State of the race – Monday, May 19
May 19th, 2008I have never had such a pronounced reaction as I did when I suggested I wasn’t going to kick Hillary when she was down. Numerous e-mails and a few posts here pointed out that she wasn’t, in fact, down and was continuing to fight and sling mud.
Since that post, I have thrown a few more jabs at Clinton, but not for any reasons other than I thought they were funny and frankly, to paraphrase Nixon, we’re not going to have Hillary to kick around much any longer.
If the news networks and Sunday talk shows are any indication, the race is over and Obama and McCain will be facing off in November. Obama, at last count, is 120 delegates away from the 2,025 (or 2,026 depending on how the special elections have changed things) needed to secure the nomination. Tomorrow is the Kentucky and Oregon primaries and Clinton and Obama will probably split the 110 delegates up for grabs. The word is that Obama is expected to be in Iowa tomorrow (Tuesday) night to have what amounts to a coronation party. I’ve got mixed feelings about that and will follow up with thoughts on that in a couple of hours.
This will be a turning point in the strip and the focus will be more on the general election race as well as the third party candidates like Ralph Nader and possibly Bob Barr. The news we can look forward to… both conventions, the selections of running mates (possibly some returning characters from primaries like Huckabee, Romney, Edwards and Richardson) and Bush’s continued misadventures. And I expect Hillary will still be in the news through the convention.
Some thoughts about the two general election candidates…
I really respected John McCain and what he was doing in 2000. He made some truly bold moves such as denouncing the way the religious right has seized so much control over the GOP. And he was a fiscal hawk with regards to Bush’s improper tax cuts during war. He was arguing for the surge before Bush was and if Bush would not withdraw the troops, the surge was a smart move (only in that context, let me be clear. We should not have gone in an we should get out). McCain was opposed to torture and refused to equivocate on waterboarding. McCain’s original position on immigration – according to the bill with his name on it – was smart, fair and truly American in the best sense of the word.
The only one of those brave and bold positions he hasn’t cowered from is the surge.
He’s laid out a plan for his first term but note his cowardly assertion that troops will be out of Iraq by 2013. And why is 2013 significant? Oh yeah! It’s after the next presidential election and after he would get to run on the war again if he wins this time around. Please. How blatantly contrived is that?
I’m opposed to McCain because he’s so painfully disappointed me. And I’m confident that the McCain of 2000 would not support the McCain of 2008 either.
I’m still supporting Obama and I’m surprised he hasn’t let me down. About a month or so ago, I was speaking with some libertarians (Washington, D.C. has more than a few) and they were puzzled why I could be supporting Obama when I’m basically a libertarian-leaning independent. The answer I gave still holds: Obama hasn’t lied to me yet.
The optimistic part of my character believes Obama might just be an honest man – which I haven’t had the opportunity to vote for on a national level in my lifetime. The skeptical part of me added the word “yet” to the sentence.
Thanks again for reading Socks and Barney and for your supportive e-mail and posts. They mean a lot!
– Steve
Stumble it!
May 20th, 2008 at 10:40 am
As someone who proudly supported McCain in 2000, I share your pain, Steve. He won my home state (the chief reason why our Republican governor never got considered for the job of Bush’s VP) based on a message that I found honest and refreshing. He took the telcos and cable companies to task. He espoused values of personal responsibility (something he still seems to do). He raised serious concerns about the original Patriot Act, and was one of only two to vote “No” on it.
I think the problem is that his original message is not one today’s Republican Party wants to hear. They’ve lost sight of the original party, based heavily on principles of Federalism, personal responsibility, and fiscal conservatism to the point where the thing that differentiates them most from the Democratic Party is their partisan words against them; their actions however, don’t speak to it. As such, the 2000 McCain was a great choice for the American people, and a lousy choice for the people in power –and we know how that ends up. It’s why I supported Ron Paul this year, whose message was the closest to what I’d really like to hear.
McCain has had to make an awful lot of compromises leading up to the 2008 campaign; even then, staunch Party members are made nervous by him, and his watered-down message doesn’t help him with voters. Right now, I only know I don’t want Clinton in the race –after that, I’ve still got to decide, but I really miss the old McCain, and could only hope that if elected, his toning-down ceases, and he reverts to what he was in 2000.