I find it a bit interesting, but hardly surprising that former Secretary of State Republican Colin Powell recently gave his endorsement o Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. He has confirmed what I have thought all along.
In general, Black people, at least in the U.S., tend to stick together.
Don't believe me? I've been thinking this for a long time now, even before the primary season started. During the Democratic primaries, it proved my point - there are States that Obama won, primarily due to the overwhelming (and I mean overwhelming - like 90% or higher) support of the Black electorate. Poor Hillary Clinton - sure, Bill was popular amongst Black voters, but what other alternatives were there? It's pretty much been White males ever since we could remember.
I suppose one can argue that Blacks generally vote Democrats, so it is coincidental that Obama, a half-Black man, is garnering all this support from the "Black community." Maybe. Plus the true test would have been to see what would have happened had, let's say, some serious Black, well known Republicans like Condoleeza Rice, or better yet, a person I highly hope is on the Republican ticket in the future, Alan Keyes, was on the current Republican ticket, and say, Hillary Clinton or John Edwards (well, not anymore) would have been the Democratic nominee. I am willing to bet that Rice or Keyes would capture a lot of the traditional Democratic vote.
Come to this another way, consider the following - can you think of any Blacks who are vehemently supporting McCain? As you may know, I am Asian, and I tell you, I get lots of weird looks as I wear my McCain / Palin shirt, hat, button, or whatever else I decide to don outside the house. I think that people have this really bad impression (fueled by the pro-Obama media) that minorities are supposed to go to Obama. But of course, you're thinking with your feelings here and not with your head. It is the same stupidity that causes White people to reject a qualified Black candidate solely due to race. I know it happens. But Blacks are now doing the exact same thing in supporting Obama, but the difference is, they don't admit it.
When Oprah Winfrey came out to support Obama, was anyone surprised? Here is a very liberal celebrity who, despite her supposed diverse viewership, still has more of a resonating effect among 1) women and 2) Blacks. Men usually don't give a rat's ass about what Oprah things, and they shouldn't (which should be said of most celebrities).
Rush Limbaugh got in supposed hot water for making these suggestions recently. People don't like Rush because he speaks his mind and speaks the truth - which of course, make the relativistic general populace not comfortable. He is right - when was the last time Powell endorsed an inexperienced White Democrat for anything? I suppose one can make an argument that Powell is just trying to screw over the Republicans who embarrassed him by forcing him to go to the U.N. with bad intelligence to push for the Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. Maybe this plays a factor, but I think that you can't overstate the race card. Powell is not exactly a young guy, and I'm sure as a Black Republican, has for many years felt out of place, or have felt the indignation of racial stigma and bigotry. I respect Powell for his military service as well as his contribution to the Republicans - but I think that he's letting the personal pride of seeing a "fellow brother" get elected get to him. A lot of people support Obama seemingly to be part of "history", that they can tell their grandchildren that they put the first Black president in office. A lot of the younger voters have fallen for the slick speeches and warm and fuzzy image of Obama, in today's media-frenzy environment where sound bytes and technological marvels dazzle - style over substance.
I also think these younger voters, as with many young people today, reject anything that is considered "old", including people. They don't view McCain as experienced, simply as old.
Back to the point here - I have lost count of how many interviews with Black voters I have read, or heard or seen, in which they say with such pride how they look forward to putting a Black man in office. Hey, don't get me wrong - I can understand the pride, especially when only 40-50 years ago, segregation still ran rampant. But is that really a good reason to vote for someone?
Proof that it's more about race and celebrity status - a U.S. poll amongst random Black voters asked certain questions such as, "do you agree with Obama's opposition to embryonic stem cell research." General answer was yes, even though the question is deliberally wrong factually. It also asks, "do you agree with Obama's choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate?" General answer is yes. I mean, do people even read these things? I suspect not, but they see "support Obama" and they vote yes.
Now, one may suggest that it's not all about race here, since lots of Whites are voting for Obama. Very true, but you can't compare here, since we're talking specifically about the Black electorate. I think it would be much better to simply come out and say that they are voting that way because of his race, much like some McCain supporters are supporting McCain because he is White. Neither position is based on any amount of intelligence, but let's call a spade a spade here. Blacks want a Black president and will vote accordingly.
Showing posts with label john mccain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label john mccain. Show all posts
Monday, October 20, 2008
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Great Speech By Sarah Palin At the RNC Tonight - RNC Day 3
You know, left wingers are so fickle sometimes. On some of the political boards that I frequent (some of whom are not overly conservative-friendly), a number of people criticized Republican VP Nominee Sarah Palin's acceptance speech tonight. I thought it was a fantastic speech, showed that she had the balls to fight with the big boys and that she was not going to be a pushover. Yet, these bleeding heart left-wingers are saying that she played dirty by bashing Obama, Biden, and the Democrats during the speech.
For Pete's sake, did they watch their own convention? Obama, Biden and company were not only spewing out snide remarks about the Republicans, but they ridiculed John McCain as well. So it's OK for the Democrats to insult and rant about their opponents, but when the Republicans address their criticisms and push back, it's now below the belt? Biden's "scrappiness" is generally considered a positive for him, yet if Palin provides the same level (if not more) of being aggressive, it is now wrong? Give me a break. For all the liberal whining about double standards for men and women, let me tell you that they should practice what they preach for a change.
Palin showed in her speech tonight that she wasn't afraid to scrap, and while I will admit, Obama and Biden have been muted in their comments on Palin, I suspect it was because they wanted to tread carefully for fear of sexism, to handle the initial response to her delicately because she is a woman. I seriously believe had she been a man, they would have torn into her at the outset. But Palin is not afraid to call a spade a spade, which may not win her friends, but like everything else, honesty and integrity will earn respect. That doesn't mean everyone will agree with you, but it means that they know where you stand and that you are consistent.
Critics will say that Palin did not provide much detail about her plan and provide solution specifics - that is true. I don't know if she has a good grasp of McCain's vision, after only 5 days or so of being chosen as his running mate, but whether she did or not is beside the point - I think even if I had McCain's plan committed to memory, I think it would not be proper for the VP candidate to spell out the plan - after all, that sort of takes the limelight away from the presidential candidate, who happens to be making his speech the following night.
Calling her McCain's attack dog is demeaning - it implies she can't think for yourself, and you know, for her to be mayor and governor, those aren't exactly jobs that allow for decision delegation. As I said earlier, she is exactly what McCain needs, to balance out his more quieter demeanor. I think that Palin's presence and her personality will fire up people who think and vote conservatively, but are afraid to let their voice known. I think McCain made an exception choice in choosing her over, say, Mitt Romney. Case in point - my wife, who was watching the speeches with me, indicated that of all the speeches, she absolutely detested Romney's (well, the Hawaii governor's speech was the worst in terms of monotone delivery and lack of excitement and frequent unnecessary pauses). My wife thought Romney sounded too slick and was the caricature of a slimy politician. I don't think that she's that off there. Romney (who was one of the folks on McCain's shortlist for VP) - could you imagine him as the VP candidate - no one would believe anything he was saying - in fact, folks in the crowd were not even paying attention.
