Final Four
It looks like we are down to the final four, Hillary, Barack, McCain and Romney. Never mind Ron Paul, the libertarian, and Preacher Huckabee. Libertarian views attract few voters. Huckabee draws the shrinking evangelical vote. The winner take all nature of the Republican race makes it unlikely Huckabee can actually play a role in the selection process, but a strong showing on Super Tuesday could put him on the list of possible running mates or cabinet appointees.
Giuliani's failure was predictable. Mayors do not become President. The man is a personal mess who is shamelessly cashing in on 9/11. It didn't work for political offfice, but it has brought him tons of money in his security related business ventures. The over $50 million people gave Rudy resulted in one committed delegate. His endorsement of McCain is generally viewed as not significant.
Edwards had the sense to get out of the way and let the voters more clearly choose between Hillary and Barack. His message was sounding too repetitious and he lacked the star power of the two front runners. I doubt he would be a running mate again, but maybe a cabinet position would interest him, perhaps Secretary of Labor. I don't know that he has judicial ambitions.
McCain is edging away from Romney. They obviously despise each other. Huckabee nailed Romney as looking, not like the guy you work with, but rather like the guy who laid you off. Romney loses the likeability race to McCain. McCain benefits from the emeritus and sympathy vote, as well as the anti-Mormon sentiment.
Doris Kearns Goodwin nailed Bill Clinton when she said he is like former President Teddy Roosevelt, who ran as a third party candidate in the 1912 race. They both have a need to be center stage, and Doris reminded us of what Alice Roosevelt said about her father, that he has a need to be the bride at every wedding, the corpse at every funeral and the child at every christening. Bill's grandstanding with gleeful joy while taking shots at Barack has repulsed a lot of people, most notably Ted Kennedy who has now loudly endorsed Barack. Seeing Bill Clinton disrespect the status of former President reminds us how he disrespected the office of the Presidency by his adolescent-like sexual dalliance, thereby squandering the power we had given him by our votes. We are getting rid of one shadow President, Dick Cheney, and we don't need to have another one in Bill Clinton.
I have not taken the time to try to understand the extensive demographic breakdown of the voting that has been taking place. Black voters largely go for Democrats and are now going for Obama. Older white women are going for Hillary. Most interesting to me is how young voters feel. We older people who grew up in the pre-civil rights era are dying off, and many of our prejudices with us. Young people don't carry the burden of those memories. The same is true of the Vietnam War, though it is being replaced with the similar mess in Iraq. I suppose the old racial and gender prejudices are now in some ways being replaced with immigrant and homosexual bashing, but those attacks are being made more to attract older voters than young. The young are more open and accepting of diversity. Their discontent is with the old white folks who have been doing such a poor job of running the show.
In 2004, here on Sense, I predicted young voters would be motivated to dump Bush and would vote for Kerry as an agent of change. Sadly that did not happen, as young voters did not turn out in large numbers to vote. But Barack Obama is seen by the young as a genuine change agent. He is a youthful 47, African-American, charismatic and preaches pragmatic hopefulness. I remember the feeling my young friends and I had when JFK ran against Nixon in 1960, proposing inspiring programs like a Peace Corps. That seems to be what many young people are feeling now about Barack. Caroline Kennedy and Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri were encouraged to endorse Obama by their children. There is so much to be discouraged about by American politics, which is all part of a plan by the rich Republican establishment to disenfranchise the majority of voters who are sincerely interested in seeing American politics return to a genuine concern for all Americans, not just the rich and powerful. Obama's message of hope is the only one addressed to those who truly want change for the better.
