I was going to post a "post-election wrap-up", but so many smart people have already said and written so much, I'll keep mine brief. I especially enjoyed Frank Rich's column in The Sunday Times . http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/09/opinion/09rich.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
I can't resist a few quick observations....
I thought the choice was a "no-brainer", and was horrified by the possibility of racial stupidity actually deciding it. Thankfully, we did a collective "Do The Right Thing". As an aside, if you have never seen "Do the Right Thing" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097216/ rent it!! It was groundbreaking because not only did it show white racism from a black perspective, it also courageously questioned many values in the black community.
Obama has incredible energy and stamina. Looks like he took a day off and is ready to get started.
I think Obama will bring in great people. Rahm Emanuel is just a start. If you don't know much about him, check this out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahm_Emanuel
As an adjunct to dealing with the economy, I think immigration will be an early prominent issue. We're gonna need more taxpayers and more participants in universal health care!!
Look for "family values" to return to national discussion. When Obama talks about it, it will have an impact. One of the best things he said during the debates was that "Parents have to take responsibility for education and turn off the TV when necessary."
This election night strikes me as one of those all time "I remember where I was" moments. Will that last? Here's my list of top 10 memorable events (Personal events not included):
10. Mookie's gound ball going through Buckner's legs.
9. Iranian hostages freed.
8. The aftermath of Kent State....I was 13 years old and pretty "conservative". When I heard people justifying the shooting of college students, I changed my world view.
7. Watching the Watergate hearings drone on, when suddenly a Nixon aide said something about tape recordings, and thinking....WOW.
6. Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. A subway conductor announced it over the intercom.
5. John Lennon assassination.
4. Martin Luther King assassination.
3. Robert Kennedy assassination.
2. JFK assassination. I was in second grade. The teachers were crying.
1. 9/11
Obama's election may find a place on that list. How's your list? Will this election be on it?
Showing posts with label Presidential Election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Presidential Election. Show all posts
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Top 10 Reasons I'm Voting for Obama
I'm proud to say it is never an easy decision. I abhor labels, and while I am a registered Democrat, that is only so I can vote in our politico-machine controlled New York primaries. I am not a liberal or a conservative, I'd rather be a "thinker".
No political affiliation owns my patriotism. I assume that all people who have opinions and vote, are patriotic. I make my decision based on what I perceive as best for this country.
I try not to look back, but it's impossible to avoid. Looking back.....I thought Gore would have made a fine President, but the country wanted a change after Clinton, and Bush's handlers made that message work. I thought W proved himself inept in his first term, and although I voted for Kerry, clearly he was a flawed candidate.
History will not be kind to W. In my view he will go down as one of the worst Presidents ever.
On election day 2008, the country will collectively say "WHAT WERE WE THINKING????"
Which brings us to Obama v McCain......
During the Republican primaries, I wrote positively about McCain http://nylaw2law.blogspot.com/2008/01/reconsidering-mccain.html
I especially admired his efforts in sponsoring the compromise immigration bill, which his Republican mates destroyed, and then used to attack him in the primaries. He outsmarted them though, because not only was he right about immigration, he needed to distance himself from the knuckle walkers, and he did. He was smart enough to stake out the middle ground, figuring he would still hold the right. It was enough to beat Romney, Huckabee and Giuliani for the nomination. But it will not be enough to take the big one.
But I digress.....here are the Top 10 Reasons I am Voting for Obama:
10. He already defeated the strongest opponent.
9. I apply a "Law of Beholdency". I ask "Who will this candidate be beholden to?" If you ask this about W, you see a big part of the problem. I am sick of his beholdencies. Obama is not a typical African-American candidate because he is not beholden to that community. If he were, he would be un-electable. No, he has realized from the start that he did not have to espouse a "black agenda", he would have community support without doing that. Instead, he garnered support from a cross-section of Democrats, and his "beholdencies" are THERE, in a cross section of Americans. Kinda different, kinda nice.
8. He has inspired a lot of people to work for him, raised a ton of money from a huge number of contributors, and convinced people who the "experts" said could not be convinced. There is a perfect word to describe this.....LEADERSHIP.
7. He has already shown superb judgment under enormous pressure. The primaries and this election have been going on a long time. It has taken turns and thrown him curveballs. The "Pastor Wright scandal" would have stopped a lesser candidate. He has handled everything without a bobble. Strikes me as WAY harder than "being a Senator" or "governor of A-lass-ka".
6. McCain displayed an enormous, unforgiveable error in judgment in selecting Sarah Palin.
5. There is something to be said for a real "family man" in the White House. Obama seems like the real deal in that regard.
4. I give a lot of weight to who I want nominating the next few Supreme Court Justices. I want Obama's choices sitting there.....not the Neanderthals McCain has pandered to.
3. I know it may be a character flaw to "care what other people think", but frankly, I am embarrassed by what the rest of the world must think of us Americans, after electing W twice. It feels better thinking of how we'll appear as a country when we elect Obama.
2. Obama was president of the Harvard Law Review, and a constitutional law professor at University of Chicago Law School. There is no question he got these on merit. As a lawyer, lemme tell you what those two accomplishments say about him......He is REALLY, REALLY SMART. We need that.
1. I want a President who will be open minded, strong, and exercise good judgment. Someone who will seek out top advisors and be able not only to listen to them, but sometimes not listen to them. I want a President who will be decisive, but also flexible. Someone who will lead by example. Someone who has the energy and intelligence to lead our great Country. Barack Obama is that person.
GOD BLESS AMERICA
No political affiliation owns my patriotism. I assume that all people who have opinions and vote, are patriotic. I make my decision based on what I perceive as best for this country.
I try not to look back, but it's impossible to avoid. Looking back.....I thought Gore would have made a fine President, but the country wanted a change after Clinton, and Bush's handlers made that message work. I thought W proved himself inept in his first term, and although I voted for Kerry, clearly he was a flawed candidate.
History will not be kind to W. In my view he will go down as one of the worst Presidents ever.
On election day 2008, the country will collectively say "WHAT WERE WE THINKING????"
Which brings us to Obama v McCain......
