Saturday, August 11, 2007

Bush Lite

Cotuit, MA -

Elizabeth Wilner at The Politico beat me to the punch yesterday with her article on Clinton's very Bush-y campaign. This exact point has been my second biggest beef with Hill since I started paying attention (after the dynasty matter, of course). The amount of bullying, manipulation and arrogance employed in such an operation creates a nauseous sense of wrath in a humble country boy like myself, most notably after the debacles of the past two presidential elections. As Wilner points out, there is a good chance that most Democrats are willing to take the gamble on a second-coming of a more liberal George W. Bush if it means victory in 2008. But for a cantankerous old farm hand like the Quabbin Blogger? I say no thanks.

Certainly the rest of the Democratic field's only hope is to jump on this relationship if they want to go all Ronald Reagan on Hillary and tear down this wall of bullshit. Obama has begun with the Bush Lite bit, but not hard enough. Edwards, whose mouth ticks and tocks back and forth between a smile and a foamy froth, seems the likeliest to do it given his continued ascent toward a moral boiling point. Richardson is perhaps too diplomatic (and not to mention bungling) but I have hope in his ability to say the things that real Dems are thinking and I am still waiting for him to take the gloves off if he wants to be taken seriously as a borderline top-tier candidate. Biden always has it in him to spout off some gems, but will he still be relevant if he gets around to it? Same for Dodd. The last two, of course, also seem to be favoring Clinton for future favors. We all know what Gravel would say. Kucinich, meanwhile, will likely be too concerned with riding his beautiful high horse. Did I mention that it is beautiful? It is. But its also a high horse.

Speaking of high horse (or hobby horse, rather) Clinton just received another high profile California mayoral backing. If you support pols who are so popular with women they are not married to that they end up in bed together, Clinton is your candidate. Oh, I shouldn't have done that. Instead, it is better spun in the terms that the kind of people who are supporting Clinton are more likely to be ambitious, win-at-all-costs, rules-be-damned politicians as opposed to those of us who seek inclusive, healing, honest and issue-oriented candidates. Oh, I shouldn't have said that. What a loser! But seriously, hasn't the laundry list of complaints in a failed Bush presidency been topped by secrecy, arrogance, stubbornness, and incompetence? With the exception of the last one, I dunno, I begin to see parallels. I'm just sayin', is all.

At any rate, it ultimately comes down to a baseball analogy. Do you like the Yankees, or don't you? Do you like George Steinbrenner, or don't you? I say go Sox! Go M's! Go Cubbies! Now this all reminds me of my favorite joke - what is your favorite baseball team, the Yankees, the Phillies, the Expos, the Mets, the Dodgers, or the Rockies?

Ahoy from the beach,


BTB said...

Kraus - My favorite team is the Phillies!
Me - Phillies? Feel 'eez nutz!

Peace Czar said...

Touche, BTB! Bloody likely that Mayor Newsom's constituents in San Francisco would pick Hillary as their candidate. Especially this early in the game. What kind of pandering is THAT?!?

Ohhhhh, the depth and profound understanding that Hillary possesses. She's such a visionary. from the SF Chronicle article:

Newsom doesn't even mind that Clinton splits with him by not supporting only civil unions and not same-sex marriage.

"I like Barack (Obama) and admire him ... and (John) Edwards as well ... but I never was able to have a discussion of the issues with the same depth, the same understanding, that I have had with Hillary Clinton," he said.