KEEP YOUR EYE ON BAYH
You are subjected to my opinions all the time--well, at least that's the case if you read this blog-site often. So today I am going to provide a few snippets of opinions from other folks (as well as a few of my own, of course) for your consideration.
But before I forget, let me start by saying that I was discussing Senator Obama's running mate choices with an acquaintance of mine recently, which is no surprise. What was surprising is that we both agreed very quickly on one name to add to the top tier of the list, the same name that last December I suggested would make a great running mate for Governor Richardson, should he have won the nomination. (That quite obviously did not occur.) That name is U.S. Senator Evan Bayh, of red-state Indiana.
Though it is next door to Illinois, Indiana is a different political (and in some ways social) animal altogether, so the regional/proximity similarities of their home states should not deter Senator Obama from considering strongly choosing Senator Bayh--who is considered to be a more conservative Democrat than Senator Obama--as his running mate. Senator Bayh was also a strong Clinton supporter who probably helped her pull-off a squeaker of a victory in the Indiana primary, so he could conceivably help to bring a good deal of Senator Clinton's biggest fans more willingly onboard the Obama train (so to speak). He's also straight out of central casting as far as a somewhat traditional, conservative notion of "Vice President" (or, for that matter, "President") is concerned; you'd have to have seen him to know what I mean.
In looking over notes I made late last year regarding the upcoming electoral process, it seems I grew tired of repeatedly telling the same people that they should look to Senator Bayh to be a running mate for Governor Richardson or whoever won the Democratic nod, so I (like they) lost interest and moved on to other topics. (How some of my friends put up with that politically-repetitive habit of mine is beyond me.) But I'm back on the Bayh bus, folks, so put him right up there with my other top dozen-or-so picks to be Senator Obama's running mate (in alphabetical order): Evan Bayh; Joe Biden; Wesley Clark; Hillary Clinton; Chuck Hagel; Tim Kaine; Sam Nunn; Ed Rendell; Bill Richardson; Kathleen Sebelius; Mark Warner; Jim Webb. (I don't know what it is about him, but I'm still not sold on Ted Strickland. Maybe I'll come around....)
NEW YORK TIMES READERS ANALYZE THE CLINTON FACTOR
The following snippets are not full letters but (hopefully) representative paragraphs from letters written by New York Times readers, printed in today's (June 10) "Letters" section, for your consideration:
"...On Saturday, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton delivered one of the most formidable concession speeches I have ever heard or read. What is more difficult for a politician than to admit defeat? She did it with dignity and with the knowledge that cooperation with the Democratic nominee, Senator Barack Obama, is absolutely essential for a change of parties in the White House. A change that is necessary for the world to see."
--Erwin Baker (New York City, New York)
Paul Bloustein, of Cincinnati, Ohio, does not necessary disagree, though he does take a somewhat different (if only initially) line regarding Senator Clinton:
"...Confabulating about bringing peace to Northern Ireland and lying about tarmac terror in Tuzla were written off by true believers, but were real negatives for those on the fence.... Staff dysfunction, financial shortfalls--it's a wonder she held on as long as she did....
"...I don't know what the bottom line of the post-mortem will be, but I do know that Mrs. Clinton proved a well-briefed and gritty campaigner, fought the good fight and in doing so helped make history, give hope to millions and rejuvenate a cynical electorate. I applaud her effort."
Susan McHale (strangely, of the eight folks whose letters were printed regarding this issue today, only two are women) of Greenwich, Connecticut, says:
"...The only thing in [Hillary Clinton's] way was a very dynamic and unusual man, Barack Obama....
"This wonderful, I would say, fluke of occurrences happens for a purpose, not for failings, but by chance. The chance that apparently more delegates and voters were ready to take."
Adam Hurwich (New York, New York) agrees:
"...Is it just possible that Mrs. Clinton lost to a better candidate for president? It is very possible that nothing 'went wrong.' Mrs. Clinton just lost."
Finally, John Hunt (Old Greenwich, Connecticut) suggests the following:
"...This could be 1960 all over again, with a young presidential aspirant who has seized on the American desire for new direction as well as new purpose....
"It will be the most exciting and important race in decades, and the months ahead will test the nation's mettle on many fronts, including the maturity of the American voter. Mr. Obama's success may well rely on that last point alone."
IN THE SAME VEIN....
The following letter, with which I agree fully, is from today's (June 10) opinion section of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. Written by Shawn Gilbert of Bloomington, Minnesota, it suggests the following regarding Senator Clinton's historic presidential run (and Senator Obama's equally historic presidential run):
"...[Senator Clinton's presidential run is] an achivement that gains authority for women as compelling as the power realized when [women] attained the right to vote....
"...Now we need to hear that Hillary's supporters understand and respect the historic aspect of [Senator] Obama's campaign, as well, and that they will throw themselves into the effort to win his run for the presidency of the United States as wholeheartedly as they supported hers."
"AMERICA AT ITS BEST"?
Lest those on the right side of the U.S. political spectrum think I avoid reading right-leaning matrial, here is this from the "Leader" section of The Economist, which is one of my favorite center-right international publications (it seems as though they would tend to agree with my assertions of two days ago):
"[Unlike the Democrats], the Republicans settled on their candidate more quickly, but theirs was still a marathon by anybody else's standards. And the end of it was surely the right result. In John McCain, the Republicans chose a man whose political courage has led him constantly to attempt to forge bipartisan deals and to speak out against the Bush administration when it went wrong. Conservatives may hate him, but even they can see he offers the party its only realistic hope in November....
"...Mr. Obama has demonstrated charisma, coolness under fire and an impressive understanding of the transforming power of technology in modern politics. Beating the mighty Clinton machine is an astonishing achievement. Even greater, though, is his achievement in becoming the first black presidential nominee of either political party. For a country whose past is disfigured by slavery, segregation and unequal voting rights, this is a moment to celebrate. America's history of reinventing and perfecting itself has acquired another page."
FROM HASSLINGTON, ON THE CENTRISITY BLOG-SITE
I shouldn't keep cross-referencing my comments from other sites, so in the future I'll try to keep it to a minimum, but for your consideration, there is this:
"Folks will suggest that I am naive, but it is the case that I vote for a candidate based on the general direction he or she will take the country in both the domestic and foreign arenas. If we demanded a chief executive whose numbers always added up exactly, we'd elect no one as president...and we certainly would never have elected Mr. Bush. (So far, neither Senator McCain nor Senator Obama have coherent payment plans so much as general slogans.)
"The choice, then, is between moving in one general direction or another given a number of different issues (most of which recirculate back to energy issues, which I prefer to view as a long-term challenge, not a short-term one).
"For what it's worth, it is my opinion that we ought to choose as our chief executive the individual who will move us in a more long-term and sustainable direction regarding energy issues, and who will also instantly improve our (presently horrific) standing with our allies around the world (let alone our opponents). I'd prefer someone who had the judgment to envision the future debacle that is the Iraq scenario and stand against it (...which might have saved us a few billion dollars...) to be the one to find a way to move properly and cautiously (but decisively) forward regarding it. I'd also prefer a forward-thinker regarding transportation issues (which again recirculates back to energy issues), not someone selling cheap 'gas tax holiday' gimmicks. And finally, it never hurts to be inspired by words (could Nixon have whipped-up a fervor to show the Soviets what we could do by putting a man on the moon by the end of the 1960s?).
"We can spew partisan bile all we want. Personally, I find that type of behavior embarrassing. I do not fully agree with all of Senator Obama's campaign maneuvers (unlike Senator McCain and Governor Richardson, he hesitated in his support of third-generation nuclear power as a necessary part--though certainly not all--of a new national energy policy), but I think that he is the right person for the job at this point in time...."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment