I returned from a theatre rehearsal about an hour ago to see the results of the Iowa Caucus (see previous post). Understanding that I see things pretty much like Mixdorf (on all things except music and perhaps abortion), and having just wonked out to NPR for the past 45 minutes, let me offer my take on the picture, as it clears a bit.
Democrats:
Obama: To listen excerpts from his victory speech: chills. I'll tell you, there is something about that guy. He is electric, and politicians like him don't come around too often. He is a rock star, and one that seems to be on the right (read: progressive) side of pretty much every issue.
Hillary: To listen to her, she sounded mad. And Stephen, she used that "Ready to be president on Day One" thing. I'm with you on that - it just sounds wrong. It's almost like Obama caught up and passed her as soon as she started that shit. Even if it's just subconscious, I think it's tripping some kind of trigger in the back of people's minds where they wonder if the last 20 years of her life, including her time as First Lady, were not mere "experience" for the job, but a premeditated warmup. And it's freaky. Nobody should be thinking about being president for that long.
Edwards: I can't believe he's in this much longer. I haven't looked at how he's polling in New Hampshire, but it can't be good. He's been working on Iowa for 12 years now, and pretty much just blew his wad to come in 2nd (see Romney, below).
and that's just about it for the Democrats at this point.
Republicans:
Huckabee: Let's get real here. This was not a "winning the hearts of Iowa" thing, nor a huge surge in his popular appeal. Well, there was a little of both of those. But for the most part, this was all about Evangelicals doing what Evangelicals do: becoming politically active when their pastors tell them to. If you look at the non-Evangelical exit polls, he got destroyed by Romney, 3 to 1. I don't think they go for that shit in New Hampshire. The longer this race goes, the smaller the percentage of locked-in support he's going to be able to count on.
Romney: That was about the feeblest, most depressing "there's still a lot of fight left in us" speech I have ever heard. I guess it's what you should expect from A Man With Nothing. And, see "blew wad in Iowa" (Edwards, above).
McCain: This may be the guy to beat - which would be good only in this sense: on the odd chance we have to have a Republican in the Oval Office. Bad, in that I think he'd be the toughest draw for Obama when it came right down to it. That whole bullshit "maverick" thing.
Guiliani: Perhaps this is the last mention we have to have for this awful, mean little idiot (and Man Who Has Nothing #2) who is so close to being done that he should hang it up now.
no one else worth mentioning
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
On Huckabee: if I remember correctly, Pat Robertson won the Iowa Republican caucus back in 1988. I don't think a whole lot has changed demographically.
Sidenote: Robertson now pedals some sort of spiritual energy drink on his website and brags about how he can leg presses on a machine. (P.S., his form sucks.)
I am happy with what transpired last night. However, the biggest problem in American politics still, in my opinion, is the polarizing effects of Republicans and Democrats. Maybe we should shut down the parties and people should just vote on what they know is right and vote against what they know is wrong. Let's get the money out and lets get honor back in.
I say that more independants makes for a better working government.
I hear what you're saying, Cory, and that's what you'll hear almost all the candidates say, too.
THE PROBLEM WITH THAT, Cory, is that theoretically, your beliefs will affiliate you with one party or another by default. If I'm antiwar, pro-Social Security, pro-federal assistance for the poor, pro-union, etc. etc., it'd be pretty disingenuous for me to declare myself an independent.
Is there troubles in the two-party system? You bet. But anyone who tries to tell you (think: Green candidates) that you can't be an "independent" voice in either of the two major parties is not being truthful. Did you check out Kucinich? Gravel? Ron Paul? These guys are hardly mainstream. There is likely a guy who represents a good portion of your views early on in the primaries, if you take the time to learn enough about the individuals. That's partly what makes it so exciting (for us wonks). Do those types usually win out on a national level? Nope. But that's the downside of Democracy. The same mechanism that presumably keeps bad freaks out of positions of prominance can keep wonderful people with truly progressive ideas that people maybe aren't ready for, as well.
Consider one more fact: If we end up with an independent running (think: Michael Bloomberg), he's going to be about the most wishy-washy, watered down guy you've ever seen in your life. Yes, he will be runnning on a platform of inclusion. But he will stand for nothing.
I understand what you are telling me. You have a good point. I don't like to be put into a corner. Why lock my myself in the car of one party? Why can't people just vote for the bills that come up that benefit most Americans? Why vote a certain way just because my party does. If you know it to be good vote for it.
The parties do nothing but divide Americans. I don't think that I can say anything that you will agree with so I will let the conversation go with the fact that you are more passionate about a party than I am. I just dislike our politics so much that I do not even like commenting on political topics. I am more of a dreamer than a realist in this arena.
I hope your canidate does well!
We may not be as far off base from each other as you think, in some sense. I tell you, I am for whoever I believe will represent my values best, regardless of party. But those values, by definition, just happen to be Democratic.
My values make me a Democrat, not the other way around, I can assure you.
CF Bear - look for a post soon from me about how partisanship is good and right.
Iowa R's have often gone against the establishment, while Iowa D's are more progressive than they are given credit for. Jesse freaking Jackson won the Iowa caucus in that same '88 contest. That's like voting for Jackie Chiles (outrageous! egregious!).
Maybe I need to see the facts from my friends point of view. I don't research as much as you guys do, because I always get sick doing it. I look forward to your posting.
Post a Comment