I thought Palin's speech really brought out the fact that she was just like everyone else, with her own set of challenges and joys and disappointments. I think she did a good job in introducing herself to the masses, but not spending the whole time in doing so. She highlighted her experience and wasted no time in punching back at the criticisms leveled toward her so-called "lack of experience" that the media and left-wingers seem to be happy dishing out.
Now, speaking of which, my thoughts on the rest of the speeches...or least what I caught starting at around 8:30PM EST.
Carly Fiorina - well, didn't think much of the speech. Didn't draw me at all. Being the former CEO of any company doesn't impress me much - knowing that they got millions of dollars of severance on termination doesn't sit well with me. So I don't have much to say about former eBay CEO Meg Whitman's speech either (I am hating eBay more and more every day and the direction it's going, away from auctions). Mitt Romney's speech I could have done without - he said nothing substantive, and that freaking grin on his face annoyed both my wife and I.
I absolutely loved Mike Huckabee's speech. But that shouldn't be a surprise seeing that I supported him (financially) during the primaries. So for those who say that it's silly for me to comment on any of this being that I am from Canada, is hogwash. I can still contribute to their campaigns and being on several U.S. political forums, I can certainly "spread the word" as a foot soldier for the campaign. Anyway, Huckabee's speech, as usual, was full of animation, tons of humour, and ended with a very positive and moving story about military service and freedoms. Possibly one of the best speeches of the night.
Rudy Giuliani's speech - I'd say that was a good attack speech, but it did come out as a bit more negative and scare tactics. But you know, it's like if someone was insulting your wife or friend or family member - unless you had no balls, you certainly wouldn't take it lying down. I know I won't - and if I say something that ends up hurting someone's feelings - oh well. We need more people to tell it like it is, and less wussies who try to employ every sensitivity tactic in the sun. Not sure if the U.S. electorate would appreciate negativity like that. But I thought several parts were brilliant and funny at the same time, while speaking truth. But all that being said, I think you can be aggressive, but there are times when overdoing sarcasm may not exactly aid your argument. I suspect that the Giuliani speech was one of those times. Romney, Giuliani, Huckabee, and Lieberman yesterday as well as others have all come to the defence of Palin, against the liberal media and Democrats who have been trying to bash her for the past few days. Good to see them standing side-by-side with their colleagues.
Worst speech of the night was by Linda Lingle (I think that was her name), governor of Hawaii. Yikes, what a bad speech - I thought she was the set up person for Palin - thank goodness she wasn't. Her speech about Palin was monotone, and paused way too frequently to expect applause - and the crowd was seemingly getting tired of the forced applause from this monotonous speaker who was very robotic in her delivery. I heard later that they had to cut out the video intro for Palin due to time, and this, I think, was a major mistake, since video intros are generally received well, invoke an emotional response and right then and there the candidate walks out. Give them credit - the Democrats executed this exceptionally well with the Biden and Obama intros. I only hope that they do one for McCain. But they should have considered Lingle's speaking style, what time of night she would have to speak, and then probably put her on a different day - maybe she was set to go on Monday's lineup, which was (rightfully) shortened due to Hurricane Gustav.
Tomorrow's speech by McCain will, I think, be the most important speech he will ever make.
P.S. I gotta say, the CNN coverage is OK, but man, they are so in Obama's camp, it's not funny. I mean, really, they screen their boards to only put through comments that either praise the Democrats or slam the Republicans. And their polling is biased as well - look at other news site polls - it shows Obama and McCain at a dead heat right now - CNN shows Obama with a sizeable lead - like, if you take your impressionable internet savvy generation and use them as a benchmark, after shoving Obamamania 24x7 on them, I guess that is what the polls will look like. I'm really disappointed how biased CNN really is. But it kinda sucks, since as we don't have cable, the online stream from CNN is really the only way we can watch the convention.
For Pete's sake, did they watch their own convention? Obama, Biden and company were not only spewing out snide remarks about the Republicans, but they ridiculed John McCain as well. So it's OK for the Democrats to insult and rant about their opponents, but when the Republicans address their criticisms and push back, it's now below the belt? Biden's "scrappiness" is generally considered a positive for him, yet if Palin provides the same level (if not more) of being aggressive, it is now wrong? Give me a break. For all the liberal whining about double standards for men and women, let me tell you that they should practice what they preach for a change.
Palin showed in her speech tonight that she wasn't afraid to scrap, and while I will admit, Obama and Biden have been muted in their comments on Palin, I suspect it was because they wanted to tread carefully for fear of sexism, to handle the initial response to her delicately because she is a woman. I seriously believe had she been a man, they would have torn into her at the outset. But Palin is not afraid to call a spade a spade, which may not win her friends, but like everything else, honesty and integrity will earn respect. That doesn't mean everyone will agree with you, but it means that they know where you stand and that you are consistent.
Critics will say that Palin did not provide much detail about her plan and provide solution specifics - that is true. I don't know if she has a good grasp of McCain's vision, after only 5 days or so of being chosen as his running mate, but whether she did or not is beside the point - I think even if I had McCain's plan committed to memory, I think it would not be proper for the VP candidate to spell out the plan - after all, that sort of takes the limelight away from the presidential candidate, who happens to be making his speech the following night.
Calling her McCain's attack dog is demeaning - it implies she can't think for yourself, and you know, for her to be mayor and governor, those aren't exactly jobs that allow for decision delegation. As I said earlier, she is exactly what McCain needs, to balance out his more quieter demeanor. I think that Palin's presence and her personality will fire up people who think and vote conservatively, but are afraid to let their voice known. I think McCain made an exception choice in choosing her over, say, Mitt Romney. Case in point - my wife, who was watching the speeches with me, indicated that of all the speeches, she absolutely detested Romney's (well, the Hawaii governor's speech was the worst in terms of monotone delivery and lack of excitement and frequent unnecessary pauses). My wife thought Romney sounded too slick and was the caricature of a slimy politician. I don't think that she's that off there. Romney (who was one of the folks on McCain's shortlist for VP) - could you imagine him as the VP candidate - no one would believe anything he was saying - in fact, folks in the crowd were not even paying attention.
I thought Palin's speech really brought out the fact that she was just like everyone else, with her own set of challenges and joys and disappointments. I think she did a good job in introducing herself to the masses, but not spending the whole time in doing so. She highlighted her experience and wasted no time in punching back at the criticisms leveled toward her so-called "lack of experience" that the media and left-wingers seem to be happy dishing out.
Now, speaking of which, my thoughts on the rest of the speeches...or least what I caught starting at around 8:30PM EST.
Carly Fiorina - well, didn't think much of the speech. Didn't draw me at all. Being the former CEO of any company doesn't impress me much - knowing that they got millions of dollars of severance on termination doesn't sit well with me. So I don't have much to say about former eBay CEO Meg Whitman's speech either (I am hating eBay more and more every day and the direction it's going, away from auctions). Mitt Romney's speech I could have done without - he said nothing substantive, and that freaking grin on his face annoyed both my wife and I.