During the Republican primaries, I wrote positively about McCain http://nylaw2law.blogspot.com/2008/01/reconsidering-mccain.html
I especially admired his efforts in sponsoring the compromise immigration bill, which his Republican mates destroyed, and then used to attack him in the primaries. He outsmarted them though, because not only was he right about immigration, he needed to distance himself from the knuckle walkers, and he did. He was smart enough to stake out the middle ground, figuring he would still hold the right. It was enough to beat Romney, Huckabee and Giuliani for the nomination. But it will not be enough to take the big one.
But I digress.....here are the Top 10 Reasons I am Voting for Obama:
10. He already defeated the strongest opponent.
9. I apply a "Law of Beholdency". I ask "Who will this candidate be beholden to?" If you ask this about W, you see a big part of the problem. I am sick of his beholdencies. Obama is not a typical African-American candidate because he is not beholden to that community. If he were, he would be un-electable. No, he has realized from the start that he did not have to espouse a "black agenda", he would have community support without doing that. Instead, he garnered support from a cross-section of Democrats, and his "beholdencies" are THERE, in a cross section of Americans. Kinda different, kinda nice.
8. He has inspired a lot of people to work for him, raised a ton of money from a huge number of contributors, and convinced people who the "experts" said could not be convinced. There is a perfect word to describe this.....LEADERSHIP.
7. He has already shown superb judgment under enormous pressure. The primaries and this election have been going on a long time. It has taken turns and thrown him curveballs. The "Pastor Wright scandal" would have stopped a lesser candidate. He has handled everything without a bobble. Strikes me as WAY harder than "being a Senator" or "governor of A-lass-ka".
6. McCain displayed an enormous, unforgiveable error in judgment in selecting Sarah Palin.
5. There is something to be said for a real "family man" in the White House. Obama seems like the real deal in that regard.
4. I give a lot of weight to who I want nominating the next few Supreme Court Justices. I want Obama's choices sitting there.....not the Neanderthals McCain has pandered to.
3. I know it may be a character flaw to "care what other people think", but frankly, I am embarrassed by what the rest of the world must think of us Americans, after electing W twice. It feels better thinking of how we'll appear as a country when we elect Obama.
2. Obama was president of the Harvard Law Review, and a constitutional law professor at University of Chicago Law School. There is no question he got these on merit. As a lawyer, lemme tell you what those two accomplishments say about him......He is REALLY, REALLY SMART. We need that.
1. I want a President who will be open minded, strong, and exercise good judgment. Someone who will seek out top advisors and be able not only to listen to them, but sometimes not listen to them. I want a President who will be decisive, but also flexible. Someone who will lead by example. Someone who has the energy and intelligence to lead our great Country. Barack Obama is that person.
GOD BLESS AMERICA
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Barack Follows My Advice - Will It Be Enough?
The morning after I suggested that Barack HAD to address the Pastor Wright problem in a direct way, it was announced he was preparing a major address. The next day he gave "the speech on race". Here's a link to it http://youtube.com/watch?v=P_9al4IQOhk
Under the circumstances, it was as good as anyone could have done. That speech was perfectly written and sincerely delivered. Time will tell whether it will be enough. His speeches accentuate the boobishness of our current President. McCain will be no match for him on form. If it comes down to substance, and the voters make their decisions that way, well, that's the way it should be.
Here's what Barack should do next: He's got to put some "meat on the bones" and talk in SPECIFICS on some of the issues. We've all heard about the need for change, and I suspect most Americans agree.....what we've got has been a disaster. Barack will be able to talk specifics about issues, and he MUST start doing this. It fits his style to do it, and he should not be afraid to do it. When he talks, he's like Einstein compared to Bush, or McCain for that matter.
I wonder....is he saving it for the general election? Are he and Hillary too similar to talk about these things now? Is she too good a speaker (she IS good too) for him to get specific with?
He can talk about the war, and not in platitudes, not in generalities. I dare say he can even state he understood the thinking behind it....the need to confront terrorists, and state specifically how he would do that.
He can talk in some detail about the mortgage crisis. He should talk in a way that we would know he would be "on it" when the time came.
He can talk about the importance of the Supreme Court. Harvard Law Review is not a lightweight credential, and the importance of HIS Presidency on the future of the Court should be on the table.
Got a plan for health insurance? Let's hear something specific, and some proof that the plan will not cause a tax increase. How will it work, actually.
This Pastor Wright thing was not the way Barack drew it up, but it may be the way he breaks through to moving beyond the generalities and telling us all why he will be the best President. Being different is not enough. If he's really got the goods, he's got to get positive and show it.
Under the circumstances, it was as good as anyone could have done. That speech was perfectly written and sincerely delivered. Time will tell whether it will be enough. His speeches accentuate the boobishness of our current President. McCain will be no match for him on form. If it comes down to substance, and the voters make their decisions that way, well, that's the way it should be.
Here's what Barack should do next: He's got to put some "meat on the bones" and talk in SPECIFICS on some of the issues. We've all heard about the need for change, and I suspect most Americans agree.....what we've got has been a disaster. Barack will be able to talk specifics about issues, and he MUST start doing this. It fits his style to do it, and he should not be afraid to do it. When he talks, he's like Einstein compared to Bush, or McCain for that matter.
I wonder....is he saving it for the general election? Are he and Hillary too similar to talk about these things now? Is she too good a speaker (she IS good too) for him to get specific with?
He can talk about the war, and not in platitudes, not in generalities. I dare say he can even state he understood the thinking behind it....the need to confront terrorists, and state specifically how he would do that.
He can talk in some detail about the mortgage crisis. He should talk in a way that we would know he would be "on it" when the time came.
He can talk about the importance of the Supreme Court. Harvard Law Review is not a lightweight credential, and the importance of HIS Presidency on the future of the Court should be on the table.
Got a plan for health insurance? Let's hear something specific, and some proof that the plan will not cause a tax increase. How will it work, actually.
This Pastor Wright thing was not the way Barack drew it up, but it may be the way he breaks through to moving beyond the generalities and telling us all why he will be the best President. Being different is not enough. If he's really got the goods, he's got to get positive and show it.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Thoughts on Barack
Since I've been calling Senator Clinton "Hillary", I have decided to be even handed and fair and refer to Senator Obama as "Barack".
