I get support from the strangest places

CNN.com's Political Ticker is my first stop for the latest in irresponsible spin on the election debacle of the day.  They're about as objective as, well, journalists, but I find it great fun anyway.

Now I stand by my opinion that Bill Clinton was not the great hero that people like to think he is, but I don't get a lot of support for it (well, not from Democrats anyway).  Despite my support for that "other guy" (you know, the BLACK one), I think that Senator Hillary Clinton would actually fare better than her husband in the White House, primarily because I don't think she'd make the same mistakes that he made.  Unlike the Bush Presidency, most presidents are hated for their cock-ups rather than for their successes.  Sure, Bill had some success, but I think his mistakes (see "It's your prioritized bullet-list, stupid!" below) outweigh them.  I've got a feeling that Hillary's agenda is going to be a fair bit more conservative (as in "careful" not "Republican"), especially in the areas of foreign policy and sexual indiscretion.

So that's my opinion, and I'm sticking by it.  But I never thought I'd get support from two Democrats in particular: Bill and Chelsea Clinton.

Chelsea: Mom will be a better president than dad

Considering Bill's inability to ever again officially occupy any part of the White House other than the Lincoln Bedroom, it's a lovely campaign piece: "You liked Bill?  Well Hill's even Better!"  But I tend to agree in the literal sense.  Mrs. Clinton has the kind of dignity and experience that might keep her out her husband's worse decisions.

That's not to say that she won't have to deal with the same problems Obama or McCain would have to deal with, such problems as will probably destroy their respective careers before any of them truly begin, but given the climate we're in, I'd definitely vote Hillary before welcoming the illustrious and unconstitutional return of her husband.

McCursed '08

No, this is not an indictment on a fast-food chain.  That's too easy.  And besides, fast food is so greasy and delicious...

John McCain's take on the mortgage crisis?  "It's not the duty of government to bail out those who acted irresponsibly, whether it be big banks or small borrowers."  Seconds later, he continued "In our effort to help deserving homeowners, no assistance should be given to speculators."

Umm...dude?  Really?

McCain's comments have been (lauded/lambasted) as strongly in favor of Open Market over Government Regulation and therefore substantially to the proverbial Right.  But what does this say McCain's belief in who benefits from an Open Market?

To the infinitesimally small percentage of truly investment-savvy Americans, there is as much risk in the Open Market as there is in a Poker game.  Sure, there is always a chance something completely unlikely will happen, but for the most part, you know when your hand is going to win, and you know when you're bluffing and hoping to Phil Hellmuth nobody notices.  

Of course, to the rest of us, otherwise known as "consumers" whom this supposedly Open Market Economy ought to benefit, any investment is just that: speculation.  We speculate when we buy a house.  We speculate when we buy a stock.  We speculate when we open a checking account.  

McCain says there is no room for speculation in investment.  I guess he's telling everyone below the bright line of the American Dream that we're just never going to get there, and we would best put our money back in the mattress where it belongs.  Or, better yet, put it into worthless unnecessary crap so that we can "stimulate" the wealthy back into some effective trading and borrowing so that, eventually, maybe we can have our jobs back.  But screw you if you want a house.  Houses are for the wealthy, you dribbling, working class idiot, you intellectual waste, you unpatriotic few who took a risk.  HOW DARE YOU!

I don't think the government should bail everyone out.  I also know the market isn't going to right itself without the government doing something to ensure that this doesn't happen.  [Personal Opinion: Criminal Sanctions for Usurious Lending Practices could be enforced for a change...]  Regulation keeps the Market from burying the people upon which it thrives.  Deregulation means more people getting burned by companies who can effectively screw who they want, all in search of that greater buck or two.  Of course, that backfires, and then the little man company gets eaten by the big man company for $2 or $10 a share, and hey, look, a lot of dead, homeless ants.

But a booming economy, right?

McCain's snippets of phenomenal feudal wisdom can be found here

It's your prioritized bullet point list, stupid!

First, I apologize in advance for the fact that I have the bad habit of of scanning, getting pissed off, and then venting my own personal take on things rather than actually reading what politicians, my peers, or the media actually have to say.

But man, those kids over at YouthBloc certainly do know how to have a heated debate...wait.  Am I one of those kids?  Or do I just appear on the sidelines, being not-so-ardent a supporter of anything in comparison with my co-contributors?

In my defense, this point doesn't really go so much to the substance of the latest YouthBloc debate so much as to some of the caustic sentiments thrown out between friends.  So who cares what they were actually talking about...

Anyway, my good friend John loves to say things like "Democrats ignore SUBSTANCE at their peril" and (quite facetiously, and I can hear the sarcasm in his HTML) "we should end racism THEN worry about ending a war that by now has cost us 1 million lives and 4 trillion dollars, and after that we'll worry about getting health care to those who need it, and then we'll figure out this economy thing."

