Election musings

I've been cogitating on this ever since I heard it: Tucker Carlson, before the debate on Tuesday night, said that John Edwards proves that you can't win by focusing on policy - he said that no one has been more specific than Edwards with regards to what he would actually do if elected, and it's not getting Edwards noticed by the voters. It's so true and so annoying. Not that Edwards is necessarily the best candidate, but the fact that he's focusing on issues is just not a winning strategy. It's so frustrating.

Then today I had this exchange with my friend Mike. He's a moderate Democrat who has supported various Republican candidates and is not a fan of Hillary Clinton. Here's what he said:

From a practical standpoint, I think she's too divisive a candidate and will have a tough time getting elected. In terms of not liking her, I can't put my finger on it- [at the debate] she did not answer a number of questions that pointedly asked for yes or no- she danced around her views and, to me, wasted a lot of time. She also kept saying "when I was in the White House I did..." but the fact is that she was never elected to serve in the White House and I think that was part of the problem in that administration. Finally, Hillary has never governed anything in her life and while the same can be said about Obama, he seems much more likely to build bridges and far less arrogant than she does . . . Wanting to be president and feeling like you deserve to be president is fine, but she is easily the weakest candidate in the Democratic field (there's no way she's better than Dodd, Biden, Richardson and Kucinich, those at the bottom of the popularity scale) and I think she would never have even been considered had she not been First Lady.

And here's what I said:

I hear what you're saying Mike, I really do, and I'm not a big fan myself, for a lot of reasons, but it's been such a difficult 8 years, and, at this point, I would like to see any Dem in office over any Republican . . . I didn't think she could get elected in NY, being as she was a total carpet bagger, but she was elected and reelected. There are many people who like and admire her, and many people who think that she is straddling issues out of necessity, not b/c her character is flawed. I agree that the other candidates would actually make better presidents, but they clearly aren't electable for various reasons. I don't agree with the process that this country uses to choose a leader - if we picked the best person for the job, we never would have ended up with GWB - but this is the process we're stuck with and I think Hillary would make a better president than Bush (though that's not saying much, of course, but that's the standard we have at this point).

Frankly, I'm getting sort of terrified by hearing various Democrats (including my own husband) saying they wouldn't support Hillary Clinton. That seems like a recipe for that Neanderthal Giuliani to get elected and that is SO not what this country needs right now. Of course it's WAY too early to be projecting this race, but he whole thing is nerve-wracking.