mccain | Multiple Enthusiasms

Tag: mccain

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 6, 2008

Yesterday, I posted about the viability of a McCain/Clinton ticket versus an Obama/Edwards ticket. Which shows you just about how I feel about their ideologies; Clinton, to me, does not feel like change–she feels like more of the same-old, same-old that has tirelessly run this country into the ground.

But to be serious about it:

What I’m tired of is Clinton’s attacking people, because it seems to me more a sign of weakness than her crying gimmick (which is what I believe her tears are). I don’t know any of her issues, nor her platforms, because it seems like she spends all her time talking about what terrible shape this country is in, how much she cares about it, and how everyone else would suck at fixing it. What the hell does her hypothetical phone call at 3 in the morning have to do with any valid current issue?

Nothing. Because it’s silly. It’s an appeal to the pathos of the red phone in the Oval office (does that even exist any more?).

She calls Obama inexperienced. I don’t know, maybe my math is off, but it looks for every intent and purpose like she only has four more years experience as a senator (Obama ran and won in 2004; Clinton ran and won in 2000). I don’t think that’s a great deal of time. Sure, she had some experience as a First Lady, but last time I checked, First Lady is not an elected office. That she spearheaded a failed reform to healthcare in 1994 doesn’t impress me, though her child insurance work does.

Really, while First Lady, she only ever had the power her husband (who stepped out on her numerous times [and I note that because doesn’t seem a particularly strong or assertive thing for a woman to do]) gave her. While senator, her record speaks for itself: vote yes for authorizing invasion of Iraq, vote yes for the PATRIOT Act, etc.

But in enumerating, I’m very nearly engaging in the very thing I’m speaking against, while avoiding what I mean to speak to, which is that Obama, to me, signifies change. Obama, to me, signifies that something important in this country can turn toward hope, and peace. Obama has worked with Republicans to effect change: this, to me, signifies that he’s willing to work far and wide across party lines (he’s even sponsored one particular bill with McCain). Obama, to me, signifies that we’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore, and we’re going to do something about it, dammit, to really make a difference.

Obama, to me, is part of the change I want to see in the world.

Obama & Edwards: Yes We Can

March 5, 2008

The big news (besides that Bush endorsed McCain) today seems that Clinton broke Obama’s winning streak. By this I might be more impressed had she won any decisively, as the media seems to be saying, but she did not; the only place she won by more than 10% was Rhode Island, and what’s 10% of Rhode Island? Like, 3 people, or something? Seriously, it’s smaller than Delaware, isn’t it? Texas was a squeaker of a primary, 51% to 48%.

The problem, though, is that McCain clinched his nom while the Dems are now still petty-bickering about who voted how when. Obama says he’s the man to beat McCain, but he’s got to get there first.

Personally, I think Obama should invite Edwards onto his ticket now, solidifying his stance. Because if Edwards were still in the race, he’d have diverted votes away from Clinton, I think, and Obama would have won all the primaries yesterday.

There are so many interesting ways this could all go, though. Clinton could lose the democratic nomination, but what if McCain invited her to be his vice president? I could see McCain doing something like that. On the off chance Clinton wins the Dem nom, though, I’m betting she’d go with Bill Richardson for her VP. But in which case, I’d love to see Obama and Edwards run an independent ticket.

They probably mightn’t get enough electoral votes to actually win election, but I’d bet they’d completely fuck up the system hard enough that nobody would know what was happening.

Anarchy rules!

No, but seriously, I really do think the division between Obama and Clinton is doing more harm than good. Not for the Democratic party, mind, because I think the Democratic party does enough harm to itself without having to seek external blame, but because the fact that the two leading candidates for nomination are a black man and a woman is being overshadowed by the woman’s constantly attacking said black man. Clinton is doing more to set feminism back several decades than Howard Stern ever managed.

And the truth of the matter is, I’ve never minded McCain. I wish he’d beaten Bush’s underhanded tactics and won in 2000, because there are few men I could see leading our country through 9/11 better than I think McCain would have.

But I do wonder who he’ll run with.

Multiple Enthusiasms

Infinite jest. Excellent fancy. Flashes of merriment.

Tag: mccain