What's Good for Nation and Dem Party
I've been thinking this through for some time now and I'm pretty certain I'm right about this (as you read me, you'll find that I rarely say anything that I haven't thought pretty well through, and refrain from speaking if I do not have a pretty solid rationale for something):
It would be best for the Nation, and the Democratic party if Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic nominee for President in 2008, and Barack Obama in 2016. I know this will hit Obama supporters right between the eyes and stimulate an emotional response, but take a second to think about this and it's hard not to agree with this point of view. Also, understand, I'm not a Clinton insider of any kind. I haven't campaigned for her, I haven't sent her money, I've just been in deep thought on this for a few months now.
So, here is what swayed me;
It is clear to me that we need a prolonged period of Democratic rule to fix the various socio-economic structures that are nicked up right now. (I'd just like to point out that I don't believe I'm understating in saying "nicked up." For the most part we are still a very strong country and very rich, so we really aren't in the disaster recovery mode that some make us out to be.) I believe that we need twelve or sixteen years of Democratic balance of power, primarily to clean up corporate (executive pay, rules abuse, outright fraud) and social corruption (abuse of government programs by free-riders and worthless bureaucrats must be included in the clean-up), regain our moral authority in the international community, realign religion with home-life instead of government influence and rebuild the middle class through a comprehensive education initiative at the youngest levels.
Next, it appears to me that the Democrats really do have two good candidates for the first time in a long time. Each has a flaw however. Hillary Clinton's flaw is the extreme dislike of her from the Evangelical and red-neck right (they like labels, so let's label). Barack Obama's flaw is a little more serious, but more fixable; he's woefully inexperienced, as are his barely tenured advisors. His flaw would likely cause him to lose to McCain in the fall, Hillary's wouldn't.
So, how do we solve our little issue between two good candidates, and get the prolonged period of Democratic balance of power. We need to elect Hillary now, and Barack later. We can do it easily by having the ticket be Clinton/Obama (I don't care if they like each other or not). We can in one fell swoop solve a lot of problems if we run Hillary with Barack as the VP. This would all but guarantee a victory in the fall, and, it would create a presumptive successor to the White House.
Clinton could lose for Dems
I don't have time for the full explanation, but my greatest fear is that Clinton will get the nomination, by hook or by crook, in the process alienating the hordes of new voters Obama is bringing into the process, so that the Democrats manage to lose in November. I think that is a very real prospect; I'm old enough to remember what happend to Hubert Humphrey after the 1968 convention. A lot of people walked away. I fear we could see a repeat, especially if superdelegates are who give her the nomination.
Obama will lose in November
I am so glad you are writing about this! My concern is Obama’s electability against the Republican attack machine. Not only does Barack have a lot of truthful weaknesses the republicans can use (he's only been a Senator for 3 years and one of those he spent campaigning for President, I think they will lean heavily on his inexperience), but they also have a tendency to lie and distort partial truths as well: his father's family is Muslim, his financial ties to Tony Resko, a Syrian native indicted on money laundering and bribery charges, and his admitted teenage drug use. Surviving the republican attack machine depends partly on longevity. Because Barack is a new face on the scene, he lacks the natural defense of history. People are less likely to believe or listen to crazy stories about someone who's been around a long time. I doubt anyone would believe a crazy story like "Hillary's sympathies may lie with the Terrorists." But don't put it past the neo-cons to float that kind of story about Barack Hussein Obama. Finally, much of Barack's support is from moderates: people who sometimes vote republican. Unlike Dems who ignore the ultra right, moderates may listen to the swiftboat attacks and abandon him on election day. Then, today, I read an article by Larry Johnson of the huffington post (a liberal blog). It appears to be a well researched article linking Barack to terrorist sympathizers! Is this true!?! I am not willing to gamble on another John Kerry. Hillary is still standing after 16 years despite the Republican attack machine. I think she should be our nominee. If these stories about Barack are not true, then he’ll have 8 years to clean this mess up before running again.
Obama general election weakness
I think you put that very well. I didn't go over all that, but yes, I think the general lack of experience and track record runs against him in the general election as much as it works for him in the nomination race. I don't believe Americans should, and really only a couple times have, elect somebody President on little or no track record. It's too risky. I don't think for a minute that is lost on the Republicans. They will hammer that and the national security flaws to Obama.
Again, don't get me wrong, Obama has potential to be great, and after 8 years in the VP chair, I'd vote for him for the Presidency. As it stands now, and I'm a middle class progressive from a family that is very union even today, I will have a very hard time voting for him in the fall, especially against McCain. The fact that McCain is a moderate on most things who reaches across the aisle with regularity and is a very strong national defense guy with a reputation for doing what's right v doing what the right wants, sways me. Simply put, I'd take Clinton over McCain, McCain over Obama right now.
Somebody please pass the note to Hillary and Barack to cut a deal, otherwise I'm almost positive we wait at least four more years for major changes and have to piddle around with whatever can be negotiated with a Republican administration, even one run by a decent guy.
The Beav
www.RealWisconsinNews.com
Post new comment