I absolutely loved Mike Huckabee's speech. But that shouldn't be a surprise seeing that I supported him (financially) during the primaries. So for those who say that it's silly for me to comment on any of this being that I am from Canada, is hogwash. I can still contribute to their campaigns and being on several U.S. political forums, I can certainly "spread the word" as a foot soldier for the campaign. Anyway, Huckabee's speech, as usual, was full of animation, tons of humour, and ended with a very positive and moving story about military service and freedoms. Possibly one of the best speeches of the night.
Rudy Giuliani's speech - I'd say that was a good attack speech, but it did come out as a bit more negative and scare tactics. But you know, it's like if someone was insulting your wife or friend or family member - unless you had no balls, you certainly wouldn't take it lying down. I know I won't - and if I say something that ends up hurting someone's feelings - oh well. We need more people to tell it like it is, and less wussies who try to employ every sensitivity tactic in the sun. Not sure if the U.S. electorate would appreciate negativity like that. But I thought several parts were brilliant and funny at the same time, while speaking truth. But all that being said, I think you can be aggressive, but there are times when overdoing sarcasm may not exactly aid your argument. I suspect that the Giuliani speech was one of those times. Romney, Giuliani, Huckabee, and Lieberman yesterday as well as others have all come to the defence of Palin, against the liberal media and Democrats who have been trying to bash her for the past few days. Good to see them standing side-by-side with their colleagues.
Worst speech of the night was by Linda Lingle (I think that was her name), governor of Hawaii. Yikes, what a bad speech - I thought she was the set up person for Palin - thank goodness she wasn't. Her speech about Palin was monotone, and paused way too frequently to expect applause - and the crowd was seemingly getting tired of the forced applause from this monotonous speaker who was very robotic in her delivery. I heard later that they had to cut out the video intro for Palin due to time, and this, I think, was a major mistake, since video intros are generally received well, invoke an emotional response and right then and there the candidate walks out. Give them credit - the Democrats executed this exceptionally well with the Biden and Obama intros. I only hope that they do one for McCain. But they should have considered Lingle's speaking style, what time of night she would have to speak, and then probably put her on a different day - maybe she was set to go on Monday's lineup, which was (rightfully) shortened due to Hurricane Gustav.
Tomorrow's speech by McCain will, I think, be the most important speech he will ever make.
P.S. I gotta say, the CNN coverage is OK, but man, they are so in Obama's camp, it's not funny. I mean, really, they screen their boards to only put through comments that either praise the Democrats or slam the Republicans. And their polling is biased as well - look at other news site polls - it shows Obama and McCain at a dead heat right now - CNN shows Obama with a sizeable lead - like, if you take your impressionable internet savvy generation and use them as a benchmark, after shoving Obamamania 24x7 on them, I guess that is what the polls will look like. I'm really disappointed how biased CNN really is. But it kinda sucks, since as we don't have cable, the online stream from CNN is really the only way we can watch the convention.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Sarah Palin - A Great Choice for The U.S. Republican Vice-Presidential Nominee
For hardcore social conservatives like me, I have always been a bit wary of John McCain. To me, while he may be a fiscal conservative, his social conservative stances leave a lot to be desired. And whether you agree with me or not, ask yourself this – would you want to have a leader follow his or her convictions consistently, not waffling on issues or staying on the fence, even if you may not agree with his/her positions. For me, I have great respect for some liberals with whom I vociferously disagree, but admire the fact that they hold to their positions consistently, despite the environment in which they find themselves or the political climate in general. McCain, to me, is not one of those people, although I will grant that he is a very sincere person, but given a choice between him and Obama, it’s a pretty clear choice – Obama is full of empty promises and while this may not be that well reported in the national press (ie. CNN is decidedly biased towards anything Obama), there are lots of discussion forums where disgruntled citizens of Illinois have candidly stated that he has nothing relatively nothing for them, since he has had his eyes on being the presidential nominee rather than focus on the job at hand. That’s why I like guys like Bobby Jindal, the governor of Louisiana, who was on McCain’s shortlist to be VP, but expressed that he was elected to be governor of Louisiana and that’s what he’s going to focus on. Saying no to a VP spot may not necessarily be the wisest move long-term, from a political perspective, but I admire Jindal’s dedication to this constituents.
So McCain’s choice of VP would have been very important to alleviate the fears and concerns of social conservatives. For all the Obama-maniacs who seem to let the fanfare and the hype drive their thinking rather than logic and common sense, they would dismiss social conservatives as having any relevance. But let’s face it, groups like Focus on the Family have a lot of sway to American conservative voters. Groups like the NRA have contributed decisively to the success (or lack thereof) of a particular candidate. It is not popular to be a conservative these days, so most people don’t go around confessing their conservative views. Liberals have suggested that McCain's rally later today (introducing his running mate, among other things) will not draw many people. I suspect that there will be much more than the 15,000 that are expected to attend. Conservatives tend to come out when it counts and not the flashy spectacles that liberals are famous for.
So it absolutely delights me that John McCain has chosen Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his 2008 Vice-Presidential running mate earlier today. Now, the comments from liberals and democrats have already started to pour in. They think that McCain chose her because she is a woman. They think McCain chose her to appease Hillary supporters. Of course, if you think with her emotions rather than with your brain, you will come to this conclusion. But while I think that having a female on a ticket may show that McCain is sensitive to the fact that women are just as integral to the ballot box as men are, I think that the real reason that he chose her is because she is the truest conservative of all of the potential candidates vetted for the VP spot (with the exception of Mike Huckabee, who would be a great choice, but has been known to put his foot in his mouth at the wrong time). That balances out McCain’s clearly noticeable weakness with socially conservative voters. I think it's pretty insulting to Palin to suggest that she was chosen JUST because she is a woman.
Now, the other argument coming from the democratic camp is the lack of experience card. Sure, McCain railed against Obama for his lack of experience, but I think we're not talking about the same thing here. Obama is running for President. Palin is running for Vice-President. With the exception of Dick Cheney, many of the vice-presidents have had more or less a hands-off approach on a daily basis, working behind the scenes instead. This gives a great opportunity to learn the job behind the scenes. The presidency, however, is no place to learn on the job, since you are constantly in view and mistakes are magnified. Now, I know the other argument that comes from this and it is a valid one - given McCain's age (70-something), what if he croaks or is incapacited - will Palin be able to fill the role of Comamnder-in-Chief? Maybe. Maybe not. But they also said that she was too young to be a mayor at 32, too young and inexperienced to run as a state governor against a multi-term incumbent and yet she still won. Remember, Palin does have political experience in leadership in different capacities for the past 10 years or so - which is more than I can say for community activist - turned senator - Obama. I think that McCain chose wisely due to her staunch and unwavering conservative record and beliefs. She is an evangelical born again Christian, is decisively pro-life, and is a lifetime member of the NRA. Whether you agree with her or not, there's no way in hell you can mistake her as a liberal (unlike Tom Ridge, and Joe Lieberman, some other candidates in the running). Tim Pawlenty would have been a great choice too, but Palin's positions on issues is strongly known.
