I make no secret that I'm pretty liberal, which means I don't generally support the Democrats (especially after spending 8 years as a NC/VA resident, since they ain't always that liberal in those parts). This year I find myself musing over what would be best for the Dems; currently, with about 1/3 of precincts reporting in, the Edwards/Hillary/Obama trio are all receiving about the same support, with the former two around 31% and Obama with a slight edge at 34% or so.
Edwards has always impressed me. I like his populist progressive message after the last 8 years, and I do think it would be in the country's best interests. Not to mention that something could conceivably actually be accomplished with a Dem Congress (although not likely). Next to Kucinich, though, he's clearly the most progressive of the bunch and given that Kucinich is a bit, well, "odd" is being polite, he's my candidate of choice. But part of me wonders if merely having a woman and an African-American running for, and winning, the two top offices in the land wouldn't have a greater, long-term effect on the political process. That's a clear signal that America is finally ready to start ditching the not-quite-vestiges of racism and sexism, and although I'm neither a woman nor a minority, if I were I'd personally feel a sense of validation after the steady parade of Old White Rich Men. Maybe that's naive of me, but I think that much of the Dem's base would be highly energized for many years to come following the Hillary/Obama combination, even though they do tend to be rather centrist and may not be the best choice for the Dems in the short term.
Regardless, the next few hours are going to shape an interesting year.
- Log in to post comments
I share these thoughts, more or less. I'm happy to see that Edwards is still in. Edwards seems to have a vision for a progressive future (and has the most complete and specific energy policy) while Obama seems to have a vision for a future of pandering to Republicans. I'm not ready for the sort of compromises Obama is willing to make; I don't compromise with idiots.
I wonder if you could back up and explain the 'I'm liberal, I don't support the Democrats' thing to a poor european. Do you mean you're liberal in terms of the economy? or something entirely different...
Liberal, I would have thought, might have something to do with tolerance (you mention racism/sexism; I would add health & social care, education (read sCHIP), equality, church state separation you know the list!) and, if I understand the implication of your writing, you would normally vote vote Republican.
Forgive me if I assume that the last two administrations could be classified as right wing religious bellicose 'i got the dick' nutjobs, quite a distance from the second (my) thoughts on liberalism. As to the former, well I think we are seeing the spawn of economic 'liberalism' coming home to roost.
However, if your implication is that you would no-way ever vote republican, and normally not Democrat (opting out of a lesser of two evils for liberals approach), then I think I may understand.
But part of me wonders if merely having a woman and an African-American running for, and winning, the two top offices in the land wouldn't have a greater, long-term effect on the political process.
I think the mere fact that this is happening has got to have some long term, ( and maybe short term if one of them wins), effect. Time will tell, but opening up the democracy to everyone in the democracy seems like it has to be a good thing!
Dave Briggs :~)
I am wondering if this is nothing but sugar on top of nothing.
Sure, the system might be changing, but it veers towards class based on wealth. Kucinich doesn't stand a chance, agreed, and he is not more odd than you or me (that's not saying much, I know) but I rather hear intelligent proposals.
And what about the rumors about NH?