THE 2008 US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
NEED I SAY MORE? A PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS!
US Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (Democrat-New York), left, and
US Senator Barack Obama (Democrat-Illinois), right
US Senator Barack Obama (Democrat-Illinois), right
THE DREAM TEAM FOR THE 2008 US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
posted by ilias at 14:55
4 Comments:
They definetely cancel out each other's weaknesses. She has the experience, the money and the political machinery; he carries no baggage, nobody can ask him about that cigar or the vote on Iraq. But can they really cancel out each other's ambitions? Can any of the two settle for the VP position? And can a ticket with Hillary really be electable in the heartland? Questions that keep the Democrats awake at night.
You are so right as usual!
However, being that Hillary has been a US Senator from NY State since 2000, she definitely has seniority over Mr Obama who, at 42, has only been a Senator from Illinois since 2004.
And, right again!, Hillary is not electable in the heartland or, for that matter, in the south. Yet, we need to try and fail, if necessary.
These issues keep the Democrats and perhaps even the Republicans awake at night.
Well I disagree there. I just refuse to contemplate failure as an acceptable option. We can argue that the high tide of republicanism is behind us by now, but I don't think scientific rationalism, civil rights and liberal democracy, not to mention the international rule of law, the future of the planet and relations with the muslim world can withstand another victory by the god-mongers of the Reptilian party. I am sorry but a noble defeat à la Kerry or Gore at this juncture is completely out of the question.
On the Hillary issue, I think she would make a great President. However, I repeat that victory should be the first and only priority. Let us not forget that her troubles are not solely the result of right-wing demonisation. Her opportunism when it comes to the Iraq war vote has now come back to haunt her. This is what happens when you abandon your core beliefs for naked political gain. Back then, she did not dare to appear "un-patriotic" or "liberal". Today the political climate has turned around and she is left exposed. Had she stuck by her original convictions, the mood of the country would now be in her favour.
All that having been said, it is a logical conclusion that I wouldn't hesitate to go completely Obama at this point. It is his relative inexperience in the political game and his facile stardom that give one pause for thought.
I cheerfully share your point that we’ve hopefully seen the back of the Republicans for a long while. Whether the Democratic party can also capture the White House is another story. What makes a good president is open to argument: both Carter and Clinton were governors of second-tier states with little foreign experience; we know one made a great president and the other a disastrous one. In 1960, someone with “relative inexperience in the political game and facile stardom” was elected president and I hope you will agree he did not make a tremendous president. Two years into his first term as the junior senator from Illinois, Obama can look forward to a long career in politics. But 2008? I wish he would settle for the number two slot on the ticket (as well he may). Clinton-Obama 2008 would be a history-making ticket in every sense of the word.
Post a Comment
<< Home