filkertom | Qualifications

Entry tags:

politics

Qualifications

I think it's way too freakin' early to be in the 2008 presidential campaign. But here we are.

The Republican candidates are, one and all, jokes. Mitt, Newt (and if you think he isn't a candidate you just aren't paying attention), Sam, Rudy, Tommy, John (oy, John, how the mighty have fallen...). And, honestly, a number of the Dems aren't much better. I have little confidence in Clinton, as we have disagreed on policy a few times too many and, thanks to the incessant attacks of the right wing, she has almost no hope to win. Obama is promising, but is more of a campaigner than an actual leader from what I can see, and he Just Plain Needs More Experience. I am leaning towards Edwards, and I think he's giving me lots of reason to do so.

I know almost nothing of Bill Richardson. But his new ad makes me interested. And, Bill? Whoever came up with it -- keep that person on your team.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I saw that ad the other night and went "WHOA, how did I miss this guy?"

I still think that Edwards/Obama would be perfect.

Edwards and a few different people would be perfect. Feingold, maybe Richardson....

My current "dream" ticket is Gore/Edwards.

I don't see Gore running ... I'd LOVE IT if he did, but I don't see it happening.

Personally, I think he'd rather get another Democrat elected and then accept a Cabinet position - probably Secretary of Energy. Something more aligned with his passions.

I have to agree, that is a great ad, and lets people know why he is qualified for the job. That is a great way for a not-nationally-known candicate to get people to know about them. Nothing negative about other candidates, just why he would be a good choice for the job, period. Now that is how to do politcal ads.

"I think it's way too freakin' early to be in the 2008 presidential campaign." Oh dawg, yes. I really resent that, politics being what it is these days, I can't just ignore the whole thing until a more seemly time.

Have you noticed that nobody's calling the crowd of Republican candidates "The Seven Dwarves", as they did to the Democrats when a crowd of them were running? It's okay to belittle Dems, but not the Thugs.

What worries me most about Obama's candidacy is that he already has Secret Service protection even though the other Democratic candidates don't (except for Clinton, but that's because she's a former First Lady), andweallknowwhyheneedsit.

My dream ticket is also Gore/Edwards. It'd be awesome to have Gore/Dean, but we still need Howard as head of the DNC. His 50 State Strategy made all the difference in 2006, but it still needs building.

I saw a GORE 2008 bumper sticker yesterday. I might get one myself, to put right below the sticker I've had since 2002: DON'T BLAME ME, I VOTED FOR GORE.

I think "Ten Little Indians" is more appropos. ;) And I updated my Draft Gore 2008 link. It ain't gonna happen, but here's hoping.

"I think "Ten Little Indians" is more appropos."

Now I'm having Bad Thoughts along the lines of the Agatha Christie mystery.

So am I, m'dear. So am I. Hugs, by the way -- I haven't seen you in, like, forever. We have to do something about that. I'm very sure Anne and Les would say Hi, as does Da Bear.

I'm also leaning towards Edwards right now, but that is one great ad.

I watched the Democratic candidate debate a couple of weeks ago. While I have varying levels of agreement with the different candidates, I consider all of them except Gravel and Kucinich capable of doing a good job as President. I know it's ridiculously early, but I encourage everyone to look closely at the candidates, and if you see someone you want to support, do it now. That's the only way folks like Richardson and Dodd have any chance at all.

Just curious: why do you believe Kucinich couldn't do the job? (I ask because I've been impressed with his unwillingness to be part of the herd, and vice versa, his willingness to stand up for his beliefs in the face of their being unpopular, even if correct.)

I may be completely wrong about this, but I see his willingness to stand up for his beliefs in the face of their being unpopular as potentially being the flip side of the same stubbornness that makes Bush such a disaster. A good President should be able to work effectively with Congress, and I'm not sure Kucinich is capable of that. Of course, I don't think there's a chance in hell of his getting the nomination, so the question is moot.

*nods* I can see how it might work out that way. On the other hand, it's also possible that it's actual strength of character. I don't know how well he compromises when what he's being asked to sacrifice aren't Constitutional rights, or the greater good (which are the things I know he's stood up for).

I approve of that message too. Time to do more research on Richards.

If I wind up with a Richards bumper sticker closer to the election, I'm gonna find a Fantastic 4 logo to put next to it. [snerk]

That'd be an awesome idea... unfortunately, his name's actually "Richardson". You probably conflated his name with Edwards.

You could cover up the "on" with the F4 logo, though...

Or you could get a picture of Franklin....

I refuse to choose to support a candidate at this point since to do so has proven to be the kiss of death in the primaries dating back to 1988. Whenever I decide to support a candidate in the primaries, they seem to the be next one out.

In 2004, my favorite potential nominee for the Democrats was Bob Graham.

Maybe I should start supporting Kucinich or Gravel.

Perchance, could you put your support behind Clinton? :-P

The problem with H is that she's to much of a Player. She, and too many Democrats, are more into the Game and not the Job.

Which still puts them ahead of those who cheat at both.

