Barack Obama formally announced his candidacy for President of the United States. I thought both his speech and the backdrop of this speech (Springfield, Illinois) were far more impressive than the two other top-tiered candidates for the Democratic nomination, Clinton and Edwards. It was not lost on anyone the analogy to Lincoln. Additionally, unlike the John Edwards speech where the crowd seemed just like local residents gathering around to see what all the fuss was about, Obama drew a huge crowd that actually seemed inspired by the canidate. Obama's image is likely to become more negative as the campaign goes forward and more his radical past comes to light, however today was a very solid start for him.
Just a few thoughts:
While the Democrats have a stronger and deeper field, the Republicans have top tier candidates whose positions are more towards the center of the country (excluding the Iraq War). Although people continually refer to Hillary as a centrist, she has basically maintained the liberalness people expected when she was first elected to the Senate in 2000. Even her supposed hawkishness is a facade. Her war vote has been explained the same way, Kerry did, that she was misled by the President and that she was not voting for the war but just to strengthen the President's hand at the UN. Both of which are false. There is not a single issue, in which I can find that she really defied her party on.
In fact, Edwards, Obama, and Hillary are basically down the line liberals who do not really diverge from the Democratic line on any major social or economic policy. The difference among the three is Obama seems to actually stand up for what he believes and can actually disagree with someone, while doing so in a respectable manner. He also seems a little more authentic than most of the Democrats current or past candidates for president. Which is why most Republicans tend to like him better than Edwards or Hillary, both of whom seem willing to say anything to win and are uber-partisan.
On the Republican side, McCain, Giuliani, and Romney have all bucked the party line on host of things and still hold positions at odds with party orthodoxy. If the Republican nominee (probably McCain) keeps the focus on the issues and Iraq ceases to be a major issue, the Republicans will actually have a decent shot in 2008.
Just a few thoughts:
While the Democrats have a stronger and deeper field, the Republicans have top tier candidates whose positions are more towards the center of the country (excluding the Iraq War). Although people continually refer to Hillary as a centrist, she has basically maintained the liberalness people expected when she was first elected to the Senate in 2000. Even her supposed hawkishness is a facade. Her war vote has been explained the same way, Kerry did, that she was misled by the President and that she was not voting for the war but just to strengthen the President's hand at the UN. Both of which are false. There is not a single issue, in which I can find that she really defied her party on.
In fact, Edwards, Obama, and Hillary are basically down the line liberals who do not really diverge from the Democratic line on any major social or economic policy. The difference among the three is Obama seems to actually stand up for what he believes and can actually disagree with someone, while doing so in a respectable manner. He also seems a little more authentic than most of the Democrats current or past candidates for president. Which is why most Republicans tend to like him better than Edwards or Hillary, both of whom seem willing to say anything to win and are uber-partisan.
On the Republican side, McCain, Giuliani, and Romney have all bucked the party line on host of things and still hold positions at odds with party orthodoxy. If the Republican nominee (probably McCain) keeps the focus on the issues and Iraq ceases to be a major issue, the Republicans will actually have a decent shot in 2008.
posted by The partisan moderate at 3:26 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home