Question for the peanut gallery September 5, 2007 Jill I’m still very, very undecided about who to support in the Democratic primary. And now that I’m in Germany and all my political-junkie friends are in the states, I have no one to discuss the decision with. So who are you all supporting? And why?
Wow, so I’m the first commenter. Yay for being in the same timezone! I’m voting for Kucinich, because he is the only candidate who genuinely wants to restore human rights and respect for the rule of law in this country. Also, he is the only candidate who wants to reach out to the rest of the world from a non-realist POV. This is really important for me, especially as an American (part) living and traveling abroad frequently. I’m aware of Kucinich’s less-than-perfect record on choice, but (and maybe I’m being a bad feminist here), that’s not as important to me in this moment in history as, say, opposing the continued exploitation of the working class, aggressive militarism, torture, enforced disappearances, corruption in the DoJ, et al. And after all of that let me fill you in on a dirty little expat secret: your vote usually isn’t even gathered, never-mind counted to mean something.
It took me a long time to make my decision, largely because my candidate stubbornly refuses to run, but I finally decided that (provided Mr. Gore doesn’t jump into the race) I will be supporting Senator Obama. My reasons? First, I think the President’s most important role is to guide the foreign policy of the nation. On that front, I think Senator Obama has demonstrated far more nuanced, realistic thinking and a more genuine willingness to make a real change in the tone and substance of our foreign relations. Second, I think the President’s second most important role is to inspire the citizens of the nation (this is what comes of uniting the monarch and the Prime Minister in one office). On that front, Senator Obama easily takes the day. I’m not saying that his opponents lack vision; Senator Obama is the only one whose vision I find to be moving in a way that is capable of bringing some unity to this badly divided nation (and I’m sorry, but if we get any more divided, e pluribus unum will cease to have any meaning, if it hasn’t already). Third, Michelle Obama. I know we’re not supposed to vote for a package deal, but I am incredibly impressed with her, and I have to admit that there’s got to be something special about any man such a strong, intelligent, passionate woman is willing to marry.
And now that I’m in Germany and all my political-junkie friends are in the states, I have no one to discuss the decision with. Talk to some Germans. Many people outside the US are quite interested in the outcome of the US elections, because, after all, wouldn’t you like to know who is leading the country that is occupying yours and could destroy you utterly in about 30 minutes if they got pissy? As to the actual question you asked… I don’t have a definite opinion yet, but here’s my thoughts on some of the candidates. Clinton: Has been a pretty decent senator and would probably be a pretty decent president, neither brilliant nor totally disasterous. She’d make no radical moves and would probably end up folding to the right far more often than I’d like, but would also do good things on the margins when the right is looking the other direction. See the country’s experience with her husband, Bill. This may be completely crazy, but I think she actually has the best chance of winning as well. True, many people hate her, but they are mostly people who would never vote for her anyway and when people who are already committed to your opponent hate you, it is no longer a problem, but simply free publicity. But I may be underestimating the role of sexism in American public life. Obama: Reminds me of an acquaintance of mine: nice, bright, charismatic, but not a terribly deep thinker (much as it pains me to say that of a U Chicago prof). Would be a fine president if elected, but probably can’t get elected, because of a combination of racism and real problems (inexperience, lack of real plan). Edwards: Of the “major” candidates, he probably holds the positions closest to mine. On the other hand, I lost all respect for him after his behavior with Amandagate, and his wife’s spouting racist remarks hasn’t made me think better of him. But would also be a fine president if elected. Sleazy is not really a problem for a politician. Kucinich: Says good things now, has an actual plan for getting out of Iraq, but has an anti-choice past and no real chance of winning. I don’t really know enough about any of the others to have a set opinion of them. And, as I said, I’m not sure who I’ll actually vote for. Probably Obama in the end, if he’s still running by the time the New York primary rolls around. But maybe Clinton. Frankly, yes, I’d rather vote for a black person or a woman than a white man, all else being equal. So unless one of the other candiates can convince me that all else isn’t really equal…
Obama. I trust this man, which is an intangible that is all too easily dismissed. What is the point of believing in something if you don’t take a stand? Obama not only checks off on the substantive liberal issues–civil rights, gender rights, gay rights, education, health care, energy, etc.–but he also is man of political courage. His paradigm-shifting strategy in combating a global insurgency is focused on being effective rather than being palatable to the masses (refocusing on al-Qaeda, which requires pressuring Pakistan; insisting on diplomacy even with our sworn enemies). Basically, he is not afraid of going after sacred cows, including the Cuban embargo, in spite of risking the wrath of Cuban Americans in all-important Florida. Now let’s compare him to Hillary: Contrary to her “strong” image, she flat-out cowered on the the Iraq war vote, revealing herself to be someone whose naked ambition is so callous she would risk American and Iraqi lives and endanger not just national but also global security by embracing the alarming precedent of pre-emptive war. Even if you don’t give a damn about human lives or global warfare, one cannot dismiss that the woman had to have been clueless to embrace one of the most foolish plans ever in terms of combating terrorism and entrust one of the most incompetent and politically corrupt White House administrations in history with a carte blanche policy. Hell, for someone so chock full of “experience” she didn’t even read the damn intelligence report or ask even the most basic questions, like, “Why would Saddam, a control freak, even bother with the madmen of al-Qaeda, an organization that swore to kill him?” Worse, she continues to spread flat-out lies about it (How she pressed for diplomacy when, in fact, she voted for a plan that would not allow for it). If that wasn’t enough, corporations own her. Murdoch himself held a fund raiser in her honor. Murdoch!
