Got my political-junkie hat on!
Nov. 10th, 2007 11:41 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
vulgarweedJust got done watching the Jefferson-Jackson Dinner (Democratic fundraiser for the Iowa caucuses).
Most of the major Democratic candidates spoke. I'm not in a hurry to forgive them for excluding Kucinich.
I did like the way Nancy Pelosi introduced every one of them as "the next President of the United States."
It may surprise some of you to know that I have not decided yet who I'm voting for in the primary. It may even surprise some of you to know that even though I was a strong Kerry supporter, I actually voted for Kucinich in the '04 primary. I knew my vote was irrelevant - I was fine with Kerry but I wanted to use my vote to endorse the taking seriously of many of Kucinich's ideas.
I think my ideal candidate would be a several-headed monster with Obama's views on diplomacy and international relations and his I-told-you-so correctness all along on Iraq, Edwards's passion for economic justice, Kucinich's stance on health care and GLBT rights (all the way, no compromise on either!), and none of the maddening wrong turns they've taken along the way. Oh yeah, and she'd probably be a woman. :)
My ideal candidate doesn't exist, but Obama and Edwards are close enough that I wouldn't have to hold my nose hard enough to hurt. (My dad just did a 180 and went from denouncing Obama the corporate appeaser to sending his campaign lots of money.) Edwards nudges out Senator Clinton because I think he sincerely learned his lesson on war-mongering and giving chickenhawks the benefit of the doubt. I don't trust her on this. I don't even trust her to not fall for it AGAIN on Iran. "Fool me once, shame on you...." I remember how that goes even if Little Boots can't manage it.
Meanwhile, the Republican field is a lovely bunch of chucklenuts. I wouldn't trust any of them with a Wii, much less the nuclear football. Have we gotten to the point yet where a (R) after one's name is only slightly more desirable than making the sex offender registry? (Never mind the considerable overlap between the two populations.)
Note to other-than-Americans, you lucky bastards: this is a form of madness that afflicts us every four years, but it started in this case about a year and a half ago, because (a) there's no incumbent, and that hasn't happened in decades (vice-presidents have traditionally run when it's "their turn"), (b) by now, the current president has an approval rating roughly equal to that of virulent necrotic athlete's foot, and (c) punditry is one of the few American professions that's acquired new jobs and prosperity in the last 7 years. They've gotta justify it somehow, and they do it by acting like racetrack handicappers. Early and often.
Most of the major Democratic candidates spoke. I'm not in a hurry to forgive them for excluding Kucinich.
I did like the way Nancy Pelosi introduced every one of them as "the next President of the United States."
It may surprise some of you to know that I have not decided yet who I'm voting for in the primary. It may even surprise some of you to know that even though I was a strong Kerry supporter, I actually voted for Kucinich in the '04 primary. I knew my vote was irrelevant - I was fine with Kerry but I wanted to use my vote to endorse the taking seriously of many of Kucinich's ideas.
I think my ideal candidate would be a several-headed monster with Obama's views on diplomacy and international relations and his I-told-you-so correctness all along on Iraq, Edwards's passion for economic justice, Kucinich's stance on health care and GLBT rights (all the way, no compromise on either!), and none of the maddening wrong turns they've taken along the way. Oh yeah, and she'd probably be a woman. :)
My ideal candidate doesn't exist, but Obama and Edwards are close enough that I wouldn't have to hold my nose hard enough to hurt. (My dad just did a 180 and went from denouncing Obama the corporate appeaser to sending his campaign lots of money.) Edwards nudges out Senator Clinton because I think he sincerely learned his lesson on war-mongering and giving chickenhawks the benefit of the doubt. I don't trust her on this. I don't even trust her to not fall for it AGAIN on Iran. "Fool me once, shame on you...." I remember how that goes even if Little Boots can't manage it.
Meanwhile, the Republican field is a lovely bunch of chucklenuts. I wouldn't trust any of them with a Wii, much less the nuclear football. Have we gotten to the point yet where a (R) after one's name is only slightly more desirable than making the sex offender registry? (Never mind the considerable overlap between the two populations.)
Note to other-than-Americans, you lucky bastards: this is a form of madness that afflicts us every four years, but it started in this case about a year and a half ago, because (a) there's no incumbent, and that hasn't happened in decades (vice-presidents have traditionally run when it's "their turn"), (b) by now, the current president has an approval rating roughly equal to that of virulent necrotic athlete's foot, and (c) punditry is one of the few American professions that's acquired new jobs and prosperity in the last 7 years. They've gotta justify it somehow, and they do it by acting like racetrack handicappers. Early and often.
