My neighborhood in Chicago is notionally Democratic. Registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans 20 to 1 or more. It is operationally independent, indeed, one politically connected neighbor characterized a Democrat in this neighborhood as an independent who wants his or her trash picked up.
My neighborhood went for Bush in 2004, Gore in 2000, Clinton in 1996, Bush in 1992, and Bush in 1988.
There are virtually no political signs in my neighborhood. There are very few Obama signs. There are very few McCain signs. There are very few signs for local politicians. There are very few political signs period.
It isn’t always this way. I can recall elections in which half or more of the yards had political signs. I suspect that the lack of signage reflects two things: the conviction that Illinois will go for Obama (which reduces both campaigns’ interest in the state) and my neighbors’ ambivalence about the election.
Over the last couple of weeks several of my neighbors have sought me out to solicit my opinion of the candidates and the campaigns, perhaps in the hope of forming their own opinions, perhaps because they know I’m interested in such things. I’ve given it, somewhat reluctantly: I don’t think much of either candidate.
Last night’s debate did nothing to change my mind. I’m sure that some of Sen. McCain’s partisans will be heartened by his increased willingness to take the debate to Sen. Obama. I thought he looked singularly uncomfortable in doing so.
Historically, the candidate better able to convey a vision of America and its bright future, interweaving his own life story into the narrative, has won the election. Neither of the two major party candidates are of that stamp and I don’t care for either one as president.
Sen. Barack Obama is not qualified to be president. His greatest victories in life have been in being elected to offices not serving in them. When I’ve pointed that out to his supporters, they’ve pointed to lists of the bills he introduced in the Illinois Senate or the U. S. Senate. Closer examination showed me that the highlights among those pieces of legislation were never enacted into law or meaningless feel-good pablum. These are aspirations rather than accomplishments.
In my view Sen. Obama’s supporters confuse qualification with aptitude. I have the aptitude to be president of General Electric. The board of directors of GE would have to be crazy to give me that job—I have neither the experience nor the temperament.
Temperament is the area in which I’m least satisfied with Sen. John McCain. I just don’t think he has the temperament to be president. While some of what he has to say strikes the right notes, it seems to me that his first reactions to events, notably the financial crisis, are off-key.
I think it’s more than likely that Barack Obama will be elected president. The fundamentals favor it, particularly popular uncertainty about the economy which historically has tended to favor Democrats. John McCain has run a remarkably flaccid campaign. I lean, ever so slightly, towards voting for Obama. At this point my preference would be to vote “No”.
I agree with every single word. I keep telling people that this year I’m voting for the disaster because I can’t stand the thought of the catastrophe getting into office. (Normally, I vote affirmatively, but not only are there no useful independents this year, I am in a swing state and I really, really fear the consequences of the catastrophe being elected, while I only fear some of the consequences of the disaster being elected.)
Anyone for picking 100 people, 2 per state, randomly off the voter rolls, and having a reality TV show of repeated interviews, debates and simulated crises where we get to vote off the weak, stupid and insane? The last one standing gets to be President. It might be a better system than we have now.
In many ways, these candidates are the least predictable Presidential candidates in my voting lifetime. Partly, it’s because both have no executive experience, so we don’t know how they would lead. For Mccain, its a tendency towards emotional decision-making, coupled with the view that most domestic policy is simply a matter of compromise. For Obama, it’s inexperience. He has no experience.
Projecting forward, how would either candidate interact with a large Democratic majority Congress? What would McCain do when Congress sends him a war-funding appropriation laden with earmarks? I am concerned that a filibuster proof Senate might pull the plug on the Iraq conflict with more speed and less prudence than either Presidential candidate. From a hawk’s p.o.v., Obama might better protect executive prerogatives than McCain might in the face of a hostile Congress.
And would Obama be able to maintain control of priorities in the face of a Democratic congress unleashed?
I really, really fear the consequences of the catastrophe being elected, while I only fear some of the consequences of the disaster being elected
LOL.
I’ve said several times that I like both of the candidates – as Senators. In fact, I think they’re two of our best Senators. But after nearly two years of following this campaign, I’m quite unenthusiastic about either as President. My nickel goes to Obama, because I think he at least has the potential to do a good job. But I don’t like voting for potential, not in times like these.
Sadly though, they may have been the best of their respective fields. Neither party seemed interested in putting forward anyone who might have made an effective executive. The few who had real experience ran godawful campaigns that made me wonder how effective they would actually be.
It’s the Peter Principle, Tom. Workers rise to their level of incompetence.
Neither party seemed interested in putting forward anyone who might have made an effective executive. The few who had real experience ran godawful campaigns that made me wonder how effective they would actually be.
Remember that creating an organization from the ground up and taking over an existing organization with its own rules and culture are two seperate things.
Obama HAS done a good job building his Presidential campaign. But he has also had completely free reign to do as he pleases. How will he do when he has to deal with entrenched bureaucracies, government unions, a hostile Congress (Congress is always hostile to the President, by design. The only way it wouldn’t be so is if the President roled over for Congress.), hostile voters, expectant voters, and a huge staff each member of which will have their own agendas.
On the other hand, Rudy and Mitt ran bad campaigns, but they also have decent experience on the other front.
The problem we have is that the interview process for the job has almost no correlation with the job itself.