![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Hopefully, the interminable nomination season is finally over...
Last night, Denise and I watched the three speeches. My, what a contrast. McCain appeared to be speaking to a bare handful of people somewhere near New Orleans. He spoke before a hideous green backdrop, looking cadaverous and unhealthy against the color (someone on his staff needs to be fired for that choice). His occasional smiles looked frozen and false, his body lurched awkwardly as he turned from side-to-side, and his delivery was wooden. Especially at first, he appeared nervous and uncertain, obviously reading from the teleprompters, though later he seemed to get a bit more comfortable. But it was not an example of good speechmaking: rather, it was a rambling leftover stew of stock talking-points and applause lines.
Then Clinton spoke before a large gathering of loyalists in NYC -- and she gave a speech designed for those loyalists. To her credit, at the beginning of the speech she talked of reunifying the party and coming together, but then she proceeded to defuse such hopes. There was no congratulation of Obama for becoming the putative nominee of the party; instead, there was more touting of the states she's won and her claim to have garnered the majority of the popular vote, and a statement that she intended everyone's vote to count (which started a chant of "Denver! Denver!" among her audience.) In the end, she said that she was emphatically not ending her campaign tonight. Her speech was more a final plea to the superdelegates to reconsider. It was, however, a very well-delivered speech, and she showed that she can rouse her followers, and it demonstrated the depths of loyalty among them.
And finally there was Obama. Oh, my... His speech was given to some 17,000 people in a stadium in St. Paul, with (according to CNN) some several thousand people outside. He began with a statement that he would be the Democratic nominee. Then followed a sequence of praise for his fellow campaigners, and long paean to Clinton for her campaign -- he was far more gracious to her than she had been toward him, though I suppose he could afford to be. Then he began to disassemble McCain's speech, tearing it apart point by point. He delineated what "change" meant to him, and he did so in a rousing, inspiring, and fiery speech that had the crowd literally howling by the end. The man can speak -- in fact, I can think of very few better-delivered speeches. He makes people want to believe him. I can't wait to see Obama and McCain debate; the contrast in styles should be interesting...
So hopefully, it's over except for some final faint shouting. Hopefully, sometime in the next few days, Clinton will make the decision to give a concession speech rather than to pursue the incredibly divisive tactic of taking the ruling for Michigan and Florida to the credentials committee. I will say that I've heard some (few) Clinton supporters (and, for the record, both Denise and I voted for Clinton in Ohio's primary) say that they will vote for McCain rather than Obama... Given the incredible political distance between Clinton and McCain, I can only attribute that to blatant racism: Obama is far, far closer to Clinton's views than McCain's -- how could someone who wanted Clinton to be president vote for someone whose views (on abortion, on health care, on social issues, on foreign policy, on economics, on the conduct of war) are so antithetical to hers? I don't understand that at all unless race is the problem.
Now comes the important point: picking VP candidates. It's especially important, I would contend, for McCain, because given his health and age, there is a greater possibility that the veep might become the president, should McCain win the election.
So who do you think they're going to pick?
Last night, Denise and I watched the three speeches. My, what a contrast. McCain appeared to be speaking to a bare handful of people somewhere near New Orleans. He spoke before a hideous green backdrop, looking cadaverous and unhealthy against the color (someone on his staff needs to be fired for that choice). His occasional smiles looked frozen and false, his body lurched awkwardly as he turned from side-to-side, and his delivery was wooden. Especially at first, he appeared nervous and uncertain, obviously reading from the teleprompters, though later he seemed to get a bit more comfortable. But it was not an example of good speechmaking: rather, it was a rambling leftover stew of stock talking-points and applause lines.
Then Clinton spoke before a large gathering of loyalists in NYC -- and she gave a speech designed for those loyalists. To her credit, at the beginning of the speech she talked of reunifying the party and coming together, but then she proceeded to defuse such hopes. There was no congratulation of Obama for becoming the putative nominee of the party; instead, there was more touting of the states she's won and her claim to have garnered the majority of the popular vote, and a statement that she intended everyone's vote to count (which started a chant of "Denver! Denver!" among her audience.) In the end, she said that she was emphatically not ending her campaign tonight. Her speech was more a final plea to the superdelegates to reconsider. It was, however, a very well-delivered speech, and she showed that she can rouse her followers, and it demonstrated the depths of loyalty among them.
