13 October 2006

Pseudonyms and Dream Candidates

A few months ago, I sent an e-mail to the blogger formerly known as Henry David Thoreau that basically said I wasn't comfortable blogging pseudonymously anymore. Though I enjoyed the idea of us using the names of famed literary Bostonians who were similar in political, social and (at least in my case) religious thought, it seemed both anachronistic and at least a little cowardly, even if our intent was never to shield our identities but rather to make a point about the seriousness we meant the site to have (and which has likely not been achieved anyway; so less then the loss). I now see that he's changed his name, and I will be doing so post-haste.

Also, in response to the previous post about Mark Warner's dropping out of a race that hasn't really started, I'll say I never bought the hype that Warner was a desirable candidate for the Democratic nomination. Anyone who planned on running to the right of Hillary (I'm not scared to throw the name out, since she's not going to get any momentum from the blogosphere) was never going to be my candidate of choice. Though he has quite an affable presence, Warner's certainly not the kind of progressive and prophetic voice for whom I could see myself voting in a primary.

As for the remaining options, I've long had a soft spot for John Edwards. As a divinity student, I'm particularly concerned with poverty and Edwards is the only candidate in recent memory to devote considerable energy to crafting a pragmatic solution to the situation rather than spouting platitudes about it. Superficially, he's Southern, young and charismatic, none of which can hurt. Sadly, he's also a one-term Senator, and a former one at that. As Ezra Klein points out almost weekly, the new structure of the primaries (Iowa, where he polls well; union-heavy Nevada; New Hampshire; his birth-state South Carolina) tilts the process in his favor as well. Edwards is my favorite; Al Gore still has a hold on me after all these many years; Russ Feingold would be interesting.

Strictly from a standpoint of what might win in November and wouldn't be anathema to me (HRC might be close), I'd like to see Gen. Wesley Clark take the nomination with Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius as his running mate. Gen. Clark's presence --- particularly his leading a mostly successful humanitarian intervention in the former Yugoslavia, which is what Iraq is or is becoming --- helps Democrats on the National Security/Commander-in-Chief front. He's not exactly progressive, but he seems to at least be more so than Evan Bayh, HRC or Bill Richardson. Gov. Sebelius has spearheaded a movement that is turning Kansas blue, by being a clear-headed and straight-forward leader who values progressive economic policies. The Kansas Republican party has collapsed under her leadership (and national Republican ineptitude) to the point that its chairman recently bolted the party to run for Lt. Gov. as a Democrat. I've read some of what she's got to say and I like everything I've read. Anyway, no one asked, but I figured I'd mention it anyway.

7 Comments:

Blogger lecollye said...

I have a soft spot for a lot of progressives who have no shot and I'm glad to see that you mention Clark, who if he gets some momentum has a shot. But Russ Feingold? Are you kidding? But this election has nothing to do with electing a progressive, this is about winning and finding a winner. And you should be scared to say her name, screw her momentum in the blogosphere, her money and her name are going to let her by momentum.

13 October, 2006 19:19  
Blogger W A Hurd said...

I said "interesting" not successful and healthy. A trip to Amsterdam with my grandparents would be "interesting" but I'm not buying three round-trip tickets to Holland.

13 October, 2006 19:25  
Blogger lecollye said...

True, true.

13 October, 2006 19:45  
Blogger Blue-Xela said...

I just read the latest TIME magazine (yes I have a subscription) and the cover featured the mug of Barack Obama ... there was an interview and an excerpt from his book, "The Audacity of Hope." I was very impressed! It seems he has tremendous cross-over appeal, especially with the faith issue.

17 October, 2006 21:18  
Blogger W A Hurd said...

I have to agree with you blue-xela, but there have been rumblings, some of which I agree with, that he's been bashing his own party, vis a vis people of faith. I definitely understand that the Democrats have to do more to attract serious people of faith (read as: not wingnuts). Still, I'm not sure that the manner in which he's speaking about it helps the party now. I'm interested though and expect posts about both Obama and Democratic people of faith. Sorry you got accidentally blacklisted, really.

19 October, 2006 22:41  
Blogger Blue-Xela said...

From what I hear in my circles, Barack is not pro-gay marriage (and I definitely am). That's my one issue of concern ... but then again, I don't necessarily need my prez. to be a rainbow-flag-waver, I just need he or she NOT to be anti-gay marriage.

20 October, 2006 16:26  
Blogger Blue-Xela said...

One issue of concern (that I hear in my circles) is that Barack is not pro-gay marriage. I don't need my prez. to be rainbow-flag-waving, I just need him or her to be NOT anti-gay marriage, ya know, working hard to discriminate against people.

20 October, 2006 16:28  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home