There is no candidate the Republicans have that I can see who stands out as a solution to this country's current problems. There is no visionary candidate coming from the Republican camp that I have heard who can set an agenda that brings America together and returns prosperity.
As for the Democrats, there are clearly front runners. None of them are Dennis Kucinich, but the guy's got balls to stand up - or raise his hand if asked to in a "debate" - to say what he thinks and stand behind those positions. If you look at what Kucinich does, if you measure his actions against his words he comes out pretty well.
There's a problem with some of the candidates on both sides who said things and cast certain votes that they are now trying to explain away. They are trying to reshape history, I think, and that's not something the electorate should allow them to do.
The candidates for President of the United States in the 2008 election, which is already rolling along at a high pace, must take responsibility for their actions. We, the electorate, must hold them accountable. This is not the time to turn a blind eye and trust unconditionally. The people who go to Washington, D.C. in 2008 must be the sort or say what they do and do what they say.
The next person to serve as President of the United States must be able to show real leadership; that which has been lacking for almost eight years. The United States of America needs a statesman, not a politician. A facilitator, not a decider. A creative, innovative person who is able to think out of the box, not someone whose head is not much more than a box full of rocks.
We all know how Howard Dean rose like a shining star on the political landscape, only to crash and burn. Dr. Dean, though, has shown resilience; he's come back strong to provide leadership for the Democratic Party.
Is the Republican candidate waiting in the wings? Is that candidate waiting for his que, to see when the time is right to step over the fallen and take charge?
I think that any person who wishes to be sworn in as President of the United States in January of 2009 must have the balls to get out and endure the rigors of the campaign trail. That person should be out there already if they're going to have what it takes to get the job done.
As for Hillary Clinton, speaking of balls, she has all that's required. More balls than some of the candidates running for the GOP.
I have not endorsed Barack Obama for President. I know such an announcement would send shock waves across the Blogosphere and rattle the windows from sea to shining sea.
8-)
I have, though, noticed what appears to b a foul stench of desperation beginning to ooze out of the Republican camp.
Why, I wonder, would a candidate be attacked when a party says that candidate should be dismissed as lacking appropriate qualifications?
{Let's call this my belated Independence Day post}
Posts
2 comments:
It's still so early to be able to predict who will emerge as the winner in either party's race. I do have some thoughts, even at this early date. They're more about whom to eliminate than for whom to vote.
The GOP, historically, has nominated a person they believe can win the Presidency. They knew in 2004 that W would be more appealing than Gore. They are more pragmatic, historically, than Dems. who tend to choose the most Democratically pure in their party, not the one who is most electable across the entire electorate.
Going from that abstract, theoretical,40K foot view, to something perhaps a little more concrete, even though I think the country is so out of sorts over Iraq and a few other major issues, and should be expected to elect a Dem president, I'm afraid that is far less assured if Hillary Clinton becomes the Dem nominee. There have been a number of off the record comments from GOP operatives that their great hope is that Clinton is their competitor. One could argue that they say this to keep Dems from choosing her. I doubt that one can count on that level of sophistication and cleverness in so-called off the record comments.
Here's why I think they say this. Two major reasons:
1. Hillary would be seen as a continuation of a family political dominance. The country as a whole has a negative view of such. Ironically, the succession to the throne by George W. Bush, the scion of the George H.W.Bush family, has brought this into sharper focus. Hillary is likely to be seen as the successor to the throne of her husband. The House of Bush and the House of Clinton; the stuff of monarchy this country rejected from the start. Maureen Dowd called it early. She observed that W wants to rule, not govern. Extending this a bit more, Cheney is clearly the modern day Machiavelli to his Prince, George W.
2. There's another perception which is even more visceral and possibly more subconscious, but universal. "If Mama ain't happy,ain't nobody happy." Hillary, to many men, is a shrew. Her style on the stump is shrill. Though it might be an unconscious response, I'm afraid she would lose the male vote in large numbers, not because they don't want a woman to be president, though there are some of those out there, but because it makes their blood run as cold as it did when their mothers and/or wives were angry.
If Olympia Snowe, a Republican, or Nancy Pellosi, a Democrat were being considered, they would not likely evoke the same response as Hillary. You can argue with me about my opposite choices as examples of thoughtful though not shrill women politicians, but I trust you get my point.
I'm not about to announce my choice. Who knows who will come from way back in the pack to pull away from all others? I'm an independent voter. I make no great case that a Dem should be elected. I'm a kind of Diogenes, looking for an honest nominee.
I'm thinking I should have made this a post on my own blog, since it got to be longer than I anticipated. Then again, since I'm sure that The Gonzo Papers has a far larger readership than mine, it could be a good thing. Kilroy has been kind enough to include me in his list of blog sites, and his Hitchiker's Guide to the Blogosphere.
Leanderthal
Lighthouse Keeper
My own opinion is this - in 2008, we are going to have two choices - Bad, and Worse. Whoever is nominated, I don't think either of the two major parties is capable of producing someone who is far enough removed from all the rotting garbage that is politics to do any real good.
None of the third party candidates have any hope of being elected. So where does that leave us? Back at the same old place - yes, we might see some of George W.'s messes cleaned up, but that is the best we can hope for. Well, no longer living in a country where crap is the major product will be a step up, I suppose, but I wish we could climb a little higher...
That is, of course, assuming Dick Cheney doesn't have some plan up his sleeve to take over before the elections. We could all be shouting "Heil Cheney!" in 2008, or running like hell for the border. (Option #2 seems a lot easier to stomach, for me.)
Post a Comment