Monday, January 14, 2008

A Unity that Matters

I really dislike the bipartisan talk. I've mentioned it a few times, I'm sure. The simplest way to explain it is that when you are the underdog (i.e. Democrats in Utah), you don't shoot for compromise, you shoot for majority, and accept compromise. In the Presidential race, it is no different for me. Shoot for a Democratic majority, and accept reaching across the isle to get things done if it comes to that. It doesn't get me to the ballot box, if you will.

But there is a type of unity that matters to me in 2008. And right now it is the main reason for me to get behind Obama's message of unity, despite my dislike of his use of the "bipartisan" word; the very prospect of a Democratic majority.

Clinton has so far campaigned heavily on the "first day in office" message, asserting that she will be able to make things happen the second she has the keys to the oval office, while the other candidates would have to work harder to pass legislation. She bases this on her experience in Washington, which we can assume means in the relationship between the White House and the House/Senate body. Unless Clinton plans to pursue Dubya's goal of the empirical presidency, her argument seems to be she would win the fight against an obstinate congress, while others may struggle and fail.

But what if the obstinate congress can be rendered a non-issue? With Obama or Edwards as a nominee, we could expect more luck for Democrats in down ticket races for House and Senate positions? Might the Republican hatred/fear of Hillary drive conservative voters to the polls to fill congress with Republicans? An obvious yes for Democrats in Utah, but nationally, how much is the "day one" argument worth if your own candidacy creates the very battle you claim to be able to rise above? Would we not be better served by a candidate who could better foster an overall Democratic majority?

Just questions I have while I should be preparing my taxes.

No comments:

Post a Comment