Reply #107: The Hillary/Obama Problem

[mrbluto]

Let's put it this way:

If Obama wasn't in this race, splitting the anti-hillary vote, then Edwards would be ahead right now as far as I can tell.

Whatever nice things you can say about Hillary and Obama it seems to me that they make a Democratic victory dicey. Who knows how energized the rabid right would get over Hillary? Who knows how much racism would rear it's head?

I want to see the preconceptions about race and gender that have made the presidency a preserve for rich white guys demolished - but this particular election is too important to take a risk. Four more years of a republican as president and we can kiss democracy goodbye. Can't risk it.

That said there are some other things that unsettle me about Hillary and Obama. As much as I fondly recall the 90s and Bill Clinton's administration I have to ask "where did it get us?" it was a brief, embattled inter-reginum bracketed by the worst Republican governance we've seen in modern times. It seems, to me that a Hillary administration has a fair chance of being the same thing (never mind that we'd have 26 years of the presidency being traded between just two families). There was no lasting change that Bush & Co didn't roll back inside of 18 months as far as I can tell. I've seen some press that puts Obama in close proximity to Lieberman - perhaps it's nothing, but I haven't heard much out of the Obama campaign that makes me want to do much research on the subject. Perhaps someone can inform me better.

There are other Democrats running, but IMHO they're not going to make it unless there's some fluke. DK has a good stance and understanding of many issues, but the general electorate has too far to come before they'd resist the spin the echo chamber would paste him with. The only person, other than Edwards, that I think would be a workable antidote to the past eight years is Gore. Sadly I believe him when he says he's not running.

Edwards is electable, from the south, and relatively veted in both ethical and media terms. Does anyone think Rove would have held back from his oppo research during the Kerry/Edwards run? This is why they have to go for the "Haircut" attacks - they have little else on him. Edwards has already had a "shake-down" campaign - we're less likely to discover half a worm in this apple, nor see one planted.

And here is the most telling thing for me, the thing that tells me that the old powers (both Republican and the DLC Triangulators) don't want him:

The MSM ignores him to whatever extent they can.

They want you to forget him.

Watch the news with this in mind and see if you disagree.

Rove, either himself, or his doppleganger for the eventual republican candidate, salivates at the prospect of running versus either Obama or Hillary. Their reasons may not be fair or well founded, but that has never stopped them.

One more thing about Hillary -- does it bother anyone that her PR guy has represented Microsoft and Blackwater?

I find that chilling and just a bit too convenient.

Triangulation is nothing close to the roll-back we need to have happen.

We need a swath of indictments and convictions to ensure we avoid creating a moral hazard the way both Iran-Contra and Watergate established that there was no negative expected value to subverting government for corporate gain. Time for Democrats to make it clear to the Republican party: No free coupe attempts.

As a trial lawyer Edwards understands the need for punitive damages to be applied.

It's the only way to get certain parties to change their tune.