It's entirely possible that I haven't been paying enough attention before now, but I can't remember a single election cycle before this one in which a candidate for President has made an announcement that he's forming an exploratory committee. I'm not saying it hasn't happened. I'm just saying it seems like a big deal this time around. Obviously it's totally hollow - an announcement that you're going to make an announcement, except not that committal. But it is tantalizing, isn't it? I'd bet it would work with women. Next time I want it the bad way, I'm going to eschew all the pleading and simply announce I'm going to form an anal exploratory committee.

But I'm getting away from myself. The real news is that this was a huge weekend for exploratory committees, with both Hillary Clinton and Bill Richardson dipping their tootsies in the tub. Neither announcement was particularly remarkable - Hillary's video found her sitting on a very matronly couch, one would assume in an attempt to come across less like a harpy than she has... always. Richarson's was from the front seat of a 1982 Chevy, also occupied by his family, his campaign staff, and the President of Uganda.

Of course I jest.

In all seriousness, it's pretty remarkable to look at the Democratic contenders - they're really putting the race into this race. We've got a woman, an Hispanic, a black, and a gnome. The only nod to the traditional milquetoast WASPishness that usually dominates the field is John Edwards. I guess all it takes to make Americans set race and gender aside is two calamitous terms of a white Anglo President generally regarded is being one beer bong away from participating in the Special Olympics.

Setting aside the quipping for a moment, I'm actually a fairly big fan of Bill Richardson. My real issue with him is that I think he's more exciting on paper than he is in reality. I mean, I think you could actually make the case that he's qualified for the job. Granted, I've gone on record before as saying I think experience is over-rated (especially because I don't think there's anything that can prepare you for the shitstorm our next Commander-in-Chief will have to endure,) but if anyone's got the bona fides, it's Richardson. He's a former UN Ambassador, executive experience as Governor of New Mexico, etc. But for me, what I like about Richardson is that I think he could well represent the future of the party. He's from the west, he's Latino, and he's not going to get involved in a lot of the traditional liberal issues that I just don't think matter right now. I'm talking about things like gun control. The problem I have with Richardson is totally hollow and superficial, and I'll readily admit it. To me, he's just not Presidential. He's Vice-Presidential. That is to say, I think he seems like a good guy who would get things done, and who genuinely wants what's best for America. But I just don't feel inspired by him, and I really don't feel like he wants it. For me, the bottom line on Richardson is that I think he's going to make a great VP, and whoever gets him will be lucky to have him.

But Hillary, Hillary, Hillary. I just don't like Hillary. For me, she represents everything wrong with the Democratic party. She's against a lot, but not for much. I think Bill was terrific, and hugely underappreciated in his day. But she can't run on him, and she can't run away from him. I also think that, at the end of the day, she will never win a general. There are those who say the same about Obama, and that may well be true. But why I think his "electability" isn't as much of an issue as hers is a subject for another post.

Analogcabin @ 10:26 PM
Permalink |