![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
eggwardsToday in a frigid place called Iowa, people whom I do not know will start trying to choose our Presidential candidates. It's kind of strange that we still let this state, and New Hampshire on Tuesday pave the way towards the White House. Neither state seems to be very representative of the country as a whole, both in demographics and in economics. Still, we have a holdover from the days where trying to cross the nation to deliver your message took months instead of minutes, and where tabulating votes took days. Of all the technological breakthroughs we accomplished over the last century, we still run our elections process as if it was 1800.
Even worse is that we allow the first trial for these many, many candidates to come at the hands of a caucus. An archaic system that harkens back to the back-room dealing at party conventions where you end up with nominees like Chester A Arthur and Thomas Dewey. Sure, candidates can, and have lost Iowa and New Hampshire and gone on to win, but this year the public seems determines to whittle off some of these many candidates that still seem to show up for all these debates, people like Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, Duncan Hunter and Alan Keyes. At this point the frontrunners have already been chosen, whether by the public or by the media, and we're all ready to get this process over with so we can have a new President, no matter who he, or she might be.
The problem is, by the time the primary happens here in Texas, one of the last primaries in the nation (March 5th), the nominees for both parties will already be chosen. It's nice to know that you have very little input getting to say who the candidates will be.
I'm not dedicated enough to donate time, and I'm not rich enough to let some of my money go to anyone's campaign. Heck, there's more than enough money in the political system. so I really don't do much more than just complain about this stuff on my blog. Personally I'd be more in favor to support caps on how much money can be raised and spent in campaigns, and cut out contributions from any entity that isn't an actual person. No more 527's or PACs or corporate gifts. I'd also support a time limit on campaigning, much like many other countries do, but unfortunately one of those negative aspects of having freedom of speech means the political system runs wild with cash and lots of time.
This damned race has been going on for a year now, and although I started following it early, I've found myself completely bored with it. By now I wonder how any person in Iowa can even stand these people. Only in the last few days, now that something's going to happen has my interest piqued again.
It seems that the theme of the year for the Democrats is change, trying to draw the attention of everyone who's tried of the current administration. The Republicans seem to be searching for whoever might let them hold on to power by any means necessary - except by going the Ron Paul route. It seems like all of the candidates are a bit shocked that the Iraq war as a campaign issue has seemingly ebbed as people are looking forward to other challenges. I think people have grown weary of the endless terrorism angle that Rudy Guliani is attached to. All the leading candidates seem to be trying to hold back what their true issues and proposals are, hoping to be able to keep them to themselves until needed for the big run.
With all this being said, I have to say that I'm impressed by Barak Obama and am supporting him at this time. I won't claim that this is a decision made with a lot of deep research, but I feel that I'm somewhat informed, and the Senator from Illinois has impressed me. To me he represents change and a break from long-seated Washington politics. No, I don't like that he takes absentee ballots on issues as to hide a political record, but I do like that he's of a new generation. When I see the old guard of Democrats who won't stand up to the President, I think it would be good to have a house-clearing and get someone new in the White House.
Yes, I am concerned that he's relatively new on the scene, making me think of Jimmy Carter back in the 70's. Carter was not ready for the job, but he was voted in because of the public's desire to move away from a corrupt Republican period. I think though, that Obama is surrounding himself with good people - many of them old Clinton Administration folks. He's also one of the few candidates who seem inclusive rather than divisive.
I think that Obama appeals to a lot of independent votes as he doesn’t seem to be particularly concerned with promoting his party over his rhetoric. He seems to be trying for a "big tent" approach. Maybe that's just politics, but it does seem better than the more divisiveness than you see with Hillary Clinton. I just get the feeling that Clinton supporters seem to be more concerned with "sticking it to the Republicans" than actually trying to move the country forward. They want to see her get mean and take it to them, attacking the right. Obama seems more positive, more upbeat and more appealing than the rest.
