« Quote of the Day | Main | Provocation of the Day »
June 26, 2006
Transparency In Action
Below, I argued that "going forward, transparency is the best policy, and we'd all be well-served by a willingness to calmly accept (and even respond to) speculation about the thought processes driving our commentary." It occurs to me that I should probably take my own advice. So, while I haven't settled on -- and am not endorsing -- any presidential candidates, here's how I basically feel about the current lineup, in order:
Favorable:
1) Al Gore, if he runs.
2) John Edwards
3) Wesley Clark
4) Tom Daschle (he's talking too much and too sensibly about health care for me to be a hater)
Neutral:
5) Hillary Clinton
6) Russ Feingold
7) Tom Vilsack
8) Mark Warner
9) Evan Bayh
10) Chris Dodd
Leaning Negative:
11) Bill Richardson
12) John Kerry
13) Joe Biden
All ratings are, obviously, subject to change, and I'm sure they will change as time goes on. But for now, that's how I see the race, ad I'm sure it creeps into my commentary.
June 26, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572d53ef00d834301a7853ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Transparency In Action:
Comments
Obama?
Posted by: K Ashford | Jun 26, 2006 4:14:06 PM
Thanks for the transparency.
Perhaps you could explain putting Hillary above Feingold (which appears to be the oddest choice).
Posted by: space | Jun 26, 2006 4:15:31 PM
Sure Ezra, after your friend Neil unduly influences you in Edwards' favor, it is not surprising that you are for Edwards (Gore has not said he is or acted like he is.)
Other than the fact that we don;t know what nefarious things Neil has done in his life, I simply do not see how yopur situation is different from Markos'. Especially after your puff piece on Edwards at TAPPED.
Am I taking an absurd and outlandish position here? Of course I am. Just as Neil did. Fess up Neil. Take it back.
Posted by: Armando | Jun 26, 2006 4:15:46 PM
Schweitzer!
Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot | Jun 26, 2006 4:17:21 PM
And you used to be such a good, reasonable guy. Look: Jerome is Markos's best friend. They ran a consulting group together. They wrote a book together. It's not quite analagous.
Now, awhile back, the Edwards' had me and a handful of other bloggers (jerome included) over for dinner. That may have influenced me. And I'm being upfront about it, which is the whole point. But further attacks on Neil, in this thread, will be considered off-topic and eventually deleted. Contain your jihad to the posts in which it belongs.
Posted by: Ezra | Jun 26, 2006 4:18:57 PM
Feingold voted no on Bosnia intervention, no on Kosovo peacekeeping, and led the attack-from-the-left against Clinton health care plan. I'm no Hillary fan, but I'm no Feingold fan either, I can see the case for both.
Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot | Jun 26, 2006 4:19:05 PM
Also: my guess is neither Schweitzer nor Obama have any serious likeihood of running. But I'm a fan of both (though I need to see more policy substance from them).
Posted by: Ezra | Jun 26, 2006 4:19:48 PM
Whoa! Watch him oppress me! Heh.
Ezra, are you arguing that THIS post is unrelated to the previous posts on this issue? Are you really?
When you title it Transparency?
Ezra, I have never ever been reasonable. Not about false smears to people's character and integrity. Not ever. Never will be.
But it is your blog and off I go into the ethical thicket.
Enjoy the day.
Posted by: Armando | Jun 26, 2006 4:27:45 PM
Feingold is twice divorced. He has two chances to run successfully for president: slim and none.
Its not my choice; its our hypocritical media whores who pretend adherence to old-time 'values'.
They'll destroy him.
Posted by: J. Dalessandro | Jun 26, 2006 4:31:09 PM
This post, Armando, is about my picks for president, laid out in order, so they can understood. It is not about Neil, and not about demanding takebacks from folks you don't agree with. You've said your piece on that and there's a robust thread a couple posts below if you've more to argue, I don't want this thread hijacked into that dispute.
Posted by: Ezra | Jun 26, 2006 4:33:47 PM
Well, this part of your post undermines that intention Ezra:
"Below, I argued that "going forward, transparency is the best policy, and we'd all be well-served by a willingness to calmly accept (and even respond to) speculation about the thought processes driving our commentary."
Excuse me, it is related to what you wrote "below." I respect your desire to move on. And I will. But I think fiarness dictates that you acknowledge that your title and your first sentence were not conducive to moving on.
Posted by: Armando | Jun 26, 2006 4:38:48 PM
I'll stick with the program. Daschele is undoubtedly a fine man, but the way that he attempted to exaggerate his collegiality with Bush to save his, uh, seat, was quite telling. Any Democratic president who hopes to govern in this climate is going to have to be one tough and ruthless hombre. Tom ain't that guy. Hillary might be.
Posted by: J. Dalessandro | Jun 26, 2006 4:39:55 PM
As you well know, Armando, you're acting in bad faith. Your post ends:
"Am I taking an absurd and outlandish position here? Of course I am. Just as Neil did. Fess up Neil. Take it back."
So you're not really questioning my thought processes or trying to figure out where I'm coming from, you're just continuing your grudge match with Neil, which i've now asked you to keep in other threads. You're welcome to interrogate anything I say, but do so in good faith and without trying to warp the conversation. I've spent a good part of my day taking your concerns and arguments seriously, now show me the same respect.
