mycatharsis.com

They really should preface Hillary Clinton’s public appearances with this disclaimer, because it sure seems she has no real point to dragging down Barack Obama every chance she can get.  Her ‘chances’ for the nomination just simply would not be ‘chances’ if the candidate was anyone else.  Yes, the delegate race is close, but not close enough.  It is entirely within Clinton-think to sabotage Obama now and actively, if perhaps not overtly, work for the election of John McCain in 2008 to preserve her an opportunity to run for President again, in 2012.  I’m sure her own mental calculus is that she can possibly run again in 2012 if Obama loses the general election. But if he wins it, she may never have another chance to run.  Obama would obviously run in 2012 and his VP would be the establishment candidate in 2016.  Observe Carville’s calling Bill Richardson “Judas” if you have any trouble believing the Clinton’s have the sense of entitlement necessary to pull off such a destructive course of action.  And if they do, they’re sacrificing the good of the country to advance their own personal ambitions, actions little different from Rush Limbaugh’s attempts to get his listeners to vote for the weaker Democrat.

Look how quickly Giuliani, Thompson, and even say-anything-at-all-to-win Mitt Romney got out of the race when victory looked merely improbable.  Even against a candidate that looked as weak as McCain did a few months back.  And the one establishment candidate who stuck in the race, Mike Huckabee, made a point to be gracious and effusive in his praise for McCain on the campaign trail.  Instead, we have Hillary unleashing the full Clinton playbook against Obama, including the gem of recycling a scandal just as it appears to be passing out of the public view …

 ”He would not have been my pastor,” Clinton said. “You don’t choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend.”…

I gotta say, as someone who watched the Clintons demonize the Republicans throughout the 90’s, there’s a part of me from that time laughing at watching the Clinton’s do this to their own party, the same party that excused basically every wrong they committed because they won.  That same part of me just also looks incredulously at this mess and sees the stark difference between the Democrats and Republicans in how they choose a candidate.

On the other hand, Barack Obama seems like a heckuva candidate, a scholarly and yet down-to-earth politician who can bring a vast well of intelligence to the job and yet not alienate either the working class or most other constituencies.  And it’d be more than just a shame to see him ground under the wheels of the Clinton machine.  The country would be much poorer, but at least the Clinton’s would have their precious power.

If McCain wins the presidency, he’ll owe Hillary BIG-time.   She’s been by far his most effective campaigner for the past month or so, and looks as if she’ll continue that trend for longer yet.   A month ago, I wasn’t sure I bought all the hype I was hearing about Clinton’s desperate refusal to acknowledge could kill their chances in the general election.  Now I have to say I’m starting to see their point.

He actually gave, from the looks of the text, quite a good speech, and started to contrast his differences with Clinton and Obama in a way I think could be very effective come a general election.  Still, for all his talk about wanting smaller government,  the standard I hold these Republicans to is higher than simply effective words.  For all the talk about small government, they’ve expanded it at every turn the last few years, and it almost seems they’re blind to how they’re doing it.  It’s going to take awhile before I’m convinced that I can trust a Republican with stewardship of our constitutional freedoms.   Take this section, for example:

Whomever the Democrats nominate, they would govern this country in a way that will, in my opinion, take this country backward to the days when government felt empowered to take from us our freedom to decide for ourselves the course and quality of our lives; to substitute the muddled judgment of large and expanding federal bureaucracies for the common sense and values of the American people; to the timidity and wishful thinking of a time when we averted our eyes from terrible threats to our security that were so plainly gathering strength abroad. It is shameful and dangerous that Senate Democrats are blocking an extension of surveillance powers that enable our intelligence and law enforcement to defend our country against radical Islamic extremists. 

In one sentence he deplores the expansive growth of a government that allowed it to feel free to interfere in the lives of it’s law-abiding citizens.  Very prosaic, I love that sentence and it hits me right where I’m concerned.  But with very little transition, in the very next sentence he also criticizes how the Democrats are delaying passage of a bill that allows the government to spy on it’s own citizens, while at the same time giving retroactive immunity to telecom companies that willfully turned over all their customer records to the government on request.  It makes you wonder if they ‘get it’.

