scary things I have read this morning:

[ursako]

1.) McCain / Huckabee '08
2.) McCain / Lieberman '08
3.) McCain / Gingrich '08

Seriously, can anyone explain to me why they hate Hillary so thoroughly that they would consider voting for McCain instead? Give me detailed policy reasons, not 'she's not for hope and change!' or 'her husband got a blow job in the Oval Office!'

Comments

[ursako]

Thank you for that thoughtful response; that actually makes a lot of sense, although I think you give the Congressional Democrats too much credit. I honestly don't think that they could be cowed into obedience so easily. The dynastic issue bothers me too; I think it just doesn't scare me so much that I'd reject a candidate who, on the face of it, has positions similar to my own on lots of human rights and economic issues.
And, to be fair, I do have reasons for fearing those dudes. I guess Gingrich is, objectively, the least scary, if the most hackish. Huckabee would be (mostly) powerless to mess things up as veep, but if he managed to turn it into a presidency he could really wreak havoc with policy initiatives. I don't for a moment foresee that he would succeed at amending the Constitution as his pastor sees fit, but the fact that he thinks it's appropriate worries me to no end. As for Lieberman, I worry about having an Israel hawk as veep to a general Middle-East hawk; I don't know what good he brings to the table, aside from the ability to draw off hawkish Democratic voters.
Just out of curiosity, how would you feel about an Obama vice presidency? Would that change your mind?

[jonsonite]

I agree that if you're liberal, Hillary is the easy choice over McCain...moderates and independents are concerned that she'll be too effective at being liberal.

Obama as Vice President for McCain or Hillary? If Obama were VP for McCain, I'd be pretty happy with it.

Obama as VP wouldn't change my mind about Hillary...though I guess it would be fun to watch. After the acrimony during South Carolina, I don't think that would be a happy Whitehouse.

Do you think it's unlikely for Obama to win the nomination? From what I'm hearing it's anyone's game. And Obama has a much better chance against McCain than Hillary does.

[wendolen]

I agree that if you're liberal, Hillary is the easy choice over McCain...moderates and independents are concerned that she'll be too effective at being liberal.

Huh. Some people disagree strongly with that last statement.

As for Obama vs Clinton, everyone I know planning to caucus on Saturday who's announced their candidate is planning to stand up for Obama. (Including me.) I think it's a bit early to call this contest.

[jonsonite]

Two points:

1. Holy crap! I don't really watch political talk-shows. Do they always talk over each other like that? It's maddening.

2. Is it possible that Coulter is trying to help Obama beat Hillary? Because what? The idea that Hillary is as pro-war as McCain is the biggest fairy-tale I ever heard! No, I guess it's the second biggest fairy-tale I ever heard. In fact, I don't think that there is a single issue where McCain is as or more liberal than Hillary, unless you think mandatory national service is a liberal issue (which is arguable).

But yeah, when I mentioned moderates and independents, I forgot to factor Ann Coulter into my thinking.

[wendolen]

Heh, well. Mostly I wanted Urs to see that video and I was planning to reply to the original post with it, but then I read your comment asserting pretty much the opposite of what she said, and I just had to put it there instead.

McCain is terrifying by himself. The tortured POW who wrote up the bill endorsing our torture of "enemy combatants." Wow. I just can't begin to describe how much moral corruption that represents to me.

[jonsonite]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/15/torture.bill/index.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10480690
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/29/100012.shtml
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/mccain/index.asp
http://www.democracynow.org/2007/11/29/romney_mccain_spar_on_waterboarding_and
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/dec2005/tort-d17.shtml
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002691568_mccain19.html

It looks like everyone (except for the World Socialist Website) agrees that McCain is actually anti-torture, except in the "million-to-one situation" where it could stop a terrorist attack. He's against mock-executions, waterboarding, anything that is cruel, inhumane or degrading, or anything that shocks the conscience. And he's fought with Bush and Cheney about it, and won.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2006/10/16/2006-10-16_mccain_team_mocks_hil_torture_loophole.html

It appears that his major difference with Hillary on this issue is that in the "ticking time-bomb" scenario he'd rather have the President break the law and take responsibility for his actions and she'd rather have an exception written into the law that allows torture in that case. Both are reasonable approaches that have their own problems, but neither smacks of moral corruption...

Is there something I'm missing?

[wendolen]

except in the "million-to-one situation" where it could stop a terrorist attack.

Fucking Jack Bauer. What's it going to take for them to understand that that situation does not exist? Even the pragmatist should be against torture, ignoring all moral arguments, because it does not yield reliable testimony.

[jonsonite]

But note that Hillary and McCain agree that torture should be used in that situation.

Is there any support for the position that John McCain isn't about as good as Hillary and Obama on torture? I don't get the distaste? Not only is he anti-torture, but he's leading the fight against it in the Senate.

[ursako]

I'm with you on this one; McCain has been fairly brave on this issue, although I wish that we could eliminate the 'ticking time-bomb' scenario from public discourse entirely, since it hasn't occurred in the history of the U.S.

[ursako]

Holy crap! I don't really watch political talk-shows. Do they always talk over each other like that? It's maddening.
All the time. They are not gentlemanly.

But yeah, when I mentioned moderates and independents, I forgot to factor Ann Coulter into my thinking.
HAH! God bless you, young Jon.

[ursako]

moderates and independents are concerned that she'll be too effective at being liberal. I honestly hadn't heard that viewpoint before. Where has it been getting play?

Do you think it's unlikely for Obama to win the nomination? From what I'm hearing it's anyone's game.
Nooot true. From what I've read, Clinton's been doing well and is on track to win a significantly higher number of superdelegates. And that's from someone who really, honestly, would take Clinton or Obama.

And Obama has a much better chance against McCain than Hillary does. That much does seem to be true, if you look at the last Post/ABC poll. Of course, two weeks ago the same poll said they'd both lose to McCain, so what it'll look like in October is anyone's guess.

[wendolen]

Nooot true. From what I've read, Clinton's been doing well and is on track to win a significantly higher number of superdelegates.

According to Salon.com, Clinton won 641 delegates yesterday to Obama's 633, but before that she had 48 to his 63, so his total number of delegates is still higher. (Clinton: 689. Obama: 696. Still incredibly close. edited to add: I ought to read the entire page before linking to it. I see what you're saying about superdelegates. Still, I don't think an 80-delegate split is enough to call it this soon.)

I won't vote against Clinton if she gets the nomination, but Obama is certainly my preferred candidate.

[jonsonite]

Well, I worry about Clinton being too effective, and it seems like a reasonable concern. Don't you routinely worry about the effectiveness of your adversaries? It's much better to have an ineffective opponent than an effective one. Maybe nobody's thinking that but me, it's just so obvious that I assumed everyone who disagrees with Hillary/Obama policies were on the same page.

Hmm...my reading (I've been following a lot of the major papers/newsmagazines/etc through realclearpolitics.com) is that Clinton still has an edge but that those superdelegates of hers can evaporate as she stops being the "frontrunner". The candidates are near even in the normal delegate count and Clinton hasn't managed to crush Obama yet. He's set to win most of the small states that dominate the next two weeks. And if it gets all the way to the convention, who knows how those superdelegates are going to vote. Obama's been getting a lot of endorsements.

The reason that Obama will do better against McCain than Hillary will, in all likelihood, is that moderates and independents tend to dislike Hillary and tend to like Obama. I do. And McCain needs those moderates and independents to win, especially if the disgruntled conservatives don't come out so much.