And finally there was Obama. Oh, my... His speech was given to some 17,000 people in a stadium in St. Paul, with (according to CNN) some several thousand people outside. He began with a statement that he would be the Democratic nominee. Then followed a sequence of praise for his fellow campaigners, and long paean to Clinton for her campaign -- he was far more gracious to her than she had been toward him, though I suppose he could afford to be. Then he began to disassemble McCain's speech, tearing it apart point by point. He delineated what "change" meant to him, and he did so in a rousing, inspiring, and fiery speech that had the crowd literally howling by the end. The man can speak -- in fact, I can think of very few better-delivered speeches. He makes people want to believe him. I can't wait to see Obama and McCain debate; the contrast in styles should be interesting...
So hopefully, it's over except for some final faint shouting. Hopefully, sometime in the next few days, Clinton will make the decision to give a concession speech rather than to pursue the incredibly divisive tactic of taking the ruling for Michigan and Florida to the credentials committee. I will say that I've heard some (few) Clinton supporters (and, for the record, both Denise and I voted for Clinton in Ohio's primary) say that they will vote for McCain rather than Obama... Given the incredible political distance between Clinton and McCain, I can only attribute that to blatant racism: Obama is far, far closer to Clinton's views than McCain's -- how could someone who wanted Clinton to be president vote for someone whose views (on abortion, on health care, on social issues, on foreign policy, on economics, on the conduct of war) are so antithetical to hers? I don't understand that at all unless race is the problem.
Now comes the important point: picking VP candidates. It's especially important, I would contend, for McCain, because given his health and age, there is a greater possibility that the veep might become the president, should McCain win the election.
So who do you think they're going to pick?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
J and I have wondered that, too. I suspect that racism is indeed involved in some cases, but I think there are also some people (or at least some women) who are so angry at a man defeating a woman that they will vote against him in protest. I guess if getting a woman elected president is more important to a person than anything else--than all the issues you mention, as well as having a person of color elected--that makes twisted sense. I don't know how someone could think that way, but I'm afraid some do.
From:
no subject
Yeah. Makes no sense to me, either... *sigh*
From:
no subject
Part of me thinks Obama will choose someone who will make him more "palatable" to the masses. He's not stupid; he knows the main reason people who would have voted for Clinton would not vote for him (although, in my experience, if a person is racist, they are far more likely to be sexist as well. Although this may be just my experience in the deep south). So I anticipate a youngish, older than him but by no means as old as McCain, white male. Since Washington abounds with those, that shouldn't be hard. He would want someone with some military experience, to effectively negate McCain's "authority" there. I don't know who it will be though.
Personally, I would love to see either John Edwards or Bill Richardson (which would potentially secure him some latino votes). I don't know how much of a reality either of those are.
As for McCain, he might try to find someone of a slightly darker skin color (or maybe just somebody really tan) to contrast with O, but I doubt it. It will probably be just another Dick, someone we're expected to forget about while he machinates behind the scenes. Or Jerry Falwell. Or BibleMan. Not sure. So many choices!
From:
no subject
I've already said here that I thought McCain might tap Condi Rice -- having a woman of color might offset the Yet Another Old White Dude issue.
From:
no subject
Well, he's never done the politically expedient, but I'm thinking of a former Clinton supporter who has an incredible military background who also was a rather poor candidate for president 4 years ago.
Whaddya think of Wesley Clark? Sorta a smarter Dan Quayle...respected, bright, not very charismatic, definitely loyal. would command the respect of veterans groups and active military...oh and not currently in office (I think picking another Senator would be poison as well as risking the Dem majority).
That's my take for now. Disclosure in politics since voting age: Bush Senior, Clinton, Clinton, (Nader) Gore, (Edwards) Kerry, (Kucinich, Edwards) Obama.