We'll see what happens Tuesday. McCain might end up with enough victories to be the Republican nominee. The Democrat vote may be close enough to make later contests, like here in Washington State February 19th, more interesting. In fact, considering the non-committal of the unelected super delegates, the battle between Hillary and Barack may come down to the Convention. I think Hillary still has the edge at this point, but it could be turning against her. If Barack can get it to the convention, those super delegates may realize that Barack is the better choice and that he will offer a better match to the Republican. I would really like to see a surprisingly big swing toward Barack on Tuesday.
posted by Tom Blake | 2:47 PM
3 Comments:
Tom,
Interesting analysis. But:
1. You dismiss the religious right by writing "the shrinking evangelical vote". Really? This to me is really big news. A powerful minority vote that first showed its power in getting Reagan elected and has been very influential in all succeeding elections is buried without a funeral? At least one "sense" should be devoted to this remarkable change. Why did it become moribund? Are people becoming more secular? I heard that 13% of the electorate are hard core evangelists, the true religious right. This is as big a percentage as blacks, gays, Hispanics, maybe even feminists. Personally, I don't think they are dead, just leaderless. I shudder to think about it, but McCain might pick Huckabee as a running mate to get those votes.
2. I see no reason that either Clinton or Hillary would want Edwards in their cabinet. What does he bring to the table? Both would want respected wonks, not politicians. I certainly agree he would not help as a running mate.
3. The comparison of the leader of the evil empire, Dick Cheney, to Bill Clinton is as ugly as it is stupid. A better comparison of the Hillary-Bill political relationship would be the JFK-RFK relationship.
4. As an older voter I resent the idea that we are not open to diversity. I have many times written in "Sense" that I abhor the recent anti-immigrant hysteria that is sweeping the nation. It is the young males and sometimes females who have historically been the most avid racists. I saw a show on PBS about the only Jew to have been lynched. Being old, I cannot remember his name. The documentary showed several photos of his lifeless body hanging by a rope, his head akimbo from his body. The photos all showed many young white males posing with the dead body.
Every day there is an article in the Arizona Republic about how our illegal immigrant law is affecting the economy of the area. It is very effective in that Hispanics are leaving the state in droves. McCain tried to do something about that by proposing a law that provided a way for these poor people to become legal immigrants, but he has had to renounce his actions. You can call that flip-flopping, but he is just being a wise politician. The climate will change. People will see that either for humanitarian or economical reasons, he was right.
5. Obama is a change agent? Change to what? I agree that is what we thought about Kennedy. but he made no changes. He is revered for his strong stand in getting the US out of messes that his inexperience got us into in the first place. Obama is charismatic. That's all we know now. We will have to elect him to see if he is more than a pretty face. As for me, I'll take McCain or Clinton.
6. When the Republican candidate was George W, I wanted anybody electable from the Democrats. They chose Kerry! If McCain is the candidate I care less about the Democrats having an electable opponent. I would prefer to see Clinton run agains McCain.
John from Phoenix
With Super Tuesday two days off, the Arizona Republic weas full of election coverage. It posted a nice matix with issues along the rows and the candidates along the columns. That made it easy to see differences provided you believe the writer characterized the candidates' positions accurately and that a 20 word summary on each issue does the candidates' justice. Here's what I noticed:
1. Eleven issues wre listed. The environment was not among them! I am dumbfounded.
2. There was very little difference between Obama and Clinton and between Romney and Huckabee. McCain had differences with Romney and Huckabee on education, medicare, the mortgage crisis, and social security. Generally there were significant differences between the Democrats and the Republicans with McCain slightly closer to the Democrats.
3. All this talk about "change". It would seem from this chart that McCain is the biggest change agent within the two parties. Meaning that McCain wants to change Republican positions whereas both Clinton and Obama want to espouse accepted Democratic positions.
Then I read a very good editorial about the Democratic candidates. The author said they are running on the themes of "experience" versus "change". He said Clinton's experience during her husband's presidency is real. He said that Obama's appeal to change is based getting away from the divisiveness between the parties that characterised Washington during the Bush years to one of working together under an Obama administration. I saw the light. Finally, someone explained what Obama's change is all about: style. That is very fitting because his entire campaign is based on style. He is playing on his strenth, his charisma.
Even a friendly editorial cartoon by our Pulitzer Prise winning local cartoonist, emphasizes that. It shows Obama at a podium saying, "Ich bin ein John F Kennedy".
John from Phoenix
John, on your enumerated points in your first comment:
1. I figured I would be challenged on the shrinkage, and I admit to more wishing than documenting regarding that statement. I do think the core voters of the religious right will always go Republican, but I think less fanatical religious voters have been discouraged by the Bush Presidency, and religion will play a lesser role in their vote this time around. Non-progressive religious voters, other than Mormons, would probably go for McCain, and definitely would vote against Hillary, in part because of her "immoral" husband (without giving her significant credit for not divorcing him).