The first time I heard the full Reverend Wright recordings I was driving back from court, listening to Rush Limbaugh. Now, to all my liberal friends, I urge you not to commit "guilt by association" and condemn me for listening to Rush. I've gone on record as saying you have to leave your brain at the door to listen to Rush, or Sean Hannity. Here's a link to the best of Reverend Wright (incidentally, transcripts do not do it justice, these should be seen and heard) http://youtube.com/watch?v=bZVzAAVU-U4
In case you were wondering, that silence you have noticed lately is Hillary NOT talking about this. Mr. Clinton is muzzled too. This was the miracle Hill & Bill have prayed for. She hasn't been able to touch him. Every attack has backfired. This is the unforced error they needed, and they are letting Barack twist in the wind.
The other silence is McCain saying zero about this.....for now. My guess is they are pulling for wounded Barack to fight his way to the nomination, so they can Willie Horton their way into the White House. Remember this? http://youtube.com/watch?v=EC9j6Wfdq3o Will that work? Well, if you want the Democrats to win, it ain't gonna help.
Barack's response to all of this has been tentative and unconvincing. Here's a column that says it well http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjE3NDc3YTU0ZGM5NGEzZTdkNjcyZjBiNDVjMjU5MGQ=
Media coverage on the Pastor Wright story has been surprisingly light. You don't think so? Ask yourself this question.....How would the coverage have been if ANY Republican candidate had attended a church for 20 years where the leader had said racist, incendiary, anti-American things? He might get the nomination, but the media would beat the drums and ensure his defeat in the general election.
One place where this story will not be lightly covered.....the Democratic convention. Particularly among the Super Delegates. The real politicians. The ones who know what it takes to get elected, or heaven forbid, be.......UN-ELECTABLE.
How ironic, if Barack becomes viewed by his own party as un-electable, and not because of his race. He'll be perceived as un-electable because the majority of Americans will know that a fair standard has been applied, and that a real LEADER, a UNITER of ALL Americans, would NOT have stayed with this Pastor.
Oh, and Barack, you have one way to salvage this thing. CONDEMN your Pastor's words as WRONG, as NOT your beliefs, and say it like you believe it.
Keep saying he's your embarassing uncle, and the real embarassment will begin.
The first time I heard the full Reverend Wright recordings I was driving back from court, listening to Rush Limbaugh. Now, to all my liberal friends, I urge you not to commit "guilt by association" and condemn me for listening to Rush. I've gone on record as saying you have to leave your brain at the door to listen to Rush, or Sean Hannity. Here's a link to the best of Reverend Wright (incidentally, transcripts do not do it justice, these should be seen and heard) http://youtube.com/watch?v=bZVzAAVU-U4
In case you were wondering, that silence you have noticed lately is Hillary NOT talking about this. Mr. Clinton is muzzled too. This was the miracle Hill & Bill have prayed for. She hasn't been able to touch him. Every attack has backfired. This is the unforced error they needed, and they are letting Barack twist in the wind.
The other silence is McCain saying zero about this.....for now. My guess is they are pulling for wounded Barack to fight his way to the nomination, so they can Willie Horton their way into the White House. Remember this? http://youtube.com/watch?v=EC9j6Wfdq3o Will that work? Well, if you want the Democrats to win, it ain't gonna help.
Barack's response to all of this has been tentative and unconvincing. Here's a column that says it well http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjE3NDc3YTU0ZGM5NGEzZTdkNjcyZjBiNDVjMjU5MGQ=
Media coverage on the Pastor Wright story has been surprisingly light. You don't think so? Ask yourself this question.....How would the coverage have been if ANY Republican candidate had attended a church for 20 years where the leader had said racist, incendiary, anti-American things? He might get the nomination, but the media would beat the drums and ensure his defeat in the general election.
One place where this story will not be lightly covered.....the Democratic convention. Particularly among the Super Delegates. The real politicians. The ones who know what it takes to get elected, or heaven forbid, be.......UN-ELECTABLE.
How ironic, if Barack becomes viewed by his own party as un-electable, and not because of his race. He'll be perceived as un-electable because the majority of Americans will know that a fair standard has been applied, and that a real LEADER, a UNITER of ALL Americans, would NOT have stayed with this Pastor.
Oh, and Barack, you have one way to salvage this thing. CONDEMN your Pastor's words as WRONG, as NOT your beliefs, and say it like you believe it.
Keep saying he's your embarassing uncle, and the real embarassment will begin.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Immigration Issues in the General Election
I love writing about the Presidential election. Everybody's talking about it, everybody's analyzing. I haven't got much to add to all the blah blah blah. I'll just summarize, so I can jump ahead and talk about immigration.
The Democrats - Obama is giving Hillary a major tussle, making her work much harder for the nomination than she ever expected. She's using money and resources she really hoped to save for the general election. Ultimately she's gonna get the nomination, and her political instincts will tell her that Obama is popular and useful, and she will need him on board in just the right way. She will need him for a big turnout that does not cause a backlash turnout.
The Republicans - McCain cannot be stopped. If Romney seemed like a nice guy, we'd all be feeling sorry for what McCain and Huckabee are doing to him. However, he's basically an unlikeable, rich guy who's kinda creepy, so nobody is rallying behind him. McCain is going to get a lot of Democrats crossing over to him, and his challenge is to get the backbone Republicans to turn out for him. Can he do it?
That's it in a nutshell.
I have promised to analyze the Hispanic voters likely impact on the election. They are not presently galvanized behind one candidate. In case nobody noticed, there WAS a Hispanic candidate on the Democrat side, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson....BILL RICHARDSON!?!?!?
He's not galvanizing anybody.
A better choice would have been Victor Sifuentes.
Actually, the Hispanic influence in the general election is going to be hard to predict, for a few reasons:
1. Will they be motivated for a high turnout?
2. Will they be motivated by any particular issue or candidate to vote in a bloc?
3. Are they concentrated in key contested States?
4. Will either candidate figure out the proper appeal?
Here's a link to an interesting piece in the 2/5/08 Wall Street Journal.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120217267552142823.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
The fascinating premiss of this piece is that the the strident anti-immigrant positions taken by the non-McCain Republicans are not resonating with voters, including Republicans. When I've heard the candidates (and conservative talk-radio hosts) railing about McCain's "amnesty bill", I wondered if voters were buying it. I think they are not, and they will not.
