So Barak has made it official. The Junior Senator for Illinois who only ran for the Senate as a last grasp at politics is now taking aim at the highest office in the land. And the man is riding a feel good wave that hasn't let up and in most cases has built since his delivery of the Keynote address at the 04 Democratic National Convention for John Kerry.
That last grasp is in his words mind you not mine. You will find out about it in his book "The Audacity of Hope". So what did I think of the book? Well first off the man is humble. He clearly understands how fortuitous his present position is, he appreciates how fragile it is and how it it could all come crashing down in an instant. He has magnetism and it flows from his words. He clearly lays out where he stands on the major issues without unnecessary digs at the opposing view point. He points the finger of blame for many of our current messes at ALL involved not just one side or the other. He pays homage to the history and foundation of the US governmental process in a erudite but not condescending manner. He regrets our departure from true bi partisan conversation and the cheapened/simplified sound byte culture we have allowed to infuse politics.
That is the good, and there is plenty more to like about his book. However, there remains one thing sorely lacking from his heartfelt dialog. Details. Plans. Courses of action. Some marks of what he will do as the man in charge. Granted he is the first to admit these things are not to be found on the pages twixt the covers of his book. To some extent I understand this and if he could honestly say he did not write the book with an eye to the presidency I might understand it even more. But accepting that this book was not written with that possibility in mind takes a great leap of faith I am unwilling to make. And in any case even if it has simply been written from the standpoint of his future as a Senator I think he should have gotten down to brass tacks on at least a few issues. He blasts the simplicity of the current public debate and then coasts through his book with middle ground platitudes and soothing calls for compassion and compromise on divisive issues.
So in the end this book will at least make you feel like you know the man a bit more... but in a way where you are not terribly sure what his leadership would be like. It is very easy to fall into reading what you want into Barak Obama. Personally I still have reserved my judgment of his presidential bid, but on the whole I like what I have seen so far. I look forward to seeing how he progresses.
There was one thing in particular that did catch my attention. His discussion about his faith. Perhaps it is just my well honed sense of cynicism when it comes to political professions of faith... but I really thought that section is the one that rang most fake, the most contrived to me. No body seems to doubt a female or minority can make a serious bid for the presidency... but the unspoken understanding for political candidates in the US is that you cannot win without being a clearly professed Christian. To win as a non-Christian you have to avoid the Christian activists groups voting against you en-mass. No one knows how hard that would be but suffice it to say they think it so hard that no major party candidate for president has not been a declared Christian to date. Considering how agnosticism tends to track with higher education levels and that the presidential talent pool has routinely come from the top educational backgrounds available it is laughable to think there have not been Christians of convenience elected in the past. I can just imagine Obama involved in arguments with his advisor's over how to handle that section. I think it is a serious part of his life. However, by and large people of true faith have little need to clearly state the conditions of the their faith such as is done in "The Audacity of Hope". True or not, heartfelt or not, it seems inserted entirely for the reason of establishing his bona fides as a card(cross?) carrying member of the J.C. crowd (not to mention the well chronicled Civil activism of the African American Church community) while clearly limiting its level of effect on his decision making or questioning nature. The statements seem a cold calculated move and rings hollow compared to most of his other sentiments.
