Who's on First?
Interestingly enough, both political parties seem to be in the odd position of being lukewarm about the candidate leading their respective fields. On the one hand, Rudy Giuliani is leading the polls among Republican candidates, but many conservatives have doubts as to just how conservative he is. Hillary Clinton is leading the polls among Democratic candidates, but many liberals have begun to question exactly what her stances are and her methods of deflecting criticism during this campaign.
So the obvious question is, why are they leading the polls?
Honestly, I couldn't care less about the Republican side. I don't like any of them (although I've been greatly disturbed to find myself occasionally agreeing with things I hear Ron Paul say). Clinton worries me though. She seems to be very hard to pin down on many issues and seems to be more devoted to not appearing to rock the boat than actually affecting significant change.
NPR had very good discussion of the differences between Clinton's stance on health care now compared to her attempts to create universal coverage in her husband's first term. I took two things away from this article. First, Clinton has natural problems with compromise and working with others of differing views. To be clear, I'm not talking about compromise that results in a watered-down version of what you're trying to accomplish. I'm talking about giving in one area of less importance to gain what you want in the area of more importance. Second, Clinton seems to either have or be developing a tendency to be revisionist about her own history or record if it will keep her from having to take a stand that she might be challenged on. Frankly, that is precisely the behavior we've seen from the current administration.
Unfortunately, it doesn't end there. She seems to have become more and more slippery lately and the behavior of her campaign has begun to resemble the current administration more and more. From playing both sides of the fence in recent debates, to planting questions in a press conference (and before you believe the claim that she had no idea the question was planted: how did she know to call on that person?).
I'm seeing Hillary as more and more of a washed-out moderate and frankly I've had enough of that in the Democratic party. Apparently, I'm not alone. And the Republicans have the same issue on their side. Giuliani doesn't seem to have anything substantive to say about anything, and his social views and personal life are anathema to most conservatives.
Why isn't a more charismatic figure like Obama or a more qualified candidate like Richardson leading the Dems? Why isn't a true fiscal and social conservative like Huckabee or Paul leading the GOP? Unfortunately, I think we can lay this squarely at the feet of the press and how the campaign is being reported. All we hear is about how much money Giuliani and Clinton have raised, so those are the only names and facts that the public ever hears. Why doesn't the media report on something substantive?
I just don't want to get stuck with Clinton as the inevitable candidate. I want a choice. And I'm worried that if things continue like this we won't get one.
So the obvious question is, why are they leading the polls?
Honestly, I couldn't care less about the Republican side. I don't like any of them (although I've been greatly disturbed to find myself occasionally agreeing with things I hear Ron Paul say). Clinton worries me though. She seems to be very hard to pin down on many issues and seems to be more devoted to not appearing to rock the boat than actually affecting significant change.
NPR had very good discussion of the differences between Clinton's stance on health care now compared to her attempts to create universal coverage in her husband's first term. I took two things away from this article. First, Clinton has natural problems with compromise and working with others of differing views. To be clear, I'm not talking about compromise that results in a watered-down version of what you're trying to accomplish. I'm talking about giving in one area of less importance to gain what you want in the area of more importance. Second, Clinton seems to either have or be developing a tendency to be revisionist about her own history or record if it will keep her from having to take a stand that she might be challenged on. Frankly, that is precisely the behavior we've seen from the current administration.
Unfortunately, it doesn't end there. She seems to have become more and more slippery lately and the behavior of her campaign has begun to resemble the current administration more and more. From playing both sides of the fence in recent debates, to planting questions in a press conference (and before you believe the claim that she had no idea the question was planted: how did she know to call on that person?).
I'm seeing Hillary as more and more of a washed-out moderate and frankly I've had enough of that in the Democratic party. Apparently, I'm not alone. And the Republicans have the same issue on their side. Giuliani doesn't seem to have anything substantive to say about anything, and his social views and personal life are anathema to most conservatives.
Why isn't a more charismatic figure like Obama or a more qualified candidate like Richardson leading the Dems? Why isn't a true fiscal and social conservative like Huckabee or Paul leading the GOP? Unfortunately, I think we can lay this squarely at the feet of the press and how the campaign is being reported. All we hear is about how much money Giuliani and Clinton have raised, so those are the only names and facts that the public ever hears. Why doesn't the media report on something substantive?
I just don't want to get stuck with Clinton as the inevitable candidate. I want a choice. And I'm worried that if things continue like this we won't get one.
Comments
Obama, on the other hand, is still moderate, but listening to him give a stump speech, I get the same shivers that I used to get (and still do sometimes) watching Bill give a speech. It's uncanny.
My heart and ethics want to vote for Richardson and Kucinich. But I think I could swallow it and vote for a Clinton/Obama ticket, if it came down to that.
Actually, I'm surprised the rest of the voting world puts so much credence in the candidates that Iowa and New Hampshire pick. It's their fault for following us, not ours!