Regardless of the perception you might have gotten from recent commentfights, I don't hate John Edwards. I just don't prefer John Edwards. That said, I absolutely agree with his decision to be forthright and honest about his Iraq vote. Like a lot of Americans, most Senators, and virtually all of the candidates, he was wrong about Iraq, he says so, and he apologizes and expresses regret about it. The ability to admit mistakes and learn from them is an important trait for any human being, even a Presidential candidate. Edwards has demostrated he has that trait and, in doing so, he's also put the Iraq vote issue to rest for him. That is, someone like Obama (who was right from the get go) can't club Edwards with the issue without seeming like he's beating on a dead horse.
But at this point, my suggestion would be that Edwards not try to squeeze more out of this than he already has. Hillary's refusal to be forthright about her mistake certainly has weakened her on both the character and Iraq issues, but I think it's a mistake for Edwards to try to take too much advantage of that weakness. An example of going too far with this issue is Edwards' expression of pride at admitting his mistake. I mean, yes, you get points for recognizing the mistake and admitting it. But the bottom line is that it was a huge mistake that contributed to the loss of well over 3000 American lives. I'm glad you said you're sorry, but I'm not going to give you an award for it.
A President who can admit his mistakes and learn from them would be great. One who avoids disasterous mistakes in the first place would be pretty good, too.
Analogcabin @ 9:39 AM ------------------------- I realize that some of you are confused by my recent focus on the upcoming election. The full explanation can be found here, but the nutshell is that I was finding it increasingly difficult to find humor in news that seemed to get more pants-wettingly scary by the day. I hope that someday I might return to my olden timey topics, but for the foreseeable future I plan to shill for Obama. Analogcabin @ 8:47 AM ------------------------- I realize that I'm beginning to sound like I have a crush, but again this morning I think Arianna Huffington nails it in her piece about the disconnect between the coverage of Murtha's plan and the substance of it. Analogcabin @ 8:30 AM ------------------------- Vilsack's out. Analogcabin @ 11:01 AM ------------------------- If you've read this blog before you know I don't like Dennis Kucinich because he looks undead. But there are lots of other reasons not to like him, and Koz posted a bunch of them. Analogcabin @ 9:14 AM ------------------------- This morning at about 5:45 I was listening to Sunday's This Week with George Stephanopoulos podcast whilst encouraging my wonderful dog to take a crap. Mitt Romney and his wife were the guests, and let me tell you, I wasn't impressed. Analogcabin @ 10:07 AM ------------------------- Dodd finished fourth in a poll in his home state of Connecticut behind Clinton, Obama, and, get this, Al Gore. Gore's not even running. Analogcabin @ 9:49 AM ------------------------- The less impressive daily Politico has a piece detailing the drawbacks of a number of 2008 candidates and how they'll deal with said. Author Mike Allen talks about McCain's age, Romney's creepy Mormonism and GOP verboten lack of enmity for gays, Giuliani's mainstream views on abortion and gay rights, Clinton's husband, Obama's... no surprise here... experience, and Edwards... recent blogger thing? And that he didn't help Kerry carry his home state (whoops.) Analogcabin @ 9:41 AM ------------------------- There's some really interesting polling data available that puts something into the pipes of those who say that being black means that Barack Obama is not electable and lights it. The Gallup poll asked voters if they would vote for unnamed candidates with various "non-traditional" traits. Of a black president, 94% said yes, 88% of a woman, 72% of a Morman, 67% for someone on their third marriage, and 57% for someone 72-years-old. And for those having trouble playing along at home, those are, in order, Obama, Hillary, Romney, Giuliani, and McCain. Analogcabin @ 9:32 AM ------------------------- John McCain, the man once presumed to be almost unbeatable and Bush's obvious successor as GOP nominee, these days is looking more and more like Barbaro. Analogcabin @ 4:02 PM ------------------------- I realize it's kind of silly to discuss, but I've been thinking a little bit about Al Gore and what might happen were he to run. I'll grant that the below is a little bit like the way I enjoy casting a remake of The Cannonball Run in my head, but I'll share it with you anyway. Analogcabin @ 8:32 AM ------------------------- Arianna Huffington, eponymous domina over at The Huffington Post, joins the growing chorus of Obama supporters questioning the validity of accusations that he's guilty of "empty platitudes" (to quote the always plucky Matt at 1115.org.) In a nutshell, Arianna says that: A) He's provided plenty of specifics, and B) Specifics aren't what win elections, anyway. Leadership does. It's a mistake the Dems have made again and again. Analogcabin @ 8:27 AM ------------------------- The Anonymous Liberal has posted a nice argument for Obama. Check it out. Analogcabin @ 11:45 AM ------------------------- For those of us still concerned that Obama's race and name will be an issue, I suggest you check out this. Australian PM John Howard said that Al Qaeda is "praying as many times as possible for an [Obama] victory." Classy thing for a head of state to say, isn't it? But you can always count on the Aussies' for their casual, folksy, straight-shooting racism. Analogcabin @ 11:07 AM ------------------------- With it looking pretty certain that spending on the 2008 Presidential campaign will exceed one billion dollars, I think we'd all agree that conversations about finance reforms are timely. But when faced with the reality of taking public funding and being outspent by 800 million dollars, potential candidates tend to either agree in principal to reform, although not for this race, or avoid the issue. Analogcabin @ 9:55 AM ------------------------- In case you've been following the "John Edwards hires bloggers, gets blindsided by the fact that bloggers are obnoxious" story, MyDD has a great post on what his handling of the situation says about his long-term chances. In a nutshell, nothing good. Analogcabin @ 9:36 AM ------------------------- Hillary's latest comments on Iraq, 9/11, and her "regrets [about] how the President misused the authority" granted by the now infamous Iraq invasion vote have been written about concisely on every big Democratic blog, so I won't repeat them here. But they perfectly demonstrate why I don't think I could vote for Hillary. At least not easily. Analogcabin @ 10:26 AM ------------------------- The days of amateurism in the blogosphere are over, and I'll miss them. But I can't get further into what I promise will be a very, very brief eulogy without making an important distinction: amateurishness is alive, it's amateurism that's dead. That is to say, the days of bad writing and worse punctuation live on. The days of some schmuck with a day job setting up a Blogger page to share an interesting persepctive on something, and three months later being read by 100,000 people a day are over. Analogcabin @ 10:13 AM ------------------------- According to a post on MyDD, Wesley Clark is going to get in the game tomorrow. That accounts for pretty well everyone but Godot Gore. Analogcabin @ 8:41 AM -------------------------
Permalink |
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Except right now. I have a long tradition of being amazingly prescient about American Idol, and I don't want to break my streak. So very briefly, here are my predictions (a week later than usual, I know, but I didn't get caught up on my TiVOed episodes until over the weekend.)
The Final 6 Women:
Jordin Sparks, Haley Scarnato, Lakisha Jones, Sabrina Sloan, Stephanie Edwards, Gina Glocksen
It pains me to say it, but the group is very light on sex appeal this year. I think Haley Scarnato will play hers up more as the season progress, especially once the stylists get their mits on her. Melinda Doolittle's absence from the finals is notable. My thought here is that there's probably one too many Aretha-style belters this year. She'll be battling Lakisha for the same votes, and I don't think it's going to work out for her. An interesting side prediction: I think the pictures of Antonella Barba that have recently surfaced are going to get her booted from the show or cause her to quit. I'm not sure that her looks would have gotten her to the finals, but I think they would have gotten her close.
The Final 6 Men:
Blake Lewis, Brandon Rogers, Chris Sligh, Phil Stacey, Sanjaya Malakar, Jared Cotter
It's a weak field of men overall, and I think Lewis, Sligh, and Malakar benefit hugely from memorability.
The Final 2:
Brandon Rogers, Jordin Sparks
This is a tough one to call, but I have a feeling that Jordin is a gamer who will really come alive during the finals.
Your American Idol:
Brandon Rogers
Permalink |
The first time I heard about Murtha's proposal to restrict deployment of untrained, ill-equipped troops to Iraq (and to limit tours of duty to one year) it was pronounced DOA, but I'm not really sure why. Maybe I'm being naive, but it seems to make a lot of sense. Everyone knows that the troops in Iraq are being pressed into much longer tours than they were promised and that they suffer from a lack of the proper equipment -- most notably body and humvee armor. Rather than cutting the funding (the double dog dare every Republican seems to be offering these days) and then getting blamed for shortages that already exist, why not put the ball back in the GOP court? If they support our troops so much, shouldn't they be required to provide a raincoat before sending them into a shitstorm?
And as Arianna points out, polls are suggesting that Americans agree. So how about it, Dems? Murtha was right on the war before a lot of us, so why not give him some consideration on this?
Permalink |
Friday, February 23, 2007
So who's next?
Permalink |
Permalink |
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
First off, Mitt's wife was kind of odd and kept mispronouncing words, like when she said "prostelighting" when trying to say "proselytizing." Understandable, considering she was probably nervous and that she has MS. But what bothered me was how Mitt kept cutting her off and finishing her thoughts. It's not as though that doesn't happen with other couples, but with the Romneys I couldn't help but see it as a disturbing glimpse of their Mormonics.
Next, when George asked Mitt about the sundry positions he's taken a u-turn on, he floundered (not foundered, floundered, which is somehow more pathetic, isn't it?) Not much more to say on this point, except that you should check out the audio. Stephanopoulos isn't exactly The Inquisition, and Romney completely folded.
Finally, during their discussion of gay marriage, Romney made an assertion you frequently hear from the right: the gay marriage debate is not about the rights of the adults, it's about the rights of their children. That is, the effective rearing of children requires a man and a woman in marriage.
It's a dubious claim, to be sure, and backed up by research conducted by the same people who said global warming was simply God bumping up the thermostat. But for the sake of argument, let's suppose it's true.
If the correct rearing of children is the real issue, why aren't we focusing our attention on that? For example, why not require licensing before having kids? The only pre-requisite would be marriage, obviously. And why aren't we banning divorces, except in the most extreme circumstances, for couples with children under 18? I mean, these are the same people who attack Murtha's recent plan to require troops serving in Iraq be properly trained and equipped, and serve no longer than the tour promised them when they signed up (A Modest Proposal, indeed!) a cowardly and indirect way to defund the Iraq war. If the real concern here is the children of America, isn't simply banning gay marriage a weak and indirect way to address only the smallest part of the problem?
Permalink |
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
So the over under on the end of the Dodd candidacy is July. Who's taking the over?
Permalink |
To be honest, I'm not really sure why I'm linking to it, except that I thought there were some really glaring omissions, like Giuliani's marriholism. And of course it was really bizarre that any conversation about candidates' weaknesses didn't even mention Iraq. Do any of us really think McCain's age is going to be a consideration if he runs against an anti-war candidate?
Permalink |
Granted, no one likes admitting they're a racist, even to a pollster. But you'd assume Gallup has a way to correct for that, right?
This is via Atrios, by the way.
Permalink |
Monday, February 19, 2007
Take today, for example. At a campaign stop in South Carolina he said, "I think that Donald Rumsfeld will go down in history as one of the worst secretaries of defense in history." Pretty strong words from his side of the aisle. Stronger than a lot from our side, for that matter. Not particularly brave words now that Rummy has been kicked to the curb and even Bob Ross couldn't find a happy cloud on the Iraq horizon. But still.
The thing I can't figure out is what he hopes to get out of this indictment. I mean, obviously he trying to put distance between himself and Bush's failed policies. But hearing him say this stuff now, it doesn't take a genius to wonder: McCain is the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and he thinks of himself as a leader in the GOP. Surely a man with his experience, access, and first hand knowledge can't have come to this realization now, well after Rumsfeld is gone and anything can be done to change the fate of this misadventure. If he did, what does that say about him? If he didn't, why didn't he say something sooner?
Permalink |
Thursday, February 15, 2007
So let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that Al Gore were to announce his candidacy at the Academy Awards. Now, while I think it's pretty much a lock that he'll win for An Incovenient Truth and there aren't many opportunities for candidates to announce on live TV in front of that many eyeballs, I very much doubt that he'd choose that forum. It aligns him too closely to "the Hollywood elite," and the event lacks the gravity befitting a Gore announcement. But regardless, let's say he did.
So based on the what seems to be the consensus online, Gore would almost instantly move to the head of the polls and would quickly match or best Hillary's war chest. The question is who would get hit hardest. I haven't seen any polls or postulation on this topic, though I'm sure there's some out there. My guess is that Hillary would feel the biggest pinch, as the establishment Clintonian dems probably remember Gore's role in the administration more fondly than they remember hers. On the other hand, one of the biggest obstacles to a Gore candidacy would be his former boss. Hillary and Al are reputed to be less than cozy, and it's hard to imagine Bill not lining up behind his wife. On the other hand, it wouldn't be easy for either Clinton to actually criticize Gore directly. In any case, the Clinton v. Gore matchup could be damaging to the party. The optimal situation would be for Obama or Edwards to rise in popularity so quickly as to obviate Hillary prior to Gore's entry into the race, but I don't think that's very likely. I also don't think Hillary dropping out in the name of party unity (and a VP spot) is likely either.
Which brings us to Obama and Edwards. It's difficult to say, and I'll admit my obvious bias toward Obama, but I'd bet Edwards would get hit second hardest. Not sure why, exactly. I think you could argue that Edwards appeals to a more suburban and rural demo, which I think is also much of Gore's base, while Obama's strength comes from urban centers on the coasts. But I'm totally making that up.
Ultimately, though, I think both Obama and Edwards start to feel more like VPs if a Gore candidacy becomes reality. The question is how they play it. I think the bold move for either one would be to end his candidacy immediately and throw his money behind Gore in exchange for the VP spot. In the end, though, I think Richardson is still an extrememly attractive VP, maybe even more so than more attractive Presidential candidates like Obama and Edwards.
Anyway, just thinking aloud.
And for the record, it's looking like Clooney in the Dean Martin role, Chris Tucker in the Sammy role, McConaghey in the Terry Bradshaw spot. Vince Vaughn in the Reynolds role? Not sure there.
Permalink |
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
For my money, those who are attacking Obama should get a little more specific about where they want specifics. I think the level of detail he's provided on all the major issues is appropriate at this point in the campaign. After all, are we voting for a leader or a plan? One of the major faults of the Bush administration is that they "stayed the course" in Iraq, and refused to adapt to the changing realities on the ground. What I'd prefer is a President who shares my goals, has an idea of how to achieve them, but who can also work with lots of different people with different ideas, and get them all to move toward those goals.
Permalink |
Monday, February 12, 2007
Permalink |
But Obama handled it with the usual aplomb, blunting stating that if Australia is so concerned about the outcome, Howard should throw more than the current 1,400 Australian troops on the Iraq barbie. For my money, it's a potent come back.
Permalink |
Thursday, February 08, 2007
That's another reason why I think Barack is refreshing. Now, cynics will say that by requesting the ability to accept private donations, then return them later (should his opponent agree to also use public funds,) Obama has managed to co-opt the issue without actually doing anything. Maybe, but let's look at it without cynicism.
If granted this permission, Obama would be able to maintain a financially viable candidacy throughout the primaries. He will, after all, be battling Hillary, whose fund-raising capability is widely regarded as her biggest strength and who will never agree give up her trump card by taking public money. Then, should Obama become the nominee, he could put the offer on the table, man to man, to McCain (probably.) Given McCain's past stance on the issue and that, after a very contentious primary season, he'll be desperate to maintain any shred of the honest, non-politician image that remains, he may well agree.
And were that to happen, the public fund would receive at least a five hundred million dollars infusion of funds. Plus, once candidates from both parties agreed to public funds, would we ever go back?
Granted, this is all speculation. But why not hope for the best?
Permalink |
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Permalink |
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
That's probably an overstatement. At this point, in a general I'd vote for Hillary over McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Gingrich, and pretty much every one of the other GOP possibles. On the other hand, in a primary I'd vote for Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Clark... even Biden and Kucinich over Hillary.
But in the most hypothetical of hypotheticals, how would I vote in a general election that pits Hillary against Giuliani? That would be a tough one. While I'm sure there's distance between Rudy and Hillary on a lot of issues, my gut tells me that Giuliani would more effectively move America toward the middle than Hillary ever could. She's too polarizing a figure and, dispite her concerted effort to shed her image as the epitome of the liberal harpy, I simply don't see it happening. I'm certain I'm misattributing this, but I think it was Pat Buchanan on "The McLaughlin Group" who, when asked if anything could save 2008 for the GOP, said "Hillary." I think that's dead on. She'll bring the GOP together way faster than Iraq took it apart. Can you imagine that ghoul Lindsey Graham proudly announcing his honorable bipartisan support of anything carrying the Hillary brand? I sure can't. Her image is too well engrained in the collective Republican psyche. Meanwhile, Giuliani is as liberal a Republican as you can get, and it would be tough for folks like Graham to give him too much grief.
But like a lot of folks, I don't really know much about what Giuliani stands for, and I doubt I'll get much of a chance.
Permalink |
Monday, February 05, 2007
I'm probably making up or misusing one or both of those words, but fuck off -- I'm an amateur.
For me, the end is represented by Nick Denton, though I do think it was an inevitable side-effect of the glut of sites and the way everything eventually gets bought by Time Warner. Now, the blogosphere is like the CFL. We've got a few people who made it up from the gridirons of St. Catherines and Saskatoon, but mostly we've got big name rejects from the NFL.
But to be fair, I really like The Huffington Post. Especially lately. I think Arianna Huffington's perspectives of the past few years align with mine -- left, but much more so socially than economically, anti-Bush, anti-war, vaguely anti-Hillary.
That said, I find the premise that reading a poorly thought out screed by Steven Weber is somehow more satisfying than reading the poorly thought out screed of someone who wasn't on Wings to be dubious.
Or maybe genius, but I can't be sure Arianna is framing the view of Weber the same way I am.
Permalink |
Thursday, February 01, 2007
In a similar way to how I feel about Bill Richardson, I like the idea of Clark more than I like Clark. Don't get me wrong, I like Clark. He just doesn't seem like the number one guy (or gal) to me. Last time around I think there was way more buzz around his run than was justified by his performance. Still, his experience as a military leader can't be discounted, as it's sorely lacking in the Democratic field.
How about an Obama/Clark ticket? I could get behind that.
Permalink |