It isn't that I think what he does is wrong. This is a standard play to the Strongly Christian element of the electorate. They are not stupid and realize what is often the reality of the situation. One might call it the most basic (and easiest) political career compromises for US politics. However Obama goes to great lengths in most of the book to not come across as the 'Standard' politician. His history of involvement in the church community in Chicago is MORE than enough to speak for itself and available to counteract any claims against his status as a Christian. In fact the man has more credibility in this department than any candidate in recent memory for me. Yet here he lets his well groomed 'not a standard politician' facade slip with a bog standard passage straight out of a national US politics 101 book. And it is that which bothers me. How much of him is Image? How much of him a solid man of consequence ready to lead this nation in troubled times? Is he a light weight thrust into the limelight by circumstance ridding his popularity wave for all it is worth... perhaps all the way to the white house? Or is he the the right man in the right place at the right time? The times are troubled and the people are looking for someone they think can pull us around. I think a great deal of that is what is driving the buzz surrounding Obama... not to mention the palpable feel in not a few democratic minds that Hillary has some SERIOUS electabillity issues. To date the Obama camp hasn't made any mistakes, but playing it safe and staying non-specific will only get them so far. Sooner or later he is going to have to start showing his substance... his leadership inclinations etc... In short he is going to have to present himself as Presidential in the true sense of the word... not just the helmet headed smooth talking baby kissing political sense, but in that way which each American feels down in their gut. If the electorate can't envision him has president he won't stand a chance and to get there he has got to start defining himself with more than platitudes about having a real political conversation (much as I agree with that sentiment personally).
So to make a long story short... I like him but I wouldn't vote for him yet.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Alberto Gonzales... WTF????
The top Lawyer in the United States does not understand how the Constitution works. He actually stated that the Constitution doesn't grant people the right of Habeas Corpus (The right to Due Process of Law) like that actually meant it was not a right of the people.
I can accept such idiocy from some common Joe Schmoe off the street. In fact many might not know why this is such a farce and make the erroneous counter argument that the Constitution does indeed explicitly grant we the people the right of Habeas Corpus. In point of fact it does not, but let me break it down for you so that you can understand exactly how big an a$$clown Gonzales just showed himself to be when it comes to a fundamental element of his job... understanding the Constitution.
The Constitution does not grant ANYTHING to We The People. The Constitution is written specifically to define the rights and limitations of the Government. You see, the most basic and fundamental assumption of the United States Constitution is that ALL RIGHTS BELONG TO WE THE PEOPLE. The Constitution then goes on to explicitly state what the Government Can, and most importantly, what it CANNOT do. In the case of Habeas Corpus it explicitly states that the ONLY cases under which the Government can suspend the right of Habeas Corpus is when either we are invaded or a state of rebellion exists and then only when it will help maintain public safety. Currently neither is true thus the government has no right to deny Habeas Corpus.
See how that works. By default WE HAVE ALL RIGHTS. The document doesn't gives us the rights, we already have them. The document ONLY defines when and how much the government can intrude upon those rights.
The problem is that over time the 'common sense' understanding of the constitution has come to be it is the granter of our rights and thus is the source of our rights. Nothing could be further from the truth and if our Founding Fathers are aware of such idiocy at the level of the Attorney General of the United States of America they are spinning in their graves.
The Bill of Rights is not a list of our rights. It is the limitation of Government power to intrude on our most basic and fundamental rights. Let me put that another way. The Bill of Rights represents those issues which were deemed so important that it could not be assumed the government would not tramp on them at some point so they EXPLICITLY prohibit the government from intruding upon them. Thus it states things like.
Read that again, pay attention in particular to the start "Congress shall make no law". CONGRESS. The constitution is not talking to the people but stating an explicit limit on the power of Government. It allows no exceptions. It doesn’t say in time of war the government can suspend the ability of the people to peaceably assemble. It says NO LAW. If they do try you can say what part of NO don’t you understand. When the government breaks with the constitution it is in effect saying it rules the people and not the other way around. It breaks the pact We the People made that government would be formed under the strictures of the constitution. In fact it nullifies its right to govern us.
If you have never read the constitution before or if you always thought of it as granting We the People our rights PLEASE go read it again in this light. Especially the 10th amendment.
Why does it work this way? Power Corrupts and Absolute power Corrupts absolutely. When people make a compact with a government they make a compact with the devil. Governments allow stability. But they also invite Tyranny. Once the power structure is in place it is hard to challenge and it ALWAYS acts in its interests and not the peoples. Prior to the constitution most governments had been formed around the idea that they granted people their rights. IE the King or other organized power of the land had been imbued with some divine right to give and take away the rights of the people in order to run the country/province etc... The grand experiment of the American Republic was that it turned that notion on its head. We decided that it wasn't the government that doled out the rights but the people who did. Thus instead of the government granting We the People rights it is We the People that dole out and take away the rights of the Government. Thus the idea the government works for us and not the other way around.