It seems to me if we really wanted to tear this country apart, the way to do it would be to have a Guilani-Clinton battle this fall. How negative would that race be? How more extreme could the division between the parties get?
Trust me, if the election truly came down to who would be the best candidate, none of the people running would be eligible. Strangely I just don't care for John Edwards, though again, I'd take him over Mrs. Clinton. On the Republican side I sort of like McCain, but not enough to really vote for him. You have Romney who doesn't seem to have any position that hasn't been put through a committee and polls. Ron Paul seems to be the lunatic fringe, attracting the conspiracy crowd. At this moment I'm pretty sure that I'd vote for the Democratic nominee whoever they are rather than have any Republican administration for the next four years.
Yeah, it's going to be tough for Obama. There are plenty of negatives and potential for attacks on both real issues and ones that have been invented to scare people away from supporting him. Yes, there's that who stupid thing about him being a Muslim and ready to turn the country over when he gets into office. Somehow you just can't get some people to actually check facts, especially when the lie fits their worldview. It's the same with Clinton, who has rumors and past political views that have been blown up to make her a horrible succubus who will tax you to death and make sure all your children will be gay or aborted. This year there's a little something for everyone with religious, gender and racial differences between candidates that I'm sure all of the campaign drivers are just waiting to fully unleash against their opponents. It's likely to get ugly. It's this kind of politics that I hope we would get past, but with the Republican Party around, it's doubtful it would truly get better.
Still, because of the way Iowa chooses to nominate its candidates, it’s not really known if it's a true litmus test. It seems that the caucus with its endless deal making is the perfect set up for special interests to send people in to try to sway the outcome. Heck, you don't even have to be a resident of the state to participate, but you do have to show up. It seems like only the most rabid politicos would actually turn up for one of these things. For someone like me, happy to keep up, and drop my ballot, I think I'd be turned off of having to spend a night with true political junkies (Chris would probably dispute this, and would probably like me to go to get some of the politics out of my system.
Well, there's plenty of time for more second-guessing, character assassination, political gerrymandering and crazy schemes to try to win the White house. Is this the end of the beginning, or just a continuation of the same political slog we've seen for the last year, built up by the divisive politics we've had for the last sixteen? Only time will tell. I just hope that the caucus attendees and voters in these early primaries will have some sense, and hopefully will think about trying to make the country better. I'm guessing I'll have to rely on many others to deliver a candidate that I'll be able to get behind, rather than just vote for as the lesser of two evils.
So tonight we'll see if the media frontrunners really do have the momentum, or have just been propped up. Perhaps the citizens in Iowa will really see past the style and the pat answers and really chose a good candidate, but since they haven't anointed an eventual nomination winner since Jimmy Carter, it's a wonder as to what it will all mean. Perhaps it's all a bunch of hot air in a cold, cold state.
Even worse is that we allow the first trial for these many, many candidates to come at the hands of a caucus. An archaic system that harkens back to the back-room dealing at party conventions where you end up with nominees like Chester A Arthur and Thomas Dewey. Sure, candidates can, and have lost Iowa and New Hampshire and gone on to win, but this year the public seems determines to whittle off some of these many candidates that still seem to show up for all these debates, people like Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, Duncan Hunter and Alan Keyes. At this point the frontrunners have already been chosen, whether by the public or by the media, and we're all ready to get this process over with so we can have a new President, no matter who he, or she might be.
The problem is, by the time the primary happens here in Texas, one of the last primaries in the nation (March 5th), the nominees for both parties will already be chosen. It's nice to know that you have very little input getting to say who the candidates will be.
I'm not dedicated enough to donate time, and I'm not rich enough to let some of my money go to anyone's campaign. Heck, there's more than enough money in the political system. so I really don't do much more than just complain about this stuff on my blog. Personally I'd be more in favor to support caps on how much money can be raised and spent in campaigns, and cut out contributions from any entity that isn't an actual person. No more 527's or PACs or corporate gifts. I'd also support a time limit on campaigning, much like many other countries do, but unfortunately one of those negative aspects of having freedom of speech means the political system runs wild with cash and lots of time.