Kucinich and Gravel won't need your help to lose in the primaries. (I typed "primates" there at first. Whoops.)

That is a great ad! Thanks for the link.

I don't know what to think right now. I like that Gravel is outspoken and straightforward, but those very qualities will surely knock him out of the running. He may end up being a sh*t disturber, like Howard Dean in '04.

I like Clinton, but my only reasoning is that it would be cool to have a woman president. Not enough to justify voting for her.

Obama intrigues me, but I have to admit I'm wary. I recall hearing an interview with him in '06 where he said he would definitely NOT run for president in '08 because he's still a first term Senator and wants to finish up his responsibilities there. So, I'm kind of wary of that willingness to go back on that.

Edwards looks good. But it's still way too early to say for sure.

Obama intrigues me, but I have to admit I'm wary. I recall hearing an interview with him in '06 where he said he would definitely NOT run for president in '08 because he's still a first term Senator and wants to finish up his responsibilities there. So, I'm kind of wary of that willingness to go back on that.

I dunno, I think being willing to change your plans when huge numbers of people ask you to is a good thing in a president.

I love Edwards, but I don't think he's electable. I never used to say things like that, but after the last couple of elections...

I may be the only person here to be happy that the campaign has already started. It strikes me as reflecting how eager people are to get the current guy out of office.

Not eager enough (http://www.impeachbush.org/site/PageServer).

In theory, I'm all in favor, and he certainly deserves it. Practically speaking, I'm willing to allow that the Democratic Congress has more important things to be working on, like undoing some of the damage the Republicans did and preventing more. If we spend the next two years on impeachment we get nothing else accomplished and run the risk of raising sympathy for him. And the best-case result would probably be President Cheney.

Unfortunately, impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. Impeaching Bush would be the worst thing the Democrats could possibly do, unless (a) it's a double bill, also impeaching Cheney at the same time, and (b) there is significant Republican commitment, enough to *guarantee* that the Senate convicts even when the Republican lie machine gets turned up to 11 about President Pelosi. Get twenty Republican Senators to swear on their Bibles and their faith in God, on a live primetime broadcast on Faux, that they will vote to remove both Bush and Cheney no matter what comes up, and then it's time for impeachment. If you don't have that kind of Republican commitment, Bush will stay in, he hasn't got any credibility or legitimacy left to lose, so he won't be weakened, and the rest of the Republican party will be even more pissed off and unwilling to compromise or even listen to the people than they already are.

I love Edwards, but I don't think he's electable.

*shudder* If Edwards isn't electable, we're doomed, because he's the most electable of the field. Clinton is so unelectable that she's party suicide. If she truly wanted to be President, rather than just puffing her ego by being nominated and getting drubbed in the general election, she'd face the reality of how hated she is and wait at least another decade. Obama's political experience will drag him down even if he continues to make brilliant speeches all the way through, and Bubba isn't ready for a black President. Gore isn't running, and even if he got around that drawback, I don't think the mass of voters are ready to see anything other than what they expect to see in him, and what they expect to see is an anti-charismatic loser. And anybody else has a really big hill to climb to be known at all.

Don't get me wrong -- any of the Democrats would be a far better President than any of the Republicans, and if the election were next month, I think any of them except Clinton would win against any of the Republicans. But I see Edwards as the surest bet.

The American people demonstrably don't care about experience. (And it's not always related to performance, either--though actual success in past endeavors does seem to be.) And, unfortunately, they still buy the far-right lies about consumer protection lawyers, which is where Edwards will fall down. That's a pity, because I think he'd make a good president.

I agree with you about Hilary--she's a polarizer.

Edwards has about as much experience as Obama does. They strike me as pretty similar, really: great talkers, charismatic, short on resume.

I used to live in New Mexico and Bill Richardson is amazing. I wouldn't hesitate to vote for him.

BTW, one of the reasons I'm liking Edwards is that he hired David Bonior as his campaign manager, which made me think Edwards is really sincere about his populism.

Most of the Republican candidates are a joke. The only one who would stand a chance and that I agree with even a bit (maybe 35-40%) is Thompson, and he hasn't declared yet.

As for the Democrats, Richardson is interesting If he gets the nod I'll have to seriously consider him. I wouldn't vote for Obama "We should ban all semi-automatic firearms" on a bet. If you won't defend the 2nd then how can I trust you to defend the other 9?

Other than him, everyone seems to be offering a choice any number of neo-socialists from the Martian wing of the party. Either that or the most amoral, power-hungry weathervane to wear a skirt in Washington since J. Edgar Hoover.

(the description of Her Highness lifted shamelessly from a friend)

Not today, because I want to participate in it full-time and I have a lot to do, but a Second Amendment discussion up here would be very neat, and I suspect very revealing.

Regarding "neosocialism"... one of the pet peeves I have with public service at this piont is that public servants, by and large, seem to have forgotten that their job is to serve the public. The interests of America and its people are supposed to be first and foremost. Right now, they obviously aren't. And government is not a bad thing, because government is a subset of us, chosen to represent us so that we don't have to have a 300-million-person call-in show on every little thing. Government does collectively what we cannot do for ourselves individually. This is why some areas of privatization, such as health care and Social Security, Piss Me The Hell Off.

