It was Bill Clinton that supposedly remarked "Republicans like to fall in line, Democrats like to fall in love".
This recently lead to George Will's remark that "Democrats have fallen in love, just not with Hillary". They've fallen in love with Barack Obama and there are no signs that this affair is just an infatuation.
If one studies the present back and forth between the Democratic front runners, that about sums it up. Hillary had one major strategy, and that was to out raise the Obama campaign by over two to one in order to build the aura of invincibility.
At this, she will fail.
I know this is just a guess at this point, but I put Obama either ahead in money raising by the end of March, or at least within 10-20 points. This will cause shock waves in the community and will foster a real horse race between possibly the first woman president, and the first African American president. I am guessing this from both the buzz on his campaign trail, and from recent comments by Howard Fineman (Chris Matthews - Mar11, 07) and others that Obama is raising money faster than anyone expected. In fact, his comment was that the Clinton people were complaining that every time they called a big donor they had already been called by Barack Obama HIMSELF. This is a big scoop. He is working hard and he wants to shock the establishment.
But does it matter? If, deep down, Hillary and Obama are more or less aligned on all the major issues, then... does anyone care?
The answer is yes, because this country is in urgent need of upheaval and Obama is the right man for the right time. I think it matters and I will tell you why.
Over the course of the next year, there will be much written about where the two stand on iraq, education, health care, welfare, minimum wage, abortion, etc.. etc.. but lets keep in mind what these questions are supposed to tell us.
Do we really care that a candidate agrees with us 95% on everything compared to 80% for the other one? No. This leads to over-calculated poll-driven politics. It also leads to a White House that has to run everything through the political advisers before making policy. That's exactly what we have now, Rove driven disasters. That is also the kind of White House that Hillary will create. The signs of it are already written on the wall from the way she is running her campaign.
Look at her Selma response. Look at her attack at the Geffen statement. Its politics as usual, and its the same old trap that leads to an electorate that can barely hold their nose by the time they finally make it to the voting booth.
Obama is different. Here is why.
There is no question that this man has thought about running for president for more than 2 years. Did this cause him to make a calculated political decision to support the war or "the resolution but not the war" or some such nonsense that came out of Kerry in '04, and Clinton in '07? No.
He said what he knew was right and he let the voters fall where they may. He was honest and he took a risk.
This is the kind of leadership America needs and this is what Obama represents.
If Obama were a conventional calculating politician, he would have waited. He would have taken a deal from the establishment, supported Hillary and would have run later with more experience in '12 or '16. He would still be young enough to run then, but he didn't. He recognized an opportunity, with lots of risk and he went for it.
Leadership.
How is he running his campaign? The same way. He's not afraid to shake the tree in Clinton's home turf in New York, and he's gathered major support in Hollywood. He is also not afraid to bring religion into his stump and into his campaign. This is something that definitely contributed to the Kerry loss.
Can he win in a general. Yes.
The way he is running his campaign shows it all, with a very important comment. If you listen to the way Clinton talks about republicans, she says things like "I know them, I can beat them".
Divisive, acrimonious, old politics.
Even her first major sound bite "I'm in it to win it" represents a mis-step in my opinion. Think about it. Is winning all that matters? Or is the struggle and the endeavor, the end goals most important? A candidate should be an agent for achieving results not an end in itself.
Here is also something to remember. What makes Clinton represent politics as usual is her methods, her words and her beliefs, not her sex. Yes, she would be the first woman president, but she would be more divisive than any male that came before her. Likewise, what makes Obama new and fresh is not his skin color. It has nothing to do with how "black" he is. It has everything to do with what he says, how he says it and what he truly believes.
If you listen to Obama he says of republicans "I will talk to them." "We are all Americans. There is no red America or blue America. There is the United States of America". That can win a general. Hillary's comments will pull us back into politics as usual. No one wants to be beaten down. No one wants their beliefs trivialized. No one wants another winner take all candidate. Everyone, now more than ever, wants a true political discourse and wants a true leader to be in charge.
Barack Obama is a leader. Barack Obama is new. He just happens to be black.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Why? Chuck, Why?
Senator Chuck Hagel put off his bid to run for president today, according to the new york times.
Here are a few good excerpts of his comments that hit the nail on the head and show that... should he run, he's got his head in the right place.
“The political currents in America are more unpredictable today than at any time in modern history,” Mr. Hagel said. “We are experiencing a political re-orientation, a redefining and moving toward a new political center of gravity.”
He added: “This movement is bigger than both parties. The need to solve problems and meet challenges is overtaking the ideological debates of the last three decades — as it should. America is demanding honest, competent and accountable governance.”
“America stands at an historic crossroads in its history,” Mr. Hagel said. “It is against this backdrop that I find myself at my own crossroads on my political future.”
