"No matter how paranoid or conspiracy-minded you are, what the government is actually doing is worse than you imagine." - - - William Blum

February 22, 2007

Kos has followed the Hillary Clinton campaign for a while now, including recent attention to her refusal to admit that she made a mistake when she voted in 2002 in favor of Bush-war's request to fund military action against Iraq. Kos now predicts how the anti-war Democrats will react to her campaign:

"Not only is the Clinton campaign pig-headed, they are also remarkably out-of-touch. They are 'surprised' at the anger this war is generating? Has she been living in a cave the last four years (yes, the Senate apparently is a cave). The last thing we need in the White House is another out-of-touch, tone-deaf Bush-style presidency, unable or unwilling to admit mistakes and change course as a result.

"Hillary will now see her campaign events hijacked by anti-war protesters, with people demanding she defend her vote at every corner. Iraq will dominate coverage of her campaign, and she's on the wrong side of the issue. And by going this far without admitting her mistake, she has painted herself into a corner. Any attempt now to back off and apologize would be met with the proper scorn."

Clinton actively supports and represents the pro-war faction of the Democratic Party, and actively accepts campaign contributions from pro-war corporations and groups. That's un-Democratic in my book.

Obama just hired a senior campaign staff manager who oversaw a group that viciously attacked, through ads, prominent Democratic candidates in the 2004 presidential campaign. That's sends a bad message to potential supporters like me.

I fully support the same principles and ideals as Dennis Kucinich and admire his no-holds-barred approach to campaigning but, unlike 2004, cannot afford to put my time, effort and resources behind a candidate who lacks some basic leadership skills.

Given just the above group plus Edwards, I would support Edwards because he is the most progressive+experienced of the group, but I have serious doubts due to his recent flip-flopping pro-war/anti-war stance.

I will consider Clark if he decides to run, but in spite of his charisma and military experience, I have doubts about his abilities to lead a group as diverse as the Democrats.

Right now the one candidate who appears to have the experience in governing and politics necessary to successfully lead the U.S. in the world of today's biggest issues and problems (Afghanistan/Iraq/Iran(?) Wars, foreign policy, global warming, domestic social programs, etc...) is most definitely Bill Richardson.

Of course, if Gore steps into the ring, forget everything I just said. He's da man, no doubt about it.

No comments: