The Idiot’s Guide to 2008
Ok, here is an overview of the road to the Whitehouse for 2008. For your viewing pleasure, I have broken it down into three key issues. I apologize for the length. You can email me for the Cliff’s Notes.
Key issue number one: The Republican Candidate.
Despite what you might read on some liberal blogs, the Republicans have three candidates with excellent public profiles. Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and John McCain are all viewed as independent-minded, strong, charismatic leaders. Some say they are too liberal too to win the nomination. It is possible that between them they could split the vote of “reasonable” Republicans and a more right-wing candidate like Gingrich or Brownback could squeak past with the support of a united conservative base. But I doubt it will happen. More than likely, the Republicans will nominate their party’s strongest candidate since that B actor from California.
Key issue number two: The Democratic candidate. There are four people who could conceivably win the nomination.
Hillary will lose in the general, partly because much of America mistakenly thinks she’s quite liberal, but mostly because she is an emotional vacuum who stopped working for real change after her universal healthcare quest failed in 1994. And she’s the most hawkish candidate when it comes to Iraq. Many people think the anti-war vote will go to Edwards. Well, Eddie voted for the war and then criticized it when he was out of office and didn’t have to suffer the political repercussions of growing testicles. Next, please.
Edwards is basically a good guy, but perhaps a little too slick. And if you can’t bring yourself to say anything really critical of Dick Cheney during a one on one debate, you have no business calling yourself a Democrat. John Edwards vs. the Face of Evil and all Johnny has the stomach for is an “aww shucks” discussion featuring painfully tight smiles? As a side note, traditionally the role of the VP has been to strike with a slightly sharper blade, to say the things that should be said but might not sound quite presidential enough to be uttered by the top of the ticket. In other words, not a role best filled by a Joe Lieberman or John Edwards. For further reference, Dems should pull out archived footage of Al Gore kicking the shit out of Quayle in 92. Or Bentsen you’re no Kennedying him 4 years prior to that.
Obama is the best choice of those who have declared, although who knows if the country is ready to elect a black man. And fuck all those media articles saying that black folks don’t think Obama is black enough, while acknowledging that at least he’s not too black, like Jesse And Al. This isn’t Goldilocks searching for the perfect temperature of fucking porridge: Uncle Tom? Too cold. Malcolm X? Too hot. MLK? Just right! In fact, blacks, much like whites, asians and hispanics come in all sorts of shapes, sizes, personalities and creeds. Being educated and well-spoken does not alienate you from your race, but thanks for the condescending assumption. And let’s be honest, the mainstream media has its finger on the pulse of African American society about as much as George Bush has his finger on the pulse of the Iraq insurgency. All ranting aside, Obama will eventually have to take an unpopular position on something if he wants to prove he’s not just a smarter, more charismatic version of every other Democrat in the race.
Before Obama soaked up all the anti-Hillary momentum (which was bound to coalesce around someone), Al Gore seemed a likely late-entry savior of the Democratic Party. As it stands now, I believe the progressive wing of the party is too (mistakenly) enamored with Obama to make the effort necessary to convince Alberto to run. And I don’t know if well-publicized photos at Oscar after-parties in L.A. are the best way to launch a campaign for the hearts and minds of the salt of the earth in America.
Key issue 3: Some other day.
4 comments February 15th, 2007