Tuesday, February 05, 2008

As The Race Boils Down To Two On Each Side....

It's Super Tuesday and you want to know who to vote for? Here are some thoughts on the candidates that are both unfair and far too brief to be helpful! (Don't look at me like that. Pretend I'm a pundit, or something.)

Hillary Clinton

  • Despite the criticism of her "experience", she does in fact appear to be the Democratic candidate most prepared to be effective from day one.
  • She has proved adaptable, and seems to recognize when to borrow opponents' ideas to improve her own.
  • She seems inclined to achieve policy results through back room deals and manipulations - politics as usual, perhaps, but....
  • There will always be a block of people who oppose whatever she proposes merely because she's the proponent.

Barack Obama

  • He is the most effective campaigner of this group.
  • His campaign tactics suggest that he is prepared to engage in some bare knuckle tactics, yet the press seems to overlook his actions or forgive him.
  • If he proves able to inspire and simultaneously to be an effective leader, he could be a very effective President.
  • He seems stubborn in some of his policy positions, and as ill-defined as they are at the moment that doesn't bode well for him as President.
  • Lofty rhetoric that does not translate into action quickly reduces to "We ought to make the pie higher."

John McCain

  • Relatively candid for a political candidate, even though some of his statements undermine right-wing support and probably hurt his chances in an election.
  • He has enormous experience getting things done in Washington, sometimes to the great consternation of his own party.
  • He's unlikely to become beholden to the factions that which to continue the "GW Bush legacy" - you know, the people currently claiming that GW is a "liberal".
  • Even after this many years in public life, some of his "candid" statements seem to be poorly conceived and non-reflective.
  • He appears to be stubborn, have a thin skin and to hold grudges.
  • He endorses "endless war" but has given no apparent thought to prevent our current wars from being endless.

Mitt Romney

  • Hey - I'm still waiting to be introduced to him.
  • He has, um, nice hair (any guesses as to what he pays per haircut?)... and Ann Coulter's endorsement?
  • No, that belongs here. He has Ann Coulter's endorsement, and openly welcomes it.
  • He seems so openly willing to say whatever it takes and change any long-held position, if it helps him get elected. Accepting Coulter's defense (this is the "real Romney" and he was lying to get to this point), he's still a shameless, unpredictable liar.
And yes, as long as you vote, after election day you are entitled to declare, "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos."


  1. I'm not sure I entirely agree with your list of pros and cons. However, they're worth considering. My objection to Clinton is that she's part of a political machine that is more concerned with perpetual candidacy and obtaining power than with doing the actual work of government. For Obama, he's adopted a style of political rhetoric I disdain, but he's apparently able to inspire and motivate like Reagan, whom Obama has praised. Yuck. The bit about McCain endorsing perpetual war is enough. No! And like you, Mitt who?

  2. As I stated up front, the list wasn't intended to be fair. ;-) It's certainly not comprehensive.

    The idea of a Clinton machine "concerned with perpetual candidacy" - I understand where it comes from. But how perpetual can it be? There was Bill, now there's Hillary, and then... it's over. (Although some may disagree.)


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.