Wednesday, March 05, 2008

CNN Should Hire Me

I wouldn't keep saying, "McCain, Obama, and Hillary,"
and nor would I mistranslate "mano y mano" (hand-to-hand) as "mano y womano" when talking about Obama and Clinton.

Conservatives and pundits keep saying that the Republicans are in a better place than the Democrats since they have a nominee while their rivals are still duking it out.

I think there's another way to look at this.

1) The Democrats are going to be making a lot more headlines, and in this country it seems that any publicity really is good publicity.

2) Look at the endorsements McCain got today. Are these really helpful?

3) McCain has to defend himself against attacks from two opponents, while preparing attacks against two opponents. I'm sure he'd run a different campaign if he could target just one of them.

4) Neither Clinton nor Obama wants to be seen as being the bad guy beating up on the other Democrat, so they're both likely to focus a fair amount of heat on McCain to prove that they've got what it takes to go up against the Republican rival. (And as Bush's heir apparent, supporting most of his policies, there's plenty to go after.)

On a related note, McCain's big strength is with moderates, and there's some concern that he'll pull moderate Democrats, or those uncomfortable with Clinton or Obama. I think he'll lose those moderate votes in the search for stronger evangelical support if he chooses Huckabee to round out the ticket, as seems likely.

Can you tell? I'm feeling a little interested in politics again. I'm betting there will be a couple of TVs and a couple of big parties over here again this fall!


Amanda said...

It's definitely a historic race in a lot of ways. I'm not big into politics, but there is one thing Bush's presidency has done that is good. I think more people are looking at the system and voting for a much needed change. Obviously even the Republicans see that change as McCain is a moderate Republican. It's amazing how a truly bad presidency can make us more political. At least it's made me more so.

Orange said...

My mantra: WAR and HEALTH CARE, WAR and HEALTH CARE. If you want everyone to have insurance and want the war to end, McCain is basically Bush's twin. That whole "maverick," "not a real conservative" reputation McCain has? Is baloney. Also, his voting record on reproductive rights is 100% anti-choice, and he's too afraid of the fundies to even say that contraception is A-OK. He's not moderate! He just isn't. His reputation is undeserved.

Sarahlynn said...

Orange, yes, exactly! I hadn't had time to comment yet, but was planning to respond to Amanda with,

"The thing is, McCain isn't really a moderate at all, when you look at his voting record and recent promises to 'the base.'"

The only place he really breaks with his party currently is his strange refusal to reccommend the death penalty for all illegal/undocumented immigrants.

But, the thing is, if Amanda (and my friend Elizabeth) still think of McCain as a moderate or a straight-talker (which he assuredly hasn't been, at least since 2004) then certainly many others do, too.

So, I say: bring on Gov. Huckabee! Blow that "moderate" myth out of the water once and for all!

deb said...

Huckabee doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being McCain's running mate.

Beverly said...

Do you think it hurts Clinton that she has been referred to as "Hillary" for so long, to avoid confusion with her husband?

Sarahlynn said...

Deb, the politicos and talking heads think Huckabee's a good possibility. They keep talking about McCain wanting to "shore up his base" and "send a signal to evangelicals," and Huckabee would do that. (As well as also sending a signal to the rest of us.)

Who do you think McCain will choose?

Sarahlynn said...

Beverly, I think that it's reasonable to expect parity. I'm fine with the "Hillary" yard signs, but sentences should be parallel. It's not hard to know which Clinton is intended when a news anchor talks about "voters heading to the polls on Tuesday to choose between Obama and Clinton."

Yes, I absolutely think it hurts all women in our desire to be taken seriously when last names belong to men and women are more informally addressed.

And I think the public is plenty smart enough to tell the difference between two people with the same last name. After all, we've apparently managed to avoid confusion between GWB and GHWB. Why does Hillary, then, have to be "Hillary" to avoid confusion?