These quotes are taken from the new york times article of JEFF ZELENY Published: March 12, 2007
He is clearly aware of the seismic shift that is about to occur in American politics. But will he be a player?
A more important question is whether the republican party will be left behind. Like a trapeze artist, the GOP must grab for a better, larger constituency - disaffected fiscal conservatives, non-lefty greens (a growing group), or small government social moderates... just as they are leaping away from their old war hammer - the religious right. Can they do it all at once? Yes. The GOP was founded on a previous such great revolution, and it is smart enough and strong enough to leap again. If it doesn't, it will take more than one election cycle to make them viable again.
Here is another question... Does Chuck know something we don't?
Did someone talk to him and possibly convince him not to run given the strength of a present candidacy? Keep the ears open.
Here are a few good excerpts of his comments that hit the nail on the head and show that... should he run, he's got his head in the right place.
“The political currents in America are more unpredictable today than at any time in modern history,” Mr. Hagel said. “We are experiencing a political re-orientation, a redefining and moving toward a new political center of gravity.”
He added: “This movement is bigger than both parties. The need to solve problems and meet challenges is overtaking the ideological debates of the last three decades — as it should. America is demanding honest, competent and accountable governance.”
“America stands at an historic crossroads in its history,” Mr. Hagel said. “It is against this backdrop that I find myself at my own crossroads on my political future.”
These quotes are taken from the new york times article of JEFF ZELENY Published: March 12, 2007
He is clearly aware of the seismic shift that is about to occur in American politics. But will he be a player?
A more important question is whether the republican party will be left behind. Like a trapeze artist, the GOP must grab for a better, larger constituency - disaffected fiscal conservatives, non-lefty greens (a growing group), or small government social moderates... just as they are leaping away from their old war hammer - the religious right. Can they do it all at once? Yes. The GOP was founded on a previous such great revolution, and it is smart enough and strong enough to leap again. If it doesn't, it will take more than one election cycle to make them viable again.
Here is another question... Does Chuck know something we don't?
Did someone talk to him and possibly convince him not to run given the strength of a present candidacy? Keep the ears open.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Chuck Hagel and the battle against boredom
I feel compelled to write about Chuck Hagel and what he could represent for the present presidential race... possibly. The possibility, however, is so attractive and exciting that even if there is a vanishingly small chance of it coming to be - it is worth wishing for.
What I am talking about is a major shakeup and shift in the pattern of American politics.
That possibility is an end to the traditional stalemate of coalitions that has hampered American politics for a quarter century. Ronald Reagan may be a hero to modern republicans, but he created a monster when he tied the party to the success of an unstable coalition of religious, social and fiscal conservatives. George senior could not hold this coalition together, the religious right sat on their hands, and the swing voters jumped as fast as they could toward Perot. Now look what we've got. George junior was so paranoid about losing his base that he has become President of 30% of the United States.
For too long, the traditional lines of 'conservative' and 'liberal' have defined the playing field in what is accepted for politics in this country. What is a 'conservative'? As far as I am concerned, there are at least 3 major types if not more.
Why have these gone together in every national election since 1980? The Reagan 'coalition' essentially as it has been called, was created to allow the Republican party to become a majority party after the seismic shifts caused by the civil rights movement and Watergate.
Today, it simply doesn't make sense and is stifling political discourse. Fiscal conservatives want small government, for good reason, but would hopefully rail against government intrusion in the form of 'defense of marriage' concepts or abortion issues forced on them by the zealots. Not only that, but religious conservatives come in all flavors (or at least they used to before the 'religious right' decided that their best hope for control rested in a takeover of the republican party after 1980. We have all forgotten, perhaps, that Jimmy Carter talked about God in every second sentence. Also, Jimmy Carter, in 1980 won almost the entire South.
The thread that links this diatribe to Chuck Hagel, and perhaps Barack Obama may seem convoluted, but it is there, I assure you. Present politics has not only stagnated into a blurring of all political views into 'right' and 'left', which is difficult, but has also rolled up the present conflict in Iraq into all of this.
How many times have you heard on the traditional media that if someone is against the war they are 'more left'. ie) Hillary is 'right' of Obama on the war. WHAT? Who is writing this crap. Do people forget that republicans opposed Roosevelt early in 1940? Do people forget that to a man republicans voted against the Clinton action in Kosovo? Were all those republicans 'left' of Clinton back then? I think not.
Neither is Hagel a 'lefty'. On every major conservative issue, regardless of how you want to slice it, he is solid. Yet, he is against the war. Why? because he has served in the military and knows first hand the cost of war. Something every notable civilian in this administration is unable to claim.
