Dem Running Mates

While the race for the Democrat’s presidential candidate has been narrowed down to two candidates, it is the candidate’s running mate whose job it is to represent the weaknesses the Republican strategists will try to exploit once the countdown to the November elections begin. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have very different platforms, and as such they will each need different running mates to combat Republican attacks.

SENATOR EVAN BAYH

Evan Bayh is the current Senator and former Governor of Indiana. Loyal to the Clinton family, Bayh has already been talked about as a possible running mate for Hillary Clinton should she win the Democratic nomination. He is a popular leader in Indiana, which is also considered a swing state and support for him could help Clinton win the state in the national elections. Bayh is considered a “moderate” Democrat, but his views on gay rights and abortion should keep most left leaning Democrats satisfied.

GOVERNOR TOM VILSACK

Vilsack may have been the first to drop out of the race for the white house in early 2007, but he left a positive impression on those who were introduced to him. As a Governor, his record is automatically more difficult to attack, and Iowa, the state he ran, is a swing state – something that gives him bonus points as he is considered for a running mate. Vilsack would best compliment Barack Obama, as he is a Caucasian male in his late 50’s. And he will be young enough to run for president again in 8 years, something that the Democratic party is looking for. He has, however, already endorsed Hillary Clinton, which could affect his chances of Obama selecting him.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD FORD

Fresh off a close attempt to become Governor of Tennessee in 2006, Harold Ford gained celebrity status as he was vying to be the first African-American governor of a largely Republican state. He is a social conservative, which could hurt his support among the Democratic party, but he represents a diverse alternative should Barack Obama lose and Hillary Clinton take the Democratic nomination. Still, critics are skeptical of his chances, because the decision to choose him as Clinton’s running mate could seem like a poorly veiled ploy by the Clinton campaign to try to take back some of Obama’s supporters.

SENATOR JOHN EDWARDS

Following his second unsuccessful bid for the presidency, it is unlikely that former senator John Edwards will accept the role as running mate to the winner of the Democratic primaries. But his die hard supporters would love to see him back in the political area, and although he may have lost the Democratic nomination, he is still well liked across the country. His southern credentials may help counterbalance Barack Obama’s presence in Illinois, and his charisma would certainly be a benefit on the campaign trail.

GOVERNOR MARK WARNER

Mark Warner, former governor of Virginia, gained notoriety for being a two term liberal Democratic governor in a largely Republican state. He was also involved in several public efforts to improve health care and education, making him likeable even outside of Virginia. Warner would be a good running mate for either Obama or Clinton, but he is the prime candidate for the Virginia senate seat and the Democratic party may want to him to focus his efforts on taking the seat away from the Republican party, as John Warner, the incumbent, is resigning after this year.

SENATOR CHRIS DODD

Chris Dodd, known for his excellent oratory abilities, charming personality, and years of experience in the senate was one of the top candidates to become Barack Obama’s running mate, should Obama win the Democratic nomination. He has been an immensely popular senator for years, winning each election handily over the past 28 years. After endorsing Barack Obama’s bid for president, Dodd stated that he had no desire to become anyone’ s vice president in the upcoming elections. Still, it is impossible to rule him out as a candidate as he is still an experienced congressman that could help offset some of Barack Obama’s attack points.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK

A four-star general and a Rhodes scholar, General Wesley Clark is the leading candidate to be the running mate for both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Born in Chicago in 1944, Clark graduated from West Point as the Valedictorian before serving in Vietnam. After the war, Clark’s reputation as a brilliant military mind quickly rose him through the ranks, eventually landing him as a four-star general and the direct ear of then-President Bill Clinton. General Wesley Clark’s reputation and history make him the perfect complement to both of the Democratic nominees, as he easily reflects the most common Republican attacks. As a four star general, it will be difficult for the Republicans to claim the Democratic candidates are soft on the military. As a Caucasian male, he can help offset any lingering fears about electing the first black or female president. And, because he ran for president in 2004, many Americans already know who he is – which can be a huge benefit to whoever is the candidate.