I’m waffling between Obama, Kucinich, and Edwards. Clinton is right out because I remember the ’99-’00 federal campaign to decimate the left.
I’ll probably vote for Kucinich in the primary. I also like Obama, but I’m a sucker for lost causes and, other than his record on choice, I like Kucinich on pretty much every other issue. And since he hasn’t got a snowball’s chance in hell of winning, I’m not worried about the choice issue in the primary. However, I hope Obama is the nominee rather than Hillary, but I don’t see it happening. So I’ll hold my nose and vote for Hillary in the general election. I’ll probably even volunteer for the campaign in my area as well.
It’s hard to say. I have somewhat of a kneejerk dislike of Clinton, but I think that might be a result of relentless republican propaganda; I’m sure she’d be a fine president. My only real problem with her is the same as Miller’s; she caved on Iraq. I get the sense that she, and all democrats, thought they could reign Bush in if they accomodated him in the beginning, but they never followed through with that. And you don’t compromise with republicans, you only collaborate. She has a serious judgement issue when it comes to dealing with the right, and the right is the biggest threat to the country and the biggest obstacle to fighting terrorism. Obama seems to be the least tainted, so I’d have to go with him. All in all, I’m happy with all the democratic contenders in a way I wasn’t in 2004. I’m also happy with the leper colony the republicans are putting forth. They seem to have plotted a course for the bottom.
The Clinton II presidency, if it happened, would probably be a lot like the Clinton I presidency: Jingoistic, caving to the far right way too often, and way too controlled by corportations for my taste. However, Bill did do good things on the margins, like earned income credit and revamping the VA and did some blatently good things late in his presidency, like signing the ICC agreement. I strongly suspect that Senator Clinton would be similar. I wouldn’t expect great things from her, but I would expect decent things when she thought she could get away with it. And, frankly, I wouldn’t expect great things from Obama, Edwards, or even Kucinich either. No one who gets into that position is going to be anything other than a power hungry maniac. It goes with the job.
back in early 2003, i think it was, i called the 2004 election for Bush because i couldn’t see any democrats pulling off a landslide victory and 2000 had shown me what happens when the dems win by less than a landslide. for the same reason, i’m now ready to bet that come january 2009 we’ll still have a republican president whether we like it or not. the country’s still too sexist to elect a woman president, no matter how qualified, so Clinton’s out. she would be anyway, due to being too controversial and too hated among the republicans; there’s no way she can get a landslide even if she has a magic sex change first. Obama’s too inexperienced for my personal liking; let him come back after another term or two in congress, and maybe a stint as governor (but please, not of Illinois. IL politics are too corrupt) and then we’ll see. even so, though, i think the country’s still too racist to elect someone as brown as he is to the white house, so he’s got two strikes against him. and all of the other dems are too obscure and bland to have any hopes of pulling off a landslide victory; none of them have enough charisma or fame for it. that means the rethugs win again, without even needing to cancel the elections. so we’ll get at least four more years of the same ol’ same ol’, and possibly eight more.
