Tuesday, March 18, 2008

How did it come to this?

Where did the Democrat's primary season turn so sour?
How did the dream race of 2008 become so divisive and vindictive for the left wing party?

It started out great. A party united in it's hatred of Bush and the republican establishment, a virulent dislike of the ongoing war, a unified front on increasing spending, and a strong set of candidates for president.

Hilary Rodam Clinton: First serious woman contender, political heavyweight, and US Senator. A razor-sharp woman with experience on a wide variety of levels.
Barack Hussein Obama: First serious black contender, political idealist, and US Senator. A black man with a fresh face, charisma, and a European socialist agenda.
John Edwards: ...?

So after both the man and the woman beat down the old has been White Man from the South, the sky should have been the limit.
So what happened?

Obama and Clinton have similar policies, particularly on the domestic front. There are subtle differences, but by and large, they both sit well in the left field bleachers.

Where they do differ is on Forign Policy, particularly Iraq. As the surge works successfully in Iraq, it has faded as a news item, and a point of contention amongst the contenders. Thus, we are left with only one real difference, and it's a style of politics the dems are well practiced at.
Personal Politics, where the identity of the candidate matters more then the policies.

Obama is a rockstar, and carries himself like a president should, with dignity and honor fitting years of proud service. He's also a fresh face on the national stage. At this point, much of the national media seems to have joined his camp, which only adds to his image.
Hilary is beacon of hope flashing from the distant past of the 1990's, a reminder of the most recent glory days of the Democrat party. That, and the war machine of the Clinton's has some pretty deep roots, and has managed to salvage a poor campaign twice now.

So what's going to happen?
A convention battle for the ages. The 2 dream candidates of the past century, and the body blows will fall fast and furious in a desperate attempt to garner the super delegates.
I think Clinton wins it at the convention.

Lost in this shuffle is Edwards. Where did he mosey off to anyways?


Lillgw said...

You are certainly right on the money. The only thing keeping the word "Iraq" in the news is the election. There has been a shift over the course of my lifetime that has affected television and print news. Rather than let people find entertainment one place and news another, they have combined the two into a beast so foul to look directly at it is to mortally wound your soul. They pander to whatever can possibly get more ratings.

I have heard a lot of people blaming the public but the public has always been stupid. We have this idea that former generations marveled at world news and current events. The truth is that unless we were at war most people didn't care. But the difference was that journalism meant something to some people. And you didn't have to spend a lot of time looking for those people. They were on national radio and television and they wrote for the largest newspapers.

Now you have to search very hard to find reputable news and your best bet is the internet (insert plug for Stratfor.com).

As for the democrats, there was never enough common ground between these two for the campaigns to merge. I think Obama is cutting his own throat with his rhetoric on Iraq. Even though his policy clearly allows for a lengthy withdrawal from Iraq his repetition of the words "as soon as possible" are rubbing democrat voters the wrong way. It is one thing to get a bunch of people to jump on the band wagon that the Iraq war was a mistake. Enough mistakes were made during the course of it. But the average democrat voter does not want to leave that country in ruins. They have been chanting all along that this war has brought more hatred than piece and they know that leaving now would magnify that effect.

Aside from that the success of the current operations isn't really helping his position and the beating of a "dead horse" that the war was entered under false pretenses is starting to sound old.

The problem with the race is that it is so long. They expect to win early and rest up before November and now they have to fight the whole year. It is getting old already. They are not likely to come up with anything else interesting to say. So we [meaning the news] focus on a weirdo pastor and who made the last racist comment.

SolaMeanie said...

The little kerfuffle with Obama and Rev. Jeremiah Wright could have long legs.

Hillary is just sitting back enjoying it.

Kingdom Advancer said...

Under normal circumstances, I think that John Edwards might be a good compromise for the Democrats at a brokered the convention. The problem is, the Democrats would look so terrible, settling on a white man while snubbing a black man and a woman.

I think that's one of the reasons Edwards didn't go anywhere in the primaries. He was the most popular white male (over Dodd, Kucinich, Biden), but he was competing against the first major female candidate and the first major black candidate.

Palm boy said...

Lil, thanks.
And I like StratFor too.
And I know Joel does too. :D

I'm torn on this Rev. Wright thing, I personally couldn't care less, but it seems to have gathered quite a bit of steam.

KA, I agree.

SolaMeanie said...

Yes, Stratfor is a good intelligence analysis organization. They even admit when they're wrong, LOL.

As for the "Reverend" flap, I sometimes have dreams about being able to walk up to guys like Wright (or better yet, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson) with a microphone and ask . . . "Have you ever preached a genuine, evangelistic, Gospel sermon in your life? And after you answer that question, define "Gospel" for me."

Snicker, chortle, guffaw.

Palm boy said...

I wasn't a guest with StratFor long enough to see them go wrong, but sounds good to me.

I'm pretty sure you'd be stonewalled an have your question remain unanswered.