When in doubt, the against-the-wall BlueVoter invokes the hero of the party: future First Gentleman William J. Clinton: "It's the economy, stupid!"  

Well, there's a Democrat who's not afraid to talk substance.  Or, at least, it seemed like substance, when compared to Obama's "HOPE AND CHANGE!" or Mrs. Clinton's "EXPERIENCE AT 3AM!"  Yeah, hope's good.  I like hope.  And experience, yes, that helps in the highest position in the United States of America.  But John's point (particularly directed at Sen. Obama's recent race speech*) was that all of these lovely abstracts sound great, especially to the young, disenchanted voter, but the truth of the matter is that there are many real, pressing issues, especially in this election year (decade?) that really ought to be trumping the touchy-feely unquantifiable ideals being gushed by our respective candidates.

It's the economy, stupid.  It's health care, stupid.  HEY YOU IDIOT, THERE'S A SODDING WAR GOING ON!  Oh yeah, and we're still mired in the same miserable race situation we just can't seem to wipe away.

One of my early criticism of the H. Clinton campaign was the average voter's argument that "Well, I liked Bill Clinton as President, so I'm supporting Hillary."  At which point I think to myself, "Are you joking?"  You think that Arkansas Bill and New York Hill are going to function the same way in the White House?  I honestly can't envision a worse analogy between Democrat Presidential Candidates.  Bill was grassroot.  Hillary is part of the well-sabo'd machine (Barack falls under the latter category as well).  Bill was good-old boy (Harvard and Oxford be damned); Hillary is as big city as they come.  (Hmm...yup, Obama).  It's almost as hard to envision Hillary acting in the same manners that Bill acted (for better or worse), were she elected.  Honestly, I feel she would do less damage to the world's perspective of the office of the President than her husband did.  I disagree that her policies would be right down his line.

I like to remind my Billhugging friends that, though unequivocally better than either Bush, Clinton's presidency was not so grand that we'd like to see a Female spinoff version of it.  Lewinskygate notwithstanding, Mr. Clinton's missteps cannot be overlooked: Somalia, the Balkans, his continuing not-so-subtle-as-we'd-like continuation of Bush Sr.'s Iraq policy, and the Three-Strikes and You're Buggered** Criminal Policy were not gold stars in American Political History.  Billhugger says to me "BUT HE BALANCED THE BUDGET!'

Well, yeah.  he did.  For a whole minute or so.  Just like he said he would.  Because It's the Economy, Stupid.  

So what happened to that?  The obvious and seemingly proper response: Bush Screwed it up.  9/11 screwed it up.  The terrorists screwed it up.  Whatever.  Anybody notice what the Bush administration is doing with it's lame duck term?  Is it all about the terrorists?  All about the war?  Well, the speeches are.  But at the same time, he's looking to push his tax cuts into permanent status.  Get the USA-ABOLISHCIVILRIGHTS (er...PATRIOT?) act made permanent.  He's looking for legacy.  We're looking at Clinton and Obama bitching.  

Bush understands only too well that he is the Lamest of the Lame Ducks.  That's why he's about pushing his policy accomplishments (handed graciously to him during a period of intense tragedy at which all we wanted was someone who was going to solve all of our problems and give us puppies and a world free of Islam).  He's after Legacy.  What was Bill Clinton's legacy?  A slightly more peaceful Ireland?  The fact that the world remembers the Fellatio President?  A well-intentioned but frightfully flawed crime bill that has been misused since the ink dried?  Well, it certainly was not a balanced budget.

As much as I hate to ever, ever, ever tell John Brooks that he's right, it is true that the Democrats' love of broad, sweeping feelgood statements has, is, and will continue to get them in trouble, and it is in fact time to start pushing the immediate issues.  But here's the standard Richetti Caveat: we need to solve problems, but we need to do it long-term.  Solving all the problems with big, bold moves won't do us any better than ignoring them in favor of the more esoteric "issues" before us.  

The Democrats, presuming they can survive the primary season(s) with enough dignity and cashflow to take the election in November, need to start planning how they are going to fix these problems on a longer term than their administration lasts (especially given our inability to elect more than one Democrat in a row).  Fix the economy, and put something in place that will keep the economy as fixed as it can be within the power of the President.  Fix health care, and do enough to ensure that it won't all be flushed as soon as the Red States win again.  And, for the love of God, get us the hell out of Iraq.  

*Newsweek called it the greatest speech in recent history, and in the same sentence suggested that it could effectively end Obama's campaign.  Silly Newsweek.

**Notice I'm using the Joss Whedon theory of profanity: words are non-offensive to Americans (the only ones who care) if used only in Britain (where nobody cares).

Obama/Clinton/Obama '08

After the completely useless results of Super Tuesday: Redux (ok, Hillary gained about 30 delegates, but seriously...), Sen. Clinton suddenly responded to a [presumptively blindsiding] reporter's request for a Clinton / Obama or Obama / Clinton "dream ticket."