THE RUNNING MATES

The 2008 election will feature the first black or female Democratic or Republican candidate in the history of the United States. Regardless of who ends up as the Democratic running mate, the election stands to be a major step forward in US history. Still, the goal of the Democratic party is not to feature the first female or black candidate – the goal of the Democratic party is to have the first female or black president. As such, choosing the right running mate will be vital to make up for any qualities the presidential candidate is lacking, as well as represent a positive voice during the campaign and ultimately the election.

Weighing in: Bill Richardson and Obama V. Clinton

Bill Richardson dropped out today. I liked him, but he didn't stand a chance in a field with 3 people considered Rock Stars by the rest of the country. And, to be fair, one of his strong points was that he was a Governor with a long resume of experience in Washington. This election race has already proven those qualifications unnecessary. His slip when asked if being a homosexual was a choice, and his answer was "I'm not a doctor" placed the final nail in his political coffin. Almost everyone recognized it was a mistake, but to beat Clinton, Obama and Edwards, he could not afford mistakes.

On to the remaining contenders:

Edwards is an interesting case. He's a great candidate, stands for all the right issues. But in at a time when simply not being a Republican is a huge positive, he has one glaring flaw: He's not the first of anything. He's not going to be the first woman, he's not going to be the first president of color.

If Edwards gets the nomination by sweeping on the 5th, I'll write about him a lot more. He's still a great candidate. But for now, he isn't going to get many bytes dedicated to his candidacy on this website. It is not personal - this blog (ie, me) doesn't support any candidate in particular. Each has their pros and cons, all of them are better than the other side's candidates, and I believe, with the exception of probably Huckabee, none of them will lose to a Republican candidate.

So without further ado, here is a brief analysis of Obama v. Clinton:

Neither one is perfect, but neither is as flawed as their die hard supports will lead you to believe. I'll start with Hillary, as she is the most hated of the group.

Hillary Clinton is outstanding politically. Outstanding. I'd say she's even better than her husband with the exception of his Obama-like Charisma. Hillary does not make mistakes. And in a world where making just a few mistakes can be the difference between success and failure, this is an amazing accomplishment. Always remember that politics is just that. Politics. Imagine you have a job that requires a skilled typist, and you find a person who can type 200 words a minute with no errors. She's less likable than the other candidates for the job, but she's still really, really good at it. Even if you like Edwards or Obama more, if she ends up being the candidate, you should still be excited, because you're getting a candidate that does not make mistakes.

For that same reason, however, she's flawed. To get political work done, you're automatically doing two things. First, you're forced to acknowledge and respond to the needs of the other side. For politics to work, you need some sort of balance. Already, Hillary loses points, because she can't be as liberal as we all wish she were. Now, whether she is genuinely liberal or not is not the issue. She can't acknowledge the need for gay marriages, whether she believes in them or not, because she can't justify that belief with Republicans. Civil Unions she can. She can't say she plans on taking all of the troops out of Iraq because she can't justify that belief with the 30% of people that still think it was a good idea. Pulling the majority of the troops out, she can. For her to keep this political advantage (by that I mean, the fact that she's better at it than everyone else) she has to keep the balance between what we want (the Democratic party) and what she can justify to the right. If you're liberal, it's hard to stomach this. If you're a Republican, just because she can justify it doesn't mean you'll care or bite - so she isn't really more liked for this by the right, and liked less by the left. But she still needs to maintain this balance to keep the advantage.

(Video posted for no reason. But give me 5 stars, okay?)

Second, the fact that she doesn't make mistakes is one of the reasons many people dislike her. She appears fake, disingenuous. Obama does not. Edwards does not. This immediately makes her less likable. I don't have much to say on this, other than I want you to remember that George Bush was elected for being likable, and we saw how that turned out. Likability is not the best criteria. Though that is not to say it isn't important. How likable she is will eventually dictate at least a little of what she will be able to get done once in office. Similarly, by not being likable, if she ever does make a mistake her popularity will drop much faster than Obama's would if he made the same mistake, because it's easier to forget negative things about people we like.