Posted by: Ezra | Jun 26, 2006 4:45:08 PM
I think I made my point Ezra.
No one likes their character and integrity questioned. Particularly with false insinuations.
You are smart, honest, and a mensch.
Thanks for putting up with me.
I leave you in peace now.
Posted by: Armando | Jun 26, 2006 4:51:45 PM
Any Democratic president who hopes to govern in this climate is going to have to be one tough and ruthless hombre. Tom ain't that guy.
Agreed... other than swapping Daschle & Feingold's positions, my own ranking is very similar to Ezra's. Gore's the only one I see as tough, smart, and reasonably effective, but I think part of that is believing that he would most likely be willing to risk second-term viability for much greater effectiveness in a single term; IOW, he could conceivably walk away once he thought he had done his duty.
Posted by: latts | Jun 26, 2006 5:23:45 PM
Two things:
A) Armando maybe acting in bad faith, but he is right to critique your earlier argument regarding Kos in such a fashion because this post by you shows how hollow your argument on that subject is. Assuming, of course, that this is the subject of the argument.
B) We need to choose charismatic leadership (people vote personalities not policy checklists or even the new buzz word "values"), and so, without further ado: Edwards, Clark, Feingold and Schweitzer (if he runs). And, maybe Gore, but only if the the charismatic Gore of 2006 shows up, and not Gore-the-bore of 2000.
I haven't heard Warner so I would go neutral on that choice.
Everyone else- well- let's just say they are about as interesting as watching paint dry on the wall. I maybe interested in politics, but I am also into pop culture. You have to appeal to people's emotions before they will listen to you. Which means, first, they must like you. Which means, you can't bore them.
The core logic is that: you can sound like the teacher from Charlie Brown on policy so long as people like listening to you in terms of character. You can fight against this logic, or accept it, and use the logic to your advantage.
Posted by: bruh | Jun 26, 2006 5:28:33 PM
I agree with the top three. I really, really hope Gore runs, and chooses either Obama or Feingold as his veep.
Posted by: realish | Jun 26, 2006 5:29:59 PM
Ezra-- Is there any republican candidate who could win your vote, or will you be tryig to influece the primaries, then voting for the Democrat no matter what? On the flip side, is there any Democrat so bad you couldn't support him/her? What if it's Lieberman?
Posted by: American Hawk | Jun 26, 2006 5:41:18 PM
"Is there any republican candidate who could win your vote"
Well, I am not Ezra. But in order to add a little liveliness into this staid agreeable blog today:
If Hitler, Stalin, and a Republican were on the ballot I would have to flip a coin.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Jun 26, 2006 6:53:42 PM
J. Dalessandro: Feingold is twice divorced. He has two chances to run successfully for president: slim and none. Its not my choice; its our hypocritical media whores who pretend adherence to old-time 'values'.
Hang on a sec -- in this scenario, who's Feingold running against? McCain, Guiliani, George Allen, Newt Gingrich, or Ronald Reagan?
Posted by: Hamilton Lovecraft | Jun 26, 2006 7:05:20 PM
There is no Democrat, no imaginable Democrat so bad he or she is not better than the best or the best imaginable Republican. If all the Democrats changed parties, so that Russ Feingold and Al Gore were very liberal Republicans, and they walked me at gunpoint into the voting booth, yet still I would die on the spot rather than pull a Republican lever. I have voted on at least 1000 candidates and amendments, and down to dogcatcher and sheriff I have never once voted Republican.
I think Hillary Clinton is the best available candidate, being tough enough to fight and vague enough that she can be destroyed without policy taking damage.
The next Democratic President will be one term and destroyed, if they make it that far. Dying in office is a distinct possibility. Ain't gonna be no pro-choice justice.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Jun 26, 2006 7:06:11 PM
bob, have you actually voted for dogcatcher? Is it actually an elective office anywhere? I'm curious what kind of platform the candidates run on, and whether it's a partisan office.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Jun 26, 2006 7:19:58 PM
I find myself generally agreeing with this list, with a few questions:
Why no love for Richardson? I'm not too familiar with him, myself...
What are you taking into account here? Policy? Charisma? Organization? Because I'm a big fan of Wes Clark, and would love to see him as President, but his organizational skills leave something to be admired.
Posted by: Jon O. | Jun 26, 2006 7:26:00 PM
bob mcmanus: There is no Democrat, no imaginable Democrat so bad he or she is not better than the best or the best imaginable Republican.
Wow, welcome to the land of rigid jackbooted dogma.
I think Hillary Clinton is the best available candidate, being tough enough to fight and vague enough that she can be destroyed without policy taking damage.
I think she's a very poor candidate. Vague is the last thing we need this time around.
Posted by: Hamilton Lovecraft | Jun 26, 2006 7:27:45 PM
My own personal list, if anyone cares:
1) McCain
2) Giuliani
3) Richardson
4) Warner
5) Bayh
Mainly based on leadership qualities, competence, integrity, fiscal sanity, and their positions on social issues(I prefer liberal, but McCain's qualities on the other issues are so high I can forgive him).
Posted by: Adam Herman | Jun 26, 2006 7:37:02 PM
