(no subject)

[sanpaku_backup]

In politics as in sports, it's dangerous and unpleasant to follow events closely when you have a rooting interest in the outcome. But since I'm a political junkie, I'm following the primaries really closely this year.

I have to admit I'm kind of pulling for Obama, even though from what I can tell of his campaigning, I'm not crazy about his policies. Krugman doesn't like him, either, and I tend to agree with Krugman, but in my book Edwards and Hillary can never fully redeem themselves from voting for the war. Also, when I contemplate some of Bill's cronies coming back in with Hillary, it sort of makes me blanch. Bill was not a terrible president, but one sure wishes we could do better this time around.

Since it drives flw crazy, we may as well admit that there's also no way to follow politics without the "meta," in other words, to see who is best poised to beat whoever's on the other side. (Though personally I don't see this as unpardonably "meta" so much as an acknowledgement that there's not much to distinguish any of the Democratic candidates on a policy level, so there's not much to talk about there.) Unfortunately it looks as though the Republicans, disgusted by the field, are turning back to McCain, who I disagree with on everything but who strikes me as at least somewhat human, and thus the one I would least like to see in the general.

I dunno. I'll probably vote for Edwards in the end, though we don't vote until March, when it will probably all be over. What is the collective wisdom of the friendslist?

Comments

[then.livejournal.com]

While I find each of the Dems' big three to be in one way or another lacking, the thought of a Clinton-Obama, Clinton-Edwards, or Obama-Edwards ticket makes my bleeding liberal heart swell with pride.

[sanpaku.livejournal.com]

This is also true -- actually all of them are pretty good, taken as a whole.

[sanpaku.livejournal.com]

Also, how did you change your LJ handle? Not that I would, but I thought that was Carved in Stone. Huh.

[then.livejournal.com]

Pay $12 for a name change token, select a new name, and then answer "yes" about 50 times to the question "Are you SURE you want to change your name?"

[msmidge.livejournal.com]

Kucinich. I like that he's not kidding around, even though he looks like an elf. But my vote doesn't count anyway since I live in Georgia.

[sanpaku.livejournal.com]

In terms of asking for the collective wisdom, I meant more along the lines of among candidates who have a chance of receiving the nomination. I mean, Richardson is probably not too bad of a guy, but there's not much point wasting brain cells on thinking about him except for VP.

As far as I know Kucinich hasn't done a heck of a lot this year. Even the Kos people don't bother to talk about him at all.

[msmidge.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I know. I can only entertain K. since, as I said, my vote doesn't count in Georgia. But even then I like him primarily because he's the only one who'll admit that we really do need a single-payer health care system and he isn't scared off by people claiming it's socialism.

In real life, I'm more for Edwards than the other 2. I liked what I read on the Op-Ed page of the NYT (it may have been Krugman, but I'm not sure) where someone was comparing him to Obama: where Obama is all about healing and "let's just all get along," Edwards recognizes that for there to be any substantive change, powers like the insurance companies are going to have to be mad, but too bad for them.

[eyelid.livejournal.com]

I actually, and surprisingly, agree entirely with Michael Moore here. (http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?id=220) Weird because normally I am not a huge Moore fan.

[sanpaku.livejournal.com]

Well, which part of it? Not having a leaning isn't much of a position. We're all in the same boat -- not entirely crazy about anyone but also not terribly concerned at the prospect of the wrong one somehow winning. So this is one of the rare times when MM hasn't taken a position but he might actually have something to say that's not preaching to the choir.

[eyelid.livejournal.com]

I agree with pretty much everything he said. I have the same qualms about all the candidates. I have the same leaning towards Edwards, for the same reasons. I really think he has it right when he talks about the issues in America being based in the wealthy basically looting the country.

[sethg]

Of the major candidates, I think Edwards's political positions are closest to my own, but I think Obama is a better politician.

The "better politician" angle is important, not just for winning the general election, but for afterward--the Republican caucus is tightly disciplined while the Democratic legislators have, at best, half a spine. And since Presidents have the most freedom of action in foreign policy, Obama making the right call early on Iraq counts very highly in his favor.

So I lean towards Obama, but if there's still actual competition between him and Edwards by the time the Massachusetts primary rolls around, I could be persuaded.

[sanpaku.livejournal.com]

I basically agree with you. Though the same qualities that can make for a good politician can also make for a bad president. I think Krugman has a point that Obama's appeal to moderates is good for winning the election but will leave him a weak mandate for making unpopular choices when it's time govern. Of course it's probably academic; given last night, I'd be surprised if Edwards is around long past New Hampshire, let alone when I get to vote (March 4).