Like many here, I am sick and tired of the partisan bickering between those who favor Hillary, Obama or Edwards, or rather I should say, who strongly favor one of the three, to the point of being openly negative towards the other two.
Personally, I don't give a damn who gets the nomination and I'll explain why.
The electability. Honestly, the GOP is running a slate of freaks. I have never seen in my entire life (born in '54) such a bunch of weirdos. Dole and Dukakis were at least halfway credible. Perot talked sense (though he was a kook too). Nixon would be a million times more electable than the current GOP slate. We could run Kermit the Frog and still win.
And you know what? If we ran a sock puppet and lost against Mitt or McCain, then the country would deserve its fate. "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink," etc. If Madness prevails again this time, no matter who our candidate is, when we're truly beyond fucked.
More rant below...
Okay, now let's deal with "the best (wo)man for the job" issue.
I think most of us who read (or used to read) Billmon, Steve Gilliard, Nouriel Roubini, Gleen Greenwald, nyceve, bondad and Jerome à Paris' diaries, Krugman, etc. realize that we, as a country, have walked off the edge of the cliff like the Cotote in the cartoons.
I personally believe that the next decade will see major transformations being forced upon our country/society/economy etc. by the perfect shitstorm fabricated by Bushco.
Someone will indeed have to take charge and lead us out of the wilderness, like FDR did. But is that someone one of our current candidates? Not a chance.
Hillary, as I wrote before, is the new Al Smith of the 21st century. Our Gorbachev at best.
Obama's platform is "vote for me because I'm awesome" -- Barney Stinson from HOW I MET YOUR MOTHER.
I think Edwards understands that we need a new FDR, he wants to be that new FDR, but in his dreams.
To be fair to our candidates, even if we had a candidate that could be our future FDR, let's be real: at this time, he couldn't run, he wouldn't be nominated, if nominated, he wouldn't win and if he won, he couldn't govern.
In fact, Edwards' lackluster performance in the polls rather proves the point.
Why? Because I believe that the people of this country are not yet ready in their minds and their stomachs to accept the reforms that are truly necessary.
Also, I believe that the powerful lobbies marshaled against these reforms (insurance company, Wall Street, oil companies, etc.) still have the upper hand in framing our political discourse.
Right now, the delusions are still too strong.
That collective state of mind will not change materially until perhaps 2010 or 2012, when we're just as knee-deep in shit as our ancestors were in 1930, and then we can have a real national debate (or, god forbid, a new civil war) and elect a real reformer.
Until then, we're voting for a placeholder. Which is why I don't give a damn whom we nominate.
So please stop trying to convince me that your candidate is "better" than the other two. (Or worse, try to convince me that the other guy is WORSE than your guy.) That may well be true, but it is completely irrelevant, I don't care, and it will change nothing.
As always, apologies for the ranting tone.
On a happy-happy-joy-joy note here is a link to a recent photo essay about our two wonderful dogs in the Lupins' expat kingdom. That is guaranteed to make you feel better! :-)