7 posts tagged “2008”
Perhaps the most effective point this article makes is it's last, that the first votes of the upcoming election are 9 months away. Anything can happen from now until then, McCain pulling ahead included. He's still my favorite Republican (probably due to the lack of other candidates, at least in my mind), but I can no longer see myself voting for him come '08. I used to say that McCain vs. Hillary would be a no-brainer, and that I'd take him due solely to his integrity over her any day, but now that match up seems like one long headache I don't want to have. Here's to Obama - fresh and headache-free.
So my newest group is Barack Obama in '08. This group is for folks who support his candidacy for president (obviously). So if you're reading this and Obama's your guy, please follow the link and join. I have high hopes for a large member count. It's one of the few ways I hope I can help make a difference in this election.
I used to really love John McCain, and I still do. But his campaign in this upcoming election is going to disappoint me, I know it is, because it already has.
I know he has to pander to certain interests to win the nomination. I know he is a conservative. I know many, if not most, of his positions directly oppose mine, not the least of which his pro-war stance. But man, I miss the McCain of the Straight Talk Express, the McCain who stood up to Falwell and Robertson, and the McCain who put his principles before politics. But that McCain was unelectable, I suppose, so now he's decided that politics rather than principle should take highest priority.
Maybe I'm wrong, maybe he is being honest and principled, and I simply don't agree with him. But I doubt it.
He is, indisputably, a man of great character and honor. That alone could win my vote should it come down to him against Hillary. But I just don't have the same enthusiasm for him that I once did. I would hate to see him turn into just another politician come '08. But I fear that he will.
Please, Senator, prove me wrong.
After months of observers assuming he would run for the Democratic nomination this year, Senator John Kerry has announced he will not be seeking a second run for the White House. My reaction is bittersweet.
Anyone who knows me knows I was one of his most fervent supporters in 2004. I treated that election like my life depended on it, and I was heartbroken when he lost. I chalk up my melodrama during that election to being 14. I'm naturally prone to hero worship, but I took it to a ridiculous level with Kerry. I thought he could do no wrong, and I defended his every move, even the indefensible ones. (Not a big deal considering there were many more who viciously bashed his every move.)
Looking back, I think it's more cute than anything. But I've learned a lot since then, and now I can see why he lost and why he'd probably lose again. He doesn't have what it takes to win in a political enviroment where one single soundbite can end an entire lifetime of political promise. I still think he'd make a great president, and I'm not afraid to say it. I know he's become a political punching bag and a punchline for the right, and I know they would have a field day ridiculing me, but the truth is, John Kerry is a great man, a war hero (damn straight he's a war hero), and a thoughtful mind that this country could be lucky to have guide it.
...Which makes it all the crappier that he simply doesn't know how to win a presidential campaign. It's just not in him. Which is why I decided months ago that Barak Obama was my guy. And now that he's officially running, I'm pumped and ready to do this thing. I've got a great feeling about this. I'll be 18 by the time November of 2008 rolls along, and I can't wait to truly participate in our democracy for the first time.
Sure, I'd prefer if I'd be voting for Kerry's reelection next year, but that's just me. Heck, I would have taken a mute parrot over Bush in 2004.
 |
Anyone but a Bush or a Clinton
JAMES BURKEE, an assistant professor of history at Concordia University Wisconsin, is co-founder of the bipartisan political action committee Americans for Responsibility in Washington.
January 22, 2007
HAVING REFUSED a third term as president, George Washington offered the nation a farewell address in 1796, urging Americans to cherish the Union and to avoid the "baneful effects" of political partisanship. Successors such as Thomas Jefferson warned against the formation of an "unnatural" aristocracy of men who inherited great fortunes and political office.
Both of these warnings have been overlooked in the debate over Hillary Rodham Clinton's 2008 presidential run. But if she secures the Democratic nomination, wins and serves two terms, by 2017 the United States will have been governed by either a Bush or a Clinton for 28 years. That's three decades governed not just by the same two families but much of the same supporting staff. As Dick Cheney is a name familiar to both Bush presidencies (as George H.W. Bush's secretary of Defense and his son's vice president), so too may a Hillary Clinton presidency resuscitate familiar names such as Harold Ickes, Paul Begala and James Carville.
And it might not end there. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, encouraged by Republican leaders and the current president (who said, "I would like to see Jeb run at some point"), has not ruled out a White House bid or a vice presidential slot on the ticket in 2012 or 2016.
If Washington's caustic, partisan atmosphere is to change, the era of Bushes and Clintons needs to end in 2008.
Three times in American history have close relatives of former presidents won the office. John Quincy Adams, son of John Adams, lost the popular vote to Andrew Jackson in 1824 but won in the electoral college amid charges of a "corrupt bargain." Benjamin Harrison, grandson of William Henry Harrison, lost the popular vote to Grover Cleveland in 1888 and also suffered as a "minority president" and mere figurehead. George W. Bush lost the popular vote to Al Gore in 2000.