I like the inspirational tone of Obama's campaign. It's something badly needed in this country. I agree about his lack of experience being an issue, though. Still, I'd take him over Hillary "Which Way is the Wind Blowing?" Clinton any day, and up until very recently he was my top choice.

Someone whose opinion I value was talking up Bill Richardson a couple of weeks ago, so I took a good look at him for the first time, and - wow. Now, granted, it's a lot easier to chalk up major accomplishments when you haven't spent most of your career in Congress, but even taking that into account, this guy is very much a cut above the rest in terms of experience, and he's proven that he's competent as an executive. I just hope he has more charisma than was apparent in those ads...but then, his political career indicates that he probably does.

Of course I also like his positions, but then they aren't much different from most of the rest of the crop.

What little I've heard from Richardson, he seems well spoken, his head is screwed on right, and I think being Hispanic is a plus where I see Clinton being a woman as neutral and Obama being black as a net minus. I hope we'll hear more from him; my impression is that he's the best of the minor candidates.

I know I'm in an ignored demographic (no broadband 'cause it's not available where I live and no TV 'cause I hate it), but I hope he doesn't depend only on video to get his message out.

I feel in love with Richardson early on, and have been hoping he would get some attention soon.

I like Edwards, but I think he's swimming upstream at this point.

I continue to be less and less impressed with Obama as the days go by. I started out thinking he was pretty nifty but needed more experience, and the longer it goes on, the less enamoured I am of him.

NONE of them are going to win if we continue to learn NOTHING from the past two Presidential Elections and don't get on the OFFENSIVE!

The reason they call it "The High Road" is because it leads OFF a CLIFF!

I am inclined to like Richardson. The ONLY thing I have heard that could be a problem, and I will say upfront I've only read it a few places, is that he has a little trouble keeping his hands and inappropriate sexual comments about female staffers to himself.

SO not what we need in a Dem candidate, if true.

would MUCH rather have a sex scandal than a war scandal?

True. At least reasonable adults would see it that way. Sadly, way too much of the voting population seems to be made up of people who can't understand (or don't care about) anything more complicated that OMG teh HOTCHAS!

Bit discouraging, really.

I'm definitely a Richardson fan. The man is qualified and level-headed (though possibly with a case of wandering hands, which could be an issue). I'd vote for him in an instant. I'd certainly vote for Gore, vote for Edwards (especially if he then took on Richardson as VP candidate), and though I wish Obama had finished even one complete term in the Senate, I'd vote for him. Heck, I'll even hold my nose and vote for Hillary over any of the scum being offered by the Republicans. But oh, how I could wish it were the best candidate, rather than the ones with the most money and charisma, whom we put forth.

I think the "inexperienced" complaint for Obama is really cheap. *None* of the candidates has any experience at being president. It's all equal footing there. Plus, I generally dislike anybody who's made a long career out of being elected.

As for the Republicans, you completely skipped their one and only good candidate: Ron Paul.
Of course, it's kinda cheating... he's a Libertarian in Republican clothes.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

I've heard good things about Paul, and intend to investigate him more closely. Likely won't vote for him, as I'm not all that fond of the Libertarian agenda either, but I will look.

There's a strange balance in being a career politician. Someone like Ted Kennedy, who's been in there since before dirt, will in fact get a bunch of stuff done. I want actual leadership, not talking points and catch phrases, and I want someone who wants to actually be a public servant -- work for the interests and people of the United States.

I don't think wanting someone to have a certain amount of political experience before holding the highest political office possible is "cheap."

I think it's smart.

But you completely sidestepped my explanation of *why* I say it's cheap. Being governor is not being president. Being senator is not being president. The job descriptions are not the same. So how can you call any candidate "experienced", unless they are running for a second term.

Actually, Hillary's probably got the closest thing to experience, being the wife of a former president. Nobody else in the field has a better idea what it's like than she does. I still don't think I want to vote for her.

Being governor is not being president. Being senator is not being president. The job descriptions are not the same.

The job description of governor is actually quite similar in many ways to that of President, only on a smaller scale. That's one reason so many governors have been good Presidents (and most of those that haven't, have had serious questions raised about their governance at the state level). On top of that, Richardson has worked in the White House AND in the legislative side of government, so he's familiar with the process three different ways. I'd say that qualifies him at least as well as anyone who hasn't yet held the office, and far better than the current guy in the White House was when he was running as an incumbent (or ever will be).

Richardson has the resume. If he gets some traction in the press, I'll start sending money to him. (I liked Matt Santos too. :) )

I'm okay with Hillary. She's a bit too poll-oriented for me to be enthusiastic about, but I'd vote for her (as many of my relatives already have twice now). Barack Obama is a nice young man and he'll make a good president when he grows up some day.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Qualifications

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

And yet, how many of us

Re: And yet, how many of us

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject