a political question

emscee

a political question

Posted over 2 years ago

Artist:
- PLAY
Jackie Wilson
Track:
- PLAY
Higher and Higher

Am I the only one who believes that if Bill Clinton weren't married to Hillary, he would be rallying the Democratic troops behind Obama? I'm old enough to remember, as a child, seeing JFK's motorcade ride through The Bronx, and knowing even then that he represented a new political energy.And I'm old enough to have seen the Democrats nominate one tired, charisma-challenged hack after another (Humphrey, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry) and get clobbered.So when I watched Obama's official announcement of his candidacy this morning, which ended with Jackie Wilson's "Higher and Higher," I felt that customary dispirited chill: the Democrats will nominate Sen. Clinton and squander their shot at taking back the White House.I'm gonna go to Obama's website and send his campaign some cash.

Comments (20)

Add To My Trusted Moggers

Takeshi Kovacs says Great post...

Permalink posted 02/10/2007
Add To My Trusted Moggers

thill says one thing you can always rely on...the democrats will disappoint. Every once in awhile when they are they are down and out they can sometimes rally some support on the underdog card but they don't know what to do with the power when they get it--see new Congress, etc. i was just relieved when Kerry FINALLY announced he wouldn't be looking to run next election. he had to think about this?

Permalink posted 02/10/2007
Add To My Trusted Moggers

steph38 says I agree, it should be Obama.

Permalink posted 02/10/2007
Add To My Trusted Moggers

MrFrost says Im almost scared of him getting elected because I dont want anybody to kill him. im 1000% serious.

Permalink posted 02/10/2007
Add To My Trusted Moggers

Rboy says going to a big fundraiser of his in NY. Do not discount the power of charisma and good ideas...no one knew who Bill Clinton was in February of 2007. Wasn't it nice to see a political speaker who can pronounce words correctly and put forth a coherent idea. If he doesn't get the nomination, I will go nukular. ahem.

Permalink posted 02/10/2007
Add To My Trusted Moggers

NeilNathan says i think obama is slick enough not to say the kind of things like going off of oil, reducing the military budget extensively, or requiring all employers to provide their employees with health insurance that will get a candidate assasinated i read the audacity of hope and he says a lot of the right things about the aforementioned topics in a very saavy way this guy is the real deal and is righteous enough to make it happen he's a little wet behind the ears politically, but the longer you stay a senator in this country the less of a chance you have of being elected president, so i'm glad he's going for it at worst, it's amazing that we have a woman and a black man that are legitimate contenders for the prize though i do believe al gore is thinking of stepping in last minute just after edwards, obama, and hilary have bludgeoned each other to a kind of draw, and using all of his internet and global warming cred to pose a serious threat there's a great rolling stone article that pontificates on this theory i saw the man live at town hall before his film came out and he was affable, funny, loose and outright presidential; the complete opposite of how he comes off on t.v. or came off in the 2000 election. if he could somehow bottle that, he would be unbeatable, that along with his anti iraq invasion from the beginning message would be tough to argue with the real horror is that we have 2 years left of the bush administration, i have to pinch myself when i think of how long that actually is and how much damage they can still do

Permalink posted 02/10/2007
Add To My Trusted Moggers

cosmo says I don't enjoy being the wet blanket but remember: it will take a lot for the Democrats to lose the election next year and they WILL lose if Clinton or Obama are nominated. Hillary stands for nothing but herself...it's as if she feels she's entitled to the office. Add to that fact, even if she somehow wins, we will again be in a place where almost 50% of the nation hates the president (not just disagrees with him/her, but HATES). Haven't we had enough of that for the past 16 years? Obama will most likely be president some day, but not next year. He's not ready and neither is the country. In today's world, a platform consisting solely of "I'm different" isn't enough. He needs some seasoning and then he'll be unstoppable. Gore and Edwards are the best hopes of the party. Support them!

Permalink posted 02/10/2007
Add To My Trusted Moggers

NeilNathan says much agreed rboy barack can speak quite well and really has a talent for inspiring charisma is king the edwards wife recovery from breast cancer will help them, but remember, he only has a few years in the senate as well, really just as inexperienced as barack, just with a presidential campaign behind him don't be surprised if someone like bloomberg comes in last minute with 250 million of his own cash and makes it happen i don't see the country voting for rudy or a tired, old, angry man like mccain it could be someone that comes out of left field like bill clinton did, that we're not even speaking of now just finished reading "the natural" by joe klein which is an amazingly quick and insightful read about bill's presidency. also gives a lot of insight into hilary and what kind of president she might make

Permalink posted 02/10/2007
Add To My Trusted Moggers

elketerbentzadik says This post would be better if it posited an alternate reality where Bill Clinton is note married to Hillary but is instead married to Barack Obama.

Permalink posted 02/10/2007
Add To My Trusted Moggers

Misstee says I agree that the Democrats will lose if they nominate Hilary or Barack. I hate to admit it but this country is not ready for a president who is female(we JUST got our first female speaker of the house its gonna take a while) or a person of color. Hopefully the ticket will be Edwards/Obama. Hilary will be vying for a high profile position in the cabinet. Or can we bring Bill back? That would be fine by me.

Permalink posted 02/10/2007
Add To My Trusted Moggers

emscee says The people who think Obama is "not ready" are setting him up for failure. Does anyone really believe that six more years in the Senate are going to make him a more attractive candidate? He's running now because his instincts tell him that this is a Kennedyesque "moment." He doesn't need to slog out another half-decade, building up a track record of floor votes, to become more prepared. How ready were GWB and small-state Governors like Carter and Clinton?

Permalink posted 02/10/2007
Add To My Trusted Moggers

deedee says I have to agree with Cosmo on this one. Let's be realistic; let's remember what country we live in, and the fact that most of the people in it simply will not vote for an eastern (New York, no less)-liberal-feminist woman or any non-white person (no matter how vital-young-charismatic-Kennedyesque). Someday, maybe. I mean, I hope so. If we say that it's not Obama's moment, it's not to do with his experience but the time we live in. .... Gore and Edwards are (or seem to be) very decent, impassioned men, and I would feel fine about either of them leading the country. I do love Obama using "Higher and Higher," though. That's inspired.

Permalink posted 02/10/2007
Add To My Trusted Moggers

cosmo says I think you answered your own question about readiness...GWB and Carter were obviously not ready and it showed in their poor performances. It took Clinton almost 4 years as prez to finally get a handle on the job. Experience does count for something.

Permalink posted 02/10/2007
Add To My Trusted Moggers

morgannels says The comparisons to Kennedy, Carter, and Bush Jr. are apt here. None of them were very good at the job of being president. Kennedy was stirring and all, but what did he actually accomplish? The Bay of Pigs? The first steps into Vietnam? Clinton, on the other hand, was as effective at the job of being president as anyone has been since World War II, whatever you may feel about him personally. And he got that way because he spent a long time toiling in a political job, understanding how things work. He learned a great deal losing and then winning back the governorship and bombing horribly at the 1988 Democratic Convention. He made mistakes that he could learn from. Obama hasn't done much yet, and he certainly hasn't made any mistakes he could learn from. I think that Obama is a compelling candidate, but I don't think he'd be a very good president, at least not yet. Not because he's young, not because he's black (though that will make things harder), but because he just doesn't know what he needs to know yet. Edwards is "much more interesting to me":http://morgannels.org/blog/?p=118. He's been working in this arena longer, and I would imagine that he learned all sorts of things watching John Kerry drive off of cliff after cliff in the last election. I hope he's a good enough candidate, because I think he'd make the best president of any of the candidates running. And I'm not convinced that it will take a lot for the Democrats to lose. Don't underestimate their considerable abilities in this regard. And the Republicans (WALNUTS aside) are running from Bush fast enough that they'll actually be able to run against him by next year.

Permalink posted 02/10/2007
Add To My Trusted Moggers

emscee says Edwards seems like a decent guy, but he's like (Bill) Clinton-Lite. I'd vote for him (of course) in a Presidential race against McCain or Rudy (or ?), but it's tough to get jazzed about him. And Gore? Really, do we want to go down that nowhere road again? (I'm pulling for a "Jesus Camp" Oscar upset against "An Inconvenient Truth.") Sometimes leadership is about inspiration (and, ok, audacity). Maybe there is a wish in the deflated soul of America for someone who represents a dramatic departure. Do we want someone waiting around twiddling his thumbs in Congress until the establishment decides it's his turn, or someone trying to shake things up? Obama's not that young: he'd be, what?, 48 when he took office? If nothing else, there's this: it's very likely that Barack Obama is the smartest candidate in the race. And he gives a great speech. After six years of GWB, I think we've learned that intelligence and communicative skills should matter.

Permalink posted 02/10/2007
Add To My Trusted Moggers

cosmo says Intelligence and communicative skills are essential but so is the ability to govern. Someone who can put the right coalition together on each issue and say no to the crazies. This election probably isn't the same as others. On January 20, 2009, whoever is sworn in will need to carefully extricate us from the catastrophe in Iraq without letting the entire region implode. Speeches alone won't do it...the ability to finesse the neighbors will.

Permalink posted 02/10/2007
Add To My Trusted Moggers

jenipop says This Op-Ed appeared in The New York Times earlier this week and supports the nation's Obama readiness (and goes a long way toward affirming your zeitgeist-pinned enthusiasm, Emscee). In fact, I quoted from it liberally when a friend and I were arguing about this very issue. While I agree that there are some states that will probably remain impermeable to the Democratic party - regardless of race and/or gender - it doesn't make sense that those elements would dash a candidate's prospects outright, at least, not in a more thoughtful, well-informed and larger-picture electorate. Oklahoma, where I live, hasn't elected a Democratic president since L.B.J., yet our workforce is better characterized - and it goes without saying, better represented - by the Democratic platform. Two texts that help explain this long-held anomaly are Whatever Happened to Kansas? and The Hijacking of Jesus. To my mind, it's beyond distasteful that a Democratic candidate, who initially voted to authorize the President's use of power in Iraq, is expected to cower now that they have changed their position, lest they be deemed a heretical "flip-flopper." Although I applaud the resoluteness of the few, like Kucinich, who refused to vote in favor of authorization, I can understand why so many Democrats sided with the Republicans on this all-important vote. I don't agree with it, of course, but I do understand it. Given all that has been exposed to the light between then and now, to conceive that the Democrats owe anyone an apology or an explanation is ludicrous. Just look at what's happened at the behest of Bush and his blatant exploitation of the global goodwill shown toward the U.S. post-9/11. I think the Democrats fully understand what is at stake; how they arrived at this momentous pole position; and what will be demanded of them, without compromise, come 2008. Thanks for the post. Aforementioned NYT column: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/07/opinion/07plissner.html?ex=157680000&en=948fa63096d2c14e&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

Permalink posted 02/10/2007
Add To My Trusted Moggers

Hmmm says I think the Daily Show did it best when they played "Jesus Christ Superstar" as he walked up to speak

Permalink posted 02/10/2007
Add To My Trusted Moggers

dermahrk says You think Obama needs the endorsement of president blowjob?

Permalink posted 02/13/2007
Add To My Trusted Moggers

steph38 says I'll vote for Obama. There's one vote. ahem. Also, I think that prejudice in the United States has largely become simply about being poor. If you are poor, you aren't any good. It doesn't matter what color you are. It sucks, but that's the way it is. I'm fast heading that way, as a public school teacher. haha. Obama is a well-educated, intelligent, articulate, engaging guy with really good ideas. I don't think that prejudice is going to hurt him nearly as much as some of you are saying. I think he can win. Thanks for the political talk on mog, I enjoyed it.

Permalink posted 02/14/2007