I lost all respect for him after his behavior with Amandagate, Wait what? Amandagate as in the whole bill donahue smear campaign thing? I must have missed something, I thought he stood by his choice and she later quit and that was sort of end of story. What did (or didn’t) he do? That said I really kinda dislike Clinton. On top of all the things we normally give her flak for there’s also: -that time she called everyone under 20 a lazy bum -how fast and hard she hitched herself to the censorship wagon during the whole GTA Hot Coffee debacle. as a gamer and hell just as an artist kneejerk censorship (even the non-kneejerk variety) really gets me. you know one of these day’s some one’s going to actually court the youth vote instead of just trying (and failing) to seem ‘hip’.
Kucinich is the only person whose platform I agree with. Clinton is a neoliberal corporate shill. I don’t think that Kucinich’s personal beliefs on abortion are far outweighed by his plans for universal healthcare, which includes contraception, maternity care and child healthcare, all of which are “pro-feminist” positions.
I’ll vote for whoever among the major candidates promises to get us the hell out of Iraq the fastest. Right now that seems to be Edwards, although his caving on Amanda Marcotte really put me off. Whoever wins, I just hope he or she has some brains. We’ve been governed by dolts for four of the last seven presidential terms, and it’s really done some long-term damage to this country.
Obama. He’s smart, he’s a team builder, not a monarch type, and I think he’ll understand world politics from a deeper level than most because he’s lived overseas. Also, he’d be the first Black president. I lean towards Clinton as the first woman president, which would be equally cool, but I trust Obama a bit more than I do Clinton. That said, Clinton would do a good job, I think.
I will vote for whatever Democratic candidate becomes the nominee, period. I’d vote for fucking Mike Gravel if I had to. Thankfully, I won’t have to, but still — the GOP is just oceans worse than the Democratic party, and the White House needs to be retaken. Specifically, we need a Democratic White House and Senate so that John Paul Stevens can retire and have a few years’ peace before he passes on (same, most likely, could be said for Ruth Bader Ginsberg). I love them both and will miss their contributions to jurisprudence, but their seats and their perspectives need to be preserved, and that can only be done with a Democratic President and Senate. As for the candidate, I think very highly of Obama and have been impressed by him. I would vote for him gladly and will vote for him in the primaries. I like Clinton and believe her to be unfairly maligned. If she is the candidate in the general election, I think she will do something unintentionally good, which is to expose exactly how despicable the right wing noise machine is towards women. Right now they’re going after her in a little way, keeping their powder dry and letting the fringes spout ugliness while having the big wigs talk about how good a campaign she’s running, etc. If she ends up being the candidate, they will overstep, they will overdo their criticisms, and they will show themselves as hateful and ugly. Moderate women who may not like her but don’t really dislike her, will feel the sting and realize the barbs are too harsh and hit too close to home, and they will sympathize with Clinton and feel more motivated to vote for her. These women might even understand that, in fact, women’s equality isn’t a reality when a woman is such an obvious threat to the world order in the minds of the GOP, and that might make them wonder if feminism is necessary after all. Not the best way to run a railroad, but if it gets the WH back, I’m all for it (and if it makes women reconsider feminism, what a bonus!). Edwards doesn’t bother me, but he doesn’t impress me, either. I also believe that he was near worthless in debating Cheney in 2004, which made me wonder whether he thinks he’s more of a fighter than he really is. As for Kucinich, he does nothing for me. I may agree with his policies, but he’s a foot soldier, not a general. He just doesn’t command respect in his physical presence, and that makes him an unacceptable candidate for POTUS. May he serve as long as he likes in the House, but the House is where he ought to stay. The others aren’t even worth mentioning, as they’re either has-beens or nutbars.
Edwards. Poverty & rising inequality are issues that are trending larger, not smaller. Recognizing that is big-picture, long-term thinking, something we’ve been missing the last 7 years. Never Hilary. Bill Clinton’s triangulation politics worked for a while, but given how rabid the Right has gotten over the last ten years, trying to “meet in the middle” means moving increasingly right, and that’s not what we need. The progressive elements of the Democratic party are the ones that revitalized it in recent years, and made the last elections so dramatic. Hilary may be a lot of things, but I’d never apply the progressive label to her.
I’m voting for Edwards in the primaries because I think he has real plans to get us back on track economically. In the election, I’m voting Democratic no matter who. However, I’m really worried if Clinton is the Democratic candidate it will be just what the Rethugs need to energize their base and appeal to the vast number of sound-bite voters who don’t know why, they just don’t like her.
