Usedcarsalesman knows he is veering off from his typical discussion of subjects such entertainment and technology (as such, this blog doesn't have the "laser-precise" focus so prized by advertisers). But, Usedcarsalesman is going to veer anyway. The subject in the cross-hairs today is risky and, yes, political. Namely it concerns who's going to win the U.S. presidential elections in 2008.
As one who did not vote in November 2000 and 2004 (or in any U.S. election since 1992 for that matter), Usedcarsalesman was able to consider the U.S. Presidential candidates -- George W Bush and John F. Kerry -- without a great deal of passion. And though John Kerry lost in 2004, 'Used' was not inclined to rule him out in the future as had a few of his supporters (who dropped criticism on the Kerry like he was a bad scene in a Star Wars Prequels).
First off, Sen. Kerry is going to roll in to 2008 as one of the few recognizable Presidential candidates, other than perhaps Sen. Hillary Clinton. Who are the Republicans going to field? Who knows, but it's not going to be Vice President Cheney. Furthermore, you're likely not going to see a Republican governor emerge as a successful Presidential candidate that fights the "powers that be" like Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter did against long periods of Republican White House control (such a candidate is part of the "powers that be" to begin with). As for Republican candidates from the Congress , the Military or a previous administration's cabinet, Usedcarsalesman has to ask, "who do you know in that field who has something to fight for?"
First off, Sen. Kerry is going to roll in to 2008 as one of the few recognizable Presidential candidates, other than perhaps Sen. Hillary Clinton. Who are the Republicans going to field? Who knows, but it's not going to be Vice President Cheney. Furthermore, you're likely not going to see a Republican governor emerge as a successful Presidential candidate that fights the "powers that be" like Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter did against long periods of Republican White House control (such a candidate is part of the "powers that be" to begin with). As for Republican candidates from the Congress , the Military or a previous administration's cabinet, Usedcarsalesman has to ask, "who do you know in that field who has something to fight for?"
Yeah, see the point Usedcarsalesman is getting at? Any Republican is going to be forced to stand by the 2000-2008 U.S. Administration's image to field themselves successfully as a Republican candidate. So, Republicans are going to end up going with a relatively little known Presidential Candidate for 2008 and that Candidate is going to be weighed down by being forced to take an inherently defensive position (Republican presidential Candidate: ...no really, I'm not joking, the Bush Administration executed perfectly for the last 8 years). So Usedcarsalesman is giving the advantage to the Democrats in 2008.
Then we have the Democratic field: basically Senator John Kerry, Senator Hillary Clinton and her spouse and various lesser known Democratic politicians. In that pool of candidates, Usedcarsalesman give the nomination victory (and the Presidency) to Kerry. Kerry has already been through the Presidential Campaign ringer once and he did extremely well versus a sitting President who was in charge of a fearful country that had been attacked by a foreign entity. Kerry has lost other political races before, such as a congressional race in the 1970s; but, he came back from this defeat and won a Senate seat. So, Kerry has shown that he can rebound in to a stronger position -- he can run or President again after losing and win.
Then we have the Democratic field: basically Senator John Kerry, Senator Hillary Clinton and her spouse and various lesser known Democratic politicians. In that pool of candidates, Usedcarsalesman give the nomination victory (and the Presidency) to Kerry. Kerry has already been through the Presidential Campaign ringer once and he did extremely well versus a sitting President who was in charge of a fearful country that had been attacked by a foreign entity. Kerry has lost other political races before, such as a congressional race in the 1970s; but, he came back from this defeat and won a Senate seat. So, Kerry has shown that he can rebound in to a stronger position -- he can run or President again after losing and win.
Kerry has already been vetted by the press, both inside and out; he's not perfect: a "summer" (3 months) in Vietnam does not a "tour" make. But, nevertheless, everything appears to be legit. Yes, some people say Kerry "quit" in 2004; Usedcarsalesman disagrees and speculates that Kerry knew that he would lose, despite months of recounts and investigations of technicalities, etc. and he wisely chose to surrender and fight another day rather than politically bleed out in some kind of last stand that would have surely alienated him even from members of his own party (Remember, this is an institutionalized political contest in a civilized Democratic Republic we are talking about, not Battle Royale).
