Cable has been good, though, for being able to see the presidential candidates debate. I know they've been debating for almost a year now, but once the primaries got close the debates started to seem important.
Here are my endorsements:
- The democrats should nominate Hillary Clinton
- The republicans should nominate John McCain.
I disagree with some fundamental tenets of the Republican Party, and so am almost always going to vote for the democrat, but I think a McCain-Clinton race offers a can't-lose scenario for the country.
Both of these candidates have incurred the anger of the more dogmatic parts of their parties for their cross-party alliances and positions. I like this because I don't want another you're-with-us-or-against-us president. Clinton the senator is more accomplished and strategic about working Washington than she was as first lady (a fact she does not shy away from, though no candidate is going to be so candid as to admit they are much better at this than they once were). McCain would bring a moral and ethical authority to the executive branch we haven't had in a while; he's not going to parse a distinction between torture and enhanced interrogation.
Both are also good at being professional senators. Admitting, or being, that is anathema for presidential candidates, but I think it's a good thing. I like Barack Obama, too, but I'm wary of his amorphous rhetoric of change. Like Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney, he's running as an outsider. The message being that only someone not inculcated by Washington can be an effective president, or that not being a Washington insider gives you an uncorrupted moral clarity.
This is a presidential campaign cliché. It was the theme of Jimmy Carter's campaign, and Ronald Reagan's, and Bill Clinton's, and George W. Bush's. After the last eight years of dishonesty and/or disaster, what's wrong with wanting the next president to know what they're doing?