A personal way to look at the Democratic candidates...
This will be a different look at the field of Democrats who want to run for President. None of what follows is an endorsement or indication of ultimate preference here. It is personal opinion. First, here are the most interesting candidates, based on not saying the routine stuff. And they are: Pete Buttigieg for being able to say the expected in an articulate and unexpected way; Andrew Yang for his comprehensive look at a future economy and what it may mean, always tying back to his guaranteed income; Marianne Williamson for saying strange things that often make sense; Tulsi Gabbard for an approach to foreign policy that is unique, at times refreshing, at others a bit scary; and Michael Bennet for monotone plain spoken common sense, almost boring bipartisanship that surprises at times.
The least interesting candidates are, hands down, Bill deBlasio and Beto O'Rourke for their entitled manner in delivering random opinions, based on trying to say what will get a headline or have a remark be one for the history books and television forever. They are completely unconvincing.
Leading the completely BLAH category are Cory Booker, Julian Castro, and Kristin Gillibrand. They pound the table on the obvious, and have absolutely nothing new to say. Booker is well regarded by some, but seems here to be orchestrating every move without taking any risk.
Those that are presumed to be the leading candidates, Biden, Warren, Sanders, and Harris, are respectively too old and backward looking; a compulsive attention seeker in the thrall of her own ambition; too old, too rigid, with no comprehension of how to fund his goals; and one who moves seamlessly from clear sighted comments to mistakenly stepping on a rake. Classifying Amy Klobuchar has been difficult, and she seems to still be working on it herself. She is clearly from Minnesota, that I know. Each of these, despite comments here, are viable candidates. Nobody's perfect, never were never will be.
For those not mentioned, you may be deemed lucky.
This comment is subject to revision daily!
The least interesting candidates are, hands down, Bill deBlasio and Beto O'Rourke for their entitled manner in delivering random opinions, based on trying to say what will get a headline or have a remark be one for the history books and television forever. They are completely unconvincing.
Leading the completely BLAH category are Cory Booker, Julian Castro, and Kristin Gillibrand. They pound the table on the obvious, and have absolutely nothing new to say. Booker is well regarded by some, but seems here to be orchestrating every move without taking any risk.
Those that are presumed to be the leading candidates, Biden, Warren, Sanders, and Harris, are respectively too old and backward looking; a compulsive attention seeker in the thrall of her own ambition; too old, too rigid, with no comprehension of how to fund his goals; and one who moves seamlessly from clear sighted comments to mistakenly stepping on a rake. Classifying Amy Klobuchar has been difficult, and she seems to still be working on it herself. She is clearly from Minnesota, that I know. Each of these, despite comments here, are viable candidates. Nobody's perfect, never were never will be.
For those not mentioned, you may be deemed lucky.
This comment is subject to revision daily!
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home