Democrats already shaking down to three main candidates
So my senator is running for president. Well, one of them. The other is credited with (barely) squeaking out a Democratic majority in the Senate assuming every Democrat in that august body stays healthy, or at least alive.
But my other senator, who now goes only by her first name for some reason, though it may be an extremely astute move. Whether you love or hate her, you know who she is, so why not "name it and claim it."
I don't think she has a chance of living in the White House again, frankly. Nor does Barack Obama. Both their candidacies warm the cockles of liberal hearts a woman! a black man! but that's also partly why they'll never be elected, at least not in 2008. Not just because there are some people out there who would never vote for a woman, or for a black man, but because they see these as being the, uh, "primary" attributes of these candidates in their own supporters' eyes. And I don't think Americans overall unlike Democratic primary voters will elect someone who gets that high in the firmament based on what they represent.
To be honest not that I'd vote for her I think Condoleeza Rice has more likelihood being the first woman or the first black person elected president, for the same reason only Nixon could go to China and Margaret Thatcher became the first woman prime minister of the United Kingdom.
Bill Maher asked John Edwards if he feels he's at a disadvantage in this primary for being a white male. Edwards graciously laughed it off, said he wasn't going to touch that one. But he did touch on several touchy subjects, including the fact (if I heard him correctly) that he thinks we should raise taxes to pay for healthcare for all Americans.
I applaud John Edwards for saying his vote to authorize this president to go to war was a mistake. But I also applaud Hillary Clinton for not saying the same thing just to chase votes. Based on their beliefs, they voted based on what they knew and John Edwards went against his gut, and he owned up to it. His "mistake" was trusting this president to use his vote to negotiate a worldwide solution to a dictator in Iraq who, they were both told (although few of us felt convinced) harbored "weapons of mass destruction" he was going to use against us, or Israel, or ... well, he surely had them, right? The rest was details. Hillary's vote was to do the same thing. If primary voters are going to get hung up on a vote that's about five four years old at this point, they're missing the point. Nothing that Congress has passed or not passed has had much effect on what this president does or doesn't do. So why they voted as they did is, today, pretty immaterial in deciding who should get us out of this mess.
As in my previous post from several weeks ago, however, the more I hear from and about Obama and Clinton, the more I think John Edwards should be president. I may change my mind although I hope I won't let stupid gaffes won't be on what I base my change of mind but that's what I think today. And, sure, raise my taxes, John. That's a small price and it may not even be that small to pay to put us back among the developed countries in terms of the health, quality of life, and longevity of our people.
On a side note, David Geffen needs to shut up and Hillary Clinton needs to win the primary with votes, not just the most money.
"It is time to be patriotic about something other than war"
John Edwards addressed the Democratic National Convention on Friday. This is what political rally speeches are supposed to be like, and he has certainly honed a clarity of purpose since 2004 (and I thought he was pretty good then, too).
I say we use the last two elections as reality-TV elimination rounds, and now re-elect Gore as president and finally elect Edwards as vice-president ... and not invite their running mates from '00 and '04 to the convention.