All that being said, she has a tough road ahead, especially in how she will prepare to debate the veteran Joe Biden (who by the way, I will concede was a decent choice by Obama, much better than Hillary Clinton). Will Biden eat her alive on foreign relations issues? Possibly. She can't come up with 30+ years of experience in a month or two - but in seeing her on interviews and such, she is a very articulate politician and has bucked the odds, so I certainly wouldn't discount that she can hold her own.
Having such a strong conservative on the ticket instantly strengthens McCain's viability. It should be very interesting in the days and months ahead. While you will never hear this on CNN, independent polling nationally in the U.S. actually puts McCain ahead of Obama right now. CNN and other liberal establishments put Obama slightly ahead, but if you look at the actual state-by-state totals and how they are made up, you can see that CNN is finding opportunities to inflate some numbers. Even the CNN number have shown a decreasing trend in support for Obama since the primaries ended, and it's gone down even more since he did not make Hillary his running mate (I think this will come back to haunt Obama, even though I think that Biden was and is the better choice).
While I've already sent McCain's campaign several contributions, I'll scrape up some more cash in the days ahead to show my approval for this most excellent pick.
McCain/Palin '08!!!!!
So McCain’s choice of VP would have been very important to alleviate the fears and concerns of social conservatives. For all the Obama-maniacs who seem to let the fanfare and the hype drive their thinking rather than logic and common sense, they would dismiss social conservatives as having any relevance. But let’s face it, groups like Focus on the Family have a lot of sway to American conservative voters. Groups like the NRA have contributed decisively to the success (or lack thereof) of a particular candidate. It is not popular to be a conservative these days, so most people don’t go around confessing their conservative views. Liberals have suggested that McCain's rally later today (introducing his running mate, among other things) will not draw many people. I suspect that there will be much more than the 15,000 that are expected to attend. Conservatives tend to come out when it counts and not the flashy spectacles that liberals are famous for.
So it absolutely delights me that John McCain has chosen Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his 2008 Vice-Presidential running mate earlier today. Now, the comments from liberals and democrats have already started to pour in. They think that McCain chose her because she is a woman. They think McCain chose her to appease Hillary supporters. Of course, if you think with her emotions rather than with your brain, you will come to this conclusion. But while I think that having a female on a ticket may show that McCain is sensitive to the fact that women are just as integral to the ballot box as men are, I think that the real reason that he chose her is because she is the truest conservative of all of the potential candidates vetted for the VP spot (with the exception of Mike Huckabee, who would be a great choice, but has been known to put his foot in his mouth at the wrong time). That balances out McCain’s clearly noticeable weakness with socially conservative voters. I think it's pretty insulting to Palin to suggest that she was chosen JUST because she is a woman.
Now, the other argument coming from the democratic camp is the lack of experience card. Sure, McCain railed against Obama for his lack of experience, but I think we're not talking about the same thing here. Obama is running for President. Palin is running for Vice-President. With the exception of Dick Cheney, many of the vice-presidents have had more or less a hands-off approach on a daily basis, working behind the scenes instead. This gives a great opportunity to learn the job behind the scenes. The presidency, however, is no place to learn on the job, since you are constantly in view and mistakes are magnified. Now, I know the other argument that comes from this and it is a valid one - given McCain's age (70-something), what if he croaks or is incapacited - will Palin be able to fill the role of Comamnder-in-Chief? Maybe. Maybe not. But they also said that she was too young to be a mayor at 32, too young and inexperienced to run as a state governor against a multi-term incumbent and yet she still won. Remember, Palin does have political experience in leadership in different capacities for the past 10 years or so - which is more than I can say for community activist - turned senator - Obama. I think that McCain chose wisely due to her staunch and unwavering conservative record and beliefs. She is an evangelical born again Christian, is decisively pro-life, and is a lifetime member of the NRA. Whether you agree with her or not, there's no way in hell you can mistake her as a liberal (unlike Tom Ridge, and Joe Lieberman, some other candidates in the running). Tim Pawlenty would have been a great choice too, but Palin's positions on issues is strongly known.
All that being said, she has a tough road ahead, especially in how she will prepare to debate the veteran Joe Biden (who by the way, I will concede was a decent choice by Obama, much better than Hillary Clinton). Will Biden eat her alive on foreign relations issues? Possibly. She can't come up with 30+ years of experience in a month or two - but in seeing her on interviews and such, she is a very articulate politician and has bucked the odds, so I certainly wouldn't discount that she can hold her own.
Having such a strong conservative on the ticket instantly strengthens McCain's viability. It should be very interesting in the days and months ahead. While you will never hear this on CNN, independent polling nationally in the U.S. actually puts McCain ahead of Obama right now. CNN and other liberal establishments put Obama slightly ahead, but if you look at the actual state-by-state totals and how they are made up, you can see that CNN is finding opportunities to inflate some numbers. Even the CNN number have shown a decreasing trend in support for Obama since the primaries ended, and it's gone down even more since he did not make Hillary his running mate (I think this will come back to haunt Obama, even though I think that Biden was and is the better choice).
While I've already sent McCain's campaign several contributions, I'll scrape up some more cash in the days ahead to show my approval for this most excellent pick.
McCain/Palin '08!!!!!
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Man, Do I Dislike Hillary Clinton
So, the big contest on Tuesday is over, with Hillary Clinton seemingly bouncing back, even though Barack Obama is still leading in pledged delegates and overall delegates. In looking over the exit polls, I gotta tell ya - the Hispanic vote is killing Obama - look at Texas alone - most whites voted for Clinton, most blacks voted for Obama. And with a sizeable Hispanic population, latinos (and latinas) voted overwhelmingly for Clinton. This is really what contributed to Clinton winning California. I'm not sure why Hispanics don't seem to like Obama (or why they seem to like Clinton so much - could be their infatuation with Bill previously). I originally thought that the voting patterns would be more or less split among white/black racial lines, but in looking at predominantly "white" states (Iowa, Utah, Idaho, etc.) backing Obama, I don't think there's much credence in arguing that race is a component - at least not for the historical black/white relationship.
Still, in watching Obama and Clinton over the past few months, I have definitely come to one conclusion and one conclusion only: Hillary Clinton is really annoying. Her whiny, fake, bitchy voice, especially during debates, makes fingernails on a chalkboard sound like a classical masterpiece. Her dirty tactics, especially as of late, in how she has really been making personal attacks on Obama's experience and character, show the shallow, selfish, egotistical human being that she is. And of course, after winning the Ohio primary and barely winning Texas, she remarks that Ohio has decided that she is the better candidate, so therefore she should be on the ballot, should there be a "super ticket" where Clinton and Obama will be campaigning together against John McCain, who handily won the Republican nomination by capturing more than the needed delegates to be the presumptive nominee in November.