I know this has been beaten into the ground, and the candidates (well, Hillary at least) have been consistently denying or affirming the idea of his or her opponent as potential running mate.  Rather like Eddie Izzard singing the U.S. National Anthem.

Senator Clinton said "that may be where this is headed . . . but of course we have to decide who is on the top of this ticket."

So Hillary's open to the idea (again), after the Ohio and Texas wins proved only symbolic of the fact that Obama is not the avalanche we may have hoped for.  Mudslinging aside, it's clear that the American People are pretty much split down the middle on who should get the Democratic Nomination.  But where Republicans were fractured on which issues should dominate the next presidency (ironically, John McCain is clearly the dead center of the Big Red Bullseye), the Democrats have been nit-picking about the little stuff.  What you really have is a race of Clinton's experience versus Obama's idealism.  And hey, don't we want both?

I still don't trust Mrs. Senator Rodham-Clinton, Esq.  She strikes me as a person whose ambition overrides her considerations for what is best for the nation.  Her recent campaign tactics have shown a stance I believe she has held for years: if it's not my way, it's the wrong way.  I question whether Hillary is more interested in the best needs of the American People than she is in the best needs of Hillary Clinton and her immediate constituency.  See New York City versus New York State...

Conversely, I have no great confidence that Barack Obama can a) handle the kind of shit that is bound to come flying off of the Soon-to-be Former President Bush's proverbial fan, and b) that he can withstand the kind of fear-mongering and hatred that is sure to come screaming out of the McCampaign (complete with denials and repudiations) about his race, ethnicity, religious background, and poor choice of traditional dress.  It doesn't matter that the RNC disavows any accusations that Barack Obama is a Muslim Terrorist in disguise.  It will be all over the place if he gets the nomination, and, sad as I am to admit it, the American People have bought, are buying, and will continue to buy these pathetic assertions.  I guess guys named Adolf don't have much of a future in politics either.

Yes, the average American voter can be that thick.  See Swiftboat (which, to some degree, I bought).

The truth is that the left-of-center voting pool is out in force in a way that they never have been in my lifetime.  These are the voters that generally take whatever is handed to them; those who are disenfranchised by the system as a whole, who couldn't see Kerry or Gore as any better than Bush, those who, until the last few months, seemed not to give a damn.  I say those when I should say we, as I am certainly part of that demographic.

What does this group want?  The results of the primaries say that we want something other than the Republican Party.  The statistical tie says that we want both Clinton's experience and Obama's idealism.  Could we get the kind of change we want if we had these two different perspectives working together?  Isn't that what we really want?

There has been some severe bloodletting on both sides, but in truth, experience versus change is the real, driving factor of this primary season.  Two things we want, represented by two opposing sides.  One of my law professors calls this the "puppies are better than kittens" theory of persuasive argument.  Both are good, which do we want more?

Or can we have our cake and eat it too?

As much as I prefer Obama on the sheer basis that I strongly dislike Senator Clinton (her recent campaign tactics have only emboldened that notion), I must conceded that, given how well we know both candidates, the combination of the two, with their joint policy platforms, is going to appeal to every single democratic voter in the primary.  It's hard to imagine that, were there a "dream" ticket, any democratic voter would be considering McCain or Ralph Nader as an alternative.  

The math is pretty telling.  Democrat voters have come out in force in the primary season, putting the Republican party to statistical shame.  Combine Obama's primary votes with Clinton's, and you're already looking at close to the number of votes either candidate received in the 2000 and 2004 general elections.  And more vote in the general than in the primary elections.  

Hillary wants the Democratic party to take control of the White House while Congress is still dangling slightly to the left.  An policy reforms that are going to happen have to happen before November 2010.  Obama wants to begin uniting both sides of the aisle in the hopes of promoting real progress in the nation instead of short-term, administration based goals that get trashed by the next executive.  Both of their platforms are better for the Dems; the notion of a government that functions for the better of the nation instead of for the better of the party is clearly good for anyone.  No, really.  

If both camps end up getting what they want (potentially for 16 years, assuming they don't completely screw up the nation*), how can we possibly go wrong?  As unseemly as this campaign has become, it's the best of all possible worlds, especially where people are starting to be worried that extending this adversarial campaign between two favorable platforms is hurting the Democrats' chances against the now unified McCain Republican Express.  If we keep splintering on the left, the newly un-fractured right will come out on top.  So join up, unify the fronts, and give us the numerical advantage we need.

A caveat to Mrs. Clinton: Her entertaining the notion of Obama (or herself) as VP may be a subtle way to swing a couple of those unsure remaining primary and superdelegate voters her way.  If it works, bully for her, but keep in mind that a failure to put the rock star junior Senator on her ticket would be a betrayal to those who prefer but are unsure about a President Obama.  And then we're back to the whole split party concept.  If you say it, you'd better mean it.  

My suggestion to Mr. Obama: you might start suggesting the same thing.

*Jury's still out.