If He's Good enough For Buffett....
There are not many people I actually listen to at all. Face it, I'm mean and cynical and think 90% of humans are not very nice and not overly bright. Self included.
Warren Buffett is one of those rare exceptions, someone I can never discount entirely. Call it a gift for recognizing people who are more gifted than I am.
With that in mind I'm going to have to pull back on my fears about Obama versus our economy and at least reserve judgement. If Buffett thinks either Obama or Clinton is an excellent choice I have to at least consider it because, well, Buffett is neither an asshat nor a fool and while he certainly is not infallible...he's closer to it than the other 90% of us. I like those odds.
I still love Bill Richardson but, and it's a huge but, we need someone who can actually be elected and while I do think there is a good chance Richardson could win a general election, between his lack of skill in debates and public speeches and the fact that he's highly unlikely to get past the further left regions of the party to ever win the nomination......let's be honest here, Democrats tend to be nicer people but as a group have never voted very strategically. Which is why we've gotten our asses handed to us so often.
Yeah, he had a decent chance when Nevada actually mattered in the primaries, even our Republicans are not for the most part "social conservatives" (just short-sighted greedy fucks who don't want to pay taxes) but now that the primaries will be decided in Iowa, South Carolina and every other place but the west, not so good.
Ah well, guess that just puts me back in the "undecided" camp.
12 comments:
If any combination of two of the top three Democrats, (HRC, JRE, or BHO), cannot landslide whatever GOP-er arises to the surface of their swamp, then I say, WTF! We end up with the government which the majority of the American people deserve.
He does seem a more unorthodox style of American businessman. I'm not quite sure why he's so keen on Hilary, though?
I'm voting for whichever candidate has the most progressive m.o.. If it happens to be Hillary Clinton, I'll vote for her. If it's John Edwards, I'll vote for him. If it's Barack Obama, I'm with Obama. If it's Ralph Nader, I'm with Nader. All this pre-2008 campaigning means nothing to me...
Mama, I think buffet is one of those rare finds among the super-rich where there is both money and conscience in the same package. Despite my preference for Edwards, I shall support whichever Democrat is nominated.
Jim, may I respectfully suggest that a Gore for Nader is a vote for the GOP candidate. Need I remind you that of the Nader voters in Florida had voted for Gore, they could have spared this nation our current tragedy?
Unless OBL is killed, the War in Iraq comes to a peaceful end with the country being a strong democracy, gas prices go down to pre--2000 levels, and health care actually becomes affordable-all before November 2008--toenail clippings could landslide Giuliani (I think he'll probably get the nod).
The only thing that really worries me about Clinton is not really anything to do with her at all. It's the hatred so many people have for her, I'm afraid if she wins the nomination it will cost us the election. I honestly believe Obama has a better chance of surviving the general. Every time he says something that makes me want to puke I know he's winning votes in Iowa.
As far as getting us totally out of Iraq, Richardson was our only realistic chance of that so that issue is off the table and no longer a factor in my choice.
I was a huge fan of Obama's before everyone and their brother knew who he was and he has consistently disappointed me since he began this campaign but...that could very well be because he is campaigning and well, need I say more about the voters he has to win over...
Don't you guys see it? It's not what a candidate says NOW! They're all trolling, pandering, and fishing for peripheral votes - it's the nature of politix, especially American politix. That's why, while I appreciate what Richardson says, I think he is pandering because he has little to lose.
It's who they are as thinkers, activists. That was defined in the crunch. Senator Obama came out against the invasion of Iraq in the Crunch of 2002. That's huge. Edwards apologized for not getting it right, sooner. That's a little less. Hillary will never apologize. That's nul, zero, zip.
I don't care what they say now. All I'm looking for CAN they say IT with HEAT when it comes to the next crunch.
And that's why I give Obama and Edwards (in that order) my nod over Clinton and Richardson.
I agree with Vigilante's second paragraph, but unfortunately it's demolished by his first. He's absolutely right, they are "trolling, pandering, and fishing", which is only another way of stating they are dishonest, giving the voters what they want to hear, instead of expressing their own individual views. Until you guys start chucking out the vote-getters in favor of the "I'll tell you what I think whether you like it or not" candidate, you'll always end up with a deadbeat, corporate-controlled, no-good in the White House. It's not good enough to "choose" the Democrat over the Republican as a lesser of two evils. If there is no candidate standing that you approve of, then don't vote. Just make sure you tell them why you're not electing them. If enough people did that, politicians would have to change to more honest methods. Remember, it really is YOU who vote these people in.
DONT VOTE????? It is non-voters who allow idiots like Bush to get into power. Voting should be compulsory, enough of your perverse notions of freedom, 'freedom' plays into the hands of conservatism. As soon as people feel a bit powerless at the hands of Bush, Rumsfeld and fat rich men who oppose everything that threatens their livlihood they DONT BOTHER TO VOTE. Make a decision people because America is going down the plughole fast and Bush has given you a great big boost in that direction.
RJ, I like you, but you don't get it.
I'll have another go at it, just for you:
Candidates like Dennis Kucinich will never be presidential, because they are not electable; they are not electable because they are too specific and non-ambiguous; such candidates lose more votes than they attract because the casual and informed voter (less informed but more numerous than you) is more inclined to vote against a candidate for one particular reason than for a candidate for a specific reasons. Therefore, the more specific a candidate is, the more vulnerable he is to losing votes among the less informed and conscientious voters.
For example, Dennis Kucinich probably represents my position more closely than any other candidate, but I would never risk my primary vote on him, because he's a loser. I Might give him some $$$ though, because I like to have his voice at the microphone during the debates. But I would never vote for him. Not in this rich field of Edwards and Obama, anyway...
To sum up: candidates who are ALWAYS specific and NEVER pander are LOSERS, even if they look heroic when they go down.
RJ: I meant to reply that I can see exactly what he sees in Hillary. She has a pretty good grasp of economics. That might seem trivial and irrelevant to a lot of politically minded people but it's central to everything else.
The economic fallout that's just now beginning to hit is the one thing that may finish off the Republican party like nothing else can. It's tragic that thousands dying needlessly has little effect but a hit to the pocketbook will start a political upheaval but I don't make the rules here.
It's what I've said all along: you have to hit them where it hurts, with what matters to them and that is money above all else.
I can go along with that. Among Democratic contenders, I'm an ABH guy, but if she gets the nomination, I'd rather vote for views that I dislike than views that I loathe.
Post a Comment