2. Edwards brings sincere concern for the plight of American workers, which is why I mentioned him as a Secretary of Labor prospect. The current inappropriate Labor Secretary, Elaine Chao, the only original Bush cabinet member still serving, was a capital markets manager for Bank of America, which would seem to be credentials for Commerce Secretary, not Labor. As the first American of Chinese ancestry to serve in a Cabinet position, she seems to be a cynical Republican appointee in the mode of Clarence Thomas, a vehemently conservative person of color, for whom Republicans claim credit by nominating and Democrats risk racial liability by opposing. As for Edwards as a possible VP, some pundits have said Edwards might attract some southern white worker votes if he runs with Obama.
3. My comparison of Bill Clinton to Cheney was with regard to influence only, not the purpose of the influence. Hillary was an advisor to Bill, as RFK was to JFK. Cheney is a usurper. The concern in a Hillary Presidency, is that Bill would be more like a usurper than an advisor.
4. I think younger people, though less prejudiced, are more vocal about any prejudice they have, whereas older people have become more reticent about their legacy of prejudice. Youth overstates, while age understates. Young people may be the lynchers, but old people enable the lynching and turn a blind eye. Pollster measurement of race as a voting factor for young people will be much more accurate than for old people. Fortunately for Obama in terms of accuracy of the polls, his measured support comes more from the young than the aged.
5. I agree Kennedy was more a change in look than in action. Of course, he did not have much time in office. He did start the Peace Corps and he reluctantly espoused Civil Rights, but the real changes occurred after his assassination when LBJ took over. Obama speaks of change in terms of hope that we can become more willing to recognize our commonalities than our differences, with his own heritage being a symbol of that - a white mother from the Midwest and a black father from Africa. By the way, I am reading Obama's 1995 book, "Dreams from My Father" [very well written and quite interesting in helping understand how unique a person he is], and was surprised to learn that Obama's mother lived in Seattle for several years and graduated from Mercer Island High School the year after we graduated from O'Dea.
6. Finally, I acknowledge I have also been engaging in wishful thinking by my reluctance to accept that you really are a Republican at heart and a McCain supporter above all. Bush could make you vote for a Democrat, but it seems no Democrat could dissuade you from voting for McCain. I think McCain would be a terrible President. He is an extreme hawk with a siege mentality, who continues to perpetuate hawk myths going back to the Vietnam War. His basic competence has always been relatively minimal and he now appears to have entered the bumbling stage. While his position on some issues may be more moderate than many Republicans, he is, as he has been reminding us, fundamentally a Reagan conservative. Reagan is dead and buried, but we need to also bury the myths about Reaganism being good for America. The national electorate soundly voting against John McCain in November would be an excellent step in that direction.
As to your second comment:
The array of candidates on the political spectrum as described in the article sounds fairly accurate. The environment should have been listed as an issue, and if it had been, the candidate positions would be about the same spread, with McCain more toward the Democrats.
I don't see McCain as a change agent in the Republican Party. His amalgam of positions is eccentric and draws no particular group of supporters based on the issues. He is not viewed as a party man and is being chosen reluctantly, because the Republican prospects are so low that no other viable candidate would come forward, only Romney who has had to spend some of his own vast wealth to move his campaign along.
What was said about Obama seems on the mark. His change, unification, could come from either party, and was fraudulently used by George W. Bush in his first campaign. But McCain, in spite of working with a few good Democrats in the past, is not a unifier, just as Hillary, who has succeeded in some bi-partisan efforts in the Senate, is not a unifying figure. All the candidates of both parties felt like looks backward, except for Obama. That is the excitement about him. He feels like something new and hopeful for the future.
If we elect Obama we send the message we want our Congress to start working together to legitimately shape our future. At first the accomplishments will be moderate, but as sincere civility re-enters the process, we will all learn that it is time for America to change and become more sincerely civil to all the people living in our land and to all the other nations on this earth.
Post a Comment
<< Home