I really like Obama- I saw him speak, and he has the charisma of 1000 people, all in one package. But I do think he has inexperience, and I don’t like how his religion dictates his views on the gays, because while he thinks they should have rights, he does not think they are the way of the Lord. Or something. That pains me; I voted for him for Senator. I think many of the criticisms of Hilary are sexism-as-politics, and that bothers me. I would love a female president, and I think she shares my viewpoints, but my New Yorker ex roommate told me that most of New York (where all the blue votes are from) hate her because she is a Senator even though she doesn’t really live in NY. Edwards is also a fantastic speaker, even if he looks a little to Ken Doll-ish in real life. Of course, I will vote for whoever wins over any Republican canidate any day of the week.
Vote for whoever will separate church & state in America at ALL levels again -basically, for whoever will silence the Religious Right. You’ll already have a huge boost for equality & all the good stuff America claims to believe in, if you can just manage that. ‘Course, you would still have to do the hard work of protesting, etc, but things will go much better if you can manage that (not to mention, schools will actually teach real science & will not have to waste dollars on court battles with quite so many idiots).
Hillary gets an immediate disqualification from me for being unable to stand up to the right, completely folding on the war, and being among the first in line to call for censorship when it comes to video games. She, like her husband, is a natural born politician. Clinton is to the Democrats what Romney is to the Republicans: a life-long party member who only cares about issues deeply enough to make it through the next election cycle. Obama seems like a good guy, and I feel like he might be able to do some real good for this country. He might not have a lot of political experience, but he seems smart enough to surround himself with people who do. Further, Obama’s non-political experience make him VERY appealing: he was a civil rights lawyer and taught constitutional law, the man is the very opposite of what we have today. The Chicago connection makes me nervous (especially his business with Tony Rezko), but I feel like he might be able to shake off those habits once he doesn’t need the support of a racist tyrant like Daley. Edwards and Kucinich have already failed in bids for the nomination once already. But, theres a third tier candidate who hits all the right notes: Mike Gravel. Sure, he doesn’t have the star power and hes probably unelectable, but the man is awesome. Unequivocal support for gay marriage, reasonable when it comes to gun control, about as pro-choice as you can get, in favor of decriminalization, pro-immigration, aggressively anti-war, he has an understanding on the constitutional role of the president (as less than congress), and hes better on civil rights than anyone on either side of the election.
I don’t know why everybody is saying Kucinich is anti-choice. He used to be, but he isn’t anymore, and I think his commitment to it is sincere. The man’s had a 100% from NARAL the past five years or so. I honestly think he’s much less likely to cave or pander on the issue than Clinton or Obama. And frankly, at this point I don’t care if he’s voting solidly pro-choice and pro-feminist just because Nancy Keenan is fellating him. With the current state of reproductive rights in this country, I’m not in a position to quibble with why he votes–just with how he votes. That said, I do think he’s a thoughtful and sincere person who really considered the issue and decided he wasn’t going to just vote with the Pope anymore. That takes guts in a solidly Catholic district.
Clinton. First, I’m a bit more moderate than many posters here. But also, I think she actually has a good chance of winning. And I think it would be great to have a female president. I also think it would be great to have a black president. But I do not think Obama can win this country, right now, mostly due to his race. So I’m rather not waste a vote.
I am also somewhat indecisive… Basically, I’m not really that impressed with any of them. My first instinct over the past year or so has always been for Edwards, and I think I’m still leaning that way. I really respect his focus on social justice and labor issues, and I think in a lot of ways he is easily the most progressive candidate (whose ideas are close to the mainstream). I like how he’s continually framed economic justice and poverty partly as women’s issues, because they undoubtedly are. Also, I freaking love Elizabeth Edwards. On the other hand – while he generally is supporting positions I agree with on reproductive rights and GLBT issues, I must admit that his personal reluctance on these issues makes me a little uncomfortable. A lot of my friends are Obama fanatics, but so far as I’ve seen, he hasn’t really said anything… a lot of “hope,” “unity,” “love and puppies” type of rhetoric, but no real policy positions. I think he’s trying to play it safe and come out on top by never saying anything substantive or controversial. While that’s certainly a good campaign strategy for staying alive, it’s not winning me over. Senator Clinton is certainly a very smart and talented woman, and has largely been a good Senator – but her DLC-style, almost conservative Democrat, anti-social justice policy positions have never appealed to me. Not to mention her yes vote on the Iraq War, which I can’t get over. I am definitely not willing to vote for a candidate just because they would be the first Black or first female president. I would rather vote for a candidate who is going to be strong on the issues that affect women and minorities.