How will the immigration issue play out between McCain and Hillary?
More tomorrow.....
The Democrats - Obama is giving Hillary a major tussle, making her work much harder for the nomination than she ever expected. She's using money and resources she really hoped to save for the general election. Ultimately she's gonna get the nomination, and her political instincts will tell her that Obama is popular and useful, and she will need him on board in just the right way. She will need him for a big turnout that does not cause a backlash turnout.
The Republicans - McCain cannot be stopped. If Romney seemed like a nice guy, we'd all be feeling sorry for what McCain and Huckabee are doing to him. However, he's basically an unlikeable, rich guy who's kinda creepy, so nobody is rallying behind him. McCain is going to get a lot of Democrats crossing over to him, and his challenge is to get the backbone Republicans to turn out for him. Can he do it?
That's it in a nutshell.
I have promised to analyze the Hispanic voters likely impact on the election. They are not presently galvanized behind one candidate. In case nobody noticed, there WAS a Hispanic candidate on the Democrat side, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson....BILL RICHARDSON!?!?!?
He's not galvanizing anybody.
A better choice would have been Victor Sifuentes.
Actually, the Hispanic influence in the general election is going to be hard to predict, for a few reasons:
1. Will they be motivated for a high turnout?
2. Will they be motivated by any particular issue or candidate to vote in a bloc?
3. Are they concentrated in key contested States?
4. Will either candidate figure out the proper appeal?
Here's a link to an interesting piece in the 2/5/08 Wall Street Journal.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120217267552142823.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
The fascinating premiss of this piece is that the the strident anti-immigrant positions taken by the non-McCain Republicans are not resonating with voters, including Republicans. When I've heard the candidates (and conservative talk-radio hosts) railing about McCain's "amnesty bill", I wondered if voters were buying it. I think they are not, and they will not.
How will the immigration issue play out between McCain and Hillary?
More tomorrow.....
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Bye-Bye John and Rudy
Yesterday, I promised to blog about Hispanic voters. I'll get back to that. There was too much news today to ignore.
John Edwards drops out. Something about this bothers me. As conservative as I am about some things, I have always liked John Edwards. I think he would make a fine President. When he ran for Vice President, one reason I wanted Kerry to win was to have Edwards in the Presidential loop. This time, his candidacy was doomed from the start. Talk about bad match-ups.....Hillary AND Obama. What's a liberal white male to do? He gave it a shot, the press ignored him, the voters ignored him, and surely he was running out of money. His leaving the race really helps Hillary. It guarantees a first ballot nomination, and avoids a rancorous brokered convention. I don't expect him to endorse Hillary or Obama, just pledge to support the nominee. This is the smart move, and he's smart.
Rudy drops out. He'd have had a better shot if he'd switched parties and run for the Democratic nomination. I can't fault his Florida strategy. The fact is, had he campaigned earlier, he would have lost in Iowa and New Hampshire, and he knew it. Those races went as well as they could have for him, but he was never going to gain traction with most Republicans. I don't know if McCain would take him as Vice President, but I will say this....he's got to consider it. I'd also say that, looking at McCain, his VP choice will be heavily weighed by the voters. He didn't look too hot in the debate tonite.....at least in the four minutes I could stomach watching. His jaw looked so tight, I expected him to say
Next post, a discussion of the anticipated courting of the Hispanic vote.
Hasta la vista.
John Edwards drops out. Something about this bothers me. As conservative as I am about some things, I have always liked John Edwards. I think he would make a fine President. When he ran for Vice President, one reason I wanted Kerry to win was to have Edwards in the Presidential loop. This time, his candidacy was doomed from the start. Talk about bad match-ups.....Hillary AND Obama. What's a liberal white male to do? He gave it a shot, the press ignored him, the voters ignored him, and surely he was running out of money. His leaving the race really helps Hillary. It guarantees a first ballot nomination, and avoids a rancorous brokered convention. I don't expect him to endorse Hillary or Obama, just pledge to support the nominee. This is the smart move, and he's smart.
Rudy drops out. He'd have had a better shot if he'd switched parties and run for the Democratic nomination. I can't fault his Florida strategy. The fact is, had he campaigned earlier, he would have lost in Iowa and New Hampshire, and he knew it. Those races went as well as they could have for him, but he was never going to gain traction with most Republicans. I don't know if McCain would take him as Vice President, but I will say this....he's got to consider it. I'd also say that, looking at McCain, his VP choice will be heavily weighed by the voters. He didn't look too hot in the debate tonite.....at least in the four minutes I could stomach watching. His jaw looked so tight, I expected him to say
"OIL CAN"
Next post, a discussion of the anticipated courting of the Hispanic vote.
Hasta la vista.
Monday, January 28, 2008
What is "Electability" Anyway?
Yesterday I posited that Hillary would like to make Obama's electability an issue. She just has to figure out HOW to do it.
"These things have to be
handled DELICATELY"
Lest anyone think this is only about race, or only about the Democrats, I will also say that for the Republicans, Huckabee is not electable either. After he won Iowa, he created some worry. Many Republicans like him, but realistically, he can't beat Hillary.
Pollsters run head to head comparisons, and surely the candidates do it too. Lets run some combinations and permutations....
Hillary - McCain
Hillary - Romney
Hillary - Giuliani
Hillary - Huckabee
Obama - McCain
Obama - Romney
Obama - Giuliani
Obama - Huckabee
The way I see it.....
Hillary against McCain is the most likely result, and would be close.
Hillary against Romney or Giuliani is a dogfight.
Hillary against Huckabee is a romp for Hillary (Huckabee lacks electablility against Hillary)
Obama v Huckabee would be fun, and I will grant they have electability against each other.
