The question that should be on at least the occasional lip: is the Ragin' Cajun a Democrat? Can you imagine a better presidential candidate than Lieutenant General Russel Honore, the cussin' stogie-chompin' pitbull hero of this post-Katrina hell? First of all, he's not really Cajun: he's Creole, and he represents, in one person, almost the entire American electorate: he's white, black, Native American, probably Hispanic.
Now, the chances of his being a Democrat are, I'd say, about fifty percent. Generals are more likely to think like Republicans, certainly (although we have Wes Clark); but a guy raised in poverty on the Delta is way more likely to vote Democrat — especially someone who's gone through life identified as African-American (in that charming, time honored American tradition, whereby if you have a nano-drop of black blood, it trumps every other aspect of your identity).
And consider this: "He admits he was one of those angered when the federal response to the emergency appeared to be slow in coming. "These are families that are just waiting to get out of here," he said of people in the New Orleans convention centre and Superdome. 'They are frustrated. I would be, too.'"
Even more to the point: "Army insiders say he is among the last of a dying breed in the US military, the type of commander who would not have any soldier do anything he would not be prepared do himself."
In short: he's the Anti-Bush.
And the man comes with an instant legend: born in a hurricane; reborn to battle the hurricane that destroyed his people. Honore's one of the few potential candidates who could take out any of the Republican heavyweights: Giuliani, McCain, Condi Rice, Colin Powell (not that we're likely to see Powell in the ring).
If you want to enjoy a pleasant daydream, try this scenario: Russ Honore in a presidential debate, torching the tail-feathers of some Bush-like Republican chickenhawk. If only we'd had him in the last round. Remember when W. expressed sincere, compassionate, heartfelt concern that drugs imported from Canada (the very same drugs that are sold in America) might kill you rather than cure you? Don't you wish that Kerry had unclamped a stogie from between his teeth and growled: "You know as well as I do, 'soldier' — that's bullshit."
-------------------------------
(If you loathed this, please visit Dysblog, where it only gets worse.)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Kurt
I like it! About we nominated some dudes with bigger cojones than egos...
2 - alethinos59
...Lieutenant General Russel Honore... I do not know dis man... But I like what I hear...
I say, let us saddle up and storm the White House and kick that lil pussy willow of a Bush out of office...
3 - Eric Berlin
I don't know much about him either. But I do think that Clark is going to rank very high on the VP search in '08.
If you think about it, most of the serious Dem contenders lack one of two things: heavy military credentials (Clinton, Edwards) or Southern heritage (Clinton, Kerry, Biden, Bayh, etc).
4 - Bob A. Booey
Berlin, you're a smart kid, but stick to entertainment and media :)
Clark is done as a serious national figure. I've written about why in detail on other topics on this site, but he revealed himself to be a particularly poor campaigner and even eccentric on the stump and wasted all the goodwill and hype he built up from people like the Clintons leading up to the primaries.
He's done on any major national ticket. Hillary and Bill were big fans of his before he failed in the primaries, and there's no way Hillary would ever pick him as her VP. The one thing the Clintons pay attention to most is the political bottom line and Clark has proven he has a clumsy touch with the game of politics. And he's too much of a loose cannon with no payoff (what state is he going to win for you exactly?) in 2008.
The one lesson we should all take away from 2004 and virtually every modern election is that the VP candidate and their image DOES NOT produce a positive result or win points for the Presidential candidate. The only reason VP candidates matter is if they can deliver the electoral votes of a specific home state, as LBJ did for JFK. Pretty boy John Edwards got a lot of media coverage with very little public response at the polls. He accomplished nothing for the Kerry campaign, who would have been better off going with Bill Richardson, who could have delivered New Mexico and likely turned out more Hispanics in other states.
Plus, 2008 will be 7 years after 9/11 and it'll be an election about the economy, domestic policy, and who'll get us OUT of Iraq faster (if we're not already gone by then). None of the leading GOP contenders have national security credentials, either, and will be actively trying to distance themselves from the Bush administration and an unpopular war while still maintaining that we need to finish the job.