Alberto Gonzales…. Go back to school and re-take your Con-Law classes. Jeebus this statement makes anything Quayle ever said look genius by comparison and at least none of his statements could be interpreted as a direct challenge against the fundamental nature of the Constitution.
I can accept such idiocy from some common Joe Schmoe off the street. In fact many might not know why this is such a farce and make the erroneous counter argument that the Constitution does indeed explicitly grant we the people the right of Habeas Corpus. In point of fact it does not, but let me break it down for you so that you can understand exactly how big an a$$clown Gonzales just showed himself to be when it comes to a fundamental element of his job... understanding the Constitution.
The Constitution does not grant ANYTHING to We The People. The Constitution is written specifically to define the rights and limitations of the Government. You see, the most basic and fundamental assumption of the United States Constitution is that ALL RIGHTS BELONG TO WE THE PEOPLE. The Constitution then goes on to explicitly state what the Government Can, and most importantly, what it CANNOT do. In the case of Habeas Corpus it explicitly states that the ONLY cases under which the Government can suspend the right of Habeas Corpus is when either we are invaded or a state of rebellion exists and then only when it will help maintain public safety. Currently neither is true thus the government has no right to deny Habeas Corpus.
See how that works. By default WE HAVE ALL RIGHTS. The document doesn't gives us the rights, we already have them. The document ONLY defines when and how much the government can intrude upon those rights.
The problem is that over time the 'common sense' understanding of the constitution has come to be it is the granter of our rights and thus is the source of our rights. Nothing could be further from the truth and if our Founding Fathers are aware of such idiocy at the level of the Attorney General of the United States of America they are spinning in their graves.
The Bill of Rights is not a list of our rights. It is the limitation of Government power to intrude on our most basic and fundamental rights. Let me put that another way. The Bill of Rights represents those issues which were deemed so important that it could not be assumed the government would not tramp on them at some point so they EXPLICITLY prohibit the government from intruding upon them. Thus it states things like.
Amendment 1:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Read that again, pay attention in particular to the start "Congress shall make no law". CONGRESS. The constitution is not talking to the people but stating an explicit limit on the power of Government. It allows no exceptions. It doesn’t say in time of war the government can suspend the ability of the people to peaceably assemble. It says NO LAW. If they do try you can say what part of NO don’t you understand. When the government breaks with the constitution it is in effect saying it rules the people and not the other way around. It breaks the pact We the People made that government would be formed under the strictures of the constitution. In fact it nullifies its right to govern us.
If you have never read the constitution before or if you always thought of it as granting We the People our rights PLEASE go read it again in this light. Especially the 10th amendment.
Why does it work this way? Power Corrupts and Absolute power Corrupts absolutely. When people make a compact with a government they make a compact with the devil. Governments allow stability. But they also invite Tyranny. Once the power structure is in place it is hard to challenge and it ALWAYS acts in its interests and not the peoples. Prior to the constitution most governments had been formed around the idea that they granted people their rights. IE the King or other organized power of the land had been imbued with some divine right to give and take away the rights of the people in order to run the country/province etc... The grand experiment of the American Republic was that it turned that notion on its head. We decided that it wasn't the government that doled out the rights but the people who did. Thus instead of the government granting We the People rights it is We the People that dole out and take away the rights of the Government. Thus the idea the government works for us and not the other way around.
Alberto Gonzales…. Go back to school and re-take your Con-Law classes. Jeebus this statement makes anything Quayle ever said look genius by comparison and at least none of his statements could be interpreted as a direct challenge against the fundamental nature of the Constitution.