Obama v Romney or Giuliani......Obama loses but it's a contest.....maybe
Obama v McCain is a romp for McCain (Obama lacks electability against McCain)
The more McCain strengthens, the less electable Obama appears, and conflicted Democrats are less likely to vote for him. It should be taken as a given that African American Democrats will vote overwhelmingly for Obama, and with a high turnout. He is a strong candidate, and actually electable, in four or eight years. Is fear of McCain enough to spur a strong white turnout for Hillary? He's such an odd candidate that many nominal Democrats will vote for him in the general election. Hillary better hope that white Democrats don't turn out and vote for Obama, in a backhanded assist for McCain. Oops, did I actually say that?
Tomorrow.....how and why the Hispanic vote will ultimately decide the election.
"These things have to be
handled DELICATELY"
Lest anyone think this is only about race, or only about the Democrats, I will also say that for the Republicans, Huckabee is not electable either. After he won Iowa, he created some worry. Many Republicans like him, but realistically, he can't beat Hillary.
Pollsters run head to head comparisons, and surely the candidates do it too. Lets run some combinations and permutations....
Hillary - McCain
Hillary - Romney
Hillary - Giuliani
Hillary - Huckabee
Obama - McCain
Obama - Romney
Obama - Giuliani
Obama - Huckabee
The way I see it.....
Hillary against McCain is the most likely result, and would be close.
Hillary against Romney or Giuliani is a dogfight.
Hillary against Huckabee is a romp for Hillary (Huckabee lacks electablility against Hillary)
Obama v Huckabee would be fun, and I will grant they have electability against each other.
Obama v Romney or Giuliani......Obama loses but it's a contest.....maybe
Obama v McCain is a romp for McCain (Obama lacks electability against McCain)
The more McCain strengthens, the less electable Obama appears, and conflicted Democrats are less likely to vote for him. It should be taken as a given that African American Democrats will vote overwhelmingly for Obama, and with a high turnout. He is a strong candidate, and actually electable, in four or eight years. Is fear of McCain enough to spur a strong white turnout for Hillary? He's such an odd candidate that many nominal Democrats will vote for him in the general election. Hillary better hope that white Democrats don't turn out and vote for Obama, in a backhanded assist for McCain. Oops, did I actually say that?
Tomorrow.....how and why the Hispanic vote will ultimately decide the election.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
The "E" Word
Poor Hillary. She should be getting the nomination easily, but it's not happening that way.
Ironically, the best analogy for her situation comes from the world of sports. Sometimes in sports, one team seems much stronger than the other, but for some reason the weaker team presents a "bad match-up". The strong team could roll over anyone else in the league, even teams way stronger than the bad match-up team, but THAT team gives the strong team fits.
Why is Obama such a bad match-up for Hillary?
It's starts with a basic premiss. The Democrats are the ultimate party of political correctness. It's what much of the country hates about them. When you value political correctness, you de-value genuine-ness. You seem like a POLITICIAN. Note to the Clintons....this is not a good thing.
Obama is a bad match-up for Hillary because it is politically incorrect to critisize him. She knows this, she has known it from the start. And every time she tries, it bites her back double. It's probably politically incorrect for me to even say these things, but hey, I'm not a politician. Nor am I a Democrat, though I am registered that way. I've voted for lots of Democrats too, and lots of Republicans. If I cannot be labeled, I'm proud. I am also proud to be an American who despises political correctness.
There is something even more politically incorrect, something about the match-up, that Hillary knows. A card she wants to play, the BIG explosive card, the one everyone knows but they are not talking about.....yet. She is going to play this card, it is the winning card, unless she plays it wrong. The card is the "E" word.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I'm not worried about being politically incorrect, so I'll just say it.
Obama is not ELECTABLE.
That is the big card. This is the thing that most Democrats know, but are afraid to say. It's what Hillary wants and needs them to say, but she can't say it. Bill can't say it either, not publicly. But the card WILL be played. Democratic voters on Super Tuesday will be thinking about this, and maybe whispering about this, and ultimately, will vote this way. They will vote with the realization that Obama is not electable, and Hillary will get the nomination. If they stay politically correct in the voting booth, and are worried about how it will look if they reject Obama and his "message of change" or whatever, the Democrats will be hoisted on their own petard (I always wanted to say that.....I researched the reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petard )
Hoisted how? Be honest. How will McCain/Obama turn out?
Tomorrow.....more about the big "E"
Ironically, the best analogy for her situation comes from the world of sports. Sometimes in sports, one team seems much stronger than the other, but for some reason the weaker team presents a "bad match-up". The strong team could roll over anyone else in the league, even teams way stronger than the bad match-up team, but THAT team gives the strong team fits.
Why is Obama such a bad match-up for Hillary?
It's starts with a basic premiss. The Democrats are the ultimate party of political correctness. It's what much of the country hates about them. When you value political correctness, you de-value genuine-ness. You seem like a POLITICIAN. Note to the Clintons....this is not a good thing.
Obama is a bad match-up for Hillary because it is politically incorrect to critisize him. She knows this, she has known it from the start. And every time she tries, it bites her back double. It's probably politically incorrect for me to even say these things, but hey, I'm not a politician. Nor am I a Democrat, though I am registered that way. I've voted for lots of Democrats too, and lots of Republicans. If I cannot be labeled, I'm proud. I am also proud to be an American who despises political correctness.
There is something even more politically incorrect, something about the match-up, that Hillary knows. A card she wants to play, the BIG explosive card, the one everyone knows but they are not talking about.....yet. She is going to play this card, it is the winning card, unless she plays it wrong. The card is the "E" word.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I'm not worried about being politically incorrect, so I'll just say it.
Obama is not ELECTABLE.
That is the big card. This is the thing that most Democrats know, but are afraid to say. It's what Hillary wants and needs them to say, but she can't say it. Bill can't say it either, not publicly. But the card WILL be played. Democratic voters on Super Tuesday will be thinking about this, and maybe whispering about this, and ultimately, will vote this way. They will vote with the realization that Obama is not electable, and Hillary will get the nomination. If they stay politically correct in the voting booth, and are worried about how it will look if they reject Obama and his "message of change" or whatever, the Democrats will be hoisted on their own petard (I always wanted to say that.....I researched the reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petard )
Hoisted how? Be honest. How will McCain/Obama turn out?
