WE DO THE MASHED POTATO AND THE FUNKY CHICKEN
emscee
emscee
Add To My Trusted Moggers

any moggers in iowa?

Posted about 1 year ago
I'm not sure I know how this "caucus" situation works (apparently it's not as simple as actually voting for somebody), but I know the one tomorrow in Iowa is pretty important, because I keep hearing about it on "Hardball." If there are any Iowans out there, I'd like to urge you to go out and, well, not vote, but do whatever it is you're supposed to do.There is a range of political opinion in the land of MOG, which is healthy and democratic and all that, but I just want to step in here and ask:What is the deal with Sen. Clinton? I'm with Chris Rock on this. Here's a part of a review of his New Year's Eve show in the NY Times:"One of his best bits involved a sideways reference to his personal life. While discussing Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign, he mocked the notion that she had presidential experience, explaining that marriage doesn’t confer professional expertise. By way of example, he mentioned his own marriage. “I’ve been with my wife for 10 years now,” he said. “If she got onstage right now, y’all wouldn’t laugh at all.”Clinton travelled around the world as First Lady, and met heads of state. Great. Angelina Jolie has done a lot of good-will travelin' also, for the U.N., and met some important people. I don't know if she's 35 yet, but if she is, she should consider a presidential run, because apparently all you need is a slew of frequent-flyer miles.Anyway, go out and caucus, Iowans. Those of you of Republican leanings, give this kid McCain a shot, ok? Because Romney and Huckabee are like Abbott and Costello, except not funny. Democrats, you have a lot of decent guys to pick from.That's my political rant. But MOG is a music place, and Iowa is where Buddy Holly and Ritchie Valens' plane went down, so here's Ritchie in "Go, Johnny, Go."
0

Comments (12)

