It is fine that there are two parties, one of whom I wish not to win. But, it is less fine that it is hard to respect those who run for the "other" party. This is useful to remember, since you always will have some major force with some degree of power to which you find yourself in opposition. Thus, you need to have certain overall values and principles, some basic line that even they generally need to follow. If not, the system is in trouble. We are not talking about having a race where it really doesn't matter (for good or ill) who wins. It means one side winning isn't a total disaster in many ways.
As to not agreeing with the other side, here is a good take down of a lame attempt by George Will to defend conservatism. Unfortunately, the top Republican hopefuls want to take that mantle ... their hero being Reagan, though people like Fred Thompson feel compelled to defend Lewis Libby and Bush's Iraq policy in general all the same. Oh yes, FT, the potential saviour (religious aspects fitting for this bunch) to the party:
A wealthy lobbyist/actor who rents a red pickup truck to play the role of a regular guy strikes them as "authentic" and "folksy." Mark Halperin wrote this week that Thompson won his first Senate race "after driving his trademark red pickup truck all over Tennessee."
Glenn Greewald, quoted therein, as usual hits the right points. What exactly does this man have that merits so much praise? Oh yeah ... he looks the part. He does have a hot wife, who can fill in for his daughter when necessary, since they are about the same age and all. [The push for "traditional" values includes acting, asking for pardons to convicted perjurers -- well some of them -- and marrying people half your age. Just a fyi.] I also generally thinking accepting evolution (and not thinking it somehow immoral) is probably a necessary qualification. Or, not being a total Bush suck-up/war mongering/conservative hypocrite. Even if you "have" to do it to try to get votes:
FINEMAN: I don't think he did him any favors. If you play that segment again in slow motion, Alison, I think you'll see an exceedingly high blink rate on John McCain's part, and a sort of -- You noticed when he first was asked the question, he kind of shook his head no, as if, you know, I read McCain‘s secret language, and I know what he was saying in his mind, which is, I can't believe I have to do this.
I think McCain is just caught in a nightmare situation, where he's running a campaign in 2008 that he shouldn't‘t be running. He should be running the campaign that he ran in 2000, as the outsider, as the truth teller. Instead, he's running as the insider, touching all the bases, kissing all the butts. And I'm sure it's not a happy experience for him.
Now, Judy, you need to use ultra-slow motion here to find out the truth of the matter here ... are we watching the Zapruter film here or something? This trying to find out secret messages to give the guy a break is a bit lame (h/t Atrios for the cite ... Keith Olberman transcript), and I recall this guy wrote a book on courage, didn't he? The reply btw in response to a comment to some disgusting O'Reilly remark to which he agreed without parsing. Hint Howard: he doesn't have to do this. It is possible to run for President without being a total asshole though less possible to do so without Bill O'Reilly telling you to shut up.
BTW, the "interviewer" here did something I hate -- she didn't actually ask follow-up questions. She let him say his talking points or whatever without much comment. Thus, this sort of "oh poor baby" response respecting McCain, who is not really warranting sympathy at this point, is left hanging. Ditto an comment that Gore is probably being coy and his new book amounts to a de facto campaign book without a campaign (he cannot just be honestly concerned about the issue, right? nah). This no serious follow-up question problem is not just a habit of Tim Russert.
The polls currently suggest Rudy and Hillary are the frontrunners, with a third NY-er (Clinton by adoption) Mayor Michael Bloomberg (R-NYC) a possible third candidate. This depresses me. The link respecting Fred touches upon Rudy a bit, but suffice to say, I cannot take him seriously as an actual choice to support either. The fact I'm from NYC helps here. But, of course, he looks the part with his authoritarian tendencies (oh boy) and 9/11 performance. As even former supporter (for mayor) Ed Koch notes, he doesn't deserve to be President all the same. The "9/10" version simply is too mean etc.
[Rachel Maddow just cannot believe Rudy would be elected President, so is gleeful that he would be the nominee. I'm not THAT optimistic about the electorate which did after all vote for Bush in sizable numbers twice.]
The idea for some is hope Chuck (Chuckie?) Hagel runs, some indepedents blocking out all his conservative tendencies not related to Iraq ... or the fact he supported the whole mess in the first place and enabled it later on. Barack Obama did not, but usefully -- see also James Buchanan -- was not somewhere where he had to make a tough choice one way or the other. Edwards was and f-ed up, even though the talk now is his advisor (Bob Shrum) pushed him in a direction JE didn't really want to go on first instinct. This is not unlikely given political realities, but suggests a flaw in his character. But, one well represented in the Democratic Caucus in one way or the other up until the current day.
His decision-making process is touched upon here. I particularly like this comment: "it's entirely bogus to assert that the Senators who ignored the obvious and voted to authorize the war might have voted the other way if they had read all of this one particular document." The "but they lied to us" dodge simply doesn't take these people off the hook, though darn if passionate Democrats (including on blogs) keep on trying. It factors in, but is no sine qua non, as Gore and Dean showed at the time.
Anyway, I think we have a real example of someone who might have learnt from experience. This is not just limited to John Edwards and the Senate Democratic Caucus (a majority of the House Democratic Caucus voted against the resolution) ... there was a mind-set in 2003 that simply doesn't exist any more. Surely, some new matter will pop up, and an independent mind not tied to what others might think etc. will be necessary. But, experience does teach. Edwards admitted his mistake, but might not want to emphasize the political calculus (and first term green) mentality that factored into it. This is not too surprising.
It does emphasize the importance of some experience, including at making mistakes and failing (like running for President before). This is a plus in Edwards' camp and the core reason I'm wary about Barack Obama (the other reason is some wariness about his above the fray approach that some suggest requires him to make compromises because the people "aren't ready" for the best path). Anyway, I like the messages of both Edwards and Obama, both of whom provide hope that in 2009, a majority might just be able to respect government just a little bit.
I have a feeling, like 2004, this whole process will be just too long and I'll be ready for it to be over long before November. The ill-advised front-loading primary technique (will there be a late Spring hiatus akin to summer reruns?) will only worsen this situation.