Will he garner support? Who knows. With the present republican field ducking the war question (Giuliani - comparing it to WWII or the Civil War on Larry King? Please.) or suffering because of it (McCain), there is a significant swing voter republican constituency that is looking for someone to tell them the truth (and have a chance of winning). With the present field either looking like born again conservatives (Romney and McCain), or trying to wink at them through the 'conservative judges' looking glass, there is room for a true patriot here. Chuck Hagel is a true patriot, and if he runs, he will shake things up. He will give the base a reason to turn out, and will give the anti-war anti-liberal voters something to cheer for. People need to remember that
60% +of voters are against this war. Not all of them are tie-dyed hippies. Some of them are just smart and want to use American power judiciously.
What is needed now is a third way, and I'm not the first to observe this. Perhaps this means a new party, or just a new type of candidate. Signs of this winning way can be seen in California. The most popular republican in the country is green, socially moderate, and fiscally conservative.
Can Chuck Hagel win? Ultimately, I think not. The majority of the country is not as conservative as he is. Can he shake up the race and make people re-examine why they identify with one party over the other? Yes. The majority of this country wants an end (with reasonable preparation) to this war and wants someone who has above all honesty and integrity.
He may announce his candidacy tomorrow. I hope he does.
What I am talking about is a major shakeup and shift in the pattern of American politics.
That possibility is an end to the traditional stalemate of coalitions that has hampered American politics for a quarter century. Ronald Reagan may be a hero to modern republicans, but he created a monster when he tied the party to the success of an unstable coalition of religious, social and fiscal conservatives. George senior could not hold this coalition together, the religious right sat on their hands, and the swing voters jumped as fast as they could toward Perot. Now look what we've got. George junior was so paranoid about losing his base that he has become President of 30% of the United States.
For too long, the traditional lines of 'conservative' and 'liberal' have defined the playing field in what is accepted for politics in this country. What is a 'conservative'? As far as I am concerned, there are at least 3 major types if not more.
Why have these gone together in every national election since 1980? The Reagan 'coalition' essentially as it has been called, was created to allow the Republican party to become a majority party after the seismic shifts caused by the civil rights movement and Watergate.
Today, it simply doesn't make sense and is stifling political discourse. Fiscal conservatives want small government, for good reason, but would hopefully rail against government intrusion in the form of 'defense of marriage' concepts or abortion issues forced on them by the zealots. Not only that, but religious conservatives come in all flavors (or at least they used to before the 'religious right' decided that their best hope for control rested in a takeover of the republican party after 1980. We have all forgotten, perhaps, that Jimmy Carter talked about God in every second sentence. Also, Jimmy Carter, in 1980 won almost the entire South.
The thread that links this diatribe to Chuck Hagel, and perhaps Barack Obama may seem convoluted, but it is there, I assure you. Present politics has not only stagnated into a blurring of all political views into 'right' and 'left', which is difficult, but has also rolled up the present conflict in Iraq into all of this.
How many times have you heard on the traditional media that if someone is against the war they are 'more left'. ie) Hillary is 'right' of Obama on the war. WHAT? Who is writing this crap. Do people forget that republicans opposed Roosevelt early in 1940? Do people forget that to a man republicans voted against the Clinton action in Kosovo? Were all those republicans 'left' of Clinton back then? I think not.
Neither is Hagel a 'lefty'. On every major conservative issue, regardless of how you want to slice it, he is solid. Yet, he is against the war. Why? because he has served in the military and knows first hand the cost of war. Something every notable civilian in this administration is unable to claim.
Will he garner support? Who knows. With the present republican field ducking the war question (Giuliani - comparing it to WWII or the Civil War on Larry King? Please.) or suffering because of it (McCain), there is a significant swing voter republican constituency that is looking for someone to tell them the truth (and have a chance of winning). With the present field either looking like born again conservatives (Romney and McCain), or trying to wink at them through the 'conservative judges' looking glass, there is room for a true patriot here. Chuck Hagel is a true patriot, and if he runs, he will shake things up. He will give the base a reason to turn out, and will give the anti-war anti-liberal voters something to cheer for. People need to remember that
60% +of voters are against this war. Not all of them are tie-dyed hippies. Some of them are just smart and want to use American power judiciously.
What is needed now is a third way, and I'm not the first to observe this. Perhaps this means a new party, or just a new type of candidate. Signs of this winning way can be seen in California. The most popular republican in the country is green, socially moderate, and fiscally conservative.
Can Chuck Hagel win? Ultimately, I think not. The majority of the country is not as conservative as he is. Can he shake up the race and make people re-examine why they identify with one party over the other? Yes. The majority of this country wants an end (with reasonable preparation) to this war and wants someone who has above all honesty and integrity.
He may announce his candidacy tomorrow. I hope he does.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)