One of the most frequent criticisms of Barack Obama that I've seen here is that he's more style than substance, that his approach is insufficiently detail-oriented or wonky enough for him to make a good President. This is not an infrequent criticism I've heard about African-American public figures, particularly those who are well known for their oratorical prowess. Jesse Jackson, Sr. faced the very same questions in his 1984 and 1988 runs for President. And, at the same time, it is rarely something that I hear applied to charismatic white candidates, apart from maybe Reagan. But the whole label of "style without substance" is not only applied to African-American public figures by white conservatives or by
I know, it's still too early to assume that Hillary Clinton, despite her strong lead in the polls, will be the nominee. I am not supporting her, nor do I buy the whole inevitability thing. One thing I have noticed, though, is that she has a pretty fierce machine of surrogates who are very tough on the other Democratic candidates. I've seen it suggested that this bodes well for the general election, since it shows that she's willing to get tough and hit back hard and fast. History suggests that this isn't necessarily the case, though.
Should Barack Obama win the Democratic nomination in 2008, the next obvious question will be who he picks as his running mate. Running mates are generally chosen to either create balance on the ticket or to re-inforce the strengths of the nominee. A good running mate should be a strong and loyal advocate (yes, I'm looking at you, Holy Joe) for the person on the top of the ticket and should not outshine the Presidential candidate. Also, generally, a running mate should have some national exposure, so this often means a Senator or possibly a governor. Representatives tend to be a little too local, so they don't often work well. So, using these approaches, I'd like to determine who would work best with Obama on the top of the ticket. Follow me over to come up with some thoughts.
As I watched Countdown last night, I saw how Keith had on an ex-CIA agent who talked about how torture is a very ineffective means of getting accurate information from someone who may or may not know something. I've heard this sort of thing for a while, and I'd imagine that amongst people who do interrogations in military intelligence and the CIA, they probably know that torture is pretty ineffective (in addition to being illegal and immoral). So, at that point, I wondered to myself, why is Bush just so damn insistent on having the "right" to torture terrorism suspects? Surely more than a few people from the CIA or military intelligence have come to Bush and said "look, torture just doesn't work in terms of getting good information." (more)
I'd like to give an objective (and somewhat subjective) analysis to the potential 2008 Democratic candidates and also a handful of fantasy candidates. Maybe I'll do another diary about potential Republicans at some point in the future. In the interests of full disclosure, I'm in Senator Russ Feingold's corner for 2008, but I'm going to try to be as fair as possible in my analysis. Look inside for more.
When you're arguing with some Bush supporter about the whole warrantless wiretapping issue they'll insist that those wiretaps are okay, because they're only going after terrorists and other bad guys. And they'll dismiss any concerns about civil liberties and privacy by saying "Well, I don't have anything to hide." Even if you insist that maybe, just maybe, this power is being used to go after people not for terrorist ties, but for holding a dissenting political view, your conservative acquaintence likely won't be moved. People like this rarely have much empathy for little old ladies from a Quaker Meeting. So, the best way to approach the situation is to put the shoe on the other foot. (more on the flip)
Since when did the USA become a nation of cowards and wimps? Bush and most Republicans and right-wing talk show hosts insist we should be in a constant state of fear at all times. Thanks to people like them, a few spineless Democrats, and a Pravda-like mainstream news media, they managed to convince America that Saddam Hussein was someone to be feared. Not just disliked or hated, but feared. As a result, the USA was the only nation in the world that actually feard Saddam Hussein. Not countries that might have reason to fear him, such as Israel, Kuwait, or Iran. Just the USA. Are Americans stupider than other people around the world? I don't think so, just more frightened.
In the nearly five years that Bush has been President, the mainstream media have sunk pretty low in kissing up to him. I'm wondering, though, what the absolute lowest point was. Now, of course Bush got a lot of good press after 9/11 and his spin machine made sure to keep it that way for as long as possible. And things were pretty disgusting in the run-up to the Iraq War and in the first phase of the invasion, too. The breathless reports about the various high-tech methods for killing lots of brown-skinned people. The embeds. The worshipful references to Rumsfeld as "Rumstud." The completely uncritical view of the pulling down of the statue of Saddam Hussein.
(more)
There's a lot of talk about what sort of strategy and approach the Democrats should take in order to expanded the base of voters they have and to create appeal to voters they do not yet have (or no longer have). Clearly, trying to blur the issues and be Republican-lite only turns off the people you're trying to kinda sorta pander to. To paraphrase Jim Hightower, going off under the twin banners of social liberalism and economic conservatism is no way to win over working class voters. At the same time, it would be equally foolish to pander to socially conservative voters by trying to out-hate the Republicans on social issues. (more on the flip)
Whenever you hear conservative intellectuals complaining about what they hate about liberals and liberal "special interests," they frequently boil it down to two words: "victim mentality." They say that liberals thrive by fostering a victim mentality amongst racial minorities, women, gays and lesbians, and the poor. But really, it's the conservatives who absolutely adore victimhood.
Let's sum up a few things to keep this whole Pennachio/Casey debate sane.
Remember who the real enemy is. It's Rick Santorum and we should keep the pressure on him and keep pointing out how much he needs to be kicked out of the Senate.
Neither Chuck Pennachio nor his activist supporters are trying to bring down the Democrats or Naderize the party or anything like that. But, if you hardcore Casey fans keep insisting that we are, something like that might happen. So let's cool the rhetoric out a bit.
Whenever there are polls about likeabilaty, Bush always tends to score high. And, among those who view him favorably, they say that he seems like just a normal guy, someone they can relate to. Meanwhile, over in the reality-based community, we wonder why so many people let Bush pull the wool over their eyes so easily. We point out the fairly obvious fact that he's a rich boy from Connecticut who fancies himself as a Texas rancher who takes the US from one disaster to another. We wonder how people can be taken in by such an obvious and obnoxious faker. I've even heard it suggested that Bush plays up his malapropsims and his accent.... (more on the flip)
Who are your favorite political musicians/bands? This can be pretty broadly defined. And, also, any songs in particular? I'm on a serious Steve Earle kick, at the moment, and I'm also definitely into Rage Against the Machine, back when they were still together. Also, there are bands/musicians who don't necesarily have poltical lyrics, but have taken strong stands that I really appreciate. I'm not a huge Green Day fan, but they've supported a number of very admirable causes, even lefty radical causes. And I heard more than one pissed-off Philadelphia resident request "American Idiot" the day after the election. more on the flip
There's far too much focus in the Democratic nominating process over how "electible" our nominee is which, ironically, creates handicaps in getting them elected in the general election. There's no mathematical formula to getting a President elected. If we accept the paradigm that only a white, male, moderate/conservative, Southern governor can get elected, that's the only sort of candidate that will get elected. Stop trying to think like a conservative, because a conservative will never support a second-rate imitation.
more after the fold...
