Hillary's refusal to quit, analyzing McCain v. Obama pre-Palin '08

Haven't written much since the primaries got boring.

So, now I analyze and spew out a random diatribe, because it makes me feel smart, blahblahblah.


McCain easily won the nomination. Frankly, anyone that really predicted he would win the nomination was as good as anyone that predicted Bush would win in 2000. I like McCain, I've always liked McCain, who hasn't, honestly? How can you NOT like a moderate from a neutral place like Arizona, who was a tortured POW in Vietnam?

Like...he could be in favor of mandatory abortion and he'd still have at least higher approval than el presidente has. His policies are seriously irrelevant, he's from a neutral area of the country that says nothing about him, he's single handedly kept the word 'bi-partisan' alive, and if that's not enough to give him appeal, for fucks sake he was tortured for years in a Vietnamese prison.



...That being said I don't base my vote strictly on the color that CNN gives them on the electoral map, or how nice of a person they seem to be. Issues=#1

So with that in mind, McCain is:
1-Pro-War, a hawk, if you will. This is where he draws almost all of his appeal, as I stated in a previous blog outlining what WILL happen depending on who the nominee is(assuming they also win in November). A McCain-led GOP is a confusing animal to a political analyst. What we have is a socially liberal hawk in charge of the party which was founded on conservatism and isolationism, IE staying the fuck out of other country's. I concede that isolationism was a policy that died 70 years ago, but still, the point I make here is where's the dividing line between the parties? I'd have been happier with an anti-war Republican, even if I *AM* opposed to a pull out, if only to prevent the parties from drifting further and further into a gray area which makes them both feasibly the same, I could give a fuck about the future of Iraq, after all, since when was a country's complete and total collapse ever a reason for us to stay there? Precedence.(fyi: before Reagan, most social conservatives were democrats, but apparently the Democrat's had this crazy notion that the 'coloreds' were equal, and so the southern Democrats(social conservatives) switched sides, note sarcasm in reference to coloreds)

2-Pro-Choice...? He is. Or..is he? This is McCain's biggest issue, fact of the matter is his social stances are a gray area. It's this reason and this reason alone that there's a great deal of thumping on the far right for a third party candidate(because that's ALWAYS a good idea right?) If a third party candidate DOES arise, it will be a guaranteed Democrat victory, the fact of the matter is McCain is extremely weak on social issues, but Democrats can't capitalize on this(presumably his ONLY real weakness) because odds are if they aren't in agreement, the democrats are further to the left of his stances, and good luck winning states like Ohio or Missouri if you're trying to argue that your opponent isn't ENOUGH in favor of choice, or gay marriage, etc.

3-A white man. Funny how something as mundane as that could actually be an issue eh? You'll likely find quite a few undecideds, who simply don't care, going with the 'why not make history?' vote. Regardless of who wins the nomination on the other side(and believe me I'll get to that one), it will either be a black man or a white woman vs. a white man. Nifty, eh?

4-Moderate. I've said this already but it's a serious point to make. The last moderate president we had was Clinton. Prior to that we had two conservative Republicans, and a liberal Democrat. Some of history's most successful presidents have been ones that gray the lines a bit, because not only do they have broader appeal, they also usually have an easier time creating legislation, and therefor an easier time of actually accomplishing things. Even with a conservative congress for the first few years, what did Bush actually accomplish? You'll find generally that when a single party has complete control, they don't know what to do first, and rather then doing anything, they'll just argue over what to do. A moderate Republican president with a Democrat congress could very well be what the country needs right now.

But...who knows.


No one talks about McCain, so I figured I'd give him a good deal of attention, but now to the proverbial donkey in the room.

I told my brother very simply on the last set of contests with Ohio and Texas and what not, if Obama did not win them all, the Democrats would not win in November. That is strictly because with Obama having lost Texas and Ohio, when the media was all abuzz that Obama 'had to win', it's now gone back to an almost equal footing. It is literally impossible for either Hillary or Obama to win the nomination prior to the convention...in August.

McCain will have had a full six month head start against the Democrats. Further, unless Hillary wins every last single primary between here and there, which is certainly feasible, though she'll have as much of an uphill fight in North Carolina as Obama has in Pennsylvania, Obama WILL win the nomination. He's won more states, and she can argue all she wants that she's won the 'big states', but she only won them narrowly. Every victory Hillary has had has been a narrow victory, whereas a large number of Obama's victory's have been massive landslides. When he wins, he wins big, when she wins, she barely squeaks by. That, and the fact that Obama is nationally more popular than her, and for that matter Hillary now has a 48% disapproval rating compared with a 35% approval rating(almost as low as Bush), guarantees that Obama WILL win the nomination. If the Superdelegates choose Clinton over him, it's been pretty much determined that a huge number of Democrats simply won't go to the polls at all, including a majority of the black voters, and some might even turn out(like myself) to vote AGAINST Hillary.



My stance is this. I like Obama as a person, I like McCain as a person. Hillary I do not like. She is not a respectable person, and this campaign has proved it. Her victory's in Texas and Ohio were ENTIRELY because she went negative. If she wins, I know who I'll vote for in November. If he wins, I don't know. I really don't.

I don't feel, after McCain attempted to court Falwell, that I can trust him anymore. Much the same, Obama is a liberal, but the real fact of the matter is the Democrats are going to pick up more seats in the Senate and the House in this election. So whether or not Obama or McCain wins is rather irrelevant, since the Democrats could very well have a veto-proof majority come January.

My only concern would be a liberal president combined with a liberal congress. Which is a possibility, a possibility which is no better than a conservative president combined with a conservative congress. There must ALWAYS be a counter-weight.