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Presidential Race for '08 update
It has been a while since I have visited the topic of the next presidential election and particularly the status of former first Lady Hillary Clinton and my thoughts on her upcoming bid for the next presidency.
Despite the fact some thought she would not, she has officially declared her candidacy. For any that have read through my blog they know The upcoming presidential election is one I view with a great deal of interest.
The New Al Gore
Hillary in 08
For the most part I stand by my original Thoughts mentioned there though it seems the new runner in the game is Barak Obama. I do not know too much about Barak but I will be looking into him and putting up my detailed thoughts at a later time... but from the standpoint of an interesting election he poses the added dimension of a credible African American candidate as opposed to the 1 dimensional sensationalist characters we have been presented with through the last couple of decades (Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson etc...).
I am not to sure about my thoughts on Gore... He is still insisting he will not make another bid for the presidency and while we are still almost two years away from the election it takes time to gather the resources of a realistic presidential bid. Granted he is in a somewhat unique position in that he is already so well known. Should Gore toss his hat in the ring even at the 11th hour he has enough standing to be a serious contender for the democratic nomination. The only problem is this will be a heavily contested election and it will take some deep pockets to see it through. While waiting late isn’t a bad strategy, waiting to long can mean all the money is gone to someone else. Unless Gore has a serious War Chest already he will need to start gathering resources soon to make a serious bid.
While I think his resurgence in status is going to lead to him being back on the presidential trail, it is not impossible he may let it pass by and decide to play king maker. If he does not run then his endorsement is going to be a key element for ANY democratic candidate but for Hillary it may well be a requirement. Not because of what Gore's backing would give her... but what a lack of backing from Gore would do to her in particular. IE Gore worked with her as Vice president and if he doesn't run AND he doesn’t back her then he is as good as saying... She isn't up to the task. If he runs this is muted because he then is only saying he thinks he can do a better job and it will be up to the people to decide if that is the case or not.
If I had to call the democratic dynamics now I would list them as this.
First, Hillary has the baton and at this point it is her race to lose considering all DECLARED candidates. She must have Gore backing her if he doesn't jump into the race. If he doesn't back her then she better hope he is either not doing so because he is in the race or because he abstains entirely from backing anyone. If he backs someone else he is declaring she can't do the job... and with 8 years in the white house with her he is in a unique position to pass that judgment and people will listen to it, all the more so if he is not in the race (IE his status will not be biasing him). After that it is all in how they handle Bill. However... lemme say this. Betting against the Clinton's when it comes to politickin is like betting against the house in Vegas. The house does lose occasionally, but that isn't the way the odds tilt. Bill will behave, and the issue of his former presidency will be handled as well as it can be. The only question is if it is a fatal flaw or manageable quirk of a Hillary Campaign. Don’t think Hillary will be a Female Bill. She is a different beast entirely. She doesn’t have the glib demeanor and she isn’t nearly as smooth. She is ruthlessly ambitious and knows how to reach her audience just look at her success in New York. In some ways she actually reminds me of Dubbya in that she isn’t afraid to alienate folks in order to strongly reach those she needs. So long as they make the right assumptions about who that is in her Campaign she is the one to beat.
Barak? Well I will get more in depth with him later as I mentioned but at first blush he reminds me an awful lot of John Edwards last time around. He is a nobody who is very good in front of the camera and is in a position to speak strongly yet without substance. He has nothing to lose. In order for him to make it he has to do a Howard Dean without the melt down... that is, keep an incredible surge of popularity going all the way to the end. It has been a while since we have seen a presidential candidate with that kind of magnetism. He could be it, but odds are he is a little to far from left field at this point.
