Chi Meson said:
He was nominated because the "machine" picked him as their usable puppet. He was never truly in control. McCain should have been our leader for the past 8 years, but he was not answerable to the machine. A large group of non-politicized people can see through the chatter, and when McCain talked on the trail in 1999, we heard a person who could actually think and perform according to his own set of convictions.
But he was derailed by the Rove-Cheney-Addington bulldozer. Exactly where? South Carolina. A bait was laid, McCain took it, and it was over.
Agreed. I was very bitter about that.
This time around, McCain was clearly compromised by the machine, and it was very sad t see.
I'm not sure if I would word it that way. McCain still had the same issues in the primary as he did 8 years ago, which was why he started off a big underdog. But once he won the primary, he was the candidate, which by default means he ended up with the support of "the machine" and they shaped his campaign. But a lot of that was despiration anyway and with what happened to the economy in September and October, his odds of winning were never that good. With where he stood in August, I thought he was going to win: he was an underdog, and gaining, which is exactly where he likes to be.
Similarly, on the other side, the Dems had their own machine behind Clinton. Obama took over the clearly predecided favorite with ingenuity and his own version of the "straight talk express."
Yes, Obama was in a similar position to the one McCain was in in 2000 - but Obama beat the machine and McCain didn't. I wonder if Obama gave Hillary that cabinet position as thanks for Bill helping him win the primary!
When his position finally became clear, the infiltration of that machine also came clear, hence the nominations of certain people who seemed to lack the moral shimmer we were promised.
I don't think I'd say that. I think Obama
wants to be different, it's just that he and his constituents are naive about whether or not it is possible to truly be different. The goals of getting experienced and, shall we say, "uncompromised" advisors are mutually exclusive and Obama went with experience and it bit him in the rear.
I am still optimistic, but less so than two weeks ago. I'm glad to hear the admission from O that the defense of Daschle was wrong, I truly wish that it had been sooner, and before Daschle pulled himself out. He should have said "Sorry man, stick around, but you don't get the job; you blew it." That would have been fabulous. A terribly-missed opportunity to win over a million people with borderline opinions about Obama. That opportunity is gone.
I agree. Obama admitted he was wrong, which was
nice but that doesn't change the fact that he didn't do the right thing in the first test of his leadership character that he faced (actually, it was the third, wasn't it...?).
The question I have is
why didn't he do the right thing and pull Daschle's (and the others?) nomination? My perception: it's intestinal fortitude. And that's something that always worries me about democrats. Sooner or later, he's going to have a
real test (this was minor) and he's going to need guts.