Clinton's going to pass as a Southerner and she has Midwestern roots. The Dems can't legitimately win many Southern states, so their best shot is to pick up swing states through white female voters in the Midwest.
That is all.
5 - Eric Berlin
Bob -- I have to respectfully disagree with you nearly across the board (except for my being brighter than a dim bulb, of course!).
Clark improved on the stump throughout his campaign -- his first for elected office. The idea that he's "weird" turned out to be mostly myth. He won the Oklahoma primary and did very well in several others before the Kerry Express ended the race (an extraordinarily front-loaded process likely not to be repeated).
Edwards proved that VPs rarely gain actual states anymore, let alone constituencies. The Clintons trust him and he's a perfect DLC Democrat with military credentials and nominal Southern charm. He's a perfect VP for a Dem Party that wants desperately to prove its Daddy Party cred.
Now, you say that Clinton will pass as a Southerner? There's just no way in hell, sorry there. And this is coming from an unabashed admirer of hers -- I think she has the stuff. She may pick up soccer mom votes in the midwest, but she needs help to overcome the fact that, if nominated, she'll be the first woman to run at the top of a major ticket.
6 - Bob A. Booey
Clinton won't pass, but she'll try. And Bill will be there non-stop to try and win that state for her and he might if it's close.
Clark is certainly not charming and he blew way more political capital, money and goodwill than Kerry ever had to start with early in the primaries.
Clark's damaged goods and he wouldn't be Hillary's pick or even in her Top 10 finalists other than as a courtesy. I predict she'd either be really smart and go for someone like Richardson, or if she wants stature and image from another old white male, she'll reach out to one of her husband's friends like George Mitchell to give her her own version of a Dick Cheney (but one with considerably more dignity). Or if she wants gravitas and national security expertise, she'll reach out to someone like retired Senator and Vietnam Vet Bob Kerrey, who's not especially close to the Clintons but might listen.
Any of us on the Left who think Wes Clark is still the savior who's going to regain the mantle of national security and military policy is sadly deluded and will watch another loss in 2008 if that's your idea of campaign strategy. The way to win in 2008 is white female voters on issues like education, health care, and jobs, the very issues Kerry could have won on in 2004 if he weren't so aloof and poor at communicating with swing voters.
One person whom everyone should take seriously because of his stature in the Senate and based on the sheer force of his personality is Joe Biden. He's the Jimmy Caan of politics, tough, no-nonsense and very experienced, someone who could potentially have some of the same appeal to independents that John McCain would. I think he'll run and he'll be a real contender along with Hillary or someone else who'll pop up as a centrist like Gov. Mark Warner of Virginia or Edwards.
I don't think it's Edwards' turn in 2004. The stench of defeat is still too fresh on him and people still think he's too young and inexperienced. I predict he will win the Democratic nomination for President and possibly win the Presidency someday, possibly in 2012 or 2016 because he has a level of charisma and political skill unseen since Clinton.
That is all.
7 - Bob A. Booey
Well, obviously it wasn't Edwards' turn in 2004. But I meant to say "in 2008."
Oopsie, darlings.
Edwards/Obama would be one slick, smooth-talking ticket in 2012 or 2016, that's for sure.
That is all.
8 - Bob A. Booey
I should say that the smart Dem strategy will be white female middle-class voters in the Midwest and Hispanic voters in the Southwest.
And George Mitchell would probably say "no thanks" because he'd be about 75 then. Hillary will no doubt pick someone who's pretty universally respected if she's the nominee. I'd guess it'd be almost certainly a white male, but I hope she does go out on a limb and pick Richardson, who has been the smart pick under the noses of the last two Democratic candidates.
That is all.
9 - Eric Berlin
Bob -- I agree that Clark isn't the best candidate for VP; I was only asserting that he'll be considered.
Richardson would be a dazzling strategic candidate in many ways, particularly because Latino votes and Southwestern votes will become increasingly vital toward electoral college success. He's also a governor, bright, personable, and has experience at the UN. I wouldn't rule him out as a major player for the outright nomination, though he may play the Edwards '04 game of "I'm not really running for Vice President."
