Was The Lesson Of 2004 Learned?
Published January 26, 2007
A great many candidates from both major parties have already launched the 2008 presidential campaign, and due to the large number, we will likely need all the time remaining until that looming November election to sort out the political wheat from the chaff.
But yesterday, one proposed candidate decided that he was not the answer to the problem, and bowed out of the running. Thank you, John Kerry, for recognizing this condition without being forced to do so.
The problem for both parties now is getting the remainder of their considerees to see this fact as well. I don't say this lightly, considering the large media buzz and financial support for such presidential aspirants as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Sticking with these two for the moment, some of their comments aired on NBC just after the State of the Union speech did not fill me with confidence. Hillary appeared to be avoiding the biggest issue of those stockpiled for use against her ("I was for the war in Iraq before I was against it!"), while Obama spouted nothing but politico-corporate gibberish designed to make people think that he actually has ideas rather than merely exhibiting an ambition to match Hillary's.
But the list doesn't end with these three, nor with the Democrats. John McCain of late has come down on almost all sides of the Iraq issue depending on the question asked of him. With respect, Senator, maybe the Hanoi Hilton staff left lasting damage? You held up your part of continuing the tradition begun by your grandfather and continued by your father through illustrious military service to the nation in wartime, and you have nothing - except Lincoln Savings - to apologize for.
I doubt that I need to list all of the weaker candidates, for if you don't know they are running, you won't miss them when they drop out - Rudy Giuliani, Al Sharpton, and Sam Brownback, for example. 'Nuff Said!
Once all of the noisemakers from both parties fall by the wayside during the Oval Office Triathlon, this is the short list I expect of those I see having an effect on the final selections by the two major parties. I have been impressed by two in particular lately, one from each party - Senator Jim Webb, and Senator Chuck Hagel, but please do not construe this admiration as an endorsement for either of these two to announce that they are running. To date, neither has expressed any interest in running, and this should in my opinion remain the case for them. But they are willing to confront the major issues facing the nation without slithering away from the snipers of partisanship seeking to enforce party discipline and silence them. By acting in such a manner, they represent the template for the eventual candidates to emulate.
- Was The Lesson Of 2004 Learned?
- Published: January 26, 2007
- Type: Opinion
- Section: Politics
- Filed Under: Politics: Elections and Candidates, Politics: Government, Politics: Local and Regional, Politics: U.S.
- Writer: Realist
- Realist's BC Writer page
- Realist's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
LOL - I don't often agree with you, Arch,but there you are spot on! :D
I think that Richardson could be a threat. I don't know what it will take for him to catch on. Webb has several hours of Senate experience, but I can't see him running.
You mention Gore's passivity as a turn-off. You've got to realize that a good 1/2 of the country remembers him as the leader of an attempted coup.
...and another half remembers GWB as leader of a successful coup.
I wish I had the optimism you do that the idiots will fall by the wayside and real candidates will magically emerge.
I mean, look at history: Bush, Clinton, Daddy Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, etc. etc, etc.
If that's not a list of 3rd and 4th rate talents, I'm a hedgehog.
In Jameson Veritas
In Jameson Veritas
An Irish hedgehog, hhmmm...:>)
(sorry! it was toooo tempting)
Bliffle, I'm not disputing that. My point is that Gore is contentious in a way that the Democrats would be wise not to forget. By analogy, a lot of Republicans may find Quayle to be right on the issues, but they shouldn't forget that (at least) half the country believes him to be an idiot.
Gore may be a worthy man & possibly be a wonderful president - his seeming exteme emotional stability & stoicism would stand a president in good stead, instead of the fantasies & macho hystrionics indulged in by Fearless Leader; the problem is, when he needed to stand his ground & fight - he didn't. He blinked, when he should have aimed a quick kick for Bush's nuts. He backed off "for the good of the country", which ended up involving the USSC, which should never have happened, because IMO it corrupted a previously perceived bastion of neutrality & rendered all future decisions suspect. He backed off, when if he'd been a 'normal' man, he'd have fought to the bloody finish - but he didn't, because he perceived himself as too statesmanlike & too genteel to get down & dirty even if the stakes were everything. The ultimate losers were not only the people of the US, but the world, thanks to Al Gore.
But Nancy, he did drag the country through it, with he and his lawyers contesting the election all the way to the Supreme Court, twice. He lost every recount. He fought for more than two weeks after the votes had been certified. Seven of nine Justices ruled that the recounts were unconstitutional. After all that, he pretended that he was magnanimously dropping his challenge, when in fact he'd been beaten.
And the stakes weren't "everything". There are bigger things than the presidency, even in politics. For instance, belief in the integrity of the system. Gore did plenty to damage that. I should note that he still does undermine American confidence in the electoral process, such as in his disgraceful 2004 Convention speech.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/58752)
"But yesterday, one proposed candidate decided that he was not the answer to the problem, and bowed out of the running. Thank you, John Kerry, for recognizing this condition without being forced to do so."
Nahh It's more like
"But yesterday John Kerry realized that despite his burning desire to be president he has no shot in hell of actually getting the Dem nomination again let alone winning the presidency so he put on a dog and pony show to make him appear much more noble than he actually is."