Anger over the Democratic Nomination

[fabrisse]

I don't want someone who has not completed a term in the Senate (or a minimum of three terms in the House or been governor of a small or medium sized state -- I don't want someone who's been governor of a large state as they tend to think they know what they're doing without being a little cautious.). I especially don't want someone with no foreign policy clue: that Mr. Obama is not attending his committee meetings is the worst kept secret on the Hill.

I don't want someone touched, however gently, by the Chicago political machine. The current Mayor Daley may be running his fiefdom well, but the Chicago machine tends to cause more problems than it solves on a national level.

I don't want someone whose public speeches give no specifics, but I can find the specifics on his website. I have relatives who have never used the internet in their life. They have no access in a couple of cases because they are older and housebound. They don't want "hope", they want specifics on why they should hope and that means specifics on the national network news. (Don't get me started on the way the networks have abrogated their FCC mandated responsibility to inform the public.)

I'm pissed at the media for the "Hillary Deathwatch" type sites which seemed to imply she had no business remaining in the race. She did. Maybe she should have dropped out sooner, but I bloody well respect her for not giving in to the pressure. Had I seen the Slate and other sites grave dancing and been the candidate, I would have kept going too. That kind of "commentary" is unnecessary and nasty.

I'll hold my nose and vote for him, because I think the Republicans need to be out. But I don't see the elderly voting for him and they are the strongest single voting bloc in the country.

Comments

[thorbol.livejournal.com]

I've been appalled at the sexist nonsense that Hillary Clinton has dealt with. I've been at least as appalled by the abysmal rule-making, voter-screwing behavior of the Democratic party, and by what one can only call the entitlement mentality of Iowa and New Hampshire, which led to the voter-screwing. I would have been glad if Hillary had dropped out sooner, but I have little more than contempt for the pressure that has been put on her to do it, and I do not think she was obliged to concede the nomination last night.

Those things said, and some others that could be said, I have little doubt that Barack Obama will be a little more my kind of president than Clinton. His health plan is a little less authoritarian than hers, at least allowing adults to decide whether they want to cover themselves. He seems to have a notably better view of how to deal with the world, and that basic premise is more important than a veritable tome of particulars at the moment. (Among the lessons we should learn from 9-11 and its aftermath is that the particulars proposed in a campaign for the presidency can become null and void real quick.) GI have not compared their voting records, but if they are as similar as I've heard repeatedly, then other particulars, too, may matter less than their general messages; on that score, I think Obama beats Clinton almost hands-down. (My sense is the Clinton has the ability to be as eloquent and visionary as Obama, but that her political calculations don't allow it and probably haven't for a long time.)

I no longer have the article, but some time ago a friend sent me a piece that, among other things, said that Clinton signed on to a proposed constitutional amendment aimed at banning flag-burning. As I have said that the only time I'd burn a flag was if such an amendment passed, you can predict how good her candidacy looked to me when I read that item.

I'd hoped Obama would wait until he had at least a full senate term under his belt before running for president. His short time in there, though, is a lot less important as a source of criticism than the thing all three mainstream candidates share: all are spending a great amount of there time not doing the jobs they were elected to do. Clinton, like John Kerry, essentially started her new senate term by running for president. (I don't know where McCain is in his term, and I'm not saying Obama wouldn't have done the same if the timing of his election to the senate had set it up that way.) Until we voters insist massively that people at least be near the ends of their terms of office before we'll tolerate their running for something else, we're surely stuck with functionally vacant offices somewhere just about every year. (No, I don't think we should make it a law.)

I'm not even interested in the reputation of the political machine in the place where the candidate has served before, unless it is proved corrupt at the relevant time and the candidate him- or herself is proved to have shared in the corruption.

Those, at least, are excerpts of my take on this business. There's a lot missing, and I now doubt I'll get around to spouting about the rest, but I hope these notes are of some use. I just hope the hell that come November I'll still think Obama deserves my vote: it's been a while since I thought that about a major party candidate by that time of year.

[fabrisse.livejournal.com]

It would be nice if they completed a term or resigned their offices before running. I'm with you on that.

The Democratic Party has got to stop shooting itself in the foot. Pennsylvania and other late in the race primaries had people lining up to tell the media how much it meant to them that their vote counted. But The New York Times and The Washington Post kept complaining that Clinton wouldn't concede. How much better that people feel their voices carried?

[thorbol.livejournal.com]

One of the things <lj user="moria923" have been irate about is that the primary process was constructed so that it eliminated most of the candidates early, long before most of us voted. We actually were leaning towards voting for Christopher Dodd. Though he was on the ballot when Super Tuesday rolled around, we had no reason to think that voting for him would do any good: he was already gone, and there was no voter movement not to treat him as gone. Late primaries have counted this year in a way they haven't at any time I can remember, but I don't find much consolation in that. I contend that we need a national primary, which I think should be held in or near April. Then run-off voting, delegates, or a combination of the two would get the majority of a party's nominating votes to somebody by convention's end. I'd think there'd be some greater incentive for candidates to do such retail politicking as they can in more places, something that eradicating the electoral constitution surely would help with. In fact, lately I've begun to wonder if we should revise the election process so that parties have nothing directly to do with the balloting, only the candidates they put forth and those who are sensible and run as independents. Parties do provide certain benefits, I guess, but ultimately, as George Washington and others of his time thought, they are a curse.

[fabrisse.livejournal.com]

I'm actually in favor of going back to individual primaries. Don't allow 20 states (or whatever it is) to all have their primary on the same day. It would force candidates to actually be on the ground in every state at some point. That doesn't happen now -- though the longer trail for Clinton and Obama did get them to more places.