June 04, 2008
The Dems are making a huge -- and welcome -- error
William Bennett has this pungent bit of punditry on the headlong rush to anoint Obama the savior and presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party.
This is an astounding moment in American politics. You cannot credibly say the Clintons are a political dynasty the way, say, the Kennedys or Bushs are. But I think one has to say the Clinton rule of the Democratic party has been dynastic.
Bill Clinton is the only Democrat to have served two terms as president in two generations, the only Democrat to twice beat Republican nominees for president and his wife is a two term U.S. senator who will likely be in the Senate for years to come.
Bill Clinton has been rated one of — if not THE — most popular person in the world, and yet Clinton rule in American politics ends tonight. Whatever it was the Republicans and so many independents did not like about the Clintons, we’ve learned the Democrats have had enough as well.
And thus the Democratic party is about to nominate a far left candidate in the tradition of George McGovern, albeit without McGovern’s military and political record.
The Democratic party is about to nominate a far-left candidate in the tradition of Michael Dukakis, albeit without Dukakis’s executive experience as governor.
The Democratic party is about to nominate a far left candidate in the tradition of John Kerry, albeit without Kerry’s record of years of service in the Senate.
The Democratic party is about to nominate an unvetted candidate in the tradition of Jimmy Carter, albeit without Jimmy Carter’s religious integrity as he spoke about it in 1976.
Questions about all these attributes (from foreign policy expertise to executive experience to senatorial experience to judgment about foreign leaders to the instructors he has had in his cultural values) surround Barack Obama. And the Democratic party has chosen him.
Two observations, if I may.
First, Hillary ain't going anywhere, yet. Her speech was anything but a valedictory to her loyal-but-disappointed followers. And why should it be? The knock on the political conventions has been that they're nothing but a boring, marathon speechifying suckfest, the conclusions foreordained. Clinton goes into the convention having won seven of the last ten primaries -- or to put it another way, Obama goes into the convention having lost seven of the last ten primaries.
She's arguably ahead in the popular vote -- which we know is of paramount importance to the Democratic machine (2000, anyone?). So why not have a convention where the candidates make their case to the delegates? Where is it written that Clinton -- or any other candidate -- must throw in the towel before the party gathers to pick its nominee?
I say this as (ahem) something less than a Hillary Clinton fan.
Which brings me to my second point.
Obama?
Really?
This is the best the Democrats could do?
I say this as no particular fan of John McCain, but I think the Democrats have settled on the perfect candidate for the grumpy Arizonan to demolish, destroy and decimate in the general election.
Say what you will about McCain's idiosyncratic policy preferences, the man is experience and courage defined.
Obama?
Please.
In an election that is an underhand slow pitch for the Dems to knock out of the Presidential park, they've decided to pull Babe Ruth out of the lineup and let Urkel pinch hit.
Bravo.
Posted by Mike Lief at June 4, 2008 07:12 AM
| TrackBack
Comments
Geez, your principled stand against McCain from only a few months ago seems to have withered on the vine. Before he was the second coming of Satan with his flippant rejection of the 1st Amendment. And your prior comments like:
"The best he'll do is weasel, wiggle, obfuscate and filibuster, just like any other Washington windbag or Congressional crapweasel."
Now your "no particular fan of John McCain" and he has merely "idiosyncratic policy preferences"?
You must only have about 16 ounces left in your Super Big Gulp tankard of Kool-Aid.
And in June, certain that McCain will crush the inexperienced Obama, you say, "I say this as no particular fan of John McCain, but I think the Democrats have settled on the perfect candidate for the grumpy Arizonan to demolish, destroy and decimate in the general election."
But back in February you were equally certain of McCain's defeat when you said, "Given that the likely GOP candidate will be the cranky, old, red-faced white guy, the contrast with Obama is almost hilariously stark. McCain's experience advantage will evaporate in the heat and light of Obama's charisma like an open can of Ensure set next to the space heater at the old folk's home."
Well? Which is it?
Posted by: BullButz at June 4, 2008 09:45 PM