Could the Primary Really Be Over?
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
When the country started the primary races, I began as an Edwards supporter, who could have supported either Obama or Clinton had either won the nomination. As time went on, and Edwards left the race, it was clear to me that the race for the nomination was also a race for 
the Democratic Party’s soul. Would we turn back to the Republican-lite policies of the first Clinton administration or roll the dice on a fresh new face who promised reform?
I definitely turned away from Hillary Clinton because of how she ran her race; as she essentially became the desperate-for-power caricature that her detractors had always drawn. Fortunately, it looks like we will have a candidate soon, and despite being an inexperienced campaigner and young, he is a candidate that ran an overall respectful primary battle, is a person we can respect, and is a person inspiring millions of people.
As the super delegates start to fall toward Obama, what are your thoughts about the general election race? Will Clinton cave in tonight or just “suspend” her campaign Romney style?
BTW – For the 1.6 Million ATK readers in the Lansing area who want to go to a little pro-Obama party, some supporters and Obama staff will be meeting at the Nuthouse in Lansing on Michigan Avenue at 8 pm.
18 comments:
Would we turn back to the Republican-lite policies of the first Clinton administration or roll the dice on a fresh new face who promised reform?
This is what excites and scares me. I consider myself a conservative/pragmatist that is mostly disgusted with the policies of the last two administrations, so I am looking for something that is new.
At best, he may prove to be someone that can craft compromises and encourage genuine bipartisanism. At the least, I am hoping his victory will break the hold that the neo-cons have on the Republican Party and get them to nominate some decent people for a change.
Rickey concurs--she was a decent candidate, but she ran a despicable campaign. A campaign that at its heart, rallied against optimism, idealism, and change. The hell with her. And if Obama's smart, he won't entertain the notion of her as a VP for a second. If he needs a running mate to help him carry blue collar states then John Edwards is ready and waiting.
Obama and Edwards would have my vote in a heartbeat.
I'm a bit like Steves here... extremely disgusted with what we've had, and looking for something new.
There's one main reason why Hillary has never really been an option for me... That would have 2 families in the Whitehouse for 24 years running. Before you even dig into it, that looks too much like a Dynasty (or two) in the making for me to like it.
Obama/Edwards? Where. Do. I. Sign.
I see Hillary refused to concede last night, which absolutely does not surprise me. Last night, her mouthpeice McCauliffe (sp?) was on The Daily Show and was just as shill as ever about HRC "going to the Whitehouse."
I loved Stewart's response. To paraphrase: "Wow. How do you do that? I'm a Mets fan. They started the season strong and then completely collapsed. Convice me they won the World Series."
But what she says and does right now is exactly what is wrong with her and the entrenched Democratic "establishment."
Wow, sadly, Rickey didn't watch Stewart last night... that's a great quote.
I was an Edwards supporter to start, but I don't think he's the best Veep candidate now. I want him as Attorney General. Think of the mess that needs cleaning up and what he could do to restore justice to the Dept of Justice.
I keep thinking that Jim Webb might be the best Veep pick--totally neutralizes McCain's "strength" as he won medals in Vietnam and was Navy Secretary under Reagan. And talk about change--he was a Republican and saw the light.
And talk about change--he was a Republican and saw the light.
I did, too. That is why I am an Independent. ; ) I wish we had some viable third parties in this country. I don't think a two party system is beneficial.
Ah, but the 2 party system has been very beneficial--to the 2 parties. It will be very hard to break it down.
Oh man don't get me started on a philosophical debate on two party systems vs. more. Ug, I will have a flashback to one of my political theory classes.
Ain't going to happen.
What is the benefit of a two party system? I think it allows both parties to take certain groups for granted because the choices are so limited.
If I remember correctly Steves (And I am sure I will either be corrected if I am wrong, or extrapolated upon if I am correct), the strength of having a two-party system comes into play when elections are "close". In two-parties, you can wil with 51%, meaning at least half of the voting base supported you. With three parties, you can win with 34%, and know FULL WELL that the majority does NOT support you...
I'm sure there' much more to it than just that...
that's "win with 51%"...
and I should've added, the obvious problem with a party that has won with 34% is that they can't get anything passed, and we end up with a weak and potentially unstable government.
Bob, I'd love to hear more about this from you, but didn't we have this discussion in a comment thread once? Maybe we can find it again...
"Bob, I'd love to hear more about this from you, but didn't we have this discussion in a comment thread once? Maybe we can find it again..."
Yes we had this discussion once and I used France as the example of whey miltiple parties don't work any better.
"In two-parties, you can wil with 51%, meaning at least half of the voting base supported you. With three parties, you can win with 34%, and know FULL WELL that the majority does NOT support you..."
This is correct. Plus if there are two liberal parties and one conservative party, the conservative party will always win, which really doesn't reflect the will of the people. It ends up being minority rule.
I am not saying the two party system is perfect, but having a multiple party system may be worse.
Plus if there are two liberal parties and one conservative party, the conservative party will always win, which really doesn't reflect the will of the people.
I am not sure the will of the people is being heard now. Just look at the war and the approval rating of both the president and congress.
That being said, I see your point and I agree that a multi party system may not be any better. Ireland seems to do fairly well and they have parties that cover a fairly broad spectrum.
I suppose I am just not a die hard member of either party and can find frustrating things about both if I look hard enough.
"I suppose I am just not a die hard member of either party and can find frustrating things about both if I look hard enough."
I bet you don't have to look hard at all to be frustrated with either. For the most part I am a die hard Democrat and I get frustrated regularly.
The other thing I thought of is that third parties don't seem to form in the middle. Instead they seem to form at the extreme right or left, which I am guessing is not what you would like to see.
The exception would probably be Perot and similar candidates, but that is a once every 20 years phenomenon.
Ireland seems to do fairly well and they have parties that cover a fairly broad spectrum
True, but the Parliamentary system is WAY different than ours and allows certain powers to go to minority parties, etc.
The other thing I thought of is that third parties don't seem to form in the middle. Instead they seem to form at the extreme right or left, which I am guessing is not what you would like to see.
Very true, which is why I said viable third party. I don't think that Green party, Communist Party USA (remember Gus Hall?), or the Constitution Party represent a significant number of people. I think if the Libertarian Party softened many of their positions, they could do better, but they are pretty 'out there' right now.
I think George's Jim Webb suggestion is an excellent one.
Post a Comment