Saturday, January 5, 2008

On to New Hampshire

Well, for all intents and purposes, Dennis is out of the race. Not that this surprises me, but still, I had hoped he might make just a little bigger splash. Richardson is still in and, let's face it, he's great vice presidential material. Southwest state, latino heritage, solid experience. I still like him for his diplomatic experience and outstanding environmental stances.

So, if I'm to be a pragmatist now (which I always am, really), do I choose John or Barack? I have to say, there is something lovely about the idea of having a US president named Barack Obama. But did anybody else find that his post-caucus speech was not all that? It has been getting nice reviews, but as far as I can tell, he didn't really say anything.

Discuss.

15 comments:

Jane R said...

Well, it was a really good sermon ;-).

pj said...

I like Obama fine. I prefer Edwards, and I'm still going to vote for him in the New York primary, but I mostly just want the whole thing to be over and for Cheney and Bush to be gone. (Gone to jail, specifically.)

lj said...

(Gone to jail, specifically.)

Yeah, and then to hell. Not that I believe in hell, but if I did, they'd be fine, fine candidates.

380 days to go.

lj said...

Oh, and Jane, I like my sermons to have a little more meat to them, as well.

But, yeah, he's got the young, hopeful thing going for him and I could be quite happy to vote for him.

Obama-Richardson '08. Our first black/latino team. I like it.

Jane R said...

Yeah, I like my sermons more meaty too. This had two lines, though they were good lines.

I'm leaning toward Edwards myself -- though I have a bunch of friends who are already signed on with Obama and my cousin's kid, whom I adore, is working his butt off on the Obama campaign and gives me a friendly nudge once in a while. And I've got Kucinich friends. Agree with his positions. And when I took the MoveOn progressive poll I wrote in Al Gore.

It's a tough call since everyone who gets to that level of running for office has sold out to some extent. Also there is a difference between being good at governing and being good at campaigning and unfortunately we tend to elect people based on whether they are good campaigners. I saw this in the reverse many moons ago when a now good friend of mine ran for Congress -- he was an okay campaigner, but not the most stellar speech giver, but he would have been an excellent legislator, very solid, good positions.

Anyway, I do see why the Obama speech was exciting, I got excited it about it myself. I think we won't forget the visual - a Black man against a sea of white faces of people who supported him in a North/Central/Midwestern state. And it is also clear people want change. (Again, that doesn't say anything about ability to govern, but it did say, in both parties, Throw The B******s Out.) I think Obama will be a great presidential candidate ten (or rather, eight) years from now. But if he is the Dem nominee this year I will work and vote for him.

I have a family member who heard his first speech (the Convention one I think, the one that launched him and everyone remembers) and said -- "Fantastic" (he meant it) and then said "He's so wonderful I'm afraid they'll kill him."

And LJ, I do like your Obama-Richardson combo.

Anyway, I am rambling. But I note that none of the people who are my friends, kindred spirits, and allies have signed on with Hillary Clinton. Including my feminist friends.

Dennis said...

I was in a race?

lj said...

Yes, Dennis, and I was deeply disappointed in where you placed. However, I'm letting you off the hook because I realize that you had other important battles to fight. And bless you for doing so.

(((Dennis)))

Wormwood's Doxy said...

My ex (the gay one) has been working for Hillary. I don't have the heart to tell him that I don't like her...it feels like such a betrayal of my feminist principles. Sigh.

Jane R said...

Janinsanfran has a good reflection on Obama.

Jane R said...

And, for something we all need to think about, today's op-ed in the NY Times about gender and race and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama -- and us.

Jan said...

I'm still vacillating. . . .

pj said...

Oh, freaking, FREAKING New Hampshire. Blech.

Why do we let Iowa and New Hampshire go first, anyway? They are tiny (population-wise, anyway) and full of white people.

And New Hampshire. It always has to be "different." Blah blah blah. Grrrr.

Jane R said...

Election process stinks. Primaries the same day for everyone! Why can't we do what other republics do and have an election with everyone voting the same day and then a run-off? Why do we still have an electoral college? And yes, why the tiny states with mostly white people? (Why, indeed.) I mean, it's kind of fascinating in a way, but in this day and age it's also ridiculous.

Grrrrr.

I'm not sure whether to go hide under the covers or go into news-junkie mode and read (or listen to - I am mostly Radio Girl) everything I can get my hands on. I know, I know, find the via media.

jledmiston said...

lj -
so glad you write about this. So many "church blogs" or "church people blogs" (sorry, but you are still in there) don't talk about politics.

I love the politics. Voted once in NH primary and loved it. Drank coffee with Gary Hart, etc.

I'm loving Obama.

pj said...

I've tagged you. Sorry.