Tomorrow.....more about the big "E"
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Rudy and the Strategy
He's sitting it out until Florida.
I heard some "pundits" say, authoritatively, that Rudy has made a huge mistake, since "no Republican has ever won without participating in Iowa and New Hampshire". I can't agree, as they say in Latin....."logicus non convinsus"
Rudy took a calculated gamble that may work. It would not have made sense to blow his war chest in these small States. He would not have jumped out to a huge lead no matter what, and if he had campaigned and finished second or third, the press would have pronounced him "in trouble". If he shows strongly in Florida, and then on Super Tuesday, he's right in the thick of it, and he has not wasted his money too early.
The early results were optimal for Rudy. Huckabee gets into the race and beats Romney in Iowa. McCain beats Romney in New Hampshire. Romney wins in Michigan, where he should, but at least McCain is not on a roll. Rudy is taking the long view, he wants to be in serious contention at the convention, he wants to preserve money as the campaign wears on, he wants to be the candidate gaining momentum rather than losing it.
When Rudy is involved, things are more interesting.
Personally, I think he should not talk about 9/11. Everyone knows he showed extraordinary LEADERSHIP. It goes without saying, and he should not let the others paint him as "the guy who talks about 9/11". Most New Yorkers know he was a great mayor before 9/11. I know my liberal friends will say he was "insensitive" and "heavy handed". He may be, but he was elected to lead a City in big trouble, and he took decisive actions, and led the City to unprecedented improvement. He did this despite being a Republican mayor in a Democrat controlled City. The City Counsel and the Borough Presidents were Democrats. The fact is, he was able to impose his will and move the City forward.
As I recall, the first memorable thing Rudy did was arrest all the squeegee men. It seems silly now, but at the time it was a big deal. New Yorkers all know this, but here's the way it happened........when driving into Manhattan, cars were besieged by squeegee men, who would wash your windshield with a dirty rag, and then demand money. Drivers hated this, but it was a growing phenomenon, and what people hated even more than squeegeeing, was the perceived government condonement, and a concern for "squeegiers rights". Within a few days of becoming Mayor of NYC, Rudy Giuliani solved the problem. He had ALL the squeegie men ARRESTED, and stated that we were no longer going to tolerate these assaults on quality of life, we were no longer going to tolerate things that were a blight on the City. The squeegie men never came back.
Can any other Presidential candidate point to a concrete accomplishment like that?
I heard some "pundits" say, authoritatively, that Rudy has made a huge mistake, since "no Republican has ever won without participating in Iowa and New Hampshire". I can't agree, as they say in Latin....."logicus non convinsus"
Rudy took a calculated gamble that may work. It would not have made sense to blow his war chest in these small States. He would not have jumped out to a huge lead no matter what, and if he had campaigned and finished second or third, the press would have pronounced him "in trouble". If he shows strongly in Florida, and then on Super Tuesday, he's right in the thick of it, and he has not wasted his money too early.
The early results were optimal for Rudy. Huckabee gets into the race and beats Romney in Iowa. McCain beats Romney in New Hampshire. Romney wins in Michigan, where he should, but at least McCain is not on a roll. Rudy is taking the long view, he wants to be in serious contention at the convention, he wants to preserve money as the campaign wears on, he wants to be the candidate gaining momentum rather than losing it.
When Rudy is involved, things are more interesting.
Personally, I think he should not talk about 9/11. Everyone knows he showed extraordinary LEADERSHIP. It goes without saying, and he should not let the others paint him as "the guy who talks about 9/11". Most New Yorkers know he was a great mayor before 9/11. I know my liberal friends will say he was "insensitive" and "heavy handed". He may be, but he was elected to lead a City in big trouble, and he took decisive actions, and led the City to unprecedented improvement. He did this despite being a Republican mayor in a Democrat controlled City. The City Counsel and the Borough Presidents were Democrats. The fact is, he was able to impose his will and move the City forward.
As I recall, the first memorable thing Rudy did was arrest all the squeegee men. It seems silly now, but at the time it was a big deal. New Yorkers all know this, but here's the way it happened........when driving into Manhattan, cars were besieged by squeegee men, who would wash your windshield with a dirty rag, and then demand money. Drivers hated this, but it was a growing phenomenon, and what people hated even more than squeegeeing, was the perceived government condonement, and a concern for "squeegiers rights". Within a few days of becoming Mayor of NYC, Rudy Giuliani solved the problem. He had ALL the squeegie men ARRESTED, and stated that we were no longer going to tolerate these assaults on quality of life, we were no longer going to tolerate things that were a blight on the City. The squeegie men never came back.
Can any other Presidential candidate point to a concrete accomplishment like that?
Monday, January 14, 2008
Reconsidering McCain
I hate when this happens. Yesterday I started a post about John McCain, but then I did some Democratic "backstory" and tabled McCain until today. Of course, all the buzz in the national media today was about McCain. Well, I WAS gonna break the story first, and here's my take on it.....
We all have our little cliched ideas about John McCain. The patriotic POW/hero who is a "loose canon". He even looks kinda whacked out sometimes. Here's page one of his own website http://www.johnmccain.com/landing/?sid=gorganic Yipes!!!!
Another thing he is known for is being "not your typical Republican". This alone warrants a second look. Here is the "issues" page from his website http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/
If you looked it over, you may feel like I do.....I don't agree with all of it. Do you need a candidate who agrees with you on everything? Do you want a candidate whose moves you can predict based on an ideology? I have my own little cliche....I like someone who "will stand up for what he thinks is right".
OK.......maybe I've become a one issue guy, that issue being Immigration. I have posted about this a few times. http://nylaw2law.blogspot.com/search/label/Immigration Congress, and all the candidates (Republican & Democrat), acted disgracefully. Except John McCain. What did they do that got my goat?
1. The Country had a serious problem that should have been addressed with a comprehensive law.
2. The issues are complicated, and the only way to solve them was with fair compromise, non-partisanship, and creativity.