It's interesting that Clinton is now thinking about a super ticket with Obama, but with her being the presidential candidate and Obama being a VP. Not only do I believe this to be highly unlikely (since Clinton has bashed Obama recently, so why Obama would want to team up with her is anyone's guess, as well as Bill Clinton being the unofficial VP if Hillary wins), but I think that it will be destructive to Obama's political future. As a guy who stands for change and have campaigned on the same platform, accepting a partnership with Hillary is like the allies accepting trade with axis countries during World War II times. Not to mention, it is highly pretentious for Hillary to even suggest this, considering that Obama still retains a fairly decent lead in delegates. Right now, she is positioning herself to consider forming an alliance with Obama, since doing otherwise will fracture the party before the party convention in Denver (in August, I believe). I can sort of see why she would consider such an option, since McCain is ready to start planning and if the Democrats continue to slosh it out to see who would come up victorious in August, that only gives them a few months before the general election to prepare. I personally think that Hillary will entertain having Obama on the ticket, as long as she is on top. I seriously doubt that, Obama, on the other hand, would even consider having Hillary on the ticket. Her ego is too big anyway, but moreover, she is way too polarizing of a figure to be on a "change" ticket. Obama's best choice would probably be John Edwards. Of course, she will spin it in a way to show that by winning a big state like Ohio (where in certain parts, economic times are tough and Hillary has capitalized on it, not to mention the recent negative ads against Obama), she can win the general election. What she won't emphasize is that Obama is won more states and more diverse states - it's as if she thinks that the only states that should count are the ones that she has won.
Which leads me to discuss her latest stupid suggestion - that the stripped delegates for Florida and Michigan should count. You may know that the DNC stripped both States of their delegates after both states broke party rules and pushed up their primary dates. Of course, almost all of the candidates, including Obama, respected the DNC rules and did not campaign in these states (Obama's name was not even on the Michigan ballot). The primary voting was in Hillary's favour. But the DNC rightfully stood on principle and rejected the results, not counting them. But now Clinton is appealing to the states and the DNC to reconsider, and is making some pretty weak arguments suggesting that by ignoring the results (which were flawed to begin with) would be to silence a voice in two big states. Of course, Howard Dean, the head of the DNC, has stood firm, indicating that why should the states that observed and followed party rules be penalized in allowing rogue primary states' results to count? Besides, since most candidates did not campaign there, I can't see why they would even recognize the results. This is just another desperation attempt by a desperate woman to put her own ambition over what is for the best of her party and country. I am not fond of Obama, but I dislike Hillary much more. I hope she loses badly to Obama and goes back to scheming with husband Bill on ways to ruin the U.S.
Now, a word on John McCain. I've said this before and I'll say it again - I'm not crazy about him. Commentators have remarked on how he is not really a true conservative, and I tend to agree. I'm surprised that Bush has recently endorsed, him, seeing as how he has disagreed with Bush on many policy items. Then again, the Republicans are likely showing a clear contrast between them (who are showing a uniting type of mindset) and the Democrats, who are still embroiled in in-fighting in trying to determine who the party's nominee will be. I personally would have loved to see Mike Huckabee win, but I think after Super Tuesday, it was a foregone conclusion that he would have a real uphill battle to even come close to McCain (Mitt Romney likely realized this earlier and dropped out at that point). But to Huckabee's credit, he stayed in, stayed principled, and showed a humourous and personal side, which is nice to see in politicians. I will be forever proud to wear my "Mike Huckabee in '08" t-shirt that I bought. Huckabee's future is a bright one, I believe, as this experience has exposed him to many new fans and supporters. Of course, Huckabee is probably way too right wing for the American public to bear, whereas McCain is clearly a centrist, and therein lies his appeal to right of center democrats and left of center conservatives. I am not sure how effective McCain will be, but at age 70, I doubt that there's a whole lot left in the tank for a full two terms. His pick of a running mate will be that much more important, and I believe he will pick a younger guy (or gal) to run with him. Possibly Bobby Jindal, very recently minted Governor of Louisiana (who would have thought that a 36-year-old Indian dude would become governor of a deep south state) - Jindal is a really staunch conservative, pro-life, pro-guns (for a visible minority to have an A+ and A rating from the NRA and Gun Owners of America, is pretty damn impressive), and is intelligent and articulate (born in Louisiana, he even has the natural southern drawl). I would love to see Huckabee as VP, but I'm not sure that will happen. But I think McCain needs to select a proven full-credentials conservative, likely someone who appeals to evangelicals, in order to ensure that he does not alienate this large voting block. Condoleeza Rice would be a good choice, especially given the fact that his opponent will be Obama or Clinton.
Still, in watching Obama and Clinton over the past few months, I have definitely come to one conclusion and one conclusion only: Hillary Clinton is really annoying. Her whiny, fake, bitchy voice, especially during debates, makes fingernails on a chalkboard sound like a classical masterpiece. Her dirty tactics, especially as of late, in how she has really been making personal attacks on Obama's experience and character, show the shallow, selfish, egotistical human being that she is. And of course, after winning the Ohio primary and barely winning Texas, she remarks that Ohio has decided that she is the better candidate, so therefore she should be on the ballot, should there be a "super ticket" where Clinton and Obama will be campaigning together against John McCain, who handily won the Republican nomination by capturing more than the needed delegates to be the presumptive nominee in November.
It's interesting that Clinton is now thinking about a super ticket with Obama, but with her being the presidential candidate and Obama being a VP. Not only do I believe this to be highly unlikely (since Clinton has bashed Obama recently, so why Obama would want to team up with her is anyone's guess, as well as Bill Clinton being the unofficial VP if Hillary wins), but I think that it will be destructive to Obama's political future. As a guy who stands for change and have campaigned on the same platform, accepting a partnership with Hillary is like the allies accepting trade with axis countries during World War II times. Not to mention, it is highly pretentious for Hillary to even suggest this, considering that Obama still retains a fairly decent lead in delegates. Right now, she is positioning herself to consider forming an alliance with Obama, since doing otherwise will fracture the party before the party convention in Denver (in August, I believe). I can sort of see why she would consider such an option, since McCain is ready to start planning and if the Democrats continue to slosh it out to see who would come up victorious in August, that only gives them a few months before the general election to prepare. I personally think that Hillary will entertain having Obama on the ticket, as long as she is on top. I seriously doubt that, Obama, on the other hand, would even consider having Hillary on the ticket. Her ego is too big anyway, but moreover, she is way too polarizing of a figure to be on a "change" ticket. Obama's best choice would probably be John Edwards. Of course, she will spin it in a way to show that by winning a big state like Ohio (where in certain parts, economic times are tough and Hillary has capitalized on it, not to mention the recent negative ads against Obama), she can win the general election. What she won't emphasize is that Obama is won more states and more diverse states - it's as if she thinks that the only states that should count are the ones that she has won.
Which leads me to discuss her latest stupid suggestion - that the stripped delegates for Florida and Michigan should count. You may know that the DNC stripped both States of their delegates after both states broke party rules and pushed up their primary dates. Of course, almost all of the candidates, including Obama, respected the DNC rules and did not campaign in these states (Obama's name was not even on the Michigan ballot). The primary voting was in Hillary's favour. But the DNC rightfully stood on principle and rejected the results, not counting them. But now Clinton is appealing to the states and the DNC to reconsider, and is making some pretty weak arguments suggesting that by ignoring the results (which were flawed to begin with) would be to silence a voice in two big states. Of course, Howard Dean, the head of the DNC, has stood firm, indicating that why should the states that observed and followed party rules be penalized in allowing rogue primary states' results to count? Besides, since most candidates did not campaign there, I can't see why they would even recognize the results. This is just another desperation attempt by a desperate woman to put her own ambition over what is for the best of her party and country. I am not fond of Obama, but I dislike Hillary much more. I hope she loses badly to Obama and goes back to scheming with husband Bill on ways to ruin the U.S.