Issues about her past should, in my opinion, be taken with a grain of salt. I don't expect anyone on either side, with the exception of Giuliani, to be corrupt upon taking office. I could care less if a candidate had money in oil companies, etc., unless I thought it would affect their job as president, which in this case I don't. Bush was corrupt, Cheney - obviously. These candidates, both Democratic and Republican alike, are not those two.

And for those that actually have a problem with her sticking with her husband after Lewinsky (I'm talking to you, racist commenters that post on AOL blogs), you need to get over it. Funny that the people who have the biggest problem with it seem to be voting for Giuliani. Is it necessary to bring up the kind of crap he's pulled?

So Hillary Clinton is a great candidate. Not perfect, but incredibly skilled with the potential to do great things. Does that mean she will? Not necessarily. To use a baseball analogy, not all prospects pan out as expected, but that's no reason to give up on them before they reach the Bigs.

Now, Barack Obama also has that much potential. Let's start with responding to his strengths:

First, he's likable, charismatic, a great speaker - he gives the impression of being a leader, something many of us noticed when he spoke at the Democratic Convention in 2004. Whatever people say about his abilities because of his short time in office is bunk. Obama knows what he's doing. He's not as polished as Hillary, no, but again, it's hard to be. Still, his likability allows most of us to ignore his mistakes, and so he is at far less risk of unexpectedly dropping in popularity because of a speech blunder.

Similarly, the guy is good. Very good. Politics often takes some degree of manipulation - not for a vindictive reason, but because it's necessary to sway people to your side. Obama doesn't need that manipulation. He's believable. He explains his points clearly and wins over his opponents simply because they can see the truth in his words. And he's liberal, inarguably. So that's a plus.

As for his flaws - they, too, are questionable. Not enough experience? Please. Experience seems to have a fairly low correlation with abilities. If any of you have worked for a boss, chances are you know this to be true. Cheney had a lot of experience. 'Nuff said.

On the flipside, he does make mistakes, and he lacks some of the clout of Clinton. But again, he has the charisma and the knowledge to get better. While there are no guarantees he can make this adjustment, he's shown no reason to believe he doesn't have the ability. Consider where he has come in 2 years. Part of politics is getting public support, and there is no question that Barack Obama can garner more public support than any of the other current presidential candidates.

That makes him an incredible force.

So, in my opinion, the question comes down to one thing: Who can win? And the answer is: Both of them. The Republican candidates suck. They're really, really bad. They're the "Dude Where's My Car" of Presidential politics. The only exception would be Huckabee vs. Clinton. In that one instance, I think Huckabee would be difficult to beat. Otherwise, they're both going to beat any other candidate the Republicans have to offer (especially with Wesley Clark as Vice President, yeah?) . True, Clinton is HATED by Republicans. For a lot of people, they worry that she will lose because there will be a high Republican turn out just to defeat her. I have three responses to this: First, I think she's a strong enough candidate that she'll still win. Second, don't forget that Obama's best demographic is young voters - and I'm not convinced they're going to be running the polls any differently than any other year. Finally, I don't know about you, but I personally like something more when it pisses off Republicans.

Once more, however, if you are a woman, voting for Hillary Clinton because she is also a woman is a bad idea. Similarly, voting for Obama because he is black is equally bad. Remember, NeoConservatives vote for their candidates based on their religion. Let's not be like them.

You can, however, be excited that those two candidates will be the first of something. The first black president OR the first woman. That's exciting. But if you vote for Hillary because she's female, you're basically saying: "I'm not voting for Obama because I'm not black, I'm female." You are WELCOME to like her, and you may even like her because she is female, but that should not be WHY you're voting for her. Same goes for Barack.

So they can both win, and they are both great candidates. So who should you vote for?

Well... Both of them. If you have opinions one way or the other, I encourage you to make your pick at the primaries. There is nothing wrong with a preference for a candidate, and if you have one, I hope you vote for them in the Primary in your state. But be happy you have these candidates to choose from and be excited even if the candidate you'd prefer does not end up as the Democratic pick. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards are phenomenal candidates, and though you may like one over the others, I'd take those three over Mitt Romney, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani any day.

Go Democrats, 2008.