I think Barack Obama has my support pretty much sewn up. I see the 2008 election being pivotal because the United States is really poised on a precarious precipice (sorry for the alliteration) in terms of our standing in the world and having any shred of moral authority — we have so thoroughly alienated, inflamed, and in some cases laid waste to the rest of the world that it’s going to take a totally new kind of statesman to throw out all of the old strategery that has gotten us into this mess and chart a completely new course. I like and respect Clinton, Edwards, and the others, but Obama is by far the one who seems to most closely fits that description. I think he’s the only one with the courage to completely leave the old ways of looking at the world aside and do the right thing as opposed to the safe, politically expedient thing. I also think he’s least likely to cave to the yammering warmongers on the right wing. I know that probably sounds a little substance-free, but Washington has been so completely turned upside-down over the last six years that aspects like experience and voting record almost seem irrelevant at this point. What I want is someone with the stones to have a vision, and I think Obama has that.
Am still thinking on this myself. A college friend of mine though is 100% Kucinich because he comes the closest to his politics…though he still feels he is not left enough. As for me, Kucinich does not impress as his demeanor reminded me of some college classmates who blithely proposed ideas without paying too much attention to whether such ideas are feasible or would actually result in a positive meaningful outcome when implemented in a real world context. His idea for a “Department of Peace” was not only something that reminded me of those college classmates, but also has creepy Orwellian overtones. Overall, the only thing I can say is that the democrat lineup seems much more impressive than their republican counterparts atm. It seems they are really scraping the bottom of the barrel for candidates.
John Edwards. He has the experience that Obama lacks and the down-to-earth charisma that Hilary is missing. And yes, in the ad hominem fashion so indigenous to American politics, he’s a white male from the South, a fact which will bring many disgruntled ultraconservative Republican voters into the fold who would otherwise not vote for a woman or an African-American man with “snooty” New York appeal. Make Hilary or Obama the VP and have them run in 2016, and we’re golden …
I’m voting for Obama, for many reasons. Edwards’ platform is most appealing to me, but the race is between Clinton and Obama right now, and I don’t want Clinton to win. She is too conservative. To those of you who seriously don’t want Clinton to win: why not vote for her toughest competition, instead of voting for someone with no chance? Did we not learn our lesson(s) from Nader?
I’m voting for Kucinich. He’s the only, and I mean ONLY, liberal candidate the Dems have. His stances and values match mine perfectly. I will vote for him come primary time and encourage everybody to do the same. To be perfectly honest, I’m somewhat pissed off at the people who say they’d vote for Kucinich, except “he’d never win.” Of course not, if people have that attitude! The majority of Americans agree with him, but yet no one will vote for him. WHY?! Let’s stop judging books by their covers. If you agree with a candidate, vote for that candidate, whether it be Kucinich, Clinton, Edwards, Obama, etc. Forget about the goddam primary results and vote your conscience. Is anyone here honestly going to vote Republican because Kucinich won the primary? Is any democrat? We have an actual choice for a change, one that isn’t beholden to corporations, lobbyists, and the theocracy. Thank you and good night! /gets off soapbox
I like Obama best. I like the fact that he’s relatively new, that he’s a great statesman, and that he spouts policy that I can mostly get behind. Clinton, meh. I don’t like king (or queen)building, and she supported the war in Iraq. I wouldn’t mind most of her policy, if those two facts were not, well, facts. Edwards… this might be where I differ with a lot of other folks here, but I don’t like the consumer lawyer industry. I don’t think we need that friction on normal life. Kucinich, well, I like some of his policy, but there’s no way he’ll win, so I can’t support him. One of those tipping points things.
