I’ll admit, I haven’t been keeping an overly close watch on the primary campaigning. I learned a long time ago that we will never nominate anyone who would actually make an outstanding, principled president… so when November rolls around, it’ll just be the lesser of evils again.
The puzzling thing, though, is all of the hype over Barack Obama. He’s a standard-issue politician. Disingenuous, phony, and filled with buzzwords and meaningless rhetoric. But people are acting like he’s the second coming… I have to wonder: would he even be in the running if he were white?
I think it’s undeniable that race is playing a factor — I imagine that most liberals would get a warm, fuzzy feeling from supporting an obvious racial minority, but is that feeling overshadowing a very boring, run of the mill candidate?
As voting goes, I’m happy to see Obama out in front right now. Clinton and Edwards scare me, and I’m really not sure what I think about voting for someone who both a) doesn’t believe in evolution and b) is too dense/devout to be able to see that creation and evolution aren’t even mutually exclusive — the latter being a far bigger problem than the former.
More and more I’m seeing the wisdom in the Douglas Adams’ words: “Anyone who is capable of getting himself elected president should on no account be allowed to do the job.”
I was thinking about that Douglas Adams quote the other day and how it, in some ways, applied to Ron Paul. He was nothing until the grassroots campaign for him started up, and even now it seems more like people are trying to get him on the ballot rather than him trying.
Supposedly Obama actually started articulating policy positions in the last debate. That’s a big step for a candidate whose idea of campaigning is dancing with Ellen instead of sitting down with Russert for an hour. I bet it turns out to be fluff though. He seems to have made a conscious choice to avoid taking positions/creating plans at all costs, so he has nothing to defend. Clinton and Edwards have records, so they don’t have that choice. What I’m trying to figure out is whether I’m wrong in thinking that younger voters are more likely to want solid positions and can more easily see through rhetoric than the older folks, who have mostly given up on ever finding an honest politician; or if I’m right about the demographic but Clinton and Edwards are just so atrocious that Obama seems palatable.
Pete? I know I’m not paying HUGE attention to the US presidential elections at the moment (mostly ’cause I’m not American), although I am trying to keep it in the corner of my eye, since it is rather important and all, but who “a) doesn’t believe in evolution and b) is too dense/devout to be able to see that creation and evolution aren’t even mutually exclusive”? That I would like to know very much. Thanks!
At an earlier debate, I believe the question was asked of all candidates, which ones believed in evolution. A few of them didn’t raise their hands (or maybe they were asked who believed in creation, I don’t recall). Here’s a YouTube from a later debate where Huckabee explains further how he doesn’t believe in evolution.
“FACTS:
Obama has the 2nd highest level of contributions from the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries
His healthcare coverage plan is receiving pretty low marks
His history with energy companies is mixed at best
He uses right-wing talking points on important issues like Social Security
On Climate Change, he seems to talk out of both sides of his face. His issues page doesn’t match his record of supporting liquefaction of coal. Coal is still coal and it’s NOT progress. Only after he was confronted with the fact that coal emits more CO2 (green house gases) than other petroleum based fuels, did he remove that option from his issues page. He also sponsors nuclear and ethanol legislation, and takes contributions from these industries.
He took $250,000 from nuclear power industry. Edwards alone opposes nuclear power plants.
He capitulated on the “Health