Month: February 2008

It’s BARACK – BA’-ROCK – not “Brock”.

It’s Clin-Ton, not Clin-uhn (i’m guilty here)

It’s EAR-rock, not EYE-rack

It’s EAR-ron, not EYE-ran.

(those are easy to remember, think ears not eyes)

Bonus round: it’s Ahk-meh-din-i-jad. All together now… Ahk-meh-din-i-jad. Negative points will be issued for skipping syllables.

If we’re going to be living with these people for the next 8 years, we might as well get it right.

I have restrained my political postings lately, so I figure it was time to give a quick political update.

Mitt is out.  Whaaa… but I know… we, his supporters, saw it coming eventually.  His actual chances were very slim, and I was even more terrified that if he won the nomination, the Democrats would paint him as a republican version of Flip-Flopper John Kerry and discourage his own party’s base.  Which is exactly what they’ll do to McCain, too.  Yes, it appears the Republicans will continue to implode in the years to come, losing more and more power in Washington, until the public gets sick of the Dems and switches back to the Reps.  (Let’s hope it doesn’t take as many years as the last time they were in power)  I don’t really see any way the Republicans win in the fall, even if there is a national security event.

So lets talk about the Dems:

I was reading an article last night about Hillary’s campaign manager stepping aside, and I thought… hmm… you know Hillary is the first candidate (since maybe “Ike”?) to actively campaign with her first name only.  This is actually important on many levels.

In case you didn’t notice, Hillary is a woman.  And in marriage, she took Bill’s name; a name which truly isn’t totally hers.  Using the name Hillary more accurately represents the woman she’s been her whole life, and disassociates her with “Clinton” ties.

Then there’s the personable-ness of it.  For the candidate with the highest negatives, and the one who people largely feel is cold and uncaring, being on a first-name basis actually works to break down those barriers.  Everyone calls her just Hillary.  I’m not sure there’s been a more famous one-word celebrity since “Prince,” and certainly not in Politics.

For Obama and McCain, her chief rivals, they need only keep the image alive as Bill back in the White House.  This is the one image that makes me personally sick.  I could live through a Hillary Presidency, but having bill traipsing around the East Wing of the White House just makes me quite ill.

In contrast, I look at Obama’s family.  They are just cute as buttons.

I kind of hope that Obama wins the Democratic Nomination.  It would make this November SO much more palatable.  The last thing I want is an all out McCain vs Clinton Old School showdown.  Two old school party hands duking it out so (as Romney put it) they can all go back to Washington just to sit in different seats (and I would add) still get nothing done.

I still can’t say that I would support Obama.  I spent a good deal of time on his website, trying to understand his platform and realistically project what he might accomplish in the next 4 years, given the realities in Washington. He doesn’t spend much time stumping on issues.  Instead, he opts to get the electorate fired up, and then those few Americans who actually care about issues have to go do their own research.

Here are the positives:

• He says he will keep the Bush tax cuts for everyone who makes less than $250,000 (that’s me)
• He supports network neutrality and an open internet.

Negative:

• He doesn’t appear to believe in open market solutions for helping our economy.
• Wants to give people federal grants (my tax $) to refinance their sub-prime mortgages.

I’m still on the fence…

• Wants an immediate draw down of troops from Iraq.  This was a deal breaker for me, because his language had seemed too absolutist, and too anti-war.  This is my same problem with President Bush.  He was too absolutist and unable to articulate the nuance of our current world conditions. However, last night on 60 minutes, when Obama was asked, “what if the situation gets dramatically worse” or “what if sectarian violence gets out of control” his response was, “I always reserve the right as commander in chief to make a military change of strategy.”  This was the even-handedness I was looking for.  We need a Commander in Chief who will end our involvement in these conflicts without allowing the collapse of these fragile governments.
• He has an OK education policy, but I would prefer to see a performance based salaries program for our teachers.
• Doesn’t include deportation as part of his immigration policy, and doesn’t explain how he will legitimize the need for foreign workers. A very incomplete platform here.
• Supports a “National Health Plan” which is basically turns the federal government into an insurance company, which subsidizes those who can’t afford the premium.  People can still own their own private insurance, or apply for the ‘government cheese.’ I’m not putting this in a negative column (yet) because I like the idea of private insurance having compete with low-cost government insurance (even though this could put insurance companies out of business since the gov’t is using tax dollars to subsidize its program).  This still doesn’t address the fact that the government IS the problem in health care today, and they are the primary organization (through Medicare, regulations, and beaurocracy) who are driving the cost of health care up.

So I know this blog was a little ramble-y and fragmented, but I think that reflects my current feelings over the political landscape.  I’m a little lost right now, with no one to guide.  I’m like a boat on the water… blah blah blah…