I’m voting for Obama, for many reasons. Edwards’ platform is most appealing to me, but the race is between Clinton and Obama right now, and I don’t want Clinton to win. But it’s not, yeah Obama and Clinton get all the air time, but thats because it’s an interesting narrative. The media decided Edwards didn’t have a chance, not the people. His poll numbers aren’t bad and we still have 4 months to go. It’s far too early to throw in the towel for a candidate you like. The majority of Americans agree with [Kucinich], but yet no one will vote for him. WHY?! because a candidate needs to share our views AND be effective at representing them in government. It’s not a question of “electability” but effectiveness once elected. He just hasn’t convince me and many people that he would actually be able to get anything done. Is anyone here honestly going to vote Republican because Kucinich won the primary? Is any democrat? Here? No. In America? Yeah a lot actually. Especially when the opponent is some one famous like Giulianni or Thompson. Not every one has firm uncompromising radical political beliefs. The word Moderate didn’t get invented to describe politicians we didn’t think were leftist enough. Me I’m voting Edwards, we agree on a lot and he has the best health care, environmental and social aid plans of the candidates. (note although kucinich has arguably a better health care stance i haven’t seen any actual plan, feel free to contradict me)
“Clinton is to the Democrats what Romney is to the Republicans: a life-long party member who only cares about issues deeply enough to make it through the next election cycle.” Clinton was actually raised republican and then became liberal as she learned more about the real world. Maybe one of the reasons I like her is because I can relate to that. And although I agree with everyone else that it’s hard to forgive her original vote for the war, I also think she explains herself well. I feel that she is by far the best candidate for women’s issues, and not only because she is a woman, but because she has been expressly committed to women’s rights ever since she was first lady (anyone remember Beijing?) She has led the fight for legislation for reproductive choice, ending domestic violence, universal healthcare, and closing the wage gap. And although I do want to vote for the best candidate and not just vote for a woman for the sake of having a woman president, I can’t deny how amazing it will be when the nation finally recognizes that a woman is capable of doing the job. I feel as though it is our responsibility to do what we can to make this a reality since this is the first time in history that a woman has come this close, and we have to admit to ourselves that it may not happen again for a very long time. If Hillary fails in this election, will it be interpreted as a failure for women? Do we want to take that chance? (I feel comfortable in saying this because I also happen to believe that she is best qualified. I hope it doesn’t offend anyone who supports another candidate for specific reasons, but I think it’s an important aspect of the election that feminists can’t afford to ignore.)
John Edwards. Obama and Clinton are to his right on economic issues especially, and I think the #1 issue in this country is restoring labor liberalism. That’s doubly so now that labor liberalism is more cognizant of the relationship between the environment (sustainability is the new catchphrase for a reason) and identity politics (feminism and anti-racism are, at the end of the day, about economics). We need a President who has a history of viewing issues through a class lens and who sides with the working class. Clinton is good on women’s issues, but she will keep us in Iraq, mark my words.
I’d vote for Gore. I’ll probably vote only in local stuff on Primary Day though because he probably won’t run. Screw the rest of them. Maybe Edwards, but I still can’t get over the way Cheney kicked his ass roundly in the debate in ’04 and the fact that he voted for the war like an idiot. Obama is an idiot because he acts like he’s going to blow up Pakistan and Iran before he’s even the nominee. Hillary is a liar and voted for the war. Richards is alright, but he’s weird. Kusinich or whatever his name is is too idealistic and seems to me to be living in his own made-up world. Gravel is ok, but he’s too angry and unpredictable. Edwards lost to Cheney in a debate. Biden is a closet racist. Biden, Dodd, Clinton, and Edwards all were fooled by the idiot in the white house into voting us into Iraq. A lapse of judgment of that magnitude, especially when there were many who were willing to oppose this war in the senate, is unforgivable. You can’t take back hundreds of thousands of dead innocents and soldiers and billions of dollars not to mention our loss of support on the international stage. Sorry, no amount of lies or acting like you’re going to do something about this war is going to change that! Don’t even get me started on these idiots letting Bush’s fascist judicial nominees get through . . .
Though Kucinich has an anti-choice past, I believe him when he says that he’s had a conversion on the issue. Afterall, he has such a strong record of standing up for what he believes in that it’s a little difficult to imagine that he would say one thing when he thinks another in order to appeal to a particular group of voters. Kucinich also has the best health care plan I’ve seen, a record of voting against the war in Iraq (and that includes voting against funding the war), and he is in favor of gay marriage. A lot of people like John Edwards’ health care plan, but it doesn’t eliminate the profit motive in health care (and the profit motive has killed people I love), and I’m very creeped out by the idea of mandatory check-ups.