From:
no subject
As for McCain choosing Condi, well she's a known quantity. The Racists will make an exception for her because "she's on our team" and she and Bush are thisclose. But who knows what they'll do in the end. Just as one media storm ends on the primaries, we have to endure the endless VP speculation now until it's formally announced. Great.
From:
no subject
From:
veepstakes
The Obama folks evidently have been told that "they'll be sorry if they chose ANY other woman other than Hillary for VP." You're also putting 2 very very strong people together, and they BOTH wanted to be the boss. Hillary will NOT be comfortable being the 2nd banana, especially if the VP in the Obama administration is closer to the 'traditional' role of VP, and not the Prime Minister role that Cheney has turned it into.
Bill Richardson, yes, Kathy Sebelius (KS gov) a much better choice for a female VP, and also helps with the Plains/Western states. There are a bunch of very strong folks available for the Dem VP..
Edwards would be wasted as VP. I want Edwards for Attorney General! That would put a fox among the chickens, for sure...
GOP VP? whoo! Condi Rice, someone else said she would tie McBush even tighter to the Bush administration. I agree. Bobby Jindal? Maybe....
Huckabee and Romney, by their actions/words after the primaries, I think, have disqualified themselves.
From:
no subject
I tell people I've been a democrat since WAY back, but I'm not actually old enough to have voted many times. I think my first vote cast for pres was for Nader. But when I was in second grade we had mock elections and I voted for Dukakis. HA. i was one of 7 out of 25 students. Everyone else voted for Bush, Sr.
From:
Re: veepstakes
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Veeps? I think McCain will go with someone safe, on the young side, and very conservative. Pawlenty, Gov. of Minn. is my best guess. Obama is a tougher call. I haven't made up my mind yet about whether Hillary helps more than she hurts. But he has so many other choices. Sebelius, Clark, Richardson, Strickland. There is so much talent on the Democratic side right now. Which also warms my heart
From:
no subject
For Obama Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia basically a good representative for those states Obama did not do well in versus Clinton, ston in areas Obama is not.
For McCain I thought about Colin Powell as being the most prominent black Republican, although his reasons for not running before are probably still valid.
Yes I am biased towards candidates with military service but remember Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, Roosevelt and Eisenhower all served.
From:
Re: veepstakes
I feel dirty just saying it.
Ah well. That's my read at any rate. Again, a safe, military-friendly person is my bet. Sam Nunn, Webb, Clark, Biden, all come to mind. Clark is the best of that group as he has no political history to hold against him. Colin Powell would rock, but we'd see another secession...
McCain may pick Pawlenty-aren't there any rising stars in the Republican ranks anymore?
From:
no subject
The New York Times did a good breakdown of the question of whether Obama should pick Clinton as VP (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/us/politics/04assess.html?hp): Pros: it might heal the party, especially women, who wanted to see HER be the one to make history, "dream ticket," adds foreign policy credentials, etc. Cons (and I think this an important point): It'll undercut his message that he is the candicate for change. Plus, she clearly wants to be in charge.
I wonder: since she's seen as strong on foreign policy, wouldn't it be a much better idea to tap her as Secretary of State, picking someone else for the VP spot?
From:
no subject
Whomever he chooses, I think, has to help give him the really conservative base.
From:
Re: veepstakes
She won't deliver Kansas for the Dems -- that state will still go Republican. Yes, she has ties to Ohio (her father was the former Governor Gilligan), but Gilligan was neither a popular nor an effective governor of the state, and I suspect she'd actually have a negative effect on Ohio.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
Re: veepstakes
I would hope you're mistaken about that. But I'm not certain we're going to find out... :-)
From:
no subject
He has been less involved with Shrub than McCain since then.
Are there any other prominent black Republicans?
From:
no subject
That's a good thought, but if I were Clinton, I'd be thinking that I might do better/be more visible/be more powerful if I were to stay in the Senate and become Majority Leader.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Man, that's one frightening thought. I'd be scared of people like that...
From:
no subject