Tuesday, December 18

:: I Don't <3 Huckabee

I just don't feel I can point out often enough what a yahoo Huckabee is. But today, the lovely and talented Ann Telnaes did my job for me!

And please, can someone please explain and real, substantive difference between Hilary and Obama, besides style? Anyone? Buffy?

P.S. You are not allowed to use universal (or nearly) health care as an example.


Anonymous said...

Huckabee claims to be a Creationist. In my mind, this means he doesn't merit a High School Diploma, never mind the Presidency. Of course, having survived 8 years of the racist B-movie actor and nearly 8 years of the AWOL alcoholic, anything is possible.

ladybec said...

Zippy, it's like Walter Shapiro is reading your mind - http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/12/18/democrats/
This is really much more about style than issues right now, though I would argue most primaries are even if we would like to think otherwise. I didn't realize how little the candidates seem to even be talking about issues (not being a coveted Iowa or NH voter), but I guess I'm not surprised.

The reality is that most of the Dems' policy positions are pretty similar. The health care difference is real and substantive, but the vast majority of people don't understand it. And while I would have a hard time supporting Obama in the primary because of it when I think Clinton and Edwards have stronger plans on the issue that is most important to me (besides choice), it's not a deal breaker in the general election. Primaries are about the broad strokes, too, about what the Democrats broadly stand for in contrast to the Republicans, with the specifics being up for grabs a little bit here and there.

(And let's be honest, too, if it was just about the issues, how many of us would be supporting Dennis Kucinich? Sure, I don't totally trust him on choice, but he supports a single-payer health care system, which is what I ultimately believe is the right answer, if not the politically feasible solution to our health care mess, and gay marriage. That being said, he's never going to win and believes in UFOs so we all make our choices based on a range of factors.)

Of course, despite my general position that primaries often are more about style than issues, I think the Republican primary is actually truly about both this time. There are real policy differences between their candidates, and I'm fascinated - and a bit terrified - by how it's all playing out. And as a Gail Collins column from a few weeks ago said (I think it was called "The Lesser of Seven Evils"), just when one of them starts sounding somewhat sane on something, it's time to say something insane on another issue...

Kirsten said...

Isn't it ironic that the primaries are about broad strokes when this is really where we need them to be specific? In the general elections we're voting in broad strokes -- what the Dems stand for versus what the GOP stands for. But as our system evolves towards a state of entropy, issues have given way to likeability and electability -- as demonstrated by voters' reluctance to vote for Hilary because they aren't sure if she's electable in a general election.

My greatest sadness/frustration is that this is precisely why people are ambivalent about the political process and don't vote. I mean really; we have a fantastic candidate to run against Liddy Dole for U.S. Senate (who I swear has not done a darn thing for this state since I moved here), but as a gay man in a borderline Blue State, I'm just not sure he has a chance. (He is fantastic, tho -- check him out: www.jimnealforsenate.com) It's hard to dredge up the energy to get excited about a candidate who you are really not sure has a chance! And that's my state politics, why should I care about the national race??

(I do, I promise, I'm just sayin', I can see why one wouldn't.)

Anonymous said...

It is not really playing fair to ask for an issue comparison and exclude the number one issue of this cycle. HRC has a plan to cover everyone, Obama's plan leaves 15 million people uninsured. period. The cost of and access to health care is one of the major social problems of our time. And to throw up your hands and say it is just too hard to try and cover everyone. To hope that covering some folks will lead to coverage for all is just not bold enough. HRC has been working on this issue for decades. When her big plan didn't work, she didn't stop working on it. She cares deeply about this issue and she has the experience (yes I said it) to see it through. That may be a stylisitic difference but I am ok with that.

Kirsten said...

I'm not saying I'm throwing up my hands and walking away -- I'm just trying to point out that when the media coverage is all about whether Obama wanted to be president when he was 5 but HRC really just always wanted to serve the people, voters may well get fed up and turned off from the whole process. I'm sorry, but there you are. And we can say that it's each voter's responsibility to get that info, but if the MSM isn't reporting it, and they have a factory job, three kids and no internet -- well, then the people who need the info most aren't getting it.

And I'm sorry I don't mean to blow off HRC's key issue -- I do believe it's very important. I'm just looking for a bigger picture.

Anonymous said...

And on the style front... I have been doing this progressive politics thing for a while and I am tired of not seeing progress. I want a President who can walk-in and start cutting the deals to get things done. We know that DC is suspicious of outsiders and cruel to newbies. I love me some Bill but his first months in office were a disaster. I want us to start tackling the big social probelms of our time. That can't be done with hope, that has be done in the slow, painful legislative process. I want some victories and I want them NOW.