The Presidential Primaries
I like Obama. I like Edwards. I like Richardson. I even am starting to like Hillary a little more than I did before. (And, of course, I like Kucinich and Gravel, but I'm playing the realist this time around)
On the Republican side I like half the things Ron Paul says. The other half I think he's crazy. That's the problem with libertarians. But it certainly is fun to see him up there on the same stage as the Republican war-mongerers, sounding like Ralph Nader. He's got a lot of guts and I admire that.
Back on the Democrat side, I was thrilled when Obama won the Iowa caucuses by such a landslide a few days ago. I've never been a huge fan of Hillary. It's partly not even her fault. It's her husband's fault. I don't like Bill Clinton. I stopped liking him in the late 90s when I started reading Michael Moore and following Ralph Nader. When I was a kid I thought Clinton was great but I then learned that he was all smoke and mirrors, that he is in fact a neoliberal extraordinaire, and an imperialist to boot. And he frankly did not do much at all to address the social injustices that plauge this country and globe. And frankly, I think Hillary would probably be better than him. I think she's more left than he is, and I think she's moved more left in this campaign (although perhaps more out of necessity than by choice). And I DO think it would be huge to have a woman in the White House. No doubt about it. I couldn't call myself a feminist if I felt otherwise.
But I wouldn't vote for her just because she's a woman and it's high time we have a woman in the White House, just as I wouldn't vote for Obama because it's high time we had someone in the White House who's not white. In fact, I'm torn between him and Edwards, and Edwards is a white man. But I really like Edwards this election season. I wasn't so impressed by him back in 2004, mostly, I think, because of his vote to authorize the Iraq War. But now that he's repudiated that, I think almost everything he says is great. I love how he's taking on corporate power, entrenched power, the whole system in Washington. No wonder Ralph Nader has practically endorsed him!
I think Edwards is probably more left right now than Obama. His health care plan is definitely better. But Obama is trying to play the moderate, trying to build a broad coalition, and bring in new voters, and convert Republicans and independents, and that is a very good plan of action. If it means sacrificing some of the more leftist positions, that may be a sacrifice I'm willing to make. No doubt about it: an Obama presidency would fundamentally alter politics in this country, and the state of the world.
I was kind of annoyed, however, how the issues seem to be boiling down to two simple words: "change" and "experience". If I hear the candidates talk about "change" one more time, I'm going to...
Well...
You know what I mean.
I know why they're doing it. Because the message of change appeals to voters. Because what we have now SUCKS. But I'm worried that it's just going to become hollow, a vague platitude. I guess it's all part and parcel of politics...dumbing down the message to the masses. But I guess if that's what's necessary to reel in the voters, that's what they've gotta do.
If I had to vote tomorrow I honestly wouldn't know who to vote for.
I'm going to wait and see. Ride this one out. I'll probably vote for whoever the Anti-Hillary is come the California primary on Feb 5. It will probably be Obama. I kind of wish it were Edwards. But Obama definitely seems to be leading him at this point. But I'll wait and see what happens.
The pundits were saying that Edwards aligned himself with Obama tonight, that he billed the two of them as the "agents of change" against the "status quo" of Hillary. That's an interesting strategy. I like the both of them so much, but I'm worried that they might cancel each other out. If they were somehow able to join forces, they could easily beat Hillary. I wish I could say they would make a good president and vice president team, but both of them are seen as inexperienced. If either Obama or Edwards gets the nomination, he will have to choose one of the more "experienced" persons as a running mate (someone like Richardson or Biden would be great)
On the Republican side I like half the things Ron Paul says. The other half I think he's crazy. That's the problem with libertarians. But it certainly is fun to see him up there on the same stage as the Republican war-mongerers, sounding like Ralph Nader. He's got a lot of guts and I admire that.
Back on the Democrat side, I was thrilled when Obama won the Iowa caucuses by such a landslide a few days ago. I've never been a huge fan of Hillary. It's partly not even her fault. It's her husband's fault. I don't like Bill Clinton. I stopped liking him in the late 90s when I started reading Michael Moore and following Ralph Nader. When I was a kid I thought Clinton was great but I then learned that he was all smoke and mirrors, that he is in fact a neoliberal extraordinaire, and an imperialist to boot. And he frankly did not do much at all to address the social injustices that plauge this country and globe. And frankly, I think Hillary would probably be better than him. I think she's more left than he is, and I think she's moved more left in this campaign (although perhaps more out of necessity than by choice). And I DO think it would be huge to have a woman in the White House. No doubt about it. I couldn't call myself a feminist if I felt otherwise.
But I wouldn't vote for her just because she's a woman and it's high time we have a woman in the White House, just as I wouldn't vote for Obama because it's high time we had someone in the White House who's not white. In fact, I'm torn between him and Edwards, and Edwards is a white man. But I really like Edwards this election season. I wasn't so impressed by him back in 2004, mostly, I think, because of his vote to authorize the Iraq War. But now that he's repudiated that, I think almost everything he says is great. I love how he's taking on corporate power, entrenched power, the whole system in Washington. No wonder Ralph Nader has practically endorsed him!
I think Edwards is probably more left right now than Obama. His health care plan is definitely better. But Obama is trying to play the moderate, trying to build a broad coalition, and bring in new voters, and convert Republicans and independents, and that is a very good plan of action. If it means sacrificing some of the more leftist positions, that may be a sacrifice I'm willing to make. No doubt about it: an Obama presidency would fundamentally alter politics in this country, and the state of the world.
I was kind of annoyed, however, how the issues seem to be boiling down to two simple words: "change" and "experience". If I hear the candidates talk about "change" one more time, I'm going to...
Well...
You know what I mean.
I know why they're doing it. Because the message of change appeals to voters. Because what we have now SUCKS. But I'm worried that it's just going to become hollow, a vague platitude. I guess it's all part and parcel of politics...dumbing down the message to the masses. But I guess if that's what's necessary to reel in the voters, that's what they've gotta do.
If I had to vote tomorrow I honestly wouldn't know who to vote for.
I'm going to wait and see. Ride this one out. I'll probably vote for whoever the Anti-Hillary is come the California primary on Feb 5. It will probably be Obama. I kind of wish it were Edwards. But Obama definitely seems to be leading him at this point. But I'll wait and see what happens.
The pundits were saying that Edwards aligned himself with Obama tonight, that he billed the two of them as the "agents of change" against the "status quo" of Hillary. That's an interesting strategy. I like the both of them so much, but I'm worried that they might cancel each other out. If they were somehow able to join forces, they could easily beat Hillary. I wish I could say they would make a good president and vice president team, but both of them are seen as inexperienced. If either Obama or Edwards gets the nomination, he will have to choose one of the more "experienced" persons as a running mate (someone like Richardson or Biden would be great)
posted by Matthew Hartzell at 1:03 AM
0 comments
