Good year for Presidential candidates?

[Orchidflower]

Just curious if anyone else feels that this is one of the very few times (OK, the ONLY time) that I like ALL the candidates--not equally, of course--but none of them totally disgust me at least. Most years, I am totally turned off by ALL the candidates. This year I find all of them are intelligent and wouldn't have too many fits if any one got in. (This is not to say that I don't already have a favorite.) Am I alone in this feeling?

 

[Martha]

As they say in Minnesota, "could be worse."

 

[Coach]

I agree, Orchidflower. The three front-runners each bring something really interesting to the election this year. I'm very encouraged.

Coach

 

[HFWR]

Ick...

 

[Marquette]

John "Strangelove" McCain - hawk, open borders, seems to be out of touch on domestic and economic issues. Voting record doesn't show a heck of a lot of leadership. As far as he goes, he doesn't feel like a republican's republican and he's certainly no conservative... worst case scenario, he plays the role of Sulla.

Barack "The Orator" Obama - Talks a fantastic game, seems light on the substance and plan to follow through. The Exelon connection worries me a bit... fundraising from executives doesn't feel any more excusable than PAC or corporate giving. He's either a visionary or just more of the same.

Hillary "Not your father's Clinton" Clinton - Senate experience, claims she did a lot in the Clinton administration (believable, after all, that's why the republicans were after her back then). However, why won't she release the records of her involvement? To summarize the two seconds of the last debate we saw, Hillary talked about all the work she did on nationalized health care under Bill's administration, my wife yelled at the TV "then why don't you open the records and prove it you stupid b****".

 

[W2R]

Blech!!

The thing is, you just aren't negative enough! Here, let me show you how to correct that:

Barak Hussein Obama is so young and immature as to be wet behind the ears, and what is the real deal with that middle name? I don't think he will be tough enough with terrorists. Maybe in 20 years... he is too young and running too soon.

Hillary "Hildabeest" Clinton is just another Clinton. If she is elected, we will have had Bushes and Clintons only for over a quarter century. Not only that, I think she, too, would have more trouble with the Middle East than some because they have no respect for women as leaders.

John McCain would be tough enough with Middle Eastern terrorists, but he is such a hawk that he might escalate things into WW III. Whatever happened to firmness combined with moderation? Also, he doesn't seem to want to beef up enforcement of our immigration laws sufficiently.

See? It's easy to find fault with these candidates, if you try hard enough! OK, this post was tongue-in-cheek, so don't jump on me, y'all. I don't really post on political threads but couldn't resist.

 

[guest]

W2R
Don't apologize....a lot of people see the same thing! There is no doubt the face of politics is changing. That might be a good poll......not the canidates as miuch as the change they represent....in that does that excite you or give you cause to be concerned?

 

[Gumby]

Barack "The Orator" Obama - Talks a fantastic game, seems light on the substance and plan to follow through. The Exelon connection worries me a bit... fundraising from executives doesn't feel any more excusable than PAC or corporate giving. He's either a visionary or just more of the same.

I have heard the "smooth style, light on details" thing before and I think it is misguided. When any candidate is out on the stump making a connection with the voters, he or she does not really have time to give more than a cursory sketch of his or her positions. The "debates" we have in this country suffer similar shortcomings. I assume that all candidates have the ability and the hired help to generate detailed positions on everything. In office, they certainly will not be doing it alone.

When I listen to a candidate speech I want to get a sense of whether the person is a positive leader who will inspire people. Say what you will about Reagan, but he inspired a lot of people even though he was light on detail. He was a leader. One of the things that bothers me when I listen to Hilary Clinton (and many other candidates) is the "laundry list" approach, where they say "we need this and this and this and I'll do that and that and that" all in the space of 20 seconds. I don't find it useful when, of necessity, it can offer no detail, and when I can research her positions on my own, as I can Obama's positions and plans. If you really want to know his plans in excruciating detail, you could go to his website (barackobama.com). It's in there.

As far as Exelon goes -- is it so strange to think that executives of a nuclear-focused utility might support the candidate who believes nuclear power has an important place in our national energy portfolio, because it generates no greenhouse gases? That is certainly one of the reasons I support him. Given Obama's proven ability to raise massive amounts of money over the internet, I am not concerned about any quid pro quo between him and Exelon.

 

[Nords]

Am I alone in this feeling?

Nope.

Thank goodness it's not Bush vs. Dukakis.

Or Bush vs. Gore.

Or Bush vs. Kerry.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

The Dems sure do have a tendency to toss out unelectable candidates in gimme elections, dont they?

 

[ladelfina]

along the lines of Gumby's comments.. I saw a bit from Mario Cuomo (noted in the past for his oratory skills as well) saying, "You campaign in poetry. You govern in prose."

Thought that was a pretty good summing-up.

This was also pretty funny:

Meanwhile some liberals take the opposite tack from Steyn's: trying to talk themselves out of supporting a candidate they support. Publius at Obsidian Wings:

Although I remain an Obama supporter, I do fear that I’m allowing myself to be enchanted in an intellectually juvenile way. Of course, like you I suspect, I think of myself as more sophisticated than the crowds that vacillated mindlessly from Brutus to Marc Antony. But the truth is that I’m not all that different. I too am all too human, and thus susceptible to the same types of appeals, even if they come dressed in different clothes.

Michael Dukakis isn't doing anything. Why don't we draft him and spare ourselves all this charisma?

alicublog

just loved that last bit...

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

The nation certainly does have some peculiar fascination with bad MA politicians...

 

[TromboneAl]

If you feel that all the candidates are reasonable, follow this advice:

Don't watch them or listen to them. Because sooner or later, something they say or do is going to change your mind. There will be some question that they evade and answer in a political way, or something that they say that makes you realize they are out of touch.

And there's a 1 in 3 chance that the one that you come to dislike will be the one that gets elected.