Who's your choice for Mayor in 2015?

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Yeah, I heard, I'm still voting for him, though.

It appears that, for the second consecutive primary, I will be voting for a candidate who has dropped out of the race for president.  John is apparently going to announce this afternoon that he is leaving the race, and I'm not thrilled.

No, I don't think he can win the nomination, thanks to the media caring more about his haircuts than his positions on issues (especially since he seemed to be the only Democratic candidate who HAD POSITIONS ON ISSUES), but I wanted him to stay to hopefully incur a brokered convention, where we had other possibilities.

Think I'm kidding?  Go read this NY TIMES piece about how overjoyed rural Arkansas and Tennessee are about Clinton or Obama; I know how excited I am!  Obama talks about wonderful things like working together and uniting for a common good, and that's all sunshine and rainbows and crap; how's he going to do that when the Republicans are going to screw him at every turn?

As for Clinton, we know Billy Bob can street-fight, but since he has hung over her campaign like storm clouds, we really don;'t know what she'll do.  Maybe she won't cave on everything since she would be out from under Harry Reid, but who knows?

The fact remains, I cannot get excited about EITHER of them.  I don't really trust either of them, since Clinton is a triangulator and I have a feeling Obama would be taken by the three-card monte specialists of the Republican party.

Will I hold my nose and vote for one in November?  Well, as long as Hillary doesn't do something moronic and put Harold Junior on the ticket.  if that were to happen, I will vote third party, because that means the Democratic Party that I know and love will no longer be worth saving.

8 comments:

leftwingcarolinablue said...

Not that you have any feelings about these matters. I never would have guessed...

bob said...

Pretty much how I feel.

polar donkey said...

Actually, it would make sense for Edwards voters to still vote for him in the super Tuesday primary. By voting for Edwards in a sizable number, it would tell Obama and Clinton that these voters are still in play. To win these voters it would require the two campaigns to pander to those voters, which means taking more populist and progressive positions.

Wintermute said...

http://www.gravel2008.us/issues

memphisbiz said...

What gives you the idea that Obama would be so easily duped, while Edwards would not? What makes Edwards such a great pick that you can trust him? He too talks a great game. Wasn't he duped by the Republicans into voting for the war? Obama doesn't just talk about uniting, he also talks about the things he plans to accomplish. Obama has been a public servant longer than Edwards. He was able to push through initiatives in the Illinois Senate, which, based on your love for Cohen and Chumney, I would think would give you a great respect for this service at the state level. Granted, he hasn't been a career politician like Cohen and Chumney, so you might not count it the same. Where has Edwards had positions on issues when the other candidates haven't?

Also, to use that article as support is disappointing. Clearly the people had issues with Obama's race not to mention Clinton's gender. Are these things you're advocating to be considered when voting?

lovable liberal said...

Last time around, I voted for Howard Dean despite his withdrawal. This time, though, instead of sticking with Edwards to send a message, I think I'll vote for Obama in the hope that he really does understand that he's in for a tooth-and-nail fight from the Republicans every step of the way. America needs more change that a slogan.

Buc-ing Dem said...

This is nuts. A vote for John Edwards at this stage, and I was going to vote for him as well, will be throwing a perfectly good vote away! For the first time since I was able to vote the Tennessee primary will MEAN SOMETHING. We don't just get to rubber-stamp the choices of Iowa and New Hampshire... come on people!

I think both Hillary and Obama would be much better than anything available on the other side. They both have their strengths and weaknesses, sure, but it is incredibly naive to think that a politician from the South Side of Chicago will be easily duped by Republican tactics. And we all know that Hillary can hold her own.

Get the fencepost out of your backside and get in the game.

adrian2514 said...

I really enjoy reading your blog, it always has great insight. But I am very frustrated with the media’s lack of questions to the presidential candidates about global warming. Now that it is down to just a few candidates I would think that this would be a bigger issue.

Live Earth just picked up this topic and put out an article ( http://www.liveearth.org/news.php ) asking why the presidential candidates are not being solicited for their stance on the issue of the climate change. I just saw an article describing each candidate’s stance on global warming and climate change on earthlab.com http://www.earthlab.com/articles/PresidentialCandidates.aspx . So obviously they care about it. Is it the Medias fault for not asking the right questions or is it the candidates’ fault for not highlighting the right platforms? Does anyone know of other websites or articles that touch on this subject and candidates’ views? This is the biggest problem of the century and for generations to come…you would think the next president of the United States would be more vocal about it.