Attack of the 'Christofascists'

Edwards has received a lot of flack for his recent hiring, firing, then re-hiring of the two bloggers who "ranked" on Catholics about Reproductive rights.

Although it is a poor decision to hire anyone with a questionable and fully locatable history, the real issue is best described by Eric Alterman from The Guardian. He explains that the issue's biggest problem is not the bloggers, but the person who is speaking against Edwards:

The [main stream media] coverage has completely ignored the elephant in the middle of the room, an elephant which has - appropriately in my view - been the focus of blogosphere coverage: that is, the identity of the accusers. The truth is that the reporters covering the story really have absolutely no idea whether Catholics care at all about what a couple of Edwards bloggers said on their personal blogs before they were hired and which clearly, Edwards would never have approved. As a lazy substitute, they have instead allowed the rightwing huckster William Donohue of something called "the Catholic League" to speak for all Catholics.

This is not only lazy; it is journalistically irresponsible. There's no evidence anywhere that Mr. Donohue speaks for Catholics other than himself - which is a good thing, because the man is a raving anti-Semitic lunatic. Don't take my word for it. Here (as posted on my own blog earlier this week) is Donohue, making one of his 23 appearances on cable TV in 2004, and explaining to Scarborough Country guest host Patrick J. Buchanan, that " Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It's not a secret, OK? And I'm not afraid to say it. ... Hollywood likes anal sex. They like to see the public square without nativity scenes. I like families. I like children. They like abortions." When a rabbi asked Donohue to please "stop the anti-Semitic garbage, OK?" He replied "Who's making the movies? The Irishmen?... So the Catholics are running Hollywood, huh? ... They're not Rastafarians. They're Jews....You're going to tell me that the Chinese don't live in Chinatown, right?" My sponsors at Media Matters have compiled a list - by no means exhaustive - not only of Donohue's various offenses against common decency but also of uncovered offensive remarks by McCain bloggers that have gone all but unreported in the MSM. You can find that here.

If you look at the link provided, John McCain hired conservative blogger Patrick Hynes with absolutely no media outburst. Patrick Hynes (whose email is patjhynes@msn.com) is a known conservative commentator who constantly blasts Democrats in loud, propagandic [sic] ways on websites like townhall.com and anklebitingpundits.com, including referring to Hillary Clinton as a "Pro-Saddam Democrat."

That's why there is no liberal media bias. There is only right-wing bias and reality, the latter heavily leaning liberal.

John Edwards! No, Not the Psycho Necrophiliac Guy, the Good One

John Edwards will announce he is running for president this coming Thursday, says the New York Times. His aides report that he will do so in New Orleans, and use the likelihood of a slow news week to take advantage of air time.

This is exciting news for Democrats, and only thickens the race between big name presidential nominees. He is a liberal democrat from a red state. He is a multi-issue candidate who has the added advantage of the failed vice presidential run in 2004. Yes, advantage, because the blame for that loss is mostly on Kerry's shoulders.

Most people know this was coming. Edwards spent most of the last 2 years in Iowa, semi-campaigning for his books and his charities. I noticed on his blog he thanks the Iowa Democrats for their creativity during his food drive. Sucking up is the first step towards winning.

See what other blogs have to say:
http://roadto2008.com/
http://www.kitchentablepolitics.com/
http://coldflute.blogspot.com/

I'd like to see how it works out for Edwards. I like his politics. The only problem I can see is that he shares his name with the guy who hears ghosts.
'I'm seeing a person, his name begins with a "h" sound, maybe a "g", or a "z", or a "j"'
'John Edwards?'
'Yes, John Edwards. And he is doing something in a place, it has some green, some brown. It could be outside, but it may be inside and it has wood, or concrete, or water.'
'New Orleans?'
'Yes, that's it. And he is doing something. He is yelling, he may be breathing or perhaps speaking.'
'Announcing his candidacy for President in 2008?'
'Yes, that's it! Exactly! Edwards says "hi"'
'John Edwards isn't dead.'
'Well, he almost was after 2004.'
Badum Bum Ching.

That was lame, sorry. Good luck Edwards.