madmonq’s joint

A few months ago you could not have told me that Hillary Clinton would not win most of the primaries and Democratic nomination. I was kinda partial to her. Beyond her experience within and without government I really appreciated her turn from the dark side. Her previous personality (which surely still lurks under the surface) would have melted tar and had a similar odor. Tar has it’s uses, but not as a personality. She’s come far enough to be a convincing candidate. But it was still very early in the primaries and the race wide open.

John Edwards. Eh. Call me misanthropic, but if it’s apparent Hillary can beat him up, I don’t want him as my candidate. Kucinich can take him in a fight. This is not the standard I use for all candidates, but it seems valid just the same. That’s all I have to say about that.

(Hillary could also take Kucinich, Chris Dodd. Mitt Romney, Bill Richardson, maybe Huckabee and she’d try Thompson. She’d lose but she’d try. Anyone else I’ve forgotten, they’d meet the same fate.)

(And she needs to beat up Brownback. On general principal.)

Ron Paul. Like the libertarian. Don’t like the crazy.

As for the rest (and maybe Huckabee, definately Obama and against some serious misgivings), are rational enough that 1) I don’t hate them 2) don’t see any significant problems. They talk a good game, but won’t actually be as crazy as they sound. Either McCain, Huckabee or Giuliani will get the Repub nomination. John McCain. I’m kinda fond of the old fogie. Despite his reputation I don’t think he’s crazy. He has a low tolerance for bullshit. Five years as a P.O.W will do that. Low tolerance for B.S. should be a standard trait if you want to be president. Bottom line , I’ll vote Democrat by default, otherwise if it’s right. None of the above are ideal but we’ve lived with much worse (George W Bush).

All things being fair, Hillary, equipped with her newly deodorized personality and undeterred by her testy nature, would be hard pressed to beat Obama’s seemingly genuine, decent demeanor. More importantly…

When I asked Obama about this, he smiled and leaned forward, as if eager to explain that my premise was precisely the politically calibrated approach that he wanted to challenge. “What I think you’re asserting is that it makes sense for us to continue hiding the ball,” Obama said, “and not tell the American people the truth—”

I interrupted: “Politically it makes sense—”

He finished the sentence: “—to not tell people what we really think?”

This is precisely the argument that I have with Senator Clinton,” Obama said. “This is what I mean by a textbook campaign. I think there is a conventional wisdom, and this is part of the reason I think Senator Clinton’s campaign has up until now been so well received by the national press.” In other words, political journalists have rewarded the Clinton campaign for its tactical proficiency rather than criticized it for policy inconsistencies.

Because it’s still early in the process, this may change. I kind of hope it doesn’t.

No matter what we say modern-day politicking is as much about popularity as it is about quality. Questions of experience are relevant. Competence and problem solving abilities, more-so. Lord knows we’ve lived with much, much less (George W. Bush). Obama is smart enough to find the right cabinet. More than smart enough to the make up the difference. Charisma-wise he’s no Clinton (42), but I’m willing to sacrifice some popularity for something approaching consistent optimism, truthfulness and behavior. And, prude though I’m not, no Lewinskis.

Most of the other candidates aren’t subtle enough to lie for an extended time. Almost none of them can tell the truth in a inspiring or convincing way. I’ve yet to see Obama not tell the truth first, obfuscate later. It’s unfortunate we’ve come to expect worse from our candidates, but that’s an amazing level of honesty from a recent public servant.

We are smart enough to handle the truth. Some problems may be difficult but, within the framework of the Constitution and general moral standards, I don’t care how they are solved. I’d prefer most things be accomplished within a certain price range and my civil liberties intact. I think Obama will do that and more. Recently that’s been asking too much (George W Bush).

Obama versus Hillary. I believe Obama wins. Obama versus Republican-yet-to-be named may be a different story. He stands for something. Not just for what polls well. Broad statement, subtle meaning. I hope the average person still understands. Barack Obama may not be the Democrat’s nominee, but he is the best choice for President of the United States.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/04/opinion/04brooks.html?ex=1200200400&en=4790c54046151825&ei=5070&emc=eta1

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/opinion/05herbert.html?ex=1200200400&en=af8365352b9c312c&ei=5070&emc=eta1

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/opinion/02dowd.html?ex=1200200400&en=51d70ee3dfdbbbd0&ei=5070&emc=eta1