The Innies, the Outies, and the in-betWeenies

Innies… Hillary and Mitt. If big money could have it’s choice from right of center without dragging along all those mouth breathing venomous christians and their vile prejudices, their sense of moral entitlement, their bizarre metaphysics, they would pick Mitt. Big money candidate left of center? Hillary, of course. She may be “strong on women’s issues” but she can be trusted to keep the war going, to support corporate globalization at the expense of workers everywhere, to pay lip service to a health care “solution” that leaves plenty of room for negotiation with the private insurers.

Outies… Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul, the progressive and the libertarian, each looking for supporters from the major parties. It doesn’t cost either one of them much to stay in the game right up until their party’s convention, or until a nominee is so carved in stone that their campaigns become irrelevant. Neither has a snowball’s chance in hell. Both appeal to idealists from the left (Kucinich) and the right (Paul). In fact, Ron Paul’s posture is so theoretical that he does that mythic political thing of completing the circle, gathering in a few people who are so far left they seem right. Since such extreme wing nuts can be said to have stripped their threads, the effect is not meaningful. Kucinich’s populism will prove as evanescent as Paul’s objectivism, but in a campaign marked every four years by pragmatic and moral compromise, it’s important to give both these truth seekers their due.

UPDATE:  Mention must be made of  Mike Gravel, a Democrat from Alaska who has long struggled as a progressive populist against unfair wars and the draft and who fights for the rights of the disenfranchised.  This from Gravel’s website:

Why is it that the Republican Party is more fair than the Democratic Party when it comes to the presidential debates? The recent debate in Iowa where Alan Keyes was allowed to participate, while Mike and Dennis Kucinich were excluded, is concerning to many progressives who view this as an attempt on the part of the Democratic leadership to get rid of its progressive members. Is this what’s happening? Why are the candidates who advocate ending the war immediately and who support equal rights for the LGBT community being sidelined?

And, for the sake of inclusivity let’s not forget Alan Keyes and Duncan Hunter on the right.  I don’t have anything supportive or meaningful to say about either one of these candidates.  I’d say it’s a long shot that either of them will muster so much as an ambassadorship to Albania should their party’s nominee prevail in November.  Unless something startling happens, you might not hear about them again here.

in-betWeenies… This is the set from which both candidates will likely be drawn this year. The Republican death wish will likely assure the ascendancy of Huckabee who will do his best to frame the campaign as a Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century. Or maybe the capitalists will have had enough of the born againsters like Huckabee and will elevate Giuliani or McCain to the party’s candidacy. But how likely is that really? Romney is out. Kucinich could beat him all across New England and the rust belt. If he can’t even deliver his home state, how cool is he? So who is it to be, Huckabee, Giuliani or McCain? On the Democrat side we have Obama and Edwards offering clear alternatives to Hillary if not to each other. Obama is too skinny and looks like he smokes cigarettes. Edwards needs to lose the coiffure and the studied jacket over the shoulder look.

But what about, I can hear the political junkies asking, what about Bill Richardson and Fred Thompson? From my point of view Richardson could stand in for Edwards if he has an accident at the barber shop, he’s that good. But Fred Thompson? Fred is unique. He’s one of those good old pol’s from Tennessee where Senatorializing is a long and honored tradition, where — I believe — they raise Senators as sort of a cash crop. I think Fred could be the next president of these United States if the country can unite behind the proposition that it’s okay to have a trophy wife for a first lady.