  1. contrabandwidth
    contrabandwidth says And hopefully the Guiliani and Clinton campaigns will go down there too.
    Permalink posted 01/02/2008
  2. Bartleby
    Bartleby says It seems that the press has declared that whoever wins the primaries, the next president will a Democrat. At least, it's what it looks from this side on the pond.
    Permalink posted 01/02/2008
  3. Sturgell
    Sturgell says I saw Barack Obama on Meet The Press. He was talking some real shit.
    Permalink posted 01/02/2008
  4. contrabandwidth
    contrabandwidth says I'm just so tired of the Dynasty mentality, no more Clinton's, no more Bushes (that means you Jeb!). And Guiliani is two faced and an more of an oportunist than the others (did some one say 9/11?).
    Permalink posted 01/02/2008
  5. deadmandeadman
    deadmandeadman says As one who has interjected politics into the MOG in the past, I liked reading your post. I was especialy taken by your fairly balanced assessment of the current field of candidates on both sides of the aisle. As I write this the pundits are predicting a third place showing for Sen Clinton, behind Edwards and Barack. This will not cripple her campaign though a subsequent loss in New Hampshire would be a real body blow. >>Sturgell says" _I saw Barack Obama on Meet The Press. He was talking some real shit._ ", and I have to agree, he was really shoveling it. It does appear though that he has momentum goin' in, as does Edwards, while Clinton's support has 'plateau'd'(?). As a conservative leaning fellow, I'm very disheartened by the Republican slate. No one of them will galvanize the base. Each of them can bring strong constituencies and various of them can bring the important swing votes to one degree or another, but the core base republican vote cannot become excited by any of them. Oh Well, Again, thanks for this timely reminder.
    Permalink posted 01/02/2008
  6. dermahrk
    dermahrk says SamMuhr is from some tiny town in Iowa. I lived there for a decade but luckily moved out before the early caucus thing started up. My parents and sister still live there and are so sick of the politics they could ralph.
    Permalink posted 01/03/2008
  7. dermahrk
    dermahrk says Loved that Richie Valens clip. I was unaware that any video of him was taken before he was.
    Permalink posted 01/03/2008
  8. morgannels
    morgannels says Clinton travelled around the world as First Lady, and met heads of state. Yes, whereas Obama's met Oprah and Will Smith. Following Chris Rock's logic, if Hillary Clinton is Rock's wife, then Obama's seen Rock's show two or three times on the teevee. And the last seven years of some schmuck ineptly retelling the jokes from last night's Leno monologue (and forgetting the punchlines) is enough already. Can we just get someone who knows what they're doing?
    Permalink posted 01/03/2008
  9. emscee
    emscee says I think Chris Rock's point is that if you're running on "experience," you should actually have some. As Meredith Viera, of all people, pointed out, Sen Clinton's trip to Pakistan was in the company of Sinbad. You could argue that Dick Cheney "knows what he's doing," insofar as he's been in D.C. forever, and that all of the Democratic candidates with the exception of Obama have longer public service resumes than Sen. Clinton. The message of the Obama campaign is that just because someone has tenure, that doesn't make him (or her) the best person for the job. I voted for Bill Clinton twice, and voted for Hillary twice (she's a decent Senator, smart, and on the right side on most issues), but her sense of entitlement bugs me, and I'm not in the mood for a spin-off Presidency of a show from the '90s. The most interesting race would be McCain-Obama. If it's Romney (or Rudy)-Clinton, the amount of logic-defying, position-twisting pandering would be simply unbearable.
    Permalink posted 01/03/2008
  10. contrabandwidth
    contrabandwidth says Didn't we learn anything from Bush's appointments? The Neo Cons love to tout how many women and minorities they've appointed to office - more than any other sitting president. But what do we get - Gonzales? Rice? Powell (Well, Powell could have been great if he had listened to the doctrine with his name on it. "Always have an exit strategy". And if his own party didn't cannibalize him). Sure were behind just about every other country in having a female leader, but is Hilary really the best we have to offer? I hope not.
    Permalink posted 01/03/2008
  11. cosmo
    cosmo says I'm really back and forth on the experience issue....with W, his lack of experience resulted in 7 years of hell. With Billy Bob, his lack of experience resulted in one full term of finding his feet. If experience is the main criteria, then Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson and John McCain must all be shaking their heads and saying, "who are these schmucks getting all the attention?" I'm really starting to fall for Barry Obama and I'm still not sure if his lack of experience might actually be a plus. As for Hillary, Chris Rock has it exactly right. As a nominal Democrat, I'm rooting for Huckabee since any Democrat will wipe the floor with him in November. I fear that McCain could win the whole shebang if he's nominated. It's going to be a long year....remember that the World Series will be over by the time we actually vote. Oy!
    Permalink posted 01/03/2008
  12. morgannels
    morgannels says You could not, in any way, shape, or form, argue that Dick Cheney knows what he's doing. Even if you agreed with his policy positions, his implementation of them has been staggeringly incompetent (unless he really is as cynical as his most paranoid critics claim and his sole intention was to incapacitate the federal government). He is experienced though, I guess. And if Clinton's sense of entitlement (which I must admit I haven't seen) bugs you, doesn't the presumption of a rank amateur like Obama gall you just a little? That he, Giuliani, and Huckabee are being treated as legitimate candidates continues to puzzle me. But I guess having elected and re-elected Bush we're through the looking glass here. For me the interesting question about Clinton is her motivation and political maneuvering. On the one hand, it's easy to dismiss her as expedient and craven (just as her husband was often dismissed), but on the other hand, is someone who will dogmatically follow their values really what we need just now? My sense is that the political dialogue has become so corrupted and poisoned over the last 35 or 40 years that anyone wanting to actually accomplish anything will have to make some appalling compromises, wherever they place on themselves on the ideological spectrum. I think Clinton has certainly demonstrated her ability to compromise, but what she hasn't demonstrated yet is her husband's ability to gamble effectively when necessary. Or are we actually ready to get beyond what has become business as usual? I am personally, but I don't think we are as a country. But even if we are, I think the two choices being proposed as transformative figures (Paul and Obama) are fairly deluded suggestions. Speaking for myself, the only candidate that doesn't make me despair is Edwards, and I think his chances are best compared to those of an atheist in the pulpit.
    Permalink posted 01/03/2008

Comment on this Post

Login using email and password below.

Forgot Password?

Don't have an account?
Join MOG. It's Free!

Top Artists

Our Daily Picks

RSS

Top Artists From A to Z

© 2006-2009 Mog Inc. All Rights Reserved