Usedcarsalesman has personally seen people who were not successful on a first attempt at a life-defining event succeed on their second, third or fourth attempt. One of the reasons for this follow up success is that the people -- the voters in Kerry's case -- who regulate the achievement of political success actually "respect" (a word Kerry used a few times in 2004) a candidate who keeps coming back for more after losses (think John Elway only leading Broncos to victory in the Superbowl on the 4th effort). Furthermore, Usedcarsalesman has even seen people who were not allies actually begin to extend grudging favors to people on a come-back trail; this all has to do with their respect for the will it takes to pursue the same thing again after a defeat.
Usedcarsalesman has personally seen people who were not successful on a first attempt at a life-defining event succeed on their second, third or fourth attempt. One of the reasons for this follow up success is that the people -- the voters in Kerry's case -- who regulate the achievement of political success actually "respect" (a word Kerry used a few times in 2004) a candidate who keeps coming back for more after losses (think John Elway only leading Broncos to victory in the Superbowl on the 4th effort). Furthermore, Usedcarsalesman has even seen people who were not allies actually begin to extend grudging favors to people on a come-back trail; this all has to do with their respect for the will it takes to pursue the same thing again after a defeat.
Kerry will, on a second Presidential run, demonstrate that he is somebody who is running for President because he truly has the personal belief in himself to do so. After all, once millions of people turn their backs on a public-figure, said "figure" is going to need collosal, "Presidential" belief in himself to get back in the political game. And on his second effort, Kerry won't be running for the Presidency to "try something new" or because supporters thinks he "looks the part" as might have been the case the first go-around (as far as the rush and exhaustion of life on the Presidential campaign trail or media-attention-that-would-steamroll-most-Kings, Kerry has already been there and done that). He'll be doing it because he has personally mustered the internal drive to "take-the-licking-and-keep-on-ticking" to achieve what he wants.
Ok. But what about Sen. Hillary Clinton running for President? Hey, if Usedcarsalesman ran a political party he'd back "Wilma Flintstone" to run for President if it looked like she could find a way to coalesce enough U.S. voters to win; cartoon characters or otherwise, Usedcarsalesman believes women could have made fine U.S. Presidents since the first Presidential Election more than 200 years ago. Unfortunately for Ms. Clinton, it's Usedcarsalesman's vague speculation that she represents a political point of view from young adults in the 1960's and 1970's that has already been played out in the White House through her husband, William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton.
On the other hand, Sen. John F. Kerry presents a different point-ofview from the 1960s and 1970s, a political voice that has yet to preside in the White House: that of one who has performed military service in The Vietnam War. Given the low approval U.S. voters give George W. Bush for his management of Iraq and Afghanistan and given the returning thousands of dead or injured veterans from those conflicts, Kerry's experience in Vietnam could win the public in 2008.
Note: Usedcarsalesman knows that a new show with Geena Davis playing the U.S. President is coming out called Commander in Chief; What's ironic is that Ms. Davis might make a good, "real" Presidential candidate before too long. Usedcarsalesman suspects that this show is going to be very popular with its targeted demographic and will show a female President managing the world's current superpower with confidence. Usedcarsalesman also thinks that this show about a female President will also strengthen belief in female leaders, young and old.
But Usedcarsalesman doesn't think that Sen. Clinton's likely run will be bolstered much by Commander in Chief, a show probably designed by political strategists in the Democratic party (Ms. Davis included) to do just that. However, said "show" is an interesting way to fertilize the campaign trail prior to Ms. Clinton's run for the Presidency in 2008.
There are a lot of political issues -- such as an Edwards candidacy -- not covered in this post. So, please change Usedcarsalesman's mind on the opinions he expressed here, by commenting as you see fit. :)
