Comments on: Who Can Implement Change? Obama v Hillary

By: shariq

shariq — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 01:20:27 +0000

Soru, Edwards is a pretty interesting character. His campaign in 04 was built on a centrist, sunny optimism. Since then he’s become quite vocal on increasing inequality and injustice in america.

A lot of progressives seem to appreciate the fact that by coming up with detailed policy proposals from the outset, he’s forced obama and clinton into more progressive positions.

Personally I’m not convinced that he’s too left wing to be mainstream in america. For one thing I don’t think that their are that many people who don’t think Edwards could beat a Republican in the general election.

Unfortunately for him, I think that with Clinton taking the mainstream vote and Obama being the inspirational, reform candidate, Edwards has been squeezed out despite the amount of time he spent in Iowa.

Finally, I agree with people who think Edwards would be best as a crusading attorney-general. this would set him up much better for future elections than being the veep.

By: douglas clark

douglas clark — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 02:38:58 +0000

Soru,

Neither do I. I expect that, if Obama does break through the Clinton machine, then you are right. Edwards for VP. Edwards is too left wing to be mainstream in the USA, sadly. I’d like to be proven wrong on that, incidentally.

These guys, US voters, have a unique set of prejudices, like a lack of gun control, a belief that their nation state can do no wrong, etc, etc. If you want to be President you have to play along with some of that at least.

By: soru

soru — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 01:10:59 +0000

I don’t know any more about Edwards than the ‘milk-shake’ one-liner above. I guess as he hasn’t imposed himself on the campaign, he likely wouldn’t be much better at presenting his arguments while president.

Unless something changes, he pretty much has ‘VP’ written all over him.

By: douglas clark

douglas clark — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:56:39 +0000

Soru,

So, logically they should all vote for John Edwards?

By: Desi Italiana

Desi Italiana — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:31:03 +0000

“Who Can Implement Change? Obama v Hillary”

As a humble American voter, IMO, neither.

By: sonia

sonia — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 00:32:08 +0000

what changes are we talking about anyway? if i were an american citizen i think things like social security and healthcare, would be pretty significant, and other things like oh what the ‘leaders’ plan to do about the impending energy crisis.

and why do we think Obama would be better for foreign policy? any concrete reasons? or just cos he’s black? It would be a better post if something definitive were actually posted.

By: shariq

shariq — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 15:03:14 +0000

Thanks for the comment Leon.

You should check out this bloggingheads conversation between two extremely smart guys, who deserve to be a lot more prominent.

http://www.bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/8136

By: soru

soru — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 23:56:20 +0000

presidential milkshake list

I drink your milkshake, even though I opposed drinking your milkshake four years ago. -Mitt Romney

I drink your milkshake, but only if the Bible says it’s allowed. -Mike Huckabee

I may drink your milkshake for another 100 years, if that’s what it takes. -John McCain

I drank a milkshake on 9/11. -Rudy Giuliani

I’ll drink your milkshake a few months after everyone else does. -Fred Thompson

I drink your milkshake, but I’m paying for it with gold. -Ron Paul

America deserves a new milkshake. -Barack Obama

I will fight the corporations so that you can drink your own milkshake. -John Edwards

I have 35 years of milkshake-drinking experience. *sob* -Hillary Clinton

I peacefully drink your milkshake. -Dennis Kucinich

It depends on what your definition of “milkshake” is. -Bill Clinton

I voted for drinking your milkshake before I voted against it. -John Kerry

Global warming is melting your milkshake. -Al Gore

We’re making good progress in the war on milkshakes, and make no mistake: we will prevail. -George W. Bush

And the serious point is dead right: a president is a figurehead, a symbol, a monarch. It all works better when they have no pretensions to actually get involved in government, when they appoint some smart guys to do that for them.

soru

By: Leon

Leon — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 19:24:53 +0000

Excellent piece, I have to say this is one of the most interesting things I’ve read about this race.

By: Refresh

Refresh — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 19:12:35 +0000

Secular sins, like all the thou shalt nots:
kill, covet neighbours oil, starve the poor, napalm kooks, lie to their faces, thou shalt not, hold democracy in your own craven image…

By: Refresh

Refresh — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 19:07:57 +0000

Don, perhaps I should have been clearer and said ’secular sins’.

By: Don

Don — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 18:49:21 +0000

Washing away sins?

In the context of US politics that kind of locution makes me nervous.

Actually, in most contexts.

By: Refresh

Refresh — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 18:36:53 +0000

Obama needs someone who can help wash away the sins of the US from the assasination of Kennedy to now.

By: Refresh

Refresh — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 18:35:40 +0000

But Jai, that would mean no change at all.

By: John

John — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 17:58:03 +0000

Young or Old, Man or Woman, Black or White those are the things are not a vital factors to select a President for US. The one who's having enough knowledge, ideas and attitude to lead the country is important. Car Breakdown

By: Jai

Jai — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:04:34 +0000

Maybe a good course of action to get “the best of both worlds” (more or less) would be for Obama to run for President with Hillary as his VP.

Hell, if you really wanted to push the boat out, you could follow the “West Wing” model a la Matt Santos, and have John McCain or someone from the Republican party as the VP instead. Bipartisanship, “bringing the country together”, etc etc.