I also agree that Edwards would do very well to build his noble credentials at hacking away at poverty and come back into the game down the road a piece. If he could pull off gaining the North Caroline Governor's mansion, that would be stellar for his chances in '16 or so.
I love what I've seen of Kerrey, and don't forget he lives in New York (he's head of NYU's New School) so he's one of Clinton's constituents at present.
All in all: Clinton is doing a great job at holding onto her early standing as quote-unquote frontrunner at this early stage.
I think her concentration on national security over racial issues with regard to Katrina is exactly on the money, and really shows that Dean doesn't have the pulse of the independents.
10 - Eric Berlin
If the Dems lose in '08, the Obama Countdown will officially begin in earnest.
Richardson has been passed up because of his uneven tenure as Energy Secretary under Clinton. But damn it all, that guy has about the perfect background / resume / personality style to run for President.
11 - Bob A. Booey
The only real problem with Richardson at the top of a ticket is image: he's overweight and a somewhat boring public speaker and interview.
I love Obama and I volunteered for his campaign, but I regret to say that I don't think the country will be ready for him anytime soon. He won't be our first black President -- if I had to guess, the first black President will be a Republican conservative/moderate, someone who is not on the scene today two or three generations down the road when Berlin and I are old men.
I love Obama and think he's everything that's right with politics, but he's A) too "liberal" for the South and much of the rural West, and B) has admitted to cocaine use in his biography.
But he'll probably be our first black VP if he picks the right candidate to say yes to. There's no doubt that everyone will have him on their short list beginning in 2008. He won't really consider running as VP unless he knows he can win, however, in 2008 or 2012.
He wouldn't mesh well with Hillary because people aren't ready to accept a white woman/black man ticket and he would distract from Hillary's own considerable star power. He'd have to be the VP candidate for someone looking for a spark of persuasion and personality, probably someone slightly older and boring.
Or someone who just wanted to dazzle you like Edwards in the future. Edwards is clearing going into Gore mode and licking his wounds. He's got a good new job that hasn't received much publicity as the new director for the Center on Poverty at UNC Law School:
A New Job For John Edwards
That is all.
12 - Bob A. Booey
Good discussion, Berlin. This is beginning to resemble some of my geekfests with RJ.
Richardson seems pretty happy in New Mexico and hasn't shown a whole lot of political ambition in the past couple of elections. He's been somewhat less-than-enthused during the VP searches and never really explored seriously throwing his hat into the ring for the primaries, which may be why he didn't have a bigger role in 2000 or 2004.
That is all.
13 - Eric Berlin
All the signs I've seen point to Richardson definitely running in '08. That said, his place in the Clinton Empire likely requires a large amount of deference to Mrs. C. And I think Clinton-Richardson at present is as likely a ticket as any other. I think you're right in saying that a white woman / black man ticket may be too "shocking," but throw in Latino and you could be looking at a winning combination.
I disagree that Richardson is boring. Was Kerry a spellbinder? The only true dazzler on the Dem bench at present is DNC Dean and Obama, who we agree is too new to the game to really make national waves at present.
Several names we've glossed over:
- Warner is definitely going to be up there.
- Even our own Al Barger is high on Indiana's Evan Bayh (hey, that rhymes...), but I've never really been that enthused about him
- Biden will certainly appeal as the older foreign policy guru
Overall, I don't see the Dems trotting out two Senators again. Look for a combination, with the likely inclusion of a Gov.
14 - Dave Nalle
Based on the description there's not a chance in hell the Dems would nominate him. Sounds like he's addicted to telling the truth and getting things done.
Dave
15 - Shark
"...Sounds like he's addicted to telling the truth and getting things done..."
...which would disqualify him from BOTH PARTIES.
====
PS: I'm with Booey on most of what he said; ie. Clark and Edwards are tainted has-beens.
My Ticket: (...knowing the George C. Scott is dead)
Jesse Ventura - Pres.
Kinky Friedman - VP
=====
[alternate plan... y'know... to expedite 'the Rapture']
Pat Buchanan - Pres.