This damned race has been going on for a year now, and although I started following it early, I've found myself completely bored with it. By now I wonder how any person in Iowa can even stand these people. Only in the last few days, now that something's going to happen has my interest piqued again.
It seems that the theme of the year for the Democrats is change, trying to draw the attention of everyone who's tried of the current administration. The Republicans seem to be searching for whoever might let them hold on to power by any means necessary - except by going the Ron Paul route. It seems like all of the candidates are a bit shocked that the Iraq war as a campaign issue has seemingly ebbed as people are looking forward to other challenges. I think people have grown weary of the endless terrorism angle that Rudy Guliani is attached to. All the leading candidates seem to be trying to hold back what their true issues and proposals are, hoping to be able to keep them to themselves until needed for the big run.
With all this being said, I have to say that I'm impressed by Barak Obama and am supporting him at this time. I won't claim that this is a decision made with a lot of deep research, but I feel that I'm somewhat informed, and the Senator from Illinois has impressed me. To me he represents change and a break from long-seated Washington politics. No, I don't like that he takes absentee ballots on issues as to hide a political record, but I do like that he's of a new generation. When I see the old guard of Democrats who won't stand up to the President, I think it would be good to have a house-clearing and get someone new in the White House.
Yes, I am concerned that he's relatively new on the scene, making me think of Jimmy Carter back in the 70's. Carter was not ready for the job, but he was voted in because of the public's desire to move away from a corrupt Republican period. I think though, that Obama is surrounding himself with good people - many of them old Clinton Administration folks. He's also one of the few candidates who seem inclusive rather than divisive.
I think that Obama appeals to a lot of independent votes as he doesn’t seem to be particularly concerned with promoting his party over his rhetoric. He seems to be trying for a "big tent" approach. Maybe that's just politics, but it does seem better than the more divisiveness than you see with Hillary Clinton. I just get the feeling that Clinton supporters seem to be more concerned with "sticking it to the Republicans" than actually trying to move the country forward. They want to see her get mean and take it to them, attacking the right. Obama seems more positive, more upbeat and more appealing than the rest.
It seems to me if we really wanted to tear this country apart, the way to do it would be to have a Guilani-Clinton battle this fall. How negative would that race be? How more extreme could the division between the parties get?
Trust me, if the election truly came down to who would be the best candidate, none of the people running would be eligible. Strangely I just don't care for John Edwards, though again, I'd take him over Mrs. Clinton. On the Republican side I sort of like McCain, but not enough to really vote for him. You have Romney who doesn't seem to have any position that hasn't been put through a committee and polls. Ron Paul seems to be the lunatic fringe, attracting the conspiracy crowd. At this moment I'm pretty sure that I'd vote for the Democratic nominee whoever they are rather than have any Republican administration for the next four years.
Yeah, it's going to be tough for Obama. There are plenty of negatives and potential for attacks on both real issues and ones that have been invented to scare people away from supporting him. Yes, there's that who stupid thing about him being a Muslim and ready to turn the country over when he gets into office. Somehow you just can't get some people to actually check facts, especially when the lie fits their worldview. It's the same with Clinton, who has rumors and past political views that have been blown up to make her a horrible succubus who will tax you to death and make sure all your children will be gay or aborted. This year there's a little something for everyone with religious, gender and racial differences between candidates that I'm sure all of the campaign drivers are just waiting to fully unleash against their opponents. It's likely to get ugly. It's this kind of politics that I hope we would get past, but with the Republican Party around, it's doubtful it would truly get better.
