01.30.08
None of the above
I don’t often blog about politics, but . . .
As Super Tuesday approaches, doesn’t the pack of remaining candidates, Democratic or Republican, leave you with a sense of dismay? Are these people the best the nation can offer?
Hillary Clinton has been a decent senator for the state of New York, but something of a trimmer when the going gets tough on national issues. Like the present White House occupant, she is incapable of admitting that she makes mistakes. And she has one big and ugly albatross on her shoulder: her meddling husband. What is the White House going to be like if Bill gets back inside?
Barack Obama is a charismatic campaigner and an attractive person, but his actual accomplishments as a legislator, either in Illinois or the Senate, are minuscule. And he has that bulldog on his ankle, his apparently close connection to an exceptionally sleazy Chicago political figure that he refuses to acknowledge, let alone explain.
John Edwards is John Edwards, a pleasant fellow who can’t seem to get it together. He might make a good attorney general, however.
John McCain, of all the candidates, is the most admirable person, thanks to his sterling behavior as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. But he seems to have learned nothing from that war and doesn’t think Iraq was a grievous mistake.
Mitt Romney is a rich panderer, as trustworthy as a snake oil salesman. (His Mormonism is utterly irrelevant.)
Mike Huckabee is an enjoyable clown, but do we want someone of his antediluvian intellect near the nuclear suitcase?
Rudy Giuliani, if he’s still in the running as I write this, was a lousy, combative, much-disliked mayor of New York who became an accidental hero on the morning of 9/11.
I’m a liberal. I believe in reproductive choice and cultural inclusiveness. Republicans by and large don’t, and so I won’t be voting for them. Besides, we have had eight years of Republican market greed, irresponsible tax cuts, incompetent cronies and blundering, ideological warmaking, and our country is now reviled among mankind for its arrogance. It’s time to give the Democrats a chance to clean up the mess.
Or make a new one of a different but hopefully not so vicious kind.
So I guess it’s either Hillary or Barack for me on Tuesday, but God help me, I don’t know which box I’m going to mark.
pete said,
January 30, 2008 at 9:09 am
Ah, the elusive “None of the above,” who would get my vote in so many elections. If only… (In Nevada, I’m told, it’s really on the ballot — but only in an advisory capacity. I seem to remember NOTA being a real choice in some European countries as well.)
Instead, I so often end up voting for “The Lesser of Two Evils,” who, unfortunately, rarely takes office. (But when he does, inevitably loses the “lesser” tag.
In this year’s presidential race — notwithstanding your excellent analysis above — you’ve missed the best candidate of all: Canada! One of these days, Alice, one of these days ….
kay young said,
January 30, 2008 at 10:33 am
I certainly understand your dilemma. Time after time, we reject the candidates who are brighter, more ethical, or too personally poor to buy the
White House. We can only imagine what the last seven years would have been if Al Gore had taken rhe prize. (well the prize of the presidency, since he has managed to capture plenty of other presdigious prizes.) If I could invent some kind of wonder machine, it would be one that could give us a look at what our lives might have been if only we had ???????
I am from Iowa and had the pleasure and excitiment of being courted by most of the candiates during a good part of ‘07. . In the end I chose Barack Obama. I am willing to take a chance on this charismatic young (compared to me) man, even knowing how much we lost when we laid our money on an untested George Bush. ( I was not among those who liked the idea of a beer with good ol George instead of a glass of wine with Kerry)
We had a preview of the Hillary problem only last week, when Bill felt it necessary to come to her rescue. I hated this. I like Bill Clinton, and think he is a smart hunky guy, but I don’t want him in
the White House again. Since our 4th estate has little time , money or interest in the catastrophic world issues facing us, I fear that most of what we would read about during a Hillary regime would be mainly the escapades of Bill.
I may be too altruistic, but I want to see if some of our world respect can be recaptured by this young, fresh African American man. What a historical moment it will be to see Barack Obama and his family proudly representing the United States.! Oh go for it.. Vote Obama!
Paula said,
January 30, 2008 at 4:03 pm
So tell me, Henry, what do you REALLY think of Mitt Romney?? ha ha ha! I loved your description!
Sam said,
January 30, 2008 at 6:16 pm
OK Henry,
We go back together to the year The Trib said Dewey beat Truman. I was for Bill Richardson this time and Bill Bradley eight years ago and I live in Michigan where our votes do not seem to count.
If I still voted in Illinois, I would vote for Barry Obama. (Isn’t that what he went by in school?)
His health care program is better thought out than Clinton’s in my opinion and his advisor on this, David Cultler, is one of the most visionary person in America about the issue.
BTW, unfortunately all politicians have donors that are shady. I am sure you read Frank Rich on Sunday about the problems the Clintons will have with that.
Sam
Henry said,
January 30, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Sam –
A good part of Obama’s problem with Tony Rezko involves a suspicious sweetheart real estate deal, not just campaign donations. Obama has refused to talk about it with the press — in fact, he all but ignores the press (quite unlike McCain, who goes out of his way to get the scribes on his side). I like Frank Rich but fear he does not know much about the convolutions of crooked Illinois politics.
I have no idea if Barack was called Barry as a kid. Should think his friends would have called him ‘Rack.
