Remind me why Al Gore and Russ Feingold didn’t run for President?
January 24th, 2008 by 
Ellen
We all want leadership, right? These two should be within steps of the Oval Office at all times, if you ask me. And let Chris Dodd be the Senate Majority Leader. It’s really time for Reid to go. Past time. I also think that Nancy Pelosi would be delighted to usher him out the door. For months, I’ve felt as though she has been trying to lower her game to match his mediocre level–simply because she hopes to get something done, even though his timidity regularly prevents her from really doing her job.
And if the blogsphere wants to help, good for them!
Yuck. Let us hope that–most–of this is true.
Here is a second, very interesting piece about Al Gore. The world would be so very different, if only he had carried Tennessee. (No, I’m not going to natter on about the theft of Florida, and the probable treason of the Supreme Court. These events speak for themselves.)
Thinking about Al Gore leads me to a difficult question: if he is, in fact, probably the person best suited to be the President right now, does he have a moral imperative to run? (I have always liked Kant, and flirted, privately, with majoring in philosophy. Locke. Rawls. And so on.) Logically, no, of course not. He has free will, and if he genuinely chooses not to run, so be it. And yet, if a person possesses great gifts, does he or she have a duty to use them for the greater good? Which, obviously, the former Vice President has spent a great deal of time doing, in his own way–but, selfishly, I want more, and therefore, must try to achieve more myself, instead of urging other people to do so.
Hmmm. Majoring in English may have been the better choice. Philosophy is wicked complicated.
Am I rooting for Hillary? Yes. But, if she wins, I’m anticipating 4-8 years of extreme turmoil, independent prosecutors, and trumped-up scandals, given the degree to which she–to my continued confusion–inspires such strong hostility among vast segments of the country. Could I live with Obama? Sure. It would be so very much better than our current Administration, and he would speak beautifully, and the world would probably like him. But, I honestly think it would be 4-8 years of a legislative logjam, and no real accomplishments. How much smarter he would have been to stay in the Senate for two or three full terms, actually show up for important votes on a regular basis, build up relationships and credibility–and power–and then run.
On another note entirely. When it comes to fashion, I am nothing if not a moron–but, Chanel is fun.
Even though the entire state of affairs still makes me faintly uncomfortable, it is to laugh–and laugh quite a lot. It will not last forever, but it’s important to enjoy the ride.
This is pretty entertaining–especially if you have seen the terrifying original.
Posted in Actors, Boston Red Sox, New England Patriots, Philosophy, Politics |
January 26th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
I think that any Democrat would inspire extreme turmoil and trumped-up scandals, the Republicans play to win and it’s worked pretty well for them. Remember how using a filibuster for 5 out of 100 judges was an unprescedented exercise in anti-democratic power grabbing, yet now, with no fanfare and no demands for explination of the turnaround, EVERYTHING needs 60 votes to pass? They’ll use whatever weapons are available at any moment and the media are only too happy to play along.
January 27th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
True enough, but there’s turmoil–and there’s _turmoil_. The events of the past week or two have brought up bad memories of the latter for many people, including me,
January 28th, 2008 at 12:57 am
But it wasn’t even Bill himself, personally, was it? The reasons for the pathological degree of hatred, I mean. It was more payback over not giving a complete free pass to Iran-Contra and he had nothing to do with that. Whoever comes in next will pay off the psychic debt for failed impeachment, failure to appreciate GWB, or whatever grudge they work themselves into a lather about to justify all this misplaced anger.
January 28th, 2008 at 1:55 am
Yes, and no. They did some really amateur hour stuff, what with Whitewater, and Travelgate, and the health care snafu, and–well–Monica. Penny-ante things, mostly, but it was all very exhausting. During his entire Presidency, I was often very frustrated by the degree to which he continually fell short of his potential. I think Hillary would be more competent, but she lacks his normally easy way with people (which has been nowhere in sight recently), which would hurt her.
Regardless, I don’t envy the next President. What a lot of messes to clean up from the current Administration. But, if it’s a Democrat, at least there’s a _chance_ things will improve.
January 28th, 2008 at 10:02 am
Today’s NYTimes had a surprisingly good editorial from Krugman along those very lines, but he seems to feel that Clinton allowed the hostility to happen–or was ambushed in 92, and the next president might be able to stave some of that off by walking in the door with an aggressive agenda and well-crafted bills ready to be sent to Congress. Which…even though Krugman seemed ambivalent to the point of irrelevancy…says to me that Hillary continues to be the best-prepared candidate in the race to make that happen. Though if she just winds up as Al Gore’s running mate, I’d sorta be okay with that, too…
January 29th, 2008 at 5:16 am
*nods* I’m not a huge Bill fan, but I think the reality is, they wanted Independent Councils as payback for the Reagan era, and they’d've had them, even if it was Bradley or Tsongas. They’ve got a talent for ginning up “major” scandals out of very little, and nobody is clean enough to avoid a predetermined outcome like that. At least now they know what they’re up against, I think Obama would be blindsided by how fast he switched from bipartisan media darling to Public Enemy #1, and since policy isn’t his strongest suit, that would take away his chief strength right off the bat.
January 29th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
The fact that policy is his glaring weak point really troubles me.