But first, Anderson decided to congratulate the LSU Tigers on their football victory over Ohio State by dressing like a typical Cajun, although he's not holding alcohol, which clues you in that he's not from Louisiana ...
This is how he came home from daycare, as he had one of his famous diaper blowouts that ruined the clothes under the overalls. I was undecided how best to describe his fashion statement, but other thoughts on how to describe these picture were:
1) "I want to dress like all of the other WalMart shoppers"
2) "I have 2 cars ... but they're both on blocks"
3) "I'm auditioning for the next 'Dexy's Midnight Runners' video"
Back to the New Hampshire primary. First, any of the candidates would be an improvement over what we currently have, with the possible exceptions of Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee. You could probably randomly pick a name from the phone book and he/she would be better than what we currently have. But recently there was an article that showed some of Paul's rather racist views, which are disappointingly and decidedly non-libertarian. And Huckabee may be less prepared than W to be president and is a fundamentalist preacher, although he can at least hang his hat on being a reasonably good speaker.
My problem with Clinton is that I remember all of the hate that the Republicans has toward her and Bill. She's smart and probably has good ideas. But she'll never get most of them through, even with a Democratic Congress. I guess she could if there is a veto-proof Senate, but this is unlikely. This bitterness between the parties probably has its genesis with Watergate and has ratcheted up since the Bork Supreme Court nomination. It keeps getting worse, and Hillary is only going to continue the trend. Think they hated Bill? Think the Democrats hated Bush? To coin a phrase, "you ain't seen nothing yet!"
Obama appeals to both sides of the aisle and the Republicans are much more likely to work with him than Clinton or Edwards. They respect Clinton ... respect her and hate her. But they respect and like Obama. Young people see the possibilities while many of the older Democrats are stuck in their old, ineffective ways. "We have allegiance to The Clintons" is their mantra, and this is the same as saying we have allegiance to gridlock and hate. Well, young people don't have that allegiance. In Obama people see a man who admitted- unashamedly, but with regret - drug use. He told the teachers union that he believes in merit pay, knowing he'd lose any chance at winning their support. It may be a sham, but he seems like a guy who won't just say what you want to hear. He seems like a guy you can trust.
But Clinton touts her experience and results. So ... what has she really done in terms of experience? She experienced The White House as First Lady, but after her failed attempt at health care did nothing of substance. Should we think any Clinton adviser or cabinet member is equally prepared? She's been a senator since 2000 and didn't really do anything of substance for her first 6 years.
From the October 9, 2007 publication "The Hill":
Clinton has introduced more bills this year than any other senator, staking out her positions on an array of policy matters and insulating herself from criticism that she does not have a signature accomplishment after more than six years in Congress.
Clinton has introduced 74 stand-alone bills that would have the force of law if passed by Congress and signed by the president. Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), her chief rival for the Democratic nomination, has introduced 46 such measures, despite the perception that he is more vulnerable to charges that he is not sufficiently experienced to become president. The totals were compiled from records kept by the Library of Congress.
It's not uncommon for a reasonably new senator to not have a signature achievement. But don't try to pass yourself off as being a clearly more experienced candidate when you haven't done much.
Another troubling issue. In Clinton, older Democrats see a person who in her victory speech said in effect that the health care industry was running rampant for the last 7 years under Bush. Surely after trying to get universal health care for all Americans (a great and noble idea, I believe) she can be trusted to help seniors with health care. Of course, she fails to mention this from the NY Times in July 2006:
As she runs for re-election to the Senate from New York this year and lays the groundwork for a possible presidential bid in 2008, Mrs. Clinton is receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from doctors, hospitals, drug manufacturers and insurers. Nationwide, she is the No. 2 recipient of donations from the industry, trailing only Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, a member of the Republican leadership.
Yeah. I trust her to help make this country better. Way to sell out your beliefs. After all, desperate times call for the same old solutions.
Finally, I can't see her beating anyone but Huckabee. Too many people dislike her and won't change their minds, regardless of whether she has good ideas. A shame, but that's the reality. So I'll do what she suggests and vote with my heart and my head ... and vote for Obama.
Long and painful political column ... sorry. But Anderson does look cute dressed as white trash.
