Dirty sekrits
I don't think Barack Obama is a good choice for Democratic candidate, although for sure he's better than Hillary Clinton (a Clinton-X ticket would be a Democratic Party suicide note) because Americans are on the whole racists (not necessarily "lynch the nigger" racists but that is by no means the only sort of racism available to haters). His swiftboating has in any case already begun. Fox has discovered he attended a Muslim school as a child in Indonesia (with its usual excellent detective work, it uncovered this fact in his autobiography) and has decided that he attended a madrassah and learned to hate America. It makes great play out of his stepfather's being a Muslim, and of Obama's being "raised a Muslim". Two things, of course, immediately spring to mind: first, that he was not in fact "raised a Muslim" and second, even if he was, there is no religious test for public office in America, and it is racism in the raw even to suggest that he should not be president because he may have at one time been a Muslim. I note my personal interest. My sister's bf, A, is a Muslim in the broadest sense. He is a Kosovan, ethnically Muslim. He believes in Allah. He does not pray or otherwise observe Islam. So my nieces and nephews, should Allah bless S, my sister, with them, will be rather tenuously Muslim too (frankly, I worry more that he wants to give them Albanian names, which are not on the whole mellifluous in English).I don't think Obama is going to be electable. This is just the first shot in what will be a very nasty campaign. One can expect worse to come. With Clinton and Obama as the candidates for candidate, the Dems are likely to drown in a tide of mud, slung by an unscrupulous Republican party and its dirty friends in the media.
posted by Dr Zen @ 11:22 am
22 Comments:
Obama could never be elected president.
not for any of the reasons that you noted, but simply due to the goofy shape of his head.
(and the way his ears stick out).
that's more the reality of American politics.
Hillary will have an equally difficult run due to the way she "combs" her hair -- not to mention those unflattering pant suits.
Kerry's face was too long.
Republicans know these simple marketing facts.
hence, GWB.
You contradict your theory simply by using GWB as an example.
Actually, he doesn't. GWB was marketed as the antiClinton. Clinton was goodlooking, charming and smart (a Rhodes scholar). He was a *performer*. GWB is homely, personable but not charismatic, and does not seem smart. You couldn't go for a beer with Clinton. He's not the type and he'd spend all night trying to pull the barmaid. But you could with W. He's down-home. You could talk football with him. It was a gamble to pick a guy, to think that that would work, but by fuck, it worked.
However, Zero is wrong about Hillary and Obama. it won't be about those things. It will be mostly the dirty, low things that Americans feel but don't like fessing up to: men hate women and women are jealous of other women; people don't think blacks should be running things. Hillary is dirty anyway. I think she'd be a disaster.
However, Zero is wrong about Hillary and Obama. it won't be about those things. It will be mostly the dirty, low things that Americans feel but don't like fessing up to: men hate women and women are jealous of other women; people don't think blacks should be running things. Hillary is dirty anyway. I think she'd be a disaster.
I don't think the negative vibes about Hillary's run have much to do with women being jealous of women.
I think Hillary would be a disaster precisely because she doesn't realize she'd be a disaster or, realizing it, goes full bore ahead anyway because she's right and they're wrong.
MAKE YOUR LIFE IN THE SENATE, MISS HILLARY, I want to say.
Hillary could be dynamite in the Senate. She could be Miss Nancy and moreso, but, no. She wants to be President.
Give it a rest, Hillary. Ain't never no time going to happen. She is way too polarizing. The opposition candidate would have to be HIV positive and raping women before Hillary would get the majority of the vote.
Obama? I think he's too unfledged, too young, but then I'm a geezer these days and everyone that much younger than me seems unfledged. Obama also did drugs back in the day (also a factoid from his autobiography).
My Great Pug! What next? What about the children? Do we want this man as a role model?
I have no idea who may run. I long for the day when I was not so disillusioned, when I could believe in a candidate and work my heart to death for him/her. These days I'm such a cynic. Jeb Bush or Hillary? Which would I choose?
