Queers and running-mates: sadly, not actually the same thing
It’s interesting that late last night I had decided on two particular blog topics for the days to come, only to find both of them blogged about elsewhere this morning. I wonder if I’m sending out psychic blog messages or something. (Matt Wild- have I made you insane yet by mentioning blogs?!?).So anyway, topic one: the Democratic candidates and the LGBT community. I was fairly incensed a few weeks ago by Clinton’s proof of commitment to the LGBT’s (one of her “proofs” was that she hires gay people- um, isn’t this like the argument “I’m not racist. I have black friends”?). Anyway, last night, I was thinking that I hadn’t heard much lately on the gay/lesbian front about the candidates, and I wondered if they’ve been reaching so much into the mainstream sect of the party that they’re ignoring this group. I’d planned to do a little research and give you the 411. Thank god, Alternet made this so easy! Evidently, Obama is actively campaigning directly to the LGBT community, at least in Texas and Ohio. See the article here: http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/78162/ Obama’s approach, evidently, is ad buys in gay/lesbian publications, along with an “open letter” to the community; Clinton, on the other hand, has been doing interviews with LGBT (how many times can I write that?!) media. I find it interesting how differently they’re campaigning to this audience, and, for once, I think Clinton is right on. The ads are great, and so is his letter, but I think Obama’s really missing out by not doing more interviews (and interacting more directly) with the LGBT media. Getting LGBT endorsement is pretty important these days. I’ll be interested to see what happens in the days to come.
My other planned topic was a prediction of Obama’s running-mate. It’s early yet, considering he hasn’t even gotten the nomination, but I like to think ahead, and I’d really wanted to be the one in the know who could tell you all later that you heard it here first. Of course, I’m late to the damned party. This blog over on Alternet is a pretty decent take on what Obama needs in a running-mate: http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/78222/. I have to be honest, though; these aren’t at all my picks. I think he’s right that Obama needs to pick someone who isn’t just there to make up for weaknesses; at the same time, I think it’s important that Obama pick someone who can help him win, not just be in total agreement with him. That said, I absolutely agree that Clinton is a terrible pick, and I hope to god Obama doesn’t go there. There’s too much discord between the two, and I’d always be picturing her plotting some kind of assassination attempt so she could move up. I do think, though, that Bowers left off a couple of viable possibilities, namely John Edwards and Bill Richardson. I understand Bowers position about Obama needing an anti-war running-mate, but I think the issue with Hillary isn’t so much that she supported the war initially, but that she failed to acknowledge it as a mistake for so long. If she apologized like Edwards and acknowledged it as a fuck-up, I really don’t think Obama would be able to continue to attack her stand on Iraq. Looked at that way, both Edwards and Richardson have alot to offer. Edwards is the anti-corporation guy, so he’d be great with Washington reform and health care; Richardson brings an outsider perspective as well, plus he has the added benefit of being Hispanic, and while the veep shouldn’t be picked just for his ability to win a demographic, it’s certainly a nice perk.
I personally think that picking someone too unknown for the position would be a huge risk. Obama is a relative unknown, and while that’s great in a way, it also makes the November election hard. People who don’t watch speeches, who don’t read every blog known to man, who don’t religiously watch the news, aren’t going to know who the hell Obama and unknown running-mate are, while McCain has his name totally out there. Of course, I’d love to see Feingold there, but I also think he’s doing far more good in the Senate and with the Progressive Patriots Fund than he would as the replacement for Dick Cheney.
That’s my 10 cents on the subject (what? You don’t think I’m worth a damned dime? Fucking cheapskates). What are your thoughts? Believe it or not, I actually want to hear them.
Posted by mtucker on 02/29 at 12:06 PM
Seriously, I love this guessing game as much as anyone. I think Bill Richardson makes the most sense. He's got foreign policy cred, he's Hispanic, from a Western state, and he ran a principled, engergetic campaign.
And as a governor, he brings that managerial experience that comes in handy.
There's no way I see Obama choosing Hilary. Not only is she going over the top in her criticism of Obama but she would bring the "Clinton fatigue" that turns so many folks, particularly independents, off.
I, too, respect and admire Feingold but it ain't gonna happen. (And, please, nobody should expect Obama to choose Deval Patrick. Come on!)
McCain's got the more difficult choice for several reasons. He's got to shore up his conservative base but he can't name someone too far right cause it'll turn off those same independents. He also probably needs a governor with management experience. And it has to be someone at least a bit younger though that won't be hard.
Florida Gov. Charlie Crites seems like the early favorite. Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty is also on a lot of short lists. Conservative columnist Bob Novak got some local tongues wagging when he mentioned Congressman Paul Ryan. He is a rising star among conservatives but might be too young.
Gawd this is fun.