endorsement. You're right, it is, but Obama's done it- he doesn't accept donations from special interests or lobbyists. It's clearly stated on his online donation forms.

That being said, we should put our collective middle fingers together and make one REALLY big one. :)

CarbonDate said...

I think middle finger politics are the problem, not the solution.

That said, look at the Center For Responsive Politics. Of the Presidential candidates, let's break down who hearts whom (of the candidates still in the race):

Insurance hearts Romney.
Labor hearts Clinton.
Lobbyists heart Clinton (like, a lot).
Oil and Gas heart Giuliani.
Pharmaceuticals heart Clinton.
Securities and Investment heart Clinton.
Tobacco hearts Giuliani.
Hollywood hearts Obama.
Defense contractors heart Clinton.


So on, so forth. Nobody's hands are clean. Except for Amy's, as far as I know. I don't think she's taken any campaign cash from lobbyists yet.

LMB said...

Maybe I'll vote for Amy for president. I hear she's got a good campaign assistant too.

Katie said...

Only the best. 8-)

Anonymous said...

Amen! (And it's neck-AND-neck.)