So Out He's In
It's interesting how McCain has a reputation as a political maverick, yet he keeps racking up endorsements from big names. And then there's Obama, who's supposed to represent change, but keeps getting thumbs up from politicians who have been in office forever.
The truth is we don't really want a maverick or we'd vote for Ron Paul, and we don't truly want change or we'd vote for Mike Gravel.
posted by LAGuy @ 1:34 AM
6 Comments:
The best story is how the Democrats are finally figuring out the Clinton's play dirty. Now they tell us!
Actually, the Clinton's blew it, and now Obama is reaping the reward.
I agree with both of the Anonymoi. A friend who is a hardcore Obama supporter told me the other day, "I finally understand why the Right hated the Clintons so much in the 1990s." And it also appears, for the moment, that the Clintons have overplayed their savagery and that a backlash in favor of Obama has taken off. I was struck by the fact that when Hillary and Obama were cutting into each other at the debate, the largely black S.C. audience actually booed her when she swiped at him.
However, I almost want him to win, just because I would like to see the Obama Messiah bubble burst. The whole Obama-Clinton argument about his Reagan comments was triggered by Obama essentially saying "I don't want to be a good president like Bill Clinton -- I want to be a transformative historical figure like Kennedy and Reagan." The Ted and Caroline Kennedy endorsements seem to play this up.
But in fact, JFK in 1960 did not tell the nation, "If I am elected, I will inspire you." Neither did Reagan in 1980. Obama does. I find it rather bizarre. Thus my sneaking desire to watch him try....
I'm not impressed by the suppossed inspirational side of Obama. In fact, any politician who seeks to inspire people with his general vision for America worries me. Vague promises to bring people together, or whatever other cliches are being used, mean nothing. What I care about are the policies he'll support--if the programs are bad, the more inspirational he is, the more dangerous.
Why big names survive is not necessarily that they are so powerful but that they recognize when they need to adapt and do so. Big names are flocking to McCain and Obama because they are having success, not the other way around. Incumbents have probably recognized that both the Obama and McCain candidacies indicate an ever higher level of voter dissatisfaction with the status quo and party politics and are desparately trying to get recognzed as part of the "us" rather than the "them"
The Clintons are "evil" now because their vaunted "political skills" have failed them and their tactics gave really played poorly among the emerging majority and swing voters within the party. It's not dirty when its done in favor of your position.
Policies are Quemoy and Matsu. and while they can help provide insight into a candidate's beliefs and practices, they generally won't matter (or will be wholly different) after the election. (Didn't Reagan promise to repeal Selective Service registration?)
Policies won't matter? If they don't matter, nothing does. A politician can't be counted on to keep his promises, but the only way you have a clue as to what he'll do is by knowing what policies he's supported and supports. The rest is window dressing. (And even if character mattered--as if the more noble you are the better you'll handle the economy--you couldn't figure it out from how they run.)
Post a Comment
<< Home