Now, a word on John McCain. I've said this before and I'll say it again - I'm not crazy about him. Commentators have remarked on how he is not really a true conservative, and I tend to agree. I'm surprised that Bush has recently endorsed, him, seeing as how he has disagreed with Bush on many policy items. Then again, the Republicans are likely showing a clear contrast between them (who are showing a uniting type of mindset) and the Democrats, who are still embroiled in in-fighting in trying to determine who the party's nominee will be. I personally would have loved to see Mike Huckabee win, but I think after Super Tuesday, it was a foregone conclusion that he would have a real uphill battle to even come close to McCain (Mitt Romney likely realized this earlier and dropped out at that point). But to Huckabee's credit, he stayed in, stayed principled, and showed a humourous and personal side, which is nice to see in politicians. I will be forever proud to wear my "Mike Huckabee in '08" t-shirt that I bought. Huckabee's future is a bright one, I believe, as this experience has exposed him to many new fans and supporters. Of course, Huckabee is probably way too right wing for the American public to bear, whereas McCain is clearly a centrist, and therein lies his appeal to right of center democrats and left of center conservatives. I am not sure how effective McCain will be, but at age 70, I doubt that there's a whole lot left in the tank for a full two terms. His pick of a running mate will be that much more important, and I believe he will pick a younger guy (or gal) to run with him. Possibly Bobby Jindal, very recently minted Governor of Louisiana (who would have thought that a 36-year-old Indian dude would become governor of a deep south state) - Jindal is a really staunch conservative, pro-life, pro-guns (for a visible minority to have an A+ and A rating from the NRA and Gun Owners of America, is pretty damn impressive), and is intelligent and articulate (born in Louisiana, he even has the natural southern drawl). I would love to see Huckabee as VP, but I'm not sure that will happen. But I think McCain needs to select a proven full-credentials conservative, likely someone who appeals to evangelicals, in order to ensure that he does not alienate this large voting block. Condoleeza Rice would be a good choice, especially given the fact that his opponent will be Obama or Clinton.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Digesting Super Tuesday in the U.S. and Beyond
Well, what a week - aside from the New York Giants beating my at-the-time undefeated New England Patriots, this week had lots of excitement from the U.S. political front with Super Tuesday results. I wasn't feeling well that evening, so unfortunately, I didn't get a chance to follow the web results as they flowed in. Though I got up in the middle of the night to grab a Pepto-Bismol and quickly glanced at the results.
Not really terribly surprised at the end results. Clinton won the big states of California and New York, and still maintains a slim lead over Obama, who to my surprised, won more States than Clinton, and even more surprising, won several predominantly "white" states. Now, after his Iowa caucus win, in a state that is something like 97% white, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. But he pulled off wins in other states which I don't think are chok-full-of minorities (Idaho and Utah, for example). In analyzing exit poll information, I think Clinton is surviving based on the Latino vote from the big states (now, why the Latino vote seems to be overwhelmingly in Clinton's favour is another topic for another time - I can't tell you why right now). Now, that being said, I equally acknowledge that Obama is winning semi-big states like Georgia and South Carolina based on the extremely high percentage of black voters supporting him (we're talking 80-90%). However, the fact that Obama can win white states should make Clinton leery. Personally, while I am not a Democratic supporter (actually, I can't even vote in the U.S. election, as I don't live there, even though I give money towards the Huckabee campaign, the Brownback campaign, and many years ago, the Bush/Cheney ticket), I would prefer to see Obama win over Hillary - and that, despite the fact that I have one of the books that Hillary wrote signed by her, that I continue to use as an investment vehicle. Clinton recently revealed that she gave 5 million bucks of her own money towards her campaign - if she's running out of cash in your war chest, this is the wrong time. There are a few primaries today and several more on Tuesday. We'll see how it goes.
Enough on Democrats. On the Repulicans side, John McCain came out the clear winner, winning the big States and several other ones. Romney won a few, but could not compete. And in a growing movement against McCain, conservatives have (rightfully) gathered around Huckabee to provide him some "upset" wins over Romney for the conservative wing. Now, to my surprise, Romney dropped out a couple of days ago. Yes, he was trailing McCain badly, but was ahead of Huckabee. But I think he knew that he'd be taken to task on his flip-flopping positions over the years (ie. claiming to be pro-guns though he joined the NRA only in 2006). McCain is and would beat him hands down. But don't discount Huckabee though - I know conservatives (myself included) are not happy with McCain - he is not as socially conservative as I'd like, but his moderate positions are likely helping him get support from voters in generally liberal states like New York and California. The deep southern states more or less supported Huckabee. Unfortunately, I don't think the vast majority of Republicans these days are social conservatives, so I think that as much as I'd like to see Huckabee win, it will likely be McCain. And if it was between McCain and Clinton, I think McCain would win. Between Obama and McCain? Not sure about that one - Obama is actually similar to McCain in terms of reaching across party lines. Obama's wife Michelle would be a great first lady - she has the poise and confidence and does not look as "fake" as McCain's wife Cindy. But between McCain and Obama...not sure who I'd pick. Probably would still go with McCain since he's never pretended to be anything other than a moderate, so at least he's honest (unlike Romney). Obama has some positions I am not comfortable with (ie. gay unions, etc.), and he is way too focussed on Iraq.
I see that for whatever reason, Mike Gravel of the Democrats is still officially in the running. Why, I don't know - he neither has any delegates or superdelegates supporting him. He's won nothing - he isn't even being invited to debates. At least Ron Paul (who is not doing great, but I'm glad is still running) has not dropped out yet, but I would think that will change pretty soon. But as mentioned previously, Paul is a rabidly pro-homeschooler, and I am rabidly anti-homeschooling. Not to mention Paul also focusses too much on Iraq (which, like it or not, does not have an easy solution - sure, you can say pull out now, but consider all the logistical, geo-political, and local issues that will cause in Iraq).
OK, let's stop talking about the U.S. On the Canadian side, I recently became a bit disillusioned with my conservative federal government (who I support financially and of which I am a member) - they decided it was a good idea to send a Chinese New Year card to anyone who has an Asian sounding last name (or who indicated their ethnic status on their last census form, but that is unlikely). I am of Asian background and am ethnically Chinese, though I celebrate Chinese New Year as a general family get together for food and such, and not much more. I would think that I'd receive one of these cards from Prime Minister Harper and family. But nooo...my wife, who is not Asian, gets the Happy Chinese New Year card and I get zippo. This adds additional insult to injury to me, as last year, my wife and I took this wacky online "How Asian Are You?" test. She scored 78% Asian, while I scored 46%. Ah, what can you do...
Not really terribly surprised at the end results. Clinton won the big states of California and New York, and still maintains a slim lead over Obama, who to my surprised, won more States than Clinton, and even more surprising, won several predominantly "white" states. Now, after his Iowa caucus win, in a state that is something like 97% white, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. But he pulled off wins in other states which I don't think are chok-full-of minorities (Idaho and Utah, for example). In analyzing exit poll information, I think Clinton is surviving based on the Latino vote from the big states (now, why the Latino vote seems to be overwhelmingly in Clinton's favour is another topic for another time - I can't tell you why right now). Now, that being said, I equally acknowledge that Obama is winning semi-big states like Georgia and South Carolina based on the extremely high percentage of black voters supporting him (we're talking 80-90%). However, the fact that Obama can win white states should make Clinton leery. Personally, while I am not a Democratic supporter (actually, I can't even vote in the U.S. election, as I don't live there, even though I give money towards the Huckabee campaign, the Brownback campaign, and many years ago, the Bush/Cheney ticket), I would prefer to see Obama win over Hillary - and that, despite the fact that I have one of the books that Hillary wrote signed by her, that I continue to use as an investment vehicle. Clinton recently revealed that she gave 5 million bucks of her own money towards her campaign - if she's running out of cash in your war chest, this is the wrong time. There are a few primaries today and several more on Tuesday. We'll see how it goes.
Enough on Democrats. On the Repulicans side, John McCain came out the clear winner, winning the big States and several other ones. Romney won a few, but could not compete. And in a growing movement against McCain, conservatives have (rightfully) gathered around Huckabee to provide him some "upset" wins over Romney for the conservative wing. Now, to my surprise, Romney dropped out a couple of days ago. Yes, he was trailing McCain badly, but was ahead of Huckabee. But I think he knew that he'd be taken to task on his flip-flopping positions over the years (ie. claiming to be pro-guns though he joined the NRA only in 2006). McCain is and would beat him hands down. But don't discount Huckabee though - I know conservatives (myself included) are not happy with McCain - he is not as socially conservative as I'd like, but his moderate positions are likely helping him get support from voters in generally liberal states like New York and California. The deep southern states more or less supported Huckabee. Unfortunately, I don't think the vast majority of Republicans these days are social conservatives, so I think that as much as I'd like to see Huckabee win, it will likely be McCain. And if it was between McCain and Clinton, I think McCain would win. Between Obama and McCain? Not sure about that one - Obama is actually similar to McCain in terms of reaching across party lines. Obama's wife Michelle would be a great first lady - she has the poise and confidence and does not look as "fake" as McCain's wife Cindy. But between McCain and Obama...not sure who I'd pick. Probably would still go with McCain since he's never pretended to be anything other than a moderate, so at least he's honest (unlike Romney). Obama has some positions I am not comfortable with (ie. gay unions, etc.), and he is way too focussed on Iraq.
I see that for whatever reason, Mike Gravel of the Democrats is still officially in the running. Why, I don't know - he neither has any delegates or superdelegates supporting him. He's won nothing - he isn't even being invited to debates. At least Ron Paul (who is not doing great, but I'm glad is still running) has not dropped out yet, but I would think that will change pretty soon. But as mentioned previously, Paul is a rabidly pro-homeschooler, and I am rabidly anti-homeschooling. Not to mention Paul also focusses too much on Iraq (which, like it or not, does not have an easy solution - sure, you can say pull out now, but consider all the logistical, geo-political, and local issues that will cause in Iraq).
OK, let's stop talking about the U.S. On the Canadian side, I recently became a bit disillusioned with my conservative federal government (who I support financially and of which I am a member) - they decided it was a good idea to send a Chinese New Year card to anyone who has an Asian sounding last name (or who indicated their ethnic status on their last census form, but that is unlikely). I am of Asian background and am ethnically Chinese, though I celebrate Chinese New Year as a general family get together for food and such, and not much more. I would think that I'd receive one of these cards from Prime Minister Harper and family. But nooo...my wife, who is not Asian, gets the Happy Chinese New Year card and I get zippo. This adds additional insult to injury to me, as last year, my wife and I took this wacky online "How Asian Are You?" test. She scored 78% Asian, while I scored 46%. Ah, what can you do...
Saturday, January 26, 2008
So...Barack Obama wins in South Carolina
Seems like a lot more press is dedicated to the Democratic race, particularly between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Last week, I managed to catch the webcast of the latest debate (it was only just the two of them and John Edwards - no Mike Gravel - not sure why he hasn't dropped out yet - and Dennis Kucinich has since dropped off the ballot), and I managed to convince my wife to watch the last half-hour with me and then she saw some of the highlights...she said the same thing as I was thinking - Clinton comes off as very pompous and incredibly fake. I don't question Edwards' sincerity (and I like his stance against gay marriage) and Obama exudes confidence yet is humble at the same time. Clinton- there's something about her aura - she appears wooden, aloof, and not incredibly warm. When another candidate gets under her skin, she starts to show her true self. It's kind of weird...for a woman, she doesn't seem to have many feminine qualities - she seems like she's really trying hard to act like a man...but I digress. I hope Clinton doesn't win, regardless, but I'm not a Democrat or a left winger, so when it comes down to it, I couldn't care less which Democrat wins. On the other hand, I do have a copy of one of Hillary Clinton's books, signed by her (it's an investment vehicle, nothing more). If she gets the nomination, it'd be a good time to flip that book for some cash.
Anyhow, Obama wins South Carolina. Can't say I'm surprised. As much as people try to take race out of the picture when it comes to constituency, you can't really avoid it when you see that Oprah (who is black, of course) backs Obama, and in state where around half the voters are black, and 80% of them vote for Obama, it's hard not to make those connections or form conclusions. Yes, it was a pleasant surprise to see Obama win Iowa, a state with something like 97% white folks. He's leading in delegates currently, but that's for now - the projections on Super Tuesday (Feb. 5) seems to indicate that Clinton will be in the lead (with big states like New York and California seemingly being pro-Clinton) this time next month. But then again, Obama has garnered some big name supporters like former presidential candidate John Kerry and just today, Caroline Kennedy (not sure how strong her influence is, but anyway...)
Now, enough of the Democrats. Guess that's where the heated race is. And I guess people want to see who will triumph - the woman or the black man. But there is another party and on the Republican side, the general feeling is that John McCain seems to be the guy who will be on the Republican ticket this November. I really hope not. Not because he's old (doesn't bother me at all). He's a really, really soft conservative. His positions are fairly centrist, which I'm sure really piss off the conservative evangelical segment of voters. I can understand completely, and it is for that reason that I hope that Mike Huckabee wins. Even though I'm not an American, I donated to Huckabee's campaign just about a month ago. Ron Paul is an interesting choice, but not really a factor, despite the internet support - I find that he's a bit too libertarian for my liking and I am not crazy about his pro-home-schooling positions. Not to mention his views on an immediate pullout in Iraq (which is neither plausible nor realistic). Thank goodness Giuliani is buried in there and trailing badly - I hope he drops out - he was never a candidate that I could see American conservatives supporting. As for Mitt Romney - I can't seem to read that guy. His NRA gaffe made me go hmmm... (buying votes, anyone? The NRA gave him a crappy rating, anyway), and watching him on interviews - he seems a bit too polished for my liking. At least Huckabee has a sense of humour and is willing to jam with the Tonight Show band, and be himself. Romney seems too much like a typical weasely politician. Plus, his social policies make me ill. McCain needs to make some serious inroads into the conservative grassroots populace if he stands a chance of winning the presidency. When James Dobson doesn't endorse you, you are in trouble if you consider yourself a conservative.