Like you, I haven’t made up my mind, and in any case, as Miss Sarajevo points out, my vote, as an “American living abroad”, means nothing. However, I’m rather fascinated by the number of people here who talk about “Hillary”, but “Obama” and “Edwards” etc. While it is difficult, given there’s another Clinton out there, it’s an old-fashioned, and somewhat problematical, solution to talk about the female by first name (private sphere) and the males by last name (public sphere).
I’m in Germany too (Berlin). I’m leaning to Edwards because I find Clinton’s positions too far to the right. Obama really pissed me off with his get-tough bomb ’em rhetoric, and I just don’t think he’s got the experience to make an effective president. But overall I’m disappointed with the Democratic slate and feel that the party has effectively created a situation (once again!) where they aren’t fielding a really good candidate. Not that I think that the election will be fair… it hasn’t been the last two times and there’s no indication that the Republicans are not going to rig this one too. (Quite the contrary, actually, if you look at the state attorney scandals…)
Wait what? Amandagate as in the whole bill donahue smear campaign thing? I must have missed something, I thought he stood by his choice and she later quit and that was sort of end of story. What did (or didn’t) he do? Several things. First, Edwards apparently didn’t read Marcotte’s blog before hiring her. Or didn’t think through the fact that hiring her was going to attract negative attention from right-wing loonies. Stupid. Too stupid to vote for. Second, when the right wing jerks hit the fan, he wavered and finally said, essentially, ok, you can stay as long as you are visibly and properly chastened. And said, IIRC, “that’s not how I want my people to talk” (may not be an exact quote). Not cool. Anyone who would give in so quickly and insist that she censor herself that way can’t have a very deep committment to the first amendment and after 8 years of Bush I desperately want a president who will take the Constitution seriously. Finally, when Marcotte resigned, Edwards just accepted it without making any effort to retain her. Politicians who really support their employees don’t accept their resignations without arguments. He could have said something like, “don’t be silly. You’re not endangering the campaign with anyone that matters. Please stay. Your contribution is valuable.” If she’d insisted, well, not much he could do. But he made no effort, that I can see and I can’t respect that. He’ll leave the voters hanging too at the first sign of trouble. The one counter argument is that Marcotte still supports Edwards. So maybe things went on that weren’t obvious from the outside. But he needs to apologize for his behavior to Marcotte and McEwan before I’ll even consider voting for him in the primary.
I don’t know, honestly. All three of the frontrunners have some qualitites that I really dislike. If only I could put their good qualities together, like….. Ultra-Mega-Dema-Zoid–COMBINE!
The majority of Americans agree with [Kucinich], but yet no one will vote for him. WHY?! because a candidate needs to share our views AND be effective at representing them in government. It’s not a question of “electability” but effectiveness once elected. He just hasn’t convince me and many people that he would actually be able to get anything done. He has been effective as an elected official in Ohio, not that we’d actually hear about it from the MSM, which seems to have a real hatred towards him – especially ABC. Mayhaps they are scared? For me, Kucinich is the only candidate that isn’t so deep in Big Oil/Pharma/Business’ pocket that they clear their talking points with the CEO, CFO, COO, and anyone else that’s bought them. He can hold his own in a debate, and doesn’t have to consistently spin perpetual fuck-ups like the others. I know people view politics with pure cynicism now-a-days, but his honesty and integrity would speak volumes to people if given the chance. Clinton has too much baggage (and is Bush-lite). Obama is too inexperienced. Edwards is spineless (Amanda and Melissa) and already got his ass handed to him once already. Not to mention either the pro war votes, or the shit they’re spewing about being “tough.” I may be an idealist, a radical, dreamer, socialist, optimist, and masochist, but I’m still gonna vote Kucinich because principles count, “electabilty” be damned. We already tried electability once, remember? We got BUSH.
you people are fools. Kucinich is a nice guy, but he’s an embarrassing fruitcake much of the time, and has zero (0) chance of getting even more than a handful of delegates. Edwards really is a transparently fake slimy weazel, but not so much so that you people don’t recognize that. Obama has about a one-in-seven shot of getting the nomination but he’s a lightweight (spare the HLS etc line, I am not impressed). Clinton’s the nominee, like it or not, and she’ll likely win. end of story.