3. A bill was proposed that had plenty of meat on it, and addressed ALL the issues.
4. The Republicans railed against the bill as an "amnesty" bill. However, they never addressed what to do about the 12 million people here without legal status, most of whom contribute to our economy, want to be a legal part of our society, and want to pay their fair share of taxes. They did their work so in-artfully that the bill was never seriously debated, and the Democrats never even had to state their positions on it. Actually, virtually no Democrats stated their position, and the fact is, if they had, most would have opposed the bill for being too strict.
5. Seems to me that a bill which is tough for both sides to swallow is probably a good compromise, and had the details been allowed to be worked out, OUR COUNTRY WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER OFF.
That defeated bill was the Kennedy-McCain bill. Here's a rundown from the Daily Kos
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/13/112653/285 Doesn't look like an amnesty bill to me!!
In the early Republican debates, the candidates spewed their anti-amnesty rhetoric. McCain stood alone and essentially took it. Not the place to actually TALK about it. It would have been easy for McCain to stay out of the immigration fray, as ALL the other candidates did. Surely he realized that politically it could hurt him......I mean, he sponsored the bill with Ted Kennedy!! He took a novel and unprecedented path. Political considerations came second. Patriotism and the desire to help our country came first.
In my view, that is why many people are reconsidering McCain.....rightly so.
We all have our little cliched ideas about John McCain. The patriotic POW/hero who is a "loose canon". He even looks kinda whacked out sometimes. Here's page one of his own website http://www.johnmccain.com/landing/?sid=gorganic Yipes!!!!
Another thing he is known for is being "not your typical Republican". This alone warrants a second look. Here is the "issues" page from his website http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/
If you looked it over, you may feel like I do.....I don't agree with all of it. Do you need a candidate who agrees with you on everything? Do you want a candidate whose moves you can predict based on an ideology? I have my own little cliche....I like someone who "will stand up for what he thinks is right".
OK.......maybe I've become a one issue guy, that issue being Immigration. I have posted about this a few times. http://nylaw2law.blogspot.com/search/label/Immigration Congress, and all the candidates (Republican & Democrat), acted disgracefully. Except John McCain. What did they do that got my goat?
1. The Country had a serious problem that should have been addressed with a comprehensive law.
2. The issues are complicated, and the only way to solve them was with fair compromise, non-partisanship, and creativity.
3. A bill was proposed that had plenty of meat on it, and addressed ALL the issues.
4. The Republicans railed against the bill as an "amnesty" bill. However, they never addressed what to do about the 12 million people here without legal status, most of whom contribute to our economy, want to be a legal part of our society, and want to pay their fair share of taxes. They did their work so in-artfully that the bill was never seriously debated, and the Democrats never even had to state their positions on it. Actually, virtually no Democrats stated their position, and the fact is, if they had, most would have opposed the bill for being too strict.
5. Seems to me that a bill which is tough for both sides to swallow is probably a good compromise, and had the details been allowed to be worked out, OUR COUNTRY WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER OFF.
That defeated bill was the Kennedy-McCain bill. Here's a rundown from the Daily Kos
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/13/112653/285 Doesn't look like an amnesty bill to me!!
In the early Republican debates, the candidates spewed their anti-amnesty rhetoric. McCain stood alone and essentially took it. Not the place to actually TALK about it. It would have been easy for McCain to stay out of the immigration fray, as ALL the other candidates did. Surely he realized that politically it could hurt him......I mean, he sponsored the bill with Ted Kennedy!! He took a novel and unprecedented path. Political considerations came second. Patriotism and the desire to help our country came first.
In my view, that is why many people are reconsidering McCain.....rightly so.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Talkin' Presidential Politics
I'm undecided.
When things are as interesting as they are right now, I'm comfortable with my decision to decide later. I want to hear more. I want to think about it. At some point, I might even get staunchly behind a candidate.
The Democrats are pretty easy.....
Obama....blah blah blah, nice speeches, but seems like a lot of talk, and I can't see him actually getting the nomination, much less winning. He's a player on the scene, but not for all the marbles this year.
Hillary....found her voice by crying. I have serious doubts about her, BUT she has to be considered because she IS the likely nominee. This is one of the things that makes the Republican side so fascinating. Whoever they nominate will be running against Hillary.
Edwards....the press has dropped the ball on his story in both Iowa and New Hampshire. In Iowa, it should have been a huge story that he finished second and ahead of Hillary. But he got lost in the Obama glow. In New Hampshire he fared poorly, but that has not been a big story. Sometimes when you watch him speak, he's like a poor man's JFK....maybe that's the problem. He also strikes people as "trial lawyerly", and sometimes I enjoy that, but sometimes its downright offensive.
They'll joust it out, and I'll go on the limb (sorta) and state for the record.....Hillary
Now, on the other side, it's much harder. To all my solidly Democratic friends who will smugly reject all the Republicans and jump on the Hillary bandwagon.....be careful....smugness led us to 8 years of the worst President in modern times. Most Republican conservatives know this, though they won't say so. The thing is, ALL of the Republican contenders (Huckabee, Romney, McCain, Giuliani) are way more attractive candidates than GWB. They also have a certain status that only Hillary has on the other side...All of them are ELECTABLE. If that worries real Democrats, it should.
I have found 8 years of GWB embarrassing and offensive, but hey, our countrymen voted him in twice......yeah, I know, they "stole it" the first time, but how could it have even been that close? THAT is what died in the wool Democrats should have been asking.
As many of my blog readers know, I think immigration reform should be a major issue in the campaign. The Democrats barely talk about it.......Gutless.
When the Republicans debate, they play a "can you top this" of racist fear-mongering about immigration, talking about the "amnesty bill" that they proudly defeated. They talk about amnesty as if they have some other viable solution, like deporting 12 million people. Sometimes they attack John McCain, co-sponsor of the ill-fated legislation.
That one position, TRYING as a Senator to draft and pass a compromise immigration bill, that had CONDITIONAL amnesty provisions, is enough to warrant serious consideration of his candidacy.
Tomorrow.....Reconsidering McCain
When things are as interesting as they are right now, I'm comfortable with my decision to decide later. I want to hear more. I want to think about it. At some point, I might even get staunchly behind a candidate.
The Democrats are pretty easy.....
Obama....blah blah blah, nice speeches, but seems like a lot of talk, and I can't see him actually getting the nomination, much less winning. He's a player on the scene, but not for all the marbles this year.