Gore. Whether he wants to run or not Gore is going to figure into this election. He seems poised to play a similar Game to the one Newt Gingrich is playing. IE I don't want it but if We (as in We the People) ask him to then he will. In short Gore knows he can't go up there in a pure politics play. His original campaign was one of politics. He was the incumbent vice president and the political machine pushed him out by default in default way and it didn’t suit him at all. Now he has popularity much more reminiscent of Clinton when he started pulling stunts like playing the sax on late night TV... only unlike Bill, Gore has his popularity building on real serious issues facing the nation. Gore may actually get drafted, and if he heeds the call of the people and continues to play it loose with just the right amount of seriousness then he will be hard to dismiss. Consider it in this light. He currently holds about 10% of democrats in polls and he has repeatedly said he ISN’T interested. That number will take a huge jump the second he tosses his hat in the ring. How much will depend on just how good an entrance he can make.
John Edwards is going to be in the mix as well. Considering he hasn't really come to my attention as anything other than his being Kerry's vice presidential nominee I doubt he is going to do anything different than he did before. IE he will be popular but not near enough to get the nomination. He may once again be a front runner for the vice president slot. Though all in all I think Barak will take that if he doesn't pull off a miracle and actually land the nomination for all the same reasons Edwards wound up on Kerry’s ticket.
Well this has been all Democratic so far. My focus on the Democrats is largely dictated by the fact it is going to be awful hard for the republicans to win. I think the race is for the democratic nomination. Bush is in the toilette ratings wise and if he could run again I just don't see him making it. While I am not on record for it I did think he was likely to win his second election. Mostly because I thought Kerry was a joke. The time was not right for people to want a change in leadership and Bush had him by the Balls with the issue of his change of heart on the War.
However the war play that effectively defeated Kerry in '04 is what has Bush not looking good now, nor the republican power structure in general. The war is a mess and there is no doubt the republicans are holding the bag for the past 4 years. It won't be impossible for a republican to win, but I think it will take a complete splintering of the democratic party, poor campaign by their nominee and a compelling republican candidate. One or two of those I can see happening but not all three.
Of interest to me is what Condi does. She has enough credibility to be a serious candidate. But the last 8 years ultimately are not going to reflect well on her. So in a sense she and anyone else tied strongly to this administration are hamstrung. If she or any of them distance themselves by blasting the administration then the democrats have them in the exact same vise the republicans put Kerry in over the war issue and it will be just as effective. The true power of Condi for the republicans may be as a harbinger of change. IE an African American Woman on the ticket. If she can't get the nomination she probably needs to be the vice president pick of choice for whoever gets it. But hey come on... who doesn't want to see the final presidential debates featuring Hillary vrs Condi?
Giuliani is on a lot of people's lips but he has a MAJOR problem. He is the same old formula, same old presentation etc etc etc. The same old same old has ended in two effective stale mates the past two elections. The Democrats know this, they feel it and they are responding because they lost. The people are tired of the same old same old and currently they are tired of republican leadership. Unless the
Giuliani campaign picks up some serious magic I think he or whoever gets the republican nomination is going to play the role of Mondale in 80. I'll take Giuliani seriously after he (or any generic political image candidate) wins the nomination if he/they put Condi on the ticket as vice president AND successfully manage to distance themselves from the current administration without going anti war. And that will be a neat trick indeed.
Lastly I want to clearly state that while I have made a big deal out of Hillary and Condi, or Sen. Clinton and Dr. Rice if you prefer, being women (and to a lesser Extent Barak). This has nothing to do with their credentials. Being a woman doesn't make them a better or worse candidate. However, election reality is that image plays a HUGE role. The simple fact that they are women, and in Dr. Rice's case a minority, means that a basic fundamental element of presidential image since the inception of the United States of America is going to change. Up until this point we have not seen a major party ticket with anything other than Old White Men. In a perfect world it wouldn't matter if the candidate where a green polka dotted hermaphroditic 35year old so long as they were the best candidate. But to date we do not live in a perfect world. The fact they (or anyone else) are women, or a member of a minority, is in no way shape form or fashion germane to the discussion of their capabilities as leaders. However, in reality it is most certainly germane to the issues of creating a campaign image and how they will be presented. And that has an unfortunate amount to do with who does and does not become president of the United States of America.
