For the next year or so, I will from time to time, give my thoughts on what’s unfolding in the upcoming race(s) for the US presidency. I will try to keep it real, in hope of generating some debate on the threads (something that seems to be waning in recent times). Lately, I have started to wonder if the “blogs” are losing their novelty status; or is it that people are just getting back to their usual spaces of political-disenchantment? In these here parts, there appear to be few lively threads anymore.
As the presidential primaries approach, I am getting the sense that Democrats think they have a lock on the “win” next November; I don’t share that view. Despite the ineptitude of the Bush administration (in too many areas to enumerate here), next November would be a dogfight no matter who the Republicans nominate. Not withstanding the Iraq debacle- which will be still going on then- Democrats need to be very careful that complacency doesn’t set in. Because they are out-raising the Republicans by barrels full of “mullah”, that doesn’t mean that there aren’t lots of landmines between here and the White House. As important as it is, money isn’t everything in politics folks. Just a personal observation, that’s all.
Let me go on record by saying that Hilary Rodham-Clinton would be the worst choice for Democrats (if I haven’t said this before). As much as I love Barack Obama as a candidate and also as a human being, I am starting to fantasize an Al Gore (president) with Barack Obama (vice-president) ticket. Am I alone on this folks? Tell Cousin Rocky what you think.
Recently, Hilary Rodham-Clinton did a “one-eighty” turn, when she suddenly announced that if elected president, she would sit down with the leader of Iran and do a “face to face”. She also implied that she would meet with other so-called “rogue” leaders in the same capacity. What was edifying about all this was Hilary’s continued lack of honesty and substance on many an issue. Some people call her perpetually waffling positions “triangulation”; I call her perpetually waffling positions: dishonesty. We really don’t need another lying Clinton (or Bush) in the White House folks; we really don’t; enough already!
During one of the presidential debates a few weeks ago, I saw Hilary Rodham-Clinton mercilessly attack Barack Obama, for stating unequivocally, that he would meet with so-called “rogue” leaders, of nations with whom we (USA) weren’t on good terms. He articulated that the Bush-Chaney position of isolating our so-called enemies was passé, and that Hilary Rodham–Clinton was tied in to that anachronistic (my words) policy/view. Other candidates on the podium agreed with Mrs. Clinton that night, only to have their flawed/failed thinking exposed by Obama, who stood firmly to his position that isolating our enemies wasn’t some type of punishment in terms of diplomacy. He suggested that we need different approaches to problem solving in the contemporary world. In the short shelf-life of this media story, Obama was called many things- naïve, inexperienced, foolish, immature (and the like) – by commentors on various blogs, and also by pundits and media types. He stood firm to this position that we need to diplomatically engage everyone (especially in this post-nine-eleven world). I could only assume that numerous polls have been done on this issue since that debate, and the results must have shown that significant numbers of Americans support Obama’s position; why else would Mrs. Clinton abruptly change her position?
Let me state for the record that I have only been able to vote in the last three presidential races (I became an American citizen in 1996), and each time I voted for Ralph Nader. You see, personally, my top half-dozen issues are (in order of importance): the environment, racism (as inflicted on blacks), contemporary economics, education, corporate abuse/excesses/greed, and our international relations. I thought that of all the candidates running, Ralph Nader addressed them best (albeit a little weak on the second). I also thought that his character, his achievements in the area of political activism, his contributions to public policy, his vision and articulation, made him far superior to the others running; thus he earned my vote. And no, it wasn’t a protest vote.
If Hilary Rodham-Clinton becomes the presidential nominee of the Democrats, I truly hope that she doesn’t select Barack Obama as her running-mate; in my estimation, that would be far too risqué as far as the party’s hopes for reclaiming the White House goes. I am sure that you don’t need me to go deeper into this.
This time around, despite my registration (Democrat), I will vote as I always do: not influenced by blind loyalty to some party registration. I will vote for the person that I think is best suited for the job; right now I just don’t believe that person is Hilary Rodham-Clinton, that’s all. I have a long way to go before I am convinced that she is; a long long way. As much as I haven’t ruled out voting for her (eventually), I haven’t ruled it in as yet. Time will tell.
Stay tuned-in folks.