![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Just four more years, and it'll all be over.
Well, screw you too, America. It looks like my primary vote is actually going to *matter*.
So here's my thoughts, as it stands:
HC:
+her initials look like a slash-related acronym
+she is a supremely competent politician, who has accomplished at lot in the Senate and before that, and she's well-liked at home
-Parts of her policy record makes me very unhappy, especially RE: the conduct of the war and RE: the Communications Decency Act.
BO:
+His initials mean "body odor".
+Most of his policy positions make me happy
+He seems to sincerely believe that honesty works
-He's running a campaign based almost entirely on emotion and charisma. Just like GWB did
-He has not impressed me as a competent politician - he did very little in the senate, and despite experience at the state level, he has been shown to be depressingly ignorant about what's going on at home.
So in summary: I agree with Obama more, but I don't believe he'd do as good a job in office. I disagree with Clinton more, but I think she'll do a very good job in office. I think they'd both do okay, although not necessarily well enough to save the world. Yes, I've totally been spending a lot of time re-organizing my "in case of apocalypse" supplies recently.
If only one of them was a Friend of the Show! This would be a lot easier.
I think unless someone makes a very convincing argument in the meanwhile, I'll still be voting for Gravel. That way, when they inevitably screw up later, I can tell everyone "It's not my fault, I voted for Gravel." (Also, I love all his policy positions, even the kookier ones, and I admire the way he's conducted his campaign, especially the way people keep asking me who he is, and I think he actually would have a snowball's chance of helping save the world when it comes to it.)
Of course, that doesn't actually solve anything, because Gravel doesn't have any pledged delegates on my ballot. I can vote all "uncommitted" for the male delegates, which I shall do RE: the Daily Show's (and my) endorsement of democracy by smoke-filled room. For the female delegates, there's only one uncommitted delegate, so I guess I'll split the others evenly between candidates. Or wait - how do I find out who the delegates pledged to withdrawn candidates are now for? (Why do we vote for delegates based on gender? Ask the National Democratic Party.)
I guess I'll go ahead and re-nominate our congressman - he's voted party-line on every single bill since he was elected, but then he is a first-term congressman, and he's good people (his dad went to the same high school as my dad, and that's right local politics.) And the only judge on the ballot is running unopposed, and he hasn't made any waves sufficient to make me care.
How boring. Can we move on already please?
ETA: Someone should get me an official Mike Gravel for President t-shirt for my birthday. From Cafepress. Because that's where the official campaign merchandise is from. Because he's just that cool.
So here's my thoughts, as it stands:
HC:
+her initials look like a slash-related acronym
+she is a supremely competent politician, who has accomplished at lot in the Senate and before that, and she's well-liked at home
-Parts of her policy record makes me very unhappy, especially RE: the conduct of the war and RE: the Communications Decency Act.
BO:
+His initials mean "body odor".
+Most of his policy positions make me happy
+He seems to sincerely believe that honesty works
-He's running a campaign based almost entirely on emotion and charisma. Just like GWB did
-He has not impressed me as a competent politician - he did very little in the senate, and despite experience at the state level, he has been shown to be depressingly ignorant about what's going on at home.
So in summary: I agree with Obama more, but I don't believe he'd do as good a job in office. I disagree with Clinton more, but I think she'll do a very good job in office. I think they'd both do okay, although not necessarily well enough to save the world. Yes, I've totally been spending a lot of time re-organizing my "in case of apocalypse" supplies recently.
If only one of them was a Friend of the Show! This would be a lot easier.
I think unless someone makes a very convincing argument in the meanwhile, I'll still be voting for Gravel. That way, when they inevitably screw up later, I can tell everyone "It's not my fault, I voted for Gravel." (Also, I love all his policy positions, even the kookier ones, and I admire the way he's conducted his campaign, especially the way people keep asking me who he is, and I think he actually would have a snowball's chance of helping save the world when it comes to it.)
Of course, that doesn't actually solve anything, because Gravel doesn't have any pledged delegates on my ballot. I can vote all "uncommitted" for the male delegates, which I shall do RE: the Daily Show's (and my) endorsement of democracy by smoke-filled room. For the female delegates, there's only one uncommitted delegate, so I guess I'll split the others evenly between candidates. Or wait - how do I find out who the delegates pledged to withdrawn candidates are now for? (Why do we vote for delegates based on gender? Ask the National Democratic Party.)
I guess I'll go ahead and re-nominate our congressman - he's voted party-line on every single bill since he was elected, but then he is a first-term congressman, and he's good people (his dad went to the same high school as my dad, and that's right local politics.) And the only judge on the ballot is running unopposed, and he hasn't made any waves sufficient to make me care.
How boring. Can we move on already please?
ETA: Someone should get me an official Mike Gravel for President t-shirt for my birthday. From Cafepress. Because that's where the official campaign merchandise is from. Because he's just that cool.
no subject
But I don't know - I'm still wavering a lot on Obama. His campaign has been so much about image in all directions that I don't even *know* - but having looked at it a bit more closely, he's actually done a bit better in the Senate, in terms of actually accomplishing good useful non-special-interest-based stuff, than I had realized, so gah, I don't know.
Next month I may be going to the same leadership course (http://www.gamaliel.org/default.htm) where he supposedly learned his political style. :D I'll keep you updated.
The Maryland Republican ballot also has direct election of delegates, and the election judge seemed to think it didn't matter which party? So maybe that's also a state-by-state thing. But yeah, the Republican Party doesn't do the superdelegate thing regardless.
McCain's positions on war (not least, the way those positions have been fluctuating all over the place in the last few years) scare the shit out of me effectively enough that I can't get past that to whatever else is on his platform, so I'll be going with the Democrat either way.
But yeah, I wish there was somebody running on the other side that I could support whole-heartedly. (I wish was I was still non-cynical enough that I could fearlessly buy into Obama's rhetoric...)