Despite the fact some thought she would not, she has officially declared her candidacy. For any that have read through my blog they know The upcoming presidential election is one I view with a great deal of interest.
The New Al Gore
Hillary in 08
For the most part I stand by my original Thoughts mentioned there though it seems the new runner in the game is Barak Obama. I do not know too much about Barak but I will be looking into him and putting up my detailed thoughts at a later time... but from the standpoint of an interesting election he poses the added dimension of a credible African American candidate as opposed to the 1 dimensional sensationalist characters we have been presented with through the last couple of decades (Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson etc...).
I am not to sure about my thoughts on Gore... He is still insisting he will not make another bid for the presidency and while we are still almost two years away from the election it takes time to gather the resources of a realistic presidential bid. Granted he is in a somewhat unique position in that he is already so well known. Should Gore toss his hat in the ring even at the 11th hour he has enough standing to be a serious contender for the democratic nomination. The only problem is this will be a heavily contested election and it will take some deep pockets to see it through. While waiting late isn’t a bad strategy, waiting to long can mean all the money is gone to someone else. Unless Gore has a serious War Chest already he will need to start gathering resources soon to make a serious bid.
While I think his resurgence in status is going to lead to him being back on the presidential trail, it is not impossible he may let it pass by and decide to play king maker. If he does not run then his endorsement is going to be a key element for ANY democratic candidate but for Hillary it may well be a requirement. Not because of what Gore's backing would give her... but what a lack of backing from Gore would do to her in particular. IE Gore worked with her as Vice president and if he doesn't run AND he doesn’t back her then he is as good as saying... She isn't up to the task. If he runs this is muted because he then is only saying he thinks he can do a better job and it will be up to the people to decide if that is the case or not.
If I had to call the democratic dynamics now I would list them as this.
First, Hillary has the baton and at this point it is her race to lose considering all DECLARED candidates. She must have Gore backing her if he doesn't jump into the race. If he doesn't back her then she better hope he is either not doing so because he is in the race or because he abstains entirely from backing anyone. If he backs someone else he is declaring she can't do the job... and with 8 years in the white house with her he is in a unique position to pass that judgment and people will listen to it, all the more so if he is not in the race (IE his status will not be biasing him). After that it is all in how they handle Bill. However... lemme say this. Betting against the Clinton's when it comes to politickin is like betting against the house in Vegas. The house does lose occasionally, but that isn't the way the odds tilt. Bill will behave, and the issue of his former presidency will be handled as well as it can be. The only question is if it is a fatal flaw or manageable quirk of a Hillary Campaign. Don’t think Hillary will be a Female Bill. She is a different beast entirely. She doesn’t have the glib demeanor and she isn’t nearly as smooth. She is ruthlessly ambitious and knows how to reach her audience just look at her success in New York. In some ways she actually reminds me of Dubbya in that she isn’t afraid to alienate folks in order to strongly reach those she needs. So long as they make the right assumptions about who that is in her Campaign she is the one to beat.
Barak? Well I will get more in depth with him later as I mentioned but at first blush he reminds me an awful lot of John Edwards last time around. He is a nobody who is very good in front of the camera and is in a position to speak strongly yet without substance. He has nothing to lose. In order for him to make it he has to do a Howard Dean without the melt down... that is, keep an incredible surge of popularity going all the way to the end. It has been a while since we have seen a presidential candidate with that kind of magnetism. He could be it, but odds are he is a little to far from left field at this point.
