campaign | Multiple Enthusiasms

Tag: campaign

June 19, 2008

I think I make it pretty clear I don’t know a whole lot about the intricacies of the political system (even if that’s never stopped me from opining about the candidates therein). I say that because I just read this article in the New York Times, which concerns Obama and his decision to opt out of the public campaign financing system, about which I have little clue. The article states it goes back to 1976 and the Watergate scandal, and also that:

Under the federal presidential financing system, a candidate this year would be given $84.1 million from the Treasury to finance a general election campaign. In exchange, the candidate is barred from accepting private donations, or from spending more than the $84.1 million.

The next paragraph notes that Obama raised more than that limit in February and March alone, so I’d kind of think it would behoove him to not get into it. I mean, if the difference is that he could spend $84 million publicly, or twice that privately . . . well, it’s well known I ain’t no maths major, but it seems a no-brainer.

What bugs me is that the article gives two paragraphs to what McCain’s advisors think of the decision (spoiler: they’re not happy and think Obama suxors. Because they, of course, want to beat him and will use any opportunity to badmouth him). What also bugs me is that the article doesn’t actually comment on what this means.

And while I’m not sure what it means, or what effects it might have on the election process, what I wonder about is that latter itself. Because the article states his decision comes because the financing system is “broken;” as 2000 demonstrated, so is the election process itself.

Of course, Obama can’t just outright declare himself above the election process and the new, like, Emperor of America (our last was Norton. Seriously. Awesome story. Look it up).

But what I like about Obama most is that it’s neat to think he might. Maybe somebody should just toss a sword at him the next time he’s by a large-ish body of water. Quick, get on that!

March 21, 2008

Bill Richardson has endorsed Barack Obama as his candidate of choice.

I’m surprised by two things:

a) A Democrat has done something right, and made a good choice, and

b) I totally thought Richardson would swing around the other way, to the point that I had figured not only that he would endorse Clinton but also that, should she get the nomination (which is appearing increasingly unlikely by the day), she would choose Richardson as her VP running mate.

Which, of course, brings up the next point, and the pretty much major question at this point:

Hey, John Edwards, WTF are you waiting for?

Obama and Edwards could win the White House with deliberate certainty, and I firmly believe not just that they are the perfect complements to each other, but also the perfect balances. They’re alike in the right ways and different in important ones.

February 27, 2008

Truthfully, I’m rather surprised I don’t have much to say about the Obama/Clinton debate last night (I almost reversed those names, than backspaced over it. That’s probably telling. Though of what, I am unsure). I didn’t watch it (my headache prevented much in the way of coherence on my end), but I read most of it, and it seems like Hillary took an offensive strategy, spending most of the evening trying to create doubt in Obama.

Obama’s is, arguably, the position to be in, though that’s not to say that it’s easier. As someone who’s been in a rather enviable position and who has been repeatedly and personally attacked by people jockeying for that position, or better, I admire Obama’s reticence and restraint. It’s something I know I have to learn; I find it extraordinarily difficult to accept some of the slings and arrows that come with outrageous fortune, or sometimes to remain quiet. It’s not merely that success can breed contempt, but also that success is so very often so rarely something one believes one deserves.

Because, of course, success is not external. Success really comes from within, and has no direct correlation to anything either material or acquired; the most successful people in terms of business and wealth can also be the least successful in terms of life.

The more I learn of Obama, the more I feel I like him as a person, which is completely strange considering I’ve never seen the man. The more I see him speak, the more I see that smile, the more certain I become that I want to vote for him. The more I think he’d be good not just for our country but also for the world.

I think Edwards has a similar quality, to some degree, but without the same characteristic ease with which Obama carries it off. Edwards seemed to have to try, which is, I think, why he performed poorly; he was often fighting to gain ground, and sometimes it’s better to just be happy with the ground you’ve got and allow it to grow. Obama seems very happy with the plot of land he’s got, and I think people are realizing, more and more, just how large that plot is, because the deeper one goes, the more lush it appears. And I think I’ve extended that metaphor about as far as it can go, so I’ll leave it.

I think, last night, it became obvious that neither candidate would select the other as VP; the longer this process extends, the more I become certain that an Obama/Clinton ticket is simply completely out of the question.

But Obama/Edwards?

Yes we can.

Multiple Enthusiasms

Infinite jest. Excellent fancy. Flashes of merriment.

Tag: campaign