Still, because of the way Iowa chooses to nominate its candidates, it’s not really known if it's a true litmus test. It seems that the caucus with its endless deal making is the perfect set up for special interests to send people in to try to sway the outcome. Heck, you don't even have to be a resident of the state to participate, but you do have to show up. It seems like only the most rabid politicos would actually turn up for one of these things. For someone like me, happy to keep up, and drop my ballot, I think I'd be turned off of having to spend a night with true political junkies (Chris would probably dispute this, and would probably like me to go to get some of the politics out of my system.
Well, there's plenty of time for more second-guessing, character assassination, political gerrymandering and crazy schemes to try to win the White house. Is this the end of the beginning, or just a continuation of the same political slog we've seen for the last year, built up by the divisive politics we've had for the last sixteen? Only time will tell. I just hope that the caucus attendees and voters in these early primaries will have some sense, and hopefully will think about trying to make the country better. I'm guessing I'll have to rely on many others to deliver a candidate that I'll be able to get behind, rather than just vote for as the lesser of two evils.
So tonight we'll see if the media frontrunners really do have the momentum, or have just been propped up. Perhaps the citizens in Iowa will really see past the style and the pat answers and really chose a good candidate, but since they haven't anointed an eventual nomination winner since Jimmy Carter, it's a wonder as to what it will all mean. Perhaps it's all a bunch of hot air in a cold, cold state.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-01-04 12:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-06 10:20 pm (UTC)I liked the parody you posted, though. :-)
No to Romney, Huckabee, and Paul
Date: 2008-01-04 01:11 am (UTC)HUGS!
Re: No to Romney, Huckabee, and Paul
Date: 2008-01-06 10:28 pm (UTC)I like Obama because he seems fresh, and less divisive than Clinton. With Clinton, I feel we're just headed back to the 90's, sort of like trying to go back and recreate Reagan. Let's just move on.
As for is the public ready for a woman or an African American? Well, I think there's an age divide there. The younger voters would have no problem with either. I think older voters will me more likely to go with Clinton than Obama, and the polls seem to say the same. Democrats and independents seem to be more open to electing someone who isn't a white male than Republicans - sad but true.
What will be interesting is to see if the Big Business Republicans who have been using the fundamentalist Christians for so long as a party base will be able to knock Huckabee out so they can get Guliani or Romney in. Of course, Paul is yet another thorn in their side. It seems that the Dems can manage to rally around any of their major candidates, but the GOP is very splintered.
Antiquated SYstem
Date: 2008-01-04 03:21 am (UTC)Re: Antiquated SYstem
Date: 2008-01-06 10:32 pm (UTC)After that, can we also toss the electoral college out too?
no subject
Date: 2008-01-04 10:51 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-06 10:40 pm (UTC)I'd like a Obama/Edwards ticket, but I think Obama would do better with an older running mate (I hate to say like Bush with Cheney, but...). I could see Obama/Biden. Some have also mentioned Arizona's popular woman governor. Not necessarily older, but certainly not politics as usual.
Clinton also feels like to much or a payback candidate. It's like saying, well, for 8 years of Bush, we'll give you what you'll really hate. I'd rather start fresh.
Trust me, they'll come up with plenty to smear Obama with. It's the only politics they know now. It's going to get nasty, and it will be interesting to see how they try to play the race card without being labeled "racist".
no subject
Date: 2008-01-06 10:51 pm (UTC)As for Iowa's sensibilities, that's good. There's a lot of education going on in the state, and your civil rights laws trump ours here in Texas. Texas is the second reddest state out there, after Utah, so yes, leaning Democrat is a tough thing to do here. Congrats to having a better balance.
Again, it's not about the state in particular, I can make the same argument about New Hampshire right now, that they don't necessarily represent the US as a whole, but until the system is changed, this is what we get. If there was some Dodd or Biden supported here in Texas, they will never get their chance to express it, because now they have been eliminated. The nominees for both parties will probably be sewn up after Super Tuesday next month, So I'll just have to be happy with what we're given.
Does Iowa have any good rollercoasters? That might be a good reason to visit!