I think my biggest problem with Hilary isn't with Hilary herself...it's with her last name. I really don't want three decades of Bush - Clinton - Bush - Clinton. I don't want two families to run the country. That feels too much like a monarchy. Besides, I think Bill's been acting like a right little bitch lately and he needs to tone his shit talking down.
Perhaps I'm turning my back on my sex by not supporting Hilary, but honestly, except for a severe suit and coif...I don't see much of her that is still feminine. I think she's had to banish that side of her persona to truly become of "the guys". Only then could she be seen as a true contender. She's wandered away from the fold far enough that I don't feel the loss. It's a shame really. I think you can be a good politician and still feminine. Look at Madeline Albright. Shit...look at Condi. At least the bitch shops at Ferragamo.
I suppose now that Edwards is out of the running I'll turn my hopes toward Barak. His mother is from Kansas, after all...to have such progressive ideals coming from a state that tries to teach Creationism in schools...what's not to love.
I'm secretly proud of John McCain, though. You cannot keep that guy down. He's a bit of an asshole...but a buoyant one.
I'm posting Sam's response to this post because it's what I would've said if I knew how to write.
I was a big enough nerdus as to email Edwards' campaign this morning to tell him that he hadn't run for nothing and had really kept issues of poverty and corporate greed right in the debate whereas it might never have been talked about at all. I don't see the other two candidates wanting to talk about these things too much. it might cut into their waxing lyrical on "change" and "a new way forward" without managing to articulate quite how.
I would love to see a woman president but only if she was the right person to do it. And I'm not sure, I'm not sure at all. She is so much the political animal and is not the unifier she tells us she is. Obama, I like. I reckon he is a man of integrity but he's even more vague on specifics than Clinton when you get down to both their policies.
I liked Edwards because for a long time now he's been laying out what his policies were, he has a tremendous history highlighting the chasm between rich and poor in this country, and while lacking a bit in the foreign policy department, is undoubtedly a clever man capable of learning on his feet - unlike the present dolt. Unfortunately with the chance of history being made with an African American or female president, all the oxygen was sucked out of the room and his campaign struggled. I'm betting he'll endorse Obama to shake the old order up a little.
I wouldn't be at all unhappy to see an Obama/Clinton ticket or vice versa, or an Obama/Edwards ticket, or even a Clinton/Edwards ticket but I'm guessing whoever gets the nomination will seek further afield than their running mates.
I really want McCain to beat Romney. Romney changes his positions too conveniently for my liking and I don't like the way he seems to be buying his way to the white House. He seems inflexible as a thinker, much too allied to corporate models and interests, too socially conservative and thinks that while religion requires freedom, that also freedom requires religion - what in hell was that all about?
I admire much about McCain but he too has been too willing to indulge in pandering to the base at the expense of his integrity. I could deal with him as a president though; with a Democratic congress looking set to stay that way, the balance would be there to curb his more conservative excesses should he have them.
McCain v Obama would leave the country with two relatively good choices and both stand a better chance of uniting left and right in moderation than either Clinton or Romney. God, I'll hate it of Romney gets the nomination.
Sorry for going on, but it is a very exciting old time right now, innit? I just wish there was the luxury of not having so much ride on it all.