As I have previously mentioned on this blog, virtually all of my "keeping up with the news" these days takes place in the politics section of the New York Times, with the occasional trek over to technology if I feel like expanding my wish list (I maintain that this is one step above keeping my nose buried in entertainment news). I'm not really proud of this, because such practice can cause one to miss underplayed but potentially important stories like this one about the Islamic Revolutionary Guard taking aggressive actions against U.S. Naval vessels.
However, the fact remains that if I have a newsworthy expertise, it's politics, so I've decided to go ahead and throw in my thoughts regarding the current presidential race.
I'll start out by noting that I have been an Edwards supporter throughout this election. I mean, I like Kucinich, Gravel, Biden and possibly Richardson more, but as far as the front runners go Edwards is my man, mostly because of his focus on poverty and his commitment to nuclear disarmament - and it doesn't hurt that he polls better against leading Republicans than his rivals. That said, I have to say I'll just be happy to see a Democrat in the White House.
Edwards loyalties aside, I am very excited about Obama's momentum. His positions aren't anything special to a leftist like me, but I like the fire he brings to this campaign. Frankly, in my mind, the significance of experience and policy takes a back seat to the fact that Barack Obama isn't just running a campaign: he's leading a social movement. And he is bringing the sort of passion and hope to American politics that haven't been seen since Bobby Kennedy was shot.
Also, I'm a sucker for great speeches, and while he doesn't really stand out in debates, Obama is definitely the best orator out there on either side of the party line.
As far as the Republicans go, I could probably live with McCain or Giuliani. I used to be a big fan of McCain, back when he was a maverick senator and actually had a backbone, but I'm sick of the political games he's been playing these past few years trying to shore up party support. As for Giuliani, I think he's a shifty liar, but the fact that he's being a shifty liar while trying to secure a Republican nomination leaves me feeling like his White House politics will be more liberal than, say, Fred Thompson. I'm not going to shed any tears over the Republicans getting shafted here.
Who do I not want? That other star of Iowa, Mike Huckabee. The first time I saw him debate, I liked him. I thought he had a moderating tone and a sensible outlook. And that's what makes him so dangerous: he's silver tongued, but he's a more conservative, more religious George W. Bush. Also, he lists homosexuality with pedophilia and necrophilia, he thinks international terrorism is completely unrelated to our aggressive foreign policy, and he has Chuck Norris endorsing him.
Okay, so what's going to happen? Well, I'll tell you this: I saw Barack Obama giving his (amazing) victory speech in Iowa, and I said "That is the next president of the United States." He's shrugging off Clinton's challenges about electability by, well, winning. He's inspiring. As far as I can tell, he's honest. And I think that's what people are looking for right now after seven years of Dick Cheney being our Vice President.
I'm not calling this for Obama because 87,000 Iowans liked him. That's stupid. Iowa does not and should not represent the choice of the American people. But there's no denying that he's got a lot of momentum; with a clear Iowa victory under his belt, he's already pulling ahead in New Hampshire, where just two months ago he was trailing Clinton by twenty percent. And we haven't even gotten to the real liberal urbanites yet, who I'm thinking just might swing towards a Black guy from Chicago. Also, Obama is overwhelming popular among young people, which is pretty significant this time around because he actually got them to caucus. How much easier a time will he have getting them to punch a card and be on with their day?
So yes, I think Barack Obama is going to get the nomination, even though I'd like it to be Edwards, and I wouldn't cry about Clinton either. I'm not even going to make a guess about the Republicans. Huckabee got Iowa, but he's not getting New Hampshire. Romney is still popular in some parts too, though he's getting hit pretty hard by the other Republicans. McCain finished stronger than was really expected in Iowa, and he's got a good shot at winning New Hampshire. And even though he could make evangelicals leave the party, Giuliani can't be counted out either. I will say that Fred Thompson is going to prove too boring and Ron Paul too crazy. They'll drop out.
So let's say Obama makes it to the general election. Here's where it gets dangerous, because we all know no senator has gotten elected to president since JFK. They're often seen as not having the right experience, and the nature of Senate voting leaves them open to easy, if unfair, attacks. Clinton's already after him about his vote for the USA Patriot Act after he said he'd oppose it, and according to factcheck.org there's not a lot of deception in that accusation, except maybe that she did exactly the same thing. I can see it now: Romney (for example) will be running ads blasting Obama for something like voting $300,000 to studying the reproductive habits of fish off the coast of California or something, and very few people are going to realize he's probably talking about some budget that also gave $400 billion to the military and had the support of every Republican in the Senate. I am a bit worried about Governor Huckabee beating Senator Obama.
On the other hand, Obama is very good at shrugging off attacks, and I think his positive message is going to resonate with voters. So maybe he can do it. I'll believe it. That, after all, is the audacity of hope.
No comments:
Post a Comment