I can no longer completely ignore the 2008 Presidential Campaigns; now is the time to start paying attention so I can at least be an informed (if not still reluctant) voter this November. While I am a registered Independent, I do swing more towards the Democratic perspective on most issues. As such, I care more to find out about all the Democratic candidates while I’ll just wait for the Republicans to pick one guy for me to research and subsequently dislike.
Since you can watch the whole debate on Facebook, I’ll just give a brief synopsis of each major Democratic candidate still in the game, going in alphabetical order (by last name) so as not to show favoritism:
Hillary Clinton Hillary makes the best arguments by far of any of these candidates. Whenever the guys would get into a bombastic boondoggle, she would interject with exactly the right solution: one that is viable, achievable, and well thought out. Her failing is not in what she says, but how she says it. Hillary’s tone of voice cuts through your soul like a tyrannical librarian breaking up table talk in a library study hall. Some have said that the same verbal swagger and deliberateness would most assuredly be admirable in a male candidate, but we observed some proof against this societal bias last night; each time Hillary spoke, Hazel would whimper in her sleep in the next room. Yes, against all signs her mullet hairstyle would give you, Hillary is business in the front and in the back. |
John Edwards The nicest guy in politics, Edwards comes across as honest, earnest, and wholesome. I can easily figure out what he believes in and can rest assured that he will remain focused on his goals. These are all excellent qualities in a leader. But Edwards is also a pushover. I’m not saying that a headstrong maverick makes the best president, but having someone wishy-washy on the ballot will undermine any hope the Democrats have for a win in November. Plus, Edwards reminds me of Richard Davis from The Real Estate Pros. I half-expect Edwards to slap a USC visor on and declare, “We’re gonna go into Iraq and do a sugarcoat!” |
Barrack Obama Obama carries himself like a president. He’s personable and intelligent, hitting all the issues with confident talking points in a voice that you instantly trust. However, I feel that trust may be unfounded and quite possibly naively given. Barrack is a lot like the popular guy in high school that knows everybody by name. He warmly greets each person he passes in the hall, but he never goes beyond the “What’s up?” smiling head nod. It’s all surface level interactions. His political inexperience rings true to this, but he is probably the most electable out of all the candidates. |
Bill Richardson When Richardson first sat down for the debate, I thought that Horatio Sanz was punking Charlie Gibson. I couldn’t get the idea that Bill Richardson is actually Sanz out of my head all night, and I’m not saying that because both men are Hispanic. I’m saying that because both guys are overweight and don’t deliver prewritten lines very well. Despite being, as Richardson pointed out every time he had the floor, the only candidate “who has experience balancing a budget,” I cannot throw my support behind a man whose professional association routinely misspells their own titles. Gubernatorial? What are those state governors trying to pull? |
Entries (RSS)
Sometimes I think the last 8 years were like an experiment, much akin to the Simspon’s film classic “Hail to the Chimp”. I still don’t understand the benefit of the electoral college either other than it sucks.
I’m not sure where my vote is going this November but like you, as an Independent I lean towards democratic candidates because I kind of have to. I’m not sure when Republicans became the environment destroying, God loving, charity hating, big business supporting devils with old-white guy turkey necks but there they are.
Oh and “governor” is hard enough to spell ( I want to spell it “governer” since that’s the logical way the English language works–one who governs should be a governer. I think it has something to do with the Brits guv’na!
And that’s what we get for not hailing to the chimp!
The purpose of the electoral college, in gross oversimplification, is to give somewhat equal footing between small (by population) states like a Vermont or Iowa and larger states (again by population) like Texas or California. In essence if it was just a popular vote, highly populated states would determine the election thus marginalizing the the votes in smaller states.
Not to mention recounts, could you just imagine what the recounts in 2000 would have been like if the whole nation had to recount and not just Florida?