Recent polls suggest that a significant body of Americans, perhaps 40%, will not vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstances — so it is unlikely that she could enter the Oval Office with a strong electoral mandate. The ironic upshot is that such a Hillary Clinton presidency — weakened by low approval and beset by partisan sniping — would mirror George W. Bush's presidency.
That the Bush's administration has been consumed by political partisanship comes as no surprise to students of history. From the time of John Quincy Adams — whose term in office marked the end of the Era of Good Feelings — the children, grandchildren and spouses of presidents engender exceptional hostility when they seek office themselves. For all their personal capacities, the latter Adams, Harrison and Bush — like Hillary Clinton — inherited their claims to the presidency. George W. Bush would not be president today were his name not George Bush, nor Hillary a senator from New York absent the Clinton name. This nation's traditional commitment to meritocracy inclines many to reject these "unnatural" aristocrats, who never garner widespread popularity.
Minority and bare-majority presidents are weak leaders because nothing undergirds presidential power like an election mandate. The strongest post-World War II presidents — Dwight Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson and Ronald Reagan — were also its most popular. (Eisenhower and Johnson won at least 55% of the vote; Reagan polled just over 50% in 1980 with independent John Anderson in the race, then 59% in 1984.) Presidencies enveloped by partisanship — Harry Truman, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton — were made of men who won office on the barest of majorities or pluralities (Truman won 49.6% of the popular vote in 1948; Carter won 50.1% in 1976; Clinton won 43% and 50% in 1992 and 1996).
Pundits compare 2006 to the late Nixon years, with a country disillusioned by war and a deep distrust of its political leadership. In one of his last interviews, former President Ford lamented the "extreme partisanship that exists in the nation's capital today," suggesting that partisanship is even worse than in the post-Watergate era he inherited.
The nation needs today, as it got in Ford then, a president respected by both Republicans and Democrats who can restore trust in politics. It needs new faces and new ideas if it is to confront advancing crises of war, debt and entitlement reform. And it needs a president who can assume office in 2009 swimming in the political capital that only a mandate can bring. The nation needs a candidate who can win 55% or more.
And that will not happen with a Bush or Clinton on the ballot.
Officially jumping into the upcoming 2008 circus is 2004 veteran John Edwards, as of yesterday, though most people knew around Nov. 3rd, '04 that he'd be back.
My immediate reaction is, how can Edwards win out over a field of candidates like Clinton, Obama, and Biden, when he couldn't even beat out John Kerry? Especially considering he'll probably be facing Kerry again.
This, I believe, is his answer, taken from Yahoo news, regarding his new campaign site:
"This campaign is about changing America," the Web site read, listing five priorities that fit neatly with Edwards' message of economic equality. Among them: "Providing universal health care for all Americans," "Rebuilding America's middle class and eliminating poverty," and "Creating tax fairness by rewarding work, not just wealth."
He's smarter this time around. He knows what mood the country's in, and he knows that connecting to that mood is half the race. He will surely position himself as the anti-Hillary, but I suspect she's quite capable of crushing him like a bug.
I like Edwards, I do, and I'd love to have Elizabeth as first lady, but something is just missing. I'm not sure what it is. Maybe it's the 2004 issue - I simply do not want 2008 to be about 2004. It's the same reason why I can't support Kerry again, and God knows I still believe he'd make a great president. The truth remains, America needs a fresh start, and that's what Barak Obama represents to me.
That's also why choosing Hillary would be a grave mistake by the Dems. Almost anybody is preferable to her, baggage-wise.
One thing is for sure: the new crops of candidates from both sides of the aisle are shaping up to be quite interesting, and there's a good chance that 2008 will actually be about issues that matter. Based on what I've seen, I think Edwards will further enhance that possibility, and if he proves himself capable, he may have a good shot at the White House. Only time will tell.
Whenever political analysts discuss Barak Obama's presidential prospects,they always rave about his idealism,fresh appeal,and his honesty,but then they brush him aside as too young and inexperienced to face Hillary Clinton.
But I counter that his lack of DC experience is exactly what we as a country need in our leadership.How is it a bad thing that he has yet to be corrupted by beltway garbage?And as for his age,I truly believe it is also a plus.History books don't paint JFK as too young to have carried out his duties.Some people are wiser at 40 than most at 80.Prospective presidents should not be judged solely by their age.And I'm sorry,but I think most people would risk a young president over a cold calculating one,which brings us to Hillary.
I seriously doubt that she's the devil some believe her to be,but I don't think she's the hero still others believe her to be.What I believe she is is a smart,message-obsessed political veteran who carries her own self-interest closest to heart.That doesn't make her a devil,it makes her a typical politician.And now is not the time for a typical politician in the White House.
We as a country are far from what we should be.We arose from 9/11 on a wave of grief-ridden arrogance that brought us to where we are now-stuck in a war we can't get out of.Now we have to get ourselves together and face up to it,but we can't do it with another stuffed suit in the Oval Office.In 2008,we should choose hope and elect Barak Obama president.
Neighborhood
Explore friends, family, friends & family, or entire neighborhood.
