This morning, from Ben:
So do I vote for the one who I believe deserves it? The one who understands the divide in this country, knows how to play politics, but also won't waiver on commitment to the left whenever there is room to make things happen? Or, do we vote for the one who is 'most electable'? The one who is going to have Thanksgiving dinner with Ted Kennedy, Lindsey Graham, Mitch McConnell...and stick Joe Lieberman in the fucking middle of the table?And a response from Larry:
Ben just distilled my thoughts down to one line. That line is the summation of what I'm feeling and thinking about this primary.My response:
Saying she won't waiver on a commitment to the left goes against everything she has proven thus far. She voted FOR Bush's tax cuts, she voted FOR the Patriot Act, she voted FOR the Iraq War (the fence humping she does when she says, "Ohhh...it was only for the resolution, not for the war" reeks of untruth. EVERYONE knew what they voting for), she voted FOR a bill that could well be the first step toward a war with Iran, she voted FOR a fence along the U.S.-Mexican border, and she wrote a letter to the Connecticut Democratic Committee urging them to back Joe Lieberman over Ned Lamont in the 2006 primary.Ben goes on to argue that the one considered most electable (Obama) will be the one least likely to lead.
Tell me again - WHO would put Lieberman right in the middle of the holiday dinner table?
In order to lead, the next president will need to have bigger majorities in Congress. Hillary Clinton, unfortunately, will not have coattails. If anything, voters could very well vote for her and then go down ballot and vote Republican in congressional races. Should she win under those circumstances, her ability to lead will be D.O.A.
I'll place my bets with Obama.
