The Least Un-Electables
I didn't watch all the Democratic candidates' debate, and I didn't watch all the Republican candidates' debate, either. But I watched enough of both to be pretty sure of a couple things. First, the Democratic field, weak as it is, is far stronger than the Republicans. Only one Republican, Rudi Giuliani, spoke as if he had a clue about contemporary America. The rest are a bunch of nutballs. McCain has completely lost it — I don't care how much money he raises, he's absolutely unelectable. And so is Mitt "Magic Underpants" Romney. If Fred Thompson or Chuck Hagel got in the race that might change things, but for now it looks to me like Giuliani vs. Democrat "X" looks good for the Democrats. Any other Republican would be a wipe-out.
As for the Democrats, Obama's on a roll. I don't particularly care for him myself, but I do believe he's electable. The nicest thing I can say about him is that he's young and inexperienced enough such that one might hope that if elected he could learn something about good governance. John Edwards wouldn't be terrible, nor would Bill Richardson, though Bill seems to have a penchant for saying truly stupid things. Hillary might be electable, but I'd never vote for her myself. And I'm sure she'd be a disaster. If Gore were to enter the race he'd probably win this time, but I don't think he's got what it takes, politically, to make many real changes. Still, that leaves a fairly decent field. No real progressives, but a few who may be open to progressive pressure. At this point, on the EP meter, chances of a 2008 Democratic presidential win: 75%.
Posted by George Kenney on May 3, 2007 10:32 PM 
« May Podcast Schedule (Somewhat Tentative) | Main | Sarko's Lessons »
Comments
What about Mike Gravel or Kucinich? They are the only democratic candidates pushing for impeachment.
Gravel was absolutely amazing during the debate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gMlHv2lDqA
He promotes direct democracy, isn't one of those bought-and-paid-for demagogues, abolish IRS, legalize cannabis, same sex marriage, universal healthcare, anti-preemptive war etc.
Posted by: Kevin M. | May 4, 2007 6:02 AM
Yeah, but Gravel is a vanity candidate. So's Kucinich. I gave a few bucks to Kucinich last time around and got invited to a small dinner for him when he came through DC. He's a nice enough guy, but he's really not serious.
G.
Posted by: George | May 4, 2007 6:52 AM
Gravel and Kucinich are vanity candidates in as far as they don't have the backing of the corporate-controlled media and aren't yet bent by a steady stream of fat cheques from lobbies.
It's the voter who ultimately relegates the best candidates to oblivion by going for the 'safe' choices (i.e. the ones the MSM's propaganda pushes), and not someone who might help them in any meaningful manner.
And yes, Dubya was the ultimate vanity candidate.
Posted by: Kevin M. | May 4, 2007 4:24 PM
For some reason, every time I see Giuliani speak I think "mafia". The first time I saw GW speak, I thought "Caligula". Is this simply my wild imagination??? (I do have one..).
Posted by: Judy Truett | May 4, 2007 5:44 PM
Did we see the same debate? While I agree with your overall assessment, both parties put forth a sad lot, but I thought all the Republican hopefuls looked far and away better than any of the Democrat wannabees. I'm just sad we don't have Pat Buchanan among our choices, he makes them all look shallow and out of their depth, besides possessing real answers to the nation's current plight. Bill Bradley would be a vast improvement over anyone on the Democrats slate.
Posted by: Gerhart Maas | May 5, 2007 8:09 AM
We should not be surprised that campaigning and its consequent hoopla arrives more quickly in each election cycle.
While we recognize that the two main parties work in tandam for the sake of the few over the majority of us — do we yet recognize how the presidential election has itself become the primary diversion from American democracy itself?
Laying aside the question about how powerful the office of the president is, should we not be investing our energy into promoting people and causes that promise to actually reform a broken system?
Rather than pin false hopes to the "coded words" that come from this crop of candidates, I will devote my time to uncovering truths that they ignore.
None of this crop have the integrity of Cynthia McKinney who with round support could run, win, and actually help reform our country.
Posted by: Robert B. Livingston | May 6, 2007 10:41 AM