Al Barger - VP
=====
My Favorite Republican for Pres:
Bill Fristenstein (i'm turned on by neck-bolts!)
16 - Shark
Also: Colin Powell (aka by Bush & Co as "Steppin' Fetchit") is a tainted has-been, too.
That little PowerPoint presentation at the UN put him in the "where is that lying whore now?" category.
17 - Bob A. Booey
I'll defend Powell. He has a lot of integrity and he was lied to and marginalized by his own colleagues and those he relied on for intelligence information.
He clearly has a bad taste in his mouth, but Powell is too classy to be overtly critical of the Bush administration. He only speaks of his own personal regret at having made that UN speech.
Keep in mind too that this is a man who could have been President at any time in the last 15 years if he so chose. He's one of the few in public life who believes in public service (at the cost of his own ego) and isn't a career politician.
Colin Powell is a good man who was put in a very bad situation. And he remains a good man even having gone through it.
That is all.
18 - Nancy
I agree w/Bob: Powell was a screwee, not a screwer, and that because he DOES have class, integrity, & other sterling qualities the little shit in the WH & his merry band of neocons are totally lacking - so it was an easy job to set him up w/lying info & then let him take the flack for it; the man tells the truth unerringly, & being a person of honor, it obviously never occurred to him his "own" president would use him and abuse him the way he (BushBoy) did. The shame in this belongs totally to BushBoy, not Powell. When swimming with scum, if you're an honest/honorable soul, you'll have to be a whole lot craftier & more suspicious than poor Powell.
19 - Dave Nalle
Of course you all are eronsously assuming that there was actual screwing going on. My take on Powell is that he knew exactly what he was doing and why he was doing it and bit the bullet and did what he did in consideration of the greater good. Unlike a lot of folks on here who are too partisan or too uninformed to see the truth, I think that Powell saw the global picture of the war on terror and realized that Iraq was a logical starting point, regardless of how the invasion had to be sold. I imagine he would have rather gone to the public and the UN and told them exactly what the war in Iraq was really about, but that would have resulted in the UN going completely apeshit with no chance of any support ever - it likely also would have lost us so much support in the Arab world it would have been self-defeating. Powell's a realist and knew just like anyone else with a lick of sense that the war had to be presented as something more palatable and less comprehensive than it was.
Dave
20 - Nancy
The greater good of whom, Dave - Halliburton?
21 - Bob A. Booey
No, you're the one who's erroneous.
It was well-known from all the reporting in the first years of the Bush administration that Powell consistently opposed a war with Iraq.
That's why he was seen as so credible in making that UN speech based on "new" intelligence, because he had been the consistent hold-out in Cabinet meetings, to the point that there were constant rumors of his dissatisfaction with the hawks like Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. Even their public statements were constantly at odds and there were lots of rumors about Powell leaving well before the war started.
Powell didn't believe the war had anything to do with terrorism nor did he think it was a good idea before the "intelligence" was presented to him.
He clearly doesn't think the faulty intelligence was a justification today.
And only the most bitter, irrational partisan would come up with such an explanation of Powell's motives and ideas that is completely alien to any reality in the news or in Powell's own statements.
That is all.
22 - troll
Understand that 'realist' is how the German and Japanese war appologists of the 30s described themselves
take your slippery slope off my bridge
troll
23 - troll
apologists
24 - Dave Nalle
Babs, I'm trying to give Powell the benefit of the doubt. Either he believed in the strategic importance of Iraq - the only real justification for the war - or he did something that made little sense purely because he was told to. If it's the former, then it's excusable. If it's the latter than he should have resigned rather than do it.
Presenting shaky facts to the UN, even straight out lying to the UN is acceptable and understandable if it was done to serve a valid, greater purpose. The UN is not our friend or our ally. Manipulating them is sometimes a necessity.
And Nancy, even you should have a sophisticated enough understanding of the Iraq War to realize that helping Halliburton out has less than nothing to do with it.
Dave
25 - troll
*lying to the UN is acceptable and understandable if it was done to serve a valid, greater purpose*
never mind - you've slipped already
troll