Hillary....found her voice by crying. I have serious doubts about her, BUT she has to be considered because she IS the likely nominee. This is one of the things that makes the Republican side so fascinating. Whoever they nominate will be running against Hillary.
Edwards....the press has dropped the ball on his story in both Iowa and New Hampshire. In Iowa, it should have been a huge story that he finished second and ahead of Hillary. But he got lost in the Obama glow. In New Hampshire he fared poorly, but that has not been a big story. Sometimes when you watch him speak, he's like a poor man's JFK....maybe that's the problem. He also strikes people as "trial lawyerly", and sometimes I enjoy that, but sometimes its downright offensive.
They'll joust it out, and I'll go on the limb (sorta) and state for the record.....Hillary
Now, on the other side, it's much harder. To all my solidly Democratic friends who will smugly reject all the Republicans and jump on the Hillary bandwagon.....be careful....smugness led us to 8 years of the worst President in modern times. Most Republican conservatives know this, though they won't say so. The thing is, ALL of the Republican contenders (Huckabee, Romney, McCain, Giuliani) are way more attractive candidates than GWB. They also have a certain status that only Hillary has on the other side...All of them are ELECTABLE. If that worries real Democrats, it should.
I have found 8 years of GWB embarrassing and offensive, but hey, our countrymen voted him in twice......yeah, I know, they "stole it" the first time, but how could it have even been that close? THAT is what died in the wool Democrats should have been asking.
As many of my blog readers know, I think immigration reform should be a major issue in the campaign. The Democrats barely talk about it.......Gutless.
When the Republicans debate, they play a "can you top this" of racist fear-mongering about immigration, talking about the "amnesty bill" that they proudly defeated. They talk about amnesty as if they have some other viable solution, like deporting 12 million people. Sometimes they attack John McCain, co-sponsor of the ill-fated legislation.
That one position, TRYING as a Senator to draft and pass a compromise immigration bill, that had CONDITIONAL amnesty provisions, is enough to warrant serious consideration of his candidacy.
Tomorrow.....Reconsidering McCain
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
Handicapping the Presidential Election
Gambling is illegal in this country, except where it's legal, like Nevada, Atlantic City, some Indian reservations, on barges in many cities, and arguably in "private home games". Also legal is horse racing, dog racing, jai-alai and other "pari-mutuel" forms of betting (I know WAY too much about this, and if anyone wants an explanation of pari-mutuel betting, post a comment and I will explain). Also legal in some States is poker, though internet poker is "illegal" (yet somehow I may be playing later tonight). Sports betting is only legal in Nevada, though billions of dollars is bet illegally on all sports. Ever wonder what those baseball odds in the paper are all about? (Yeah....I know about that too). Lotteries seem to be everywhere, too.
In this country, you can't bet the Presidential election legally, but there ARE places where you can. I Googled "Odds on Presidential Candidates" and got this cool site
http://www.oddschecker.com/specials/politics-and-election/us-presidential-election-2008/to-be-elected-president/best-odds/
Check it out....you won't be arrested.
It made me think, Polls Shmolls, this is where the action is.
I will list the odds as this site states them, with some comments:
1. Hillary Clinton 2-1 knew she'd be the chalk, these are "best" odds, some books have her at even money or less. No filly has ever won the big one, but Bill can really ride.
2. Barack Obama 5-1 does he have a better chance than Rudy? I don't see it. I may use him in an exacta with Hillary.
3. Fred Thompson 6-1 Who??? Rudy is in trouble if this guy is a lower price. First time politicians rarely can get around two turns.
4. Rudy Giuliani 8-1 Not a bad price. Might have beaten Hillary for Senator but came up lame. Breeding a question mark.
5. Al Gore 12-1 Could emerge if Hillary stumbles. Shoulda taken the prize back when.
6. Mitt Romney 14-1 Couldn't pick him out of a lineup. Is he a Mormon? Big Love is my favorite show.
7. John Edwards 20-1 Big overlay. All or nothing, won't take second seat.
8. John McCain 25-1 Can you picture it happening? I can't.
9. Michael Bloomberg 40-1 Awesome mayor, incorruptable, strictly business. Could affect race and would likely hurt Hillary. Pbly will scratch.
10. Evan Bayh 50-1 Not this time.
There are other longshots listed....Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, Newt Gingrich, Bill Richardson, John Kerry. I wonder if you could bet the "Field" of others, that would probably be about 25-1 right now.
Who do you like?
In this country, you can't bet the Presidential election legally, but there ARE places where you can. I Googled "Odds on Presidential Candidates" and got this cool site
http://www.oddschecker.com/specials/politics-and-election/us-presidential-election-2008/to-be-elected-president/best-odds/
Check it out....you won't be arrested.
It made me think, Polls Shmolls, this is where the action is.
I will list the odds as this site states them, with some comments:
1. Hillary Clinton 2-1 knew she'd be the chalk, these are "best" odds, some books have her at even money or less. No filly has ever won the big one, but Bill can really ride.
2. Barack Obama 5-1 does he have a better chance than Rudy? I don't see it. I may use him in an exacta with Hillary.
3. Fred Thompson 6-1 Who??? Rudy is in trouble if this guy is a lower price. First time politicians rarely can get around two turns.
4. Rudy Giuliani 8-1 Not a bad price. Might have beaten Hillary for Senator but came up lame. Breeding a question mark.
5. Al Gore 12-1 Could emerge if Hillary stumbles. Shoulda taken the prize back when.
6. Mitt Romney 14-1 Couldn't pick him out of a lineup. Is he a Mormon? Big Love is my favorite show.
7. John Edwards 20-1 Big overlay. All or nothing, won't take second seat.
8. John McCain 25-1 Can you picture it happening? I can't.
9. Michael Bloomberg 40-1 Awesome mayor, incorruptable, strictly business. Could affect race and would likely hurt Hillary. Pbly will scratch.
10. Evan Bayh 50-1 Not this time.
There are other longshots listed....Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, Newt Gingrich, Bill Richardson, John Kerry. I wonder if you could bet the "Field" of others, that would probably be about 25-1 right now.
Who do you like?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)