But this does not mean I will vote for Hillary. I was thinking about asking for a Republican ballot so I could cast some spoiler votes in the enemy camp, but then that would mean I couldn’t vote for a couple of good Democrats on the county and state level who are bucking the Machine.
xensen said,
January 31, 2008 at 12:09 am
I am voting Obama. We need health reform, and Hillary screwed it up the first time. I resent the Clintons moving the party to the right, and their “welfare reform” was shameful and unforgivable. Hillary is trying to rewrite history, but she was quite hawkish on the invasion of Iraq, which has been a disaster. I don’t think trust Hillary, and I don’t think she can reach across the aisle under any circumstances, whereas Obama has shown good skills as an organizer and motivator.
Jan Herman said,
January 31, 2008 at 9:55 am
I say, “Go, Ralph, Go!”
Nader takes steps towards another White House bid
WASHINGTON (CNN) – Ralph Nader, the longtime consumer advocate who was blamed by many Democrats for Al Gore’s loss in the 2000 presidential election, launched an exploratory committee Wednesday for another White House bid, and told CNN he is likely to get in the race if he can put the resources in place.
“John Edwards, the banner of Democratic Party populism, is dropping out, and Dennis Kucinich dropped out earlier, so in terms of voters who are at least interested in having major areas of injustice, depravations, and solutions discussed in a presidential campaign, they might be interested in my exploratory effort,” Nader said.
Nader has launched an official exploratory committee Web site, and said he will formally make a decision in about a month. He said he is certain to get in the race if he can demonstrate the ability to raise $10 million and recruit enough lawyers to deal with ballot access issues. He also said he has formally filed paperwork with the Federal Elections Committee, though the FEC said it has yet to receive anything from him.
Nader said he finds Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both unacceptable candidates, and he said whichever wins the party’s presidential nomination will not have an impact on his decision to run.
“They are both enthralled to the corporate powers,” Nader said of the two leading Democrats. “They’ve completely ignored the presidential pattern of illegality and accountability, they’ve ignored the out of control waste-fruad military expenditures, they hardly ever mention the diversion of hundreds of billions of dollars to corporate subsidies, handouts, and giveaways, and they don’t talk about a living wage.”
He expressed particular disappointment with Obama, whose senate record he called “mediocre, and quite cautious.”
“It’s not that he doesn’t know what the score is, of course he does — look at his background, he knows plenty,” Nader said. “But he’s censoring himself.”
Nader attracted close to 100,000 votes in Florida in 2000 — a state Al Gore ultimately lost to George Bush by approximately 100 votes. He brushes aside suggestions his candidacy this year may ultimately spoil the election for the Democratic Party.
“Political bigotry will be the label on anybody who uses the word ’spoiler,’ he said. “Because ’spoiler’ means minor candidates are second class citizens. Either we have an equal right to run for election, or we are spoilers for each other trying to get each other’s votes.”
Henry said,
January 31, 2008 at 10:58 am
It’s a good thing that Nader admits that he’s a minor candidate, the representative of a fringe. But it is appalling that he refuses to admit (maybe even to understand) that a candidacy such as his can result in the election of the worst alternative. He makes his point, but the rest of us have to live with the results.
Jan Herman said,
January 31, 2008 at 12:01 pm
If Nader does run, and if the contest between the two major candidates is close enough for him to actually be a spoiler, then we who have to live with the results will get what we deserve.
Henry said,
January 31, 2008 at 12:05 pm
And we got what we deserved because Ralph ran? I don’t see the logic there.
Jan Herman said,
January 31, 2008 at 12:51 pm
That’s not what I mean at all. I don’t believe Ralph was the spoiler in 2000. Gore should have won going away. It wasn’t Ralph that stopped him. There were many other, too many other, factors involved to blame that catastrophe on him. The Supreme Court, for one. What I’m saying is that the upcoming election shouldn’t be close enough for him to be a spoiler.
(If McCain is the Republican nominee, the electorate ought to reject him overwhelmingly for, among other things, his war-mongering triumphalism. And if it’s Romney, it ought to reject him overwhelmingly for, among other things, his democracy-needs-religion crapola. If the Democrats don’t win by a landslide against either of them, it will show just how much of a Banana Republic we’ve become.
Henry said,
January 31, 2008 at 1:59 pm
I’m going to leave it right there. None of this is helping me decide which box to check Tuesday.
Green Hermit said,
February 1, 2008 at 8:11 am
Jeez Henry, with all the flap and squak it sounds like you sicced Hogan after that gaggle of geese down the beach. Careful where you step now.
Henry said,
February 1, 2008 at 8:18 am
Hermit, this is what happens on political blogs. Everybody’s got an opinion. But I’ll defend to his death his right to express it . . .
P.S. I would never sic Hogan on the geese. The Michigan DNR expressly forbids harassment of wildlife. And I am a law-abiding person. Of course, Hogan has a mind of his own and sometimes feels the need to express it, and who am I to interfere?
ky said,
February 1, 2008 at 11:43 am
What would Steve Martinez do? Or Jesus. ?
Henry said,
February 2, 2008 at 4:57 am
Steve voted in the Michigan Democratic primary a few days ago but will say only that he voted for “the best person.” Inasmuch as he was running for sheriff on the Democratic ticket he presumably voted for himself in that race, but he won’t comment on that, either. Now there is a fellow who plays his cards close to his chest.
Green Hermit said,
February 2, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Well then, Steve must have cast his ballot for “Uncommitted” - the only other candidate running against Hillary in Michigan’s totolly screwed up Democratic primary. Does this also imply that all other candidates ought to be committed?
Henry said,
February 2, 2008 at 6:51 pm
You may be on to something there, Hermit.