|
Well, we certainly have a much better crop of candidates than the Republicans. I mean, that's as obvious as Mitt's magic underwear and Rudi's obsession with 9/11.
"I was there!" he says.
Yeah, so were a LOT of people. Some of them first responders who were lied to and left to suffer the lingering ill effects with no support from the likes of YOU.
Mitt's been caught lying and is busy trying to parse "was" with nowhere near the smoothness of Bill Clinton parsing "is."
Ah, well.
Then you have Mike Huckabee, a "Christian's Christian." Despite the fact that the majority of Americans consider themselves Christian, that doesn't mean they want a bible-thumper in the White House. The Shrub has been bad enough. It's unlikely they're going to vote for a even more dedicated cross-swinger.
McCain is probably the least crazy or corrupt of them all, but the picture of him hugging Bush is just too precious to forget. Being buddy-buddy with someone who's arguably the worst President in U.S. History isn't going to make the general election any easier for you.
We can pretty much discount the rest of the Republican field entirely. Ron Paul has a lot of internet support, and his people sure like to make free with the signs, but he's apparently too loopy for even the loopiest Republican supporters. That speaks volumes in itself.
On the Dem side, we've got a pretty good lineup, any way you slice it. Sure, there's questions about Clinton's integrity and Obama's experience and Edwards's sincerity but, frankly, the only way we could ever avoid such questions is by nominating a electioneering robot. A kindler, gentler Terminator.
Now I've thrown my support behind Edwards. That's despite his IWR and Bankruptcy Bill votes. Both were big mistakes and he's admitted as much. I think it's funny when people say "I think he's a lying opportunist" in one breath and then tell us all how much they respect Elizabeth in the next. So basically they're saying they think she's either a patsy or insincere herself?
Huh.
All of our candidates are miles ahead of the competition. Now, sure, one of the candidates is entirely too cozy with the D.C. beltway establishment and the idea of lobbyists paying for influence for my tastes, but, hey, that's hardly a deal-breaker for most folks. Most Americans aren't as hip on what that means as us policy wonks. Another candidate seems to think that being "friends" with Republicans will somehow insulate him from their legendary viciousness. His willingness to compromise and play bi-partisan reindeer games will make him popular in certain circles, but only so far as he learns to play along with whatever they want to do.
The fact is, the primary criticisms I have of Clinton and Obama are things the RW wouldn't ever consider as even being a problem. The Right Wing thinks Clinton's some sort of Liberal demi-God, while liberals are left standing their scratching their heads thinking "am I missing something?"
Do I think we may have a fight ahead of us? Yeah, probably. The key is to make sure that the groundswell for serious change is as obvious as possible. If they're going to steal this election, we'd damn sure better do our best to make sure it's as blatant as it can be.
And we'd damn well better nominate someone willing to fight if it comes down to it.
The alternative would be at least four more years of really shitty government and the chance of just enough RW idealogue SCOTUS appointments to fuck up the U.S. for the foreseeable future.
We have to do it right this time. The stakes are too high for anything else.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
