State of the Union: Screwed

[annathepiper]

I didn't catch the State of the Union address last night--it aired while I was on my way home. It's on our Tivo, but from what I'm hearing I didn't really miss much and I'm not inclined to go back and get caught up. I did catch the Democratic response, which didn't particularly thrill me either. I would have liked Tom Kaine's "there's a better way" speech if I hadn't known about the unrelenting hostility his state legislature has had against gay rights. So as it played out, his speech mostly summed up for me as "there's a better way... unless you're queer."

Interesting fact-checking is already going around about the State of the Union speech, though. Courtesy of filkertom, here is ThinkProgress.org, which has posted several little articles fact-checking various aspects of the speech. flashfire does some interesting math about U.S. dependence on foreign oil. And the Seattle Times fact-checks the speech as well.

Monday evening miles: 1.85
Tuesday miles: 3.95
Wednesday morning miles: 1.6
Miles out of Hobbiton: 667.9
Miles out of Rivendell: 209.9
Miles to Lothlórien: 254.1

ETA 2/3/06 10:07am: TIM Kaine, not Tom Kaine. My bad.

Comments

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

The Democrats are a pathetic excuse for an opposition party, and their big problem is one of substance, not style. Rather than stand on principles and build policies and rhetoric around those principles, they frame themselves as "not Republicans."

Supporting civil rights (for anyone--I don't see the Democrats putting much on the line for anyone's civil rights these days) requires the Democrats to stand on principle, and so it's out.

I'm actually more angry with Democrats right now than the Republicans. I mean, sure, the Republicans are hypocrites on lots of things (lesser government? fiscal discipline? support for individual rights? Yeah, right.) But they do play to their base of big business and right wing fundamentalists, so you know what you're dealing with. The Democrats essentially support the same agenda simply by refusing to offer credible alternatives, and then when they meet with failure, they become even more weaselly the next time around.

[flashfire.livejournal.com]

Yes, yes, and yes.

Did I say yes?

[annathepiper]

Yeah, pretty much with you all around. I'm not expecting anything out of the Dems come the next election. I wish I could say otherwise, but I'm not.

I've heard rumors Kaine might wind up being the 2008 Dem candidate. If that's at all true, so far I'm not impressed.

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

I really doubt that. You can basically put the likely Democratic candidates into two categories:

Insiders:

Senator Hillary Clinton (New York)
Governor Warner (VA)
Senator Evan Bayh (can't remember his state)
Senator Joe Biden (Delaware, credit card companies)
Governor Bill Richardson (New Mexico)
Governor Tom Vilsack (Iowa)
John Kerry
John Edwards


One could argue that Edwards isn't a huge insider, but the fact he was the VP candidate gives him insider credibility. Of these candidates, I personally think Kerry, Vilsack, and Richardson are unlikely for various reasons, and the rest are probably likely nominees in the order listed.

Outsiders:

General Wesley Clark (Army, UN)
Senator Russ Feingold (WI)

No one else has an exploratory committee, so it's almost certainly going to be one of these people, but a dark horse or last minute entry is always possible. Someone like Kaine is unlikely--they're just giving him some early national exposure so he can maybe be credible 4-8 years from now. Remember that Gary Locke gave the Democratic response, and he's now out of politics.

I don't really like any of these guys except Feingold, though I think Edwards is OK if smarmy, and I'd take any of them over the GOP offerings. I can give you good reasons for each one to explain why they don't have a chance, but the reality is nothing ever looks good this far out. Howard Dean wasn't making waves until late 2002, and things really didn't get going until fall of 2003, so we've got almost a year before this really will get going. By the end of the year, we should know which of these people is building an early buzz and what additional candidates might be looking to run.

Feingold's a good combination of progressive, libertarian, and appealing to moderate voters. He's also recently divorced, which some people think kills his chances. People also worry about him being Jewish, but I think that's simple anti-Semitism, with people projecting their own bigotry onto other voters. I really want him to win.