Like a lot of people, I've been following the Presidential Race pretty closely for what seems like ages. It's almost hard not to, being part of a family where the almost constant political debate is fueled by the clear party lines that can be drawn between its members. So, yeah, I've got caught up in all of this. But I consider myself something of the political black sheep of the family in that I pride myself on the research I do. I'd like to think that I'm not as easily swayed by party rhetoric as the rest of them, that I can detect an ad hominem attack and dismiss it as petty campaigning. But to say that those things don't sway me would be a lie. Politics is a big machine, and sometimes it's much easier to treat it as a black box than to figure out how the cogs mesh. This is the urge I'm constantly trying to resist, which can get tiring. Thankfully, The Daily Show helps keep things real. For example, their take on one of the biggest questions that's been on my mind lately: why are Clinton backers so angry?
Seriously, who's passing out all the Hate-o-rade? I've been underimpressed with Clinton ever since she began asking for the votes in Michigan and Florida to be counted. I suppose there's little value for good sportsmanship when it comes to political battles (though I think there should be), so the way in which she handled her defeat is not surprising, if not personally distasteful. A recent comment on this blog expressed the view that Obama was dividing the Democratic Party. I respectfully disagree. But my question remains: what is at the heart of this division? My best guess is that this division has only a cursory relation to the issues of the election. Too bad issues rarely win elections.
Comments and criticizms are, as always, welcomed. Flamebait will be deleted.
Addendum: M has got me thinking a bit. I get so focused on what I'm looking for that I often don't know what others are looking for. I'd like to invite anyone who is willing to share their feelings on what their ideal candidate would be in the comments. I'm not asking for an explanation of why you like one candidate or the other, but rather I'm asking what your ideal candidate's stance on a particular issue would be (and why's are always appreciated). Might I serve as something of a political sommelier and suggest the issues of the economy, the war and one other issue of your choice?
3 comments:
i think it's great. just means more people either (a) voting for mccain or (b) not voting at all (which is a vote for mccain).
not that i'm a huge mccain supporter or anything. but lesser of two evils and all. or i guess three evils.
Your stance as picking from the lesser of many evils is pretty common ground for most of us, I think. It even prompted the addendum to this post (which I'd love to hear your response to). But, one specific question for you: if McCain chose your preferred candidate as his running mate (a choice I think he'll make), how would this make you feel about voting for him?
it's still mccain at the top of the ticket. so although it might make him a bit more palatable, it's still not a choice i'm entirely thrilled about. and unlike the pundits, i have my doubts about the likelihood of his selection.
Post a Comment