Gore. Whether he wants to run or not Gore is going to figure into this election. He seems poised to play a similar Game to the one Newt Gingrich is playing. IE I don't want it but if We (as in We the People) ask him to then he will. In short Gore knows he can't go up there in a pure politics play. His original campaign was one of politics. He was the incumbent vice president and the political machine pushed him out by default in default way and it didn’t suit him at all. Now he has popularity much more reminiscent of Clinton when he started pulling stunts like playing the sax on late night TV... only unlike Bill, Gore has his popularity building on real serious issues facing the nation. Gore may actually get drafted, and if he heeds the call of the people and continues to play it loose with just the right amount of seriousness then he will be hard to dismiss. Consider it in this light. He currently holds about 10% of democrats in polls and he has repeatedly said he ISN’T interested. That number will take a huge jump the second he tosses his hat in the ring. How much will depend on just how good an entrance he can make.
John Edwards is going to be in the mix as well. Considering he hasn't really come to my attention as anything other than his being Kerry's vice presidential nominee I doubt he is going to do anything different than he did before. IE he will be popular but not near enough to get the nomination. He may once again be a front runner for the vice president slot. Though all in all I think Barak will take that if he doesn't pull off a miracle and actually land the nomination for all the same reasons Edwards wound up on Kerry’s ticket.
Well this has been all Democratic so far. My focus on the Democrats is largely dictated by the fact it is going to be awful hard for the republicans to win. I think the race is for the democratic nomination. Bush is in the toilette ratings wise and if he could run again I just don't see him making it. While I am not on record for it I did think he was likely to win his second election. Mostly because I thought Kerry was a joke. The time was not right for people to want a change in leadership and Bush had him by the Balls with the issue of his change of heart on the War.
However the war play that effectively defeated Kerry in '04 is what has Bush not looking good now, nor the republican power structure in general. The war is a mess and there is no doubt the republicans are holding the bag for the past 4 years. It won't be impossible for a republican to win, but I think it will take a complete splintering of the democratic party, poor campaign by their nominee and a compelling republican candidate. One or two of those I can see happening but not all three.
Of interest to me is what Condi does. She has enough credibility to be a serious candidate. But the last 8 years ultimately are not going to reflect well on her. So in a sense she and anyone else tied strongly to this administration are hamstrung. If she or any of them distance themselves by blasting the administration then the democrats have them in the exact same vise the republicans put Kerry in over the war issue and it will be just as effective. The true power of Condi for the republicans may be as a harbinger of change. IE an African American Woman on the ticket. If she can't get the nomination she probably needs to be the vice president pick of choice for whoever gets it. But hey come on... who doesn't want to see the final presidential debates featuring Hillary vrs Condi?
Giuliani is on a lot of people's lips but he has a MAJOR problem. He is the same old formula, same old presentation etc etc etc. The same old same old has ended in two effective stale mates the past two elections. The Democrats know this, they feel it and they are responding because they lost. The people are tired of the same old same old and currently they are tired of republican leadership. Unless the
Giuliani campaign picks up some serious magic I think he or whoever gets the republican nomination is going to play the role of Mondale in 80. I'll take Giuliani seriously after he (or any generic political image candidate) wins the nomination if he/they put Condi on the ticket as vice president AND successfully manage to distance themselves from the current administration without going anti war. And that will be a neat trick indeed.
Lastly I want to clearly state that while I have made a big deal out of Hillary and Condi, or Sen. Clinton and Dr. Rice if you prefer, being women (and to a lesser Extent Barak). This has nothing to do with their credentials. Being a woman doesn't make them a better or worse candidate. However, election reality is that image plays a HUGE role. The simple fact that they are women, and in Dr. Rice's case a minority, means that a basic fundamental element of presidential image since the inception of the United States of America is going to change. Up until this point we have not seen a major party ticket with anything other than Old White Men. In a perfect world it wouldn't matter if the candidate where a green polka dotted hermaphroditic 35year old so long as they were the best candidate. But to date we do not live in a perfect world. The fact they (or anyone else) are women, or a member of a minority, is in no way shape form or fashion germane to the discussion of their capabilities as leaders. However, in reality it is most certainly germane to the issues of creating a campaign image and how they will be presented. And that has an unfortunate amount to do with who does and does not become president of the United States of America.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)