Anyhow, Obama wins South Carolina. Can't say I'm surprised. As much as people try to take race out of the picture when it comes to constituency, you can't really avoid it when you see that Oprah (who is black, of course) backs Obama, and in state where around half the voters are black, and 80% of them vote for Obama, it's hard not to make those connections or form conclusions. Yes, it was a pleasant surprise to see Obama win Iowa, a state with something like 97% white folks. He's leading in delegates currently, but that's for now - the projections on Super Tuesday (Feb. 5) seems to indicate that Clinton will be in the lead (with big states like New York and California seemingly being pro-Clinton) this time next month. But then again, Obama has garnered some big name supporters like former presidential candidate John Kerry and just today, Caroline Kennedy (not sure how strong her influence is, but anyway...)
Now, enough of the Democrats. Guess that's where the heated race is. And I guess people want to see who will triumph - the woman or the black man. But there is another party and on the Republican side, the general feeling is that John McCain seems to be the guy who will be on the Republican ticket this November. I really hope not. Not because he's old (doesn't bother me at all). He's a really, really soft conservative. His positions are fairly centrist, which I'm sure really piss off the conservative evangelical segment of voters. I can understand completely, and it is for that reason that I hope that Mike Huckabee wins. Even though I'm not an American, I donated to Huckabee's campaign just about a month ago. Ron Paul is an interesting choice, but not really a factor, despite the internet support - I find that he's a bit too libertarian for my liking and I am not crazy about his pro-home-schooling positions. Not to mention his views on an immediate pullout in Iraq (which is neither plausible nor realistic). Thank goodness Giuliani is buried in there and trailing badly - I hope he drops out - he was never a candidate that I could see American conservatives supporting. As for Mitt Romney - I can't seem to read that guy. His NRA gaffe made me go hmmm... (buying votes, anyone? The NRA gave him a crappy rating, anyway), and watching him on interviews - he seems a bit too polished for my liking. At least Huckabee has a sense of humour and is willing to jam with the Tonight Show band, and be himself. Romney seems too much like a typical weasely politician. Plus, his social policies make me ill. McCain needs to make some serious inroads into the conservative grassroots populace if he stands a chance of winning the presidency. When James Dobson doesn't endorse you, you are in trouble if you consider yourself a conservative.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
My Picks for RNC and DNC in 2008
I've always had an active interest in Canadian politics, but U.S. politics always seems consistently intriguing (I even have a Bush/Cheney '04 golf shirt that I wear from time to time, though I don't think I'm allowed to wear it into work anymore (too political). Well, none of these people need and introduction, so quickly, here are my picks for who will win the Republican and Democratic conventions and will represent their party in the 2008 U.S. Presidential elections.
DNC:
Hillary Clinton. I am not a fan of Hillary at all, and even though I'm a staunch conservative, part of my essense is being capitalistic and as such, I cashed in on a worthwhile investment - a hand-signed copy of Hillary's book "It Takes a Village". I will sell it once she reaches the apex of her political career and I can get several thousand dollars for it. So from an altruistic sense, I am rooting for her (only so my investment can soar in value)
Why I think she will beat out Barack Obama: Sadly, I don't think that the U.S. is quite ready for a Black prez just yet, pure and simple, despite what TV shows like 24 would have you believe. I think Obama's capable of leadership and while I disagree with almost everything he stands for, I would choose him over Hillary if I had to (she definitely has secret agendas, as her time with Bill has shown). But I think Hillary will win. I don't forsee any other candidates giving these two a run for the money. Yes, even John Edwards - he's a tad too ambitious, in my view - and yes, I feel sympathy for his wife, but he's not one of those "lead by example" types. Plus, I saw him on the 2004 VP debate with Cheney, and Cheney smoked him.
GOP / RNC:
I am lukewarm with the available frontrunner choices. I would go with Sam Brownback in an instant, but we all know that unfortunately, he's not going to win, since he's considered way too conservative/right wing for the mass electorate (last I read, he was at the bottom of the heap). So here's my predictions.
John McCain - Yes, I know that Giuliani is the current frontrunner, but he carries a lot of baggage with him. Failed marriages, a very soft social conservative stance...I doubt he will get the evangelical wing support. I also know while James Dobson and FOTF has stated he will not support McCain, not everyone is a Dobson supporter and McCain does have a distinguished service record for his country. I think this will be trumpeted in the next year. It's too bad Cheney's not running - he would be perfect. I would love to see Condoleeza Rice run, as she would make an awesome prez, but once again, I don't think the U.S. electorate is ready to pick a Black President. Besides, her being a single woman also will probably hurt her if she runs, since I think most Americans would prefer to see a family man or family woman in the white house.
DNC:
Hillary Clinton. I am not a fan of Hillary at all, and even though I'm a staunch conservative, part of my essense is being capitalistic and as such, I cashed in on a worthwhile investment - a hand-signed copy of Hillary's book "It Takes a Village". I will sell it once she reaches the apex of her political career and I can get several thousand dollars for it. So from an altruistic sense, I am rooting for her (only so my investment can soar in value)
Why I think she will beat out Barack Obama: Sadly, I don't think that the U.S. is quite ready for a Black prez just yet, pure and simple, despite what TV shows like 24 would have you believe. I think Obama's capable of leadership and while I disagree with almost everything he stands for, I would choose him over Hillary if I had to (she definitely has secret agendas, as her time with Bill has shown). But I think Hillary will win. I don't forsee any other candidates giving these two a run for the money. Yes, even John Edwards - he's a tad too ambitious, in my view - and yes, I feel sympathy for his wife, but he's not one of those "lead by example" types. Plus, I saw him on the 2004 VP debate with Cheney, and Cheney smoked him.
GOP / RNC:
I am lukewarm with the available frontrunner choices. I would go with Sam Brownback in an instant, but we all know that unfortunately, he's not going to win, since he's considered way too conservative/right wing for the mass electorate (last I read, he was at the bottom of the heap). So here's my predictions.
John McCain - Yes, I know that Giuliani is the current frontrunner, but he carries a lot of baggage with him. Failed marriages, a very soft social conservative stance...I doubt he will get the evangelical wing support. I also know while James Dobson and FOTF has stated he will not support McCain, not everyone is a Dobson supporter and McCain does have a distinguished service record for his country. I think this will be trumpeted in the next year. It's too bad Cheney's not running - he would be perfect. I would love to see Condoleeza Rice run, as she would make an awesome prez, but once again, I don't think the U.S. electorate is ready to pick a Black President. Besides, her being a single woman also will probably hurt her if she runs, since I think most Americans would prefer to see a family man or family woman in the white house.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)