 |
The 08 Election and the War: Part I |
 |
California Rising?
As someone who pays attention to political campaigns in a manner best described as “Obsessive Compulsive,†I’m angry to see that a candidate's position on the current Iraq War is playing a larger role in upcoming elections than it did in the Presidential Election of 2004.
The Republicans who have announced their candidacy thus far have pretty much stuck with the “stay the course†mantra that got Bush a slim majority of votes in Ohio last time around, and Democrats…well…they’re being the same old Democrats. Most candidates have expressed the desire for some sort of phased withdrawal, a few have demanded that our troops come home now, and then there’s Hillary.
Hillary Clinton finally took some sort of stance on the war. She wants some troops home, but she also stated that a large number of troops must stay in the region for an undetermined amount of time. Here’s her Fatal Mistake: Her idea could, and probably would win, a general election…but it most likely won’t win her the nomination. The reason I say it would win a general election in November 2008 is because that’s ultimately what’s going to have to happen. And this is why the 2008 election isn’t going to be as easy for Democrats as many think.
In order to gain the Democratic nomination, a candidate will most likely have to be against the war, and it helps if they didn’t have a vote in the matter when the whole thing started (like Obama). Why must they be against the war? Because the majority of the Democratic Party faithful are opposed to the war. So, in order to gain the “Big MO,†Candidates will move left, and once the nomination is secure, which will be early (I’ll get to that in a minute), the Nominee will have to steer closer to the center to effectively close to difference gap between feelings about the Iraq War and Domestic Issues facing our nation.
I believe that Hillary made a smart move in taking the stance she took, but I don’t think it will help her. Her behavior regarding the war has been too flaky (not willing to really take a stand one way or the other…having her cake and eating it too…etc.). She has left herself open to a potential challenge from Gore, who could run the table during the primaries as an alternative to Hillary and a more experienced version of Obama. Gore could run left during a primary and run center during the general election without the appearance of “flip-flopping†because he always had one position on the war: he’s against it. However, the “experienced†Gore could also state that it’s our “moral responsibility†to fix the problems that we've helped create and could then call for troops to remain in Iraq for “support.†What’s the word? Oh yea, Peacekeeping. Throw in UN support for “peacekeeping†with the emergence of “new ideas†in Washington and you might have yourself some Iraq war Closure.
But what was it I said about the Primaries being over early?
Earlier this month the State of California (you know, that big one run by Conan the Barbarian), decided to move its Presidential Primary from March to February in order to have a larger impact on the 2008 presidential election. I personally don’t really like this idea. For one, the early Primary states like Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina are smaller states that have little impact on the general election. When candidates travel there they actually have to meet people to get their vote, and it gives the voters in other states the ability to see that “they’re just like us†(they aren’t, but at least we get the damn appearance of it).
Having such a large and powerful state this early in the primary process makes the presidential election more of a money game than a ground game. In previous years, the point of winning the smaller states like Iowa and New Hampshire was to gain momentum to raise money and win larger states with more delegates such as New York, Texas, and California. If you take away the desire, and necessity, for gaining momentum you take away more states' ability to have a role in the process. By the time my former state of Ohio gets to vote on what probably won’t be called “Super Tuesday†anymore, and definitely by the time my current state of Washington gets a chance to vote, the whole thing will probably be decided already. And we wonder why people don’t care about voting. Therefore, come 2008 when the nominees are decided and you feel you got cheated out of participating in the selection of your Presidential Nominee you can thank the Terminator, who was apparently sent back in time to kill Sarah Connor and the importance of primaries.
Why this crazy state primary business? Why not have every state vote on the same day? More expensive maybe, but more equal….
^^
That definitely seems like the only fair way to do it.
I heard something about Florida moving up to January to beat the rush, this is getting out of hand…
The problem with the same vote everyday is that smaller states get cheated out of a chance to really participate. Candidates need something a certain amount of delegate votes, won through primaries, to gain the nomination. California has some 400 Delegates for Democrats, whereas Montana…well, significantly less. I say push Montana to the front and the big ones to the back. For candidates to visit all 50 states and act like they give a shit…either that or just wait until the convention and vote via text message.
Well, this feeds into the idea of a true popular vote instead of the crazy electoral college system. The president is a national figure, so lets vote on a national level. Senete and house elections can and should remain the same…