I never thought I'd write a post like this, but it seems pretty topical given that I live in Londonderry, NH, and our primary is next week on January 8th. I'll only be talking about the top tier candidates from each party in most cases. Full disclosure, I'm a registered Republican but I'm more Libertarian/Independent than anything else. My primary political hot-button topics include:
-
Lower taxes (for everyone)
-
Tax reform (see the Fair Tax)
-
Fiscal responsibility (in the form of lower spending)
-
Tort reform (Shakespeare was correct, kill 'em all - the sooner the better [heads up, this bodes ill for Mr. Edwards in my critique])
So, while I'm pretty much disgusted with the Republican party, I'm generally so ideologically opposed to the Democrats' fiscal, big-government policies that I'll "hold my nose" and vote for a Republican candidate. And, yes, I while I can vote in either party's primary, I'll vote Republican this time. I don't believe in the whole "vote in the other party's primary to hurt a particular candidate" game.
So, without further ado, let's take a look at the august body of candidates seeking to replace the big "W" in 2008. First up, let's look at the democrats.
Barack Obama - I really like this guy. Incredibly charismatic, great communications skills, and seems like a genuinely good person. Definitely one of the leaders in the "which candidate would you most like to have a beer with" contest. Love his wife as well, possibly the most photogenic candidate family since Kennedy. The hallmark of Obama's campaign seems to be tapping into the nationwide disgust with "traditional Washington" politics. Obama is running as the "candidate of change", which apparently means that if he's elected President, that things will change in Washington. Uh, right. The only way we'll get any change is if one party secures 60 votes in the Senate (unfortunately, a Democratic Senate majority of 60 seems likely given how badly the GOP has fucked things up in the past 4 years). Otherwise, trust me, it ain't happening. Like the other Democratic candidates, he's for some form of national healthcare, but to his credit (and NYT columnist Paul Krugman's dismay [see my upcoming "People I'd like to Hit" post]), he stops short of a coverage mandate. The knock on Obama has been a lack of experience (especially in foreign affairs), and he has been pretty short on substance in many policy areas, but he's certainly getting looks from a lot of people who are fed up with the status quo. Of the Democratic candidates, he's the least offensive choice in my opinion, and the only one with a snowball's chance in hell of building true bipartisan support for anything once elected.
Hillary Clinton - Running as the "experience" candidate, for the majority of 2007 she was the anointed one, the inevitability candidate. Smart lady, and (God help me) attractive in a shrewish sort of way. Problem I have with her (and she certainly doesn't have a monopoly on this), is the fact that she is always triangulating her policy positions based on the audience to whom she's speaking. Basically, that last sentence of gobbledygook means that she'll tell you whatever she thinks you want to hear based on the latest polling numbers she has access to. She champions "Universal" health-care (apparently not Hillary-care any more) with a coverage mandate and claims (with a straight face no less) that this will not increase government bureaucracy. By-the-way, a national coverage mandate means that it'll now be illegal to not have health insurance - I feel better already! One of my biggest problems with Hillary is that I honestly feel that she's a big-time liberal who believes that government should play an enormous role in the every day lives of citizens. While her husband governed from the center (and I gotta admit, I kinda liked "Slick Willie"), I truly believe she'd move pretty far to the left if elected. One other thing that I find particularly grating about her (besides her voice and laugh), is that she seems to equate her 8 years as First Lady as deep experience in foreign policy. Now, let's get this straight right now, there are 3 (maybe 4) candidates with genuine foreign policy credentials: John McCain, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, and maybe Chris Dodd. Picking out place settings for state dinners doesn't count. I feel strongly about this. Hillary is talented, smart, and business-friendly. She's my second choice for Democratic nominee.
John Edwards - This guy is the anti-Christ. I mean, he's a trial lawyer for Chrissakes. To his credit, very photogenic (perhaps it's the $400 haircut [sorry, it was childish, but I couldn't resist]) and I honestly think that he really believes in his Uber-progressive policy prescriptions. Running as this year's anger candidate - think Howard Dean with a modicum of intelligence and without the screaming. He's angry at everybody: Pharmaceutical companies, Big Oil Companies, Insurance companies...You name it, if it makes money and has shareholders, he's angry with it. The most overtly left-leaning of all the candidates, Edwards is absolutely be in favor of massive income redistribution (via confiscatory personal and corporate taxes, and frivolous lawsuits). Would cap CEO pay. Would provide national healthcare with an individual mandate. Claims to be against special interests in Washington, and to his credit is not accepting contributions from them, however accepts donations from the trial bar. In short, he's a smart, charismatic guy who's tapped the vein of liberal militarism characterized by the MoveOn crowd. I can't stand him, but he'd be a formidable candidate in the general election. The think I really dislike about him, is now that he's made his money, and he and his family are set for life, he wants to take mine because he thinks he knows how better to spend it than I am. I'm not saying he's alone here, to a certain extent, all of the Democratic candidates will raise taxes, but he's the one who's most passionately in favor of class warfare.
So, these are the top 3 candidates. I'd be remiss if I didn't provide at least a shout out to Joe Biden (sorry Joe, you get a link, but not a picture). This guy is probably the smartest of the lot. Great experience, and an articulate and genuinely good guy, but a bit too full of himself at times and a bit, shall we say, verbose. I hate his politics and I'd never vote for him, but admire the hell out of him. Like John McCain, you know Joe isn't going to lie to you and he isn't going to change his views based on polling data. In the Democratic group, he's my top choice for having a beer with. Unfortunately, he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the nomination, which is a damn shame.
Of the top three, I'd have to say that Obama represents the best chance for Democrats to reclaim the White House. The message of change resonates widely and appeals to a growing number of independent voters. Clinton is (my opinion) too polarizing - America is fed up with the dynastic government experiment (a Bush or a Clinton in the White House since the late 80's) and Hillary's negatives are too great. Edwards will appear appealing to some primary voters, but in a general election he gets his ass kicked. His best bet is (again) to run as a second on Clinton or Obama's ticket.
Since this ran on way longer than I originally intended, I'll do the Republicans in a second post later this week. I'd love to hear from you, tell me where I'm wrong!
No comments:
Post a Comment