I liked McCain a lot in 2000.  But 2000 was also the era of a ‘humble foreign policy’, ‘not being the policemen of the world’, and smaller, nonintrusive government, all ideas that have been pushed off to the fringe by today’s GOP.  And I like where McCain breaks with the Republicans today, on issues of torture, immigration, etc, I am more in agreement with him than not.  He’s no Ron Paul, though, and he’s going to have to do some major convincing with me that he really is dedicated to expanded personal freedom,  and protecting the Constitution before I vote for him over Hillary Clinton.  And I’m not sure he’d have any chance of convincing me to vote for him over Barack Obama.   But at least he has a chance to convince us now that he can start crafting a general election message.  We’ll see …

Much like Romney himself, I’ve found myself with multiple, conflicting, opinions.  He’s spent the entire campaign pandering to the basest instincts of GOP voters,  and seeing the GOP voters reject him and what he’s representing is pretty satisfying.  On the other hand, I can’t escape the thought that with his public and private sector executive experience, and with our economy looking extremely precarious, he has a lot to recommend himself as the right man for the country right now.  There is a major disconnect between who he says he is, and who he was  and really is.   He became a panderer, sold off all his old positions like a stock that wasn’t profitable anymore, and tried to be who he thought the voters wanted him to be. And apparently misjudged badly.  I find it more than a little ironic that his newly strident position on immigration may have hurt him enough in Florida among Hispanics to cost him a shot at the Presidency. More than a little satisfying, too, to be honest.  Even for the GOP voters  in Florida for whom illegal immigration was the MOST important issue,  McCain pulled around 25%, only 10-15 percentage points behind Romney.  Meanwhile, Romney’s nativist tone killed his popularity with enough other voting blocs to perhaps cost him a chance at the nomination….

After sitting thru the entire debate last night, I have to admit to myself what a huge political geek I am!  That said, it WAS a lot of fun to watch.

A spirited and lively debate. The format is, I think, a big winner. I love a debate with tough questions, and Anderson Cooper was as effective as any moderator I’ve seen at keeping the candidates on topic and answering the questions they were asked. Mike Huckabee’s eloquence really impressed me. His answer regarding illegal immigration was excellent in turning away the nativist wing of the party. I’m slowly becoming comfortable enough with him to consider voting for him if he’s the nominee.

I really enjoyed watching Romney and Giuliani go after each other, if only to see them tear each other down. Romney seemed as slick as always to me, but not nearly as charming. His answer on his abortion flip-flop was quite good, but was also neutralized with me by his ineffective attempts at explaining another flip-flop on the issue of gays in the military.  By the way, the hullabaloo over the Brigadier General being a Hillary Clinton plant is a non-issue with me. The gay General who asked the question was quite clearly biased, and was the low point of the night for me, as he was obviously a shill pushing an agenda. I tuned out his post-answer rants, and figure most people watching this debate may have as well. And frankly, dedicating as much time as they did to ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ was ludicrous, with so many other important issues ignored, such as the plummeting dollar. Giuliani, on the other hand, did quite well, I think. I still am least comfortable with him above all others, but I respected his answers on abortion and New York as a ’sanctuary city’. He seemed to try to answer as honestly as possible, unlike Romney, who seemingly would not let a word escape his mouth that might possibly upset the far right. Giuliani even mentioned states rights a time or two, although unconvincing, it’s reassuring to know he’s at least aware of the concept.

Ron Paul was amazing, which was all the more impressive because of the ridiculous nature of the questions asked of him. The first had to do with the Council of Foreign Relations, and that tells you pretty much all you need to know. I am a huge fan of Paul and his views, but have long wondered if he is more of a policy wonk than an effective campaigner. But his answer to this attempt to portray him as a conspiracy nut was BRILLIANT, deftly turning away any insinuation that he has tinfoil hats in his closet, while directly answering the question that was asked, in an honest way, no less! For political and rhetorical skill, it was an amazingly effective answer. He also deftly turned away McCain’s attack, again having to repeat that simply because he doesn’t want to bomb everybody doesn’t make him an isolationist. McCain’s attack is a good sign for Paul, a sign that his views are finally being heard, even by deafest Republicans of all, many of whom, unfortunately, happen to be running for President. He also had the second or third to last question of the night, asking him to run as an independent. Again, his answer showed a skillful political touch, answering the question while also giving himself a chance to tout his fundraising prowess and the excitement building among his supporters, and doing it all in a humble manner, expressing simply that he’s lucky ‘to be a part of it’. A huge part, Mr. Paul!

McCain did quite well, I felt, although Paul did get the best of him on their exchange. I missed most of Romney’s hemming on torture, but McCain’s answer was quite good. I also liked his answer on the role of the Vice President, and got the feeling from him that, ever so slightly, he is trying to return to the agitator role he had in 2000. He seems like a natural fighter, politically speaking, and it’s a horse race between him and Huckabee for number two in my book (behind Mr. Paul).