GWB was marketed as the antiClinton.
When you put it that way I see your point. That isn't how Zero presented it, though.
Obama? I think he's too unfledged, too young...
I was thinking that he won't get it this time 'round, but he's getting the country primed for the day when it can accept him, or someone like him.
I'd love to see him upset the odds, though. I'd vote for him in a heartbeat based on what I've heard from him so far, which isn't a lot, admittedly. But it's not as though we have such prime material to choose from otherwise.
You contradict your theory simply by using GWB as an example.
GWB "won" TWICE.
twice, FFS.
at worst, he's generic looking, at best, slightly handsome.
puffy-eyed Slick Willy would have lost the first time to nice-smiled Bush Senior if not for Perot.
Ross managed to siphon off enough of the disillusioned from both sides to mess up the results -- and his sense of humor was more appreciated by the conservatives and moderates than the liberals. GWB grabbed a bit of that same demographic -- albeit dishonestly, by faking his down-home cowboy thinger.
see, in modern America, someone who looks odd like Carter (or Perot) could ONLY win after a Watergate-magnitude event -- and in modern America, Watergate-like shake-ups can only happen once every couple hundred years or so.
too many too close together only makes Americans long for the non-oddest looking characters.
of course, if the GOP picks McCain, all bets are off.
then it's merely a coin toss.
(one slightly favoring the odd-looking Dems 53/47)
OTOH, if the GOP picks Newt, Newt wins.
he's presidential looking/sounding.
so is Rudy, almost. his bald head is nearly acceptable due to his calm speaking style. he carries it well.
so, Rudy or Newt, the GOP "wins" again.
unless the Dems play up the ugly issue right from the start.
or if Clinton suddenly becomes relatively honest and charismatic (or hires a marketing consultant with an IQ over 200 -- one who understands people with IQs of 100).
of course, ALL of this is completely moot in a non-democratic nation such as the USA.
but it's always fun to at least imagine otherwise.
it would be even BETTER if there actually WAS someone out there who could transcend all of the BS marketing stuff and the phony populism stuff and whatnot -- someone who could actually be an honest and positive influence on our society (and world).
someone who could calm down all of the fanatics (with sincere poetry).
sadly, no one comes to mind.
These days I'm such a cynic. Jeb Bush or Hillary?
heh.
Jeb definitely has the look, but after what his brother has done to the office of the presidency (not to mention the country and the world), if Jeb "won", America would have more cynics than Wall Street could possibly handle.
McCain is a better chance than Newt. Giuliani is never going to win the primaries: the Christian right won't vote for a cheater. If they manage to select Romney, he can beat either Obama or Clinton. I'd put five dollars on Edwards though. Remember, if the neocons get behind a guy, the Dems will need to win by a landslide. Otherwise, they'll steal it again.
Sal, I fear the Dems might well go for Hillary. I can't see her getting elected unless they allow the South to secede. Even you would surely not vote for another neocon puppet, so you'd have to
X her if you were given that choice.
Arleen, Obama is a vapid, hollow man who has had the good sense to stand for nothing and speaks in soundbites. IOW, a ladies' candidate. I think he'd be a better shot in '12 or '16. Edwards-Obama would be a winning ticket in my view.
I think McCain is the right's best hope. He's on the wrong side over Iraq but he's principled about it, or appears to be, which will make it easier to sell.
Zero, there is no one like that. What do you think of Edwards though? He's goodlooking, not without charisma, a progressive who doesn't entirely alienate southerners, opposes gay marriage but doesn't favour an amendment. I think Edwards-Obama could crush the Repugs. A message of change is going to be welcome just now.
McCain is way too odd looking.
if the primaries were McCain vs Newt, Newt takes it.
McCain could not possibly win a debate with Newt.
and the Christian right will definietly vote for a cheater if the cheater convinces them that he's "a sinner".
probably not likely in Rudy's case, but possible.
Edwards is fairly good looking, albeit slightly odd about it. does he have dimples or something?
anyway, i remember hoping that he would beat Kerry in the primaries, and he's gotten even better since then, but there's still something a bit lacking in his presentation.
i'm not sure i can place what it is. maybe he needs a few more solid ideas. more vigor. a bit more substance.
agreed, he DOES have a decent way about him, though.
maybe a bit more campaigning will be good for him -- so he can better develop his platform.
Well, he's shifted left to grab the progressive ground, but nothing too objectionable. That puts a bit of a squeeze on Obama. Hillary has the right wrapped up.
perhaps a Edwards / Wesley Clark ticket(or vice versa) would be in order.
i cringe at electing a military dude, but Clark is about the smartest man i've seen to date.
he's sensibly humble.
not a warmonger at all.
though he too needs a bit of campaign polishing.
in any case, he'd probably make a fantastic secretary of state.
Hillary has the right wrapped up
which is why she could possibly win.
the left certainly won't be voting Republican this round. they'd be stuck with her.
yes, but she won't convert swing voters. Supporting the war wouldn't have been a good move with them.
Clark on the team is good but Obama as VP means that he's campaigning, winning people over but they don't have to vote a black who's snorted a bit of C and worships Allah into the big office.
Hillary's back-pedaling her warmongering lately. at least a little. it smells so dishonest is the problem.
someone like moi hopes that she's been dishonest about her warmongering (to foolishly attempt to be more macho and therefore more palatable to the macho contingent -- silly idea, really) -- unfortunately, even if true, that still leaves her in the dishonesty trough.
and sadly, swing voters CAN be easily converted, by definition.
she's got the clout, that's for sure.
i'd LOVE it if she would have a serious crisis of conscience and come around, AND be genuinely charismatic about it all, but i'm not holding my breath.
Obama may certainly end up in Clinton's VP spot, no doubt.
which would be Newt's wetdream.
however, depending on how they all develop, Clinton/Obama could actually win.
but it seems so dull.
we all deserve much better than that.
if only they would all change for the better!
Clinton-X, any X, is a losing ticket. She cannot convert swing voters because she has too many negatives and any attempt to make them positive won't be credible, because the Repugs will just love making her out to be a flipflopper.
never underestimate the Clintons
but sure, they'd have a ball with her. that might actually be her strategy.
i've always said that she would be ideal as the VP -- totally draining the GOP of all of its energy -- allowing the frontrunner to forge ahead unscathed.
Edwards/Clinton?
and Hillary announces this morning.
"I'm in it to win!"
well, that settles that.
She is way too polarizing
so, Sal, think about that assessment a bit.
_Hillary's_ too polarizing?
whose fault is THAT?
Hillary's?
how so.
be specific about how _Hillary_ is too polarizing.
see the strategy?
be specific about how _Hillary_ is too polarizing.
see the strategy?
See what strategy, $zero?
Hillary knows all about the negative feelings against her. She knows she's a lightning rod for a huge number of voters both personally and because of her husband.
... but DAMNED TO ALL THAT SHE WANTS TO BE PRESIDENT AND BIGHOD SHE DESERVES TO BE PRESIDENT! and she continues on her way.
Maybe she's guessing that the Republican candidate will be so awful that people who still rant about her cookie statement will hold their collective nose and vote for her. I wouldn't place bets.
Polarizing? She personifies polarizing by her very actions. For me? Against me? Think I shouldn't run? Try and stop me!
She'd have more success getting her programs through the political process by focusing on the Senate and building her own power base the way Pelosi did. She'd be Leader (either Majority or Minority, depending) sooner than later and far more powerful for a far longer span of time.
... but no ... she'd rather ruin the chances of the Democrats winning the presidency just so she can be on the ballot with her odds of winning on par to those of a three-legged racehorse.
(Could happen! Maybe all the other horses will get tummy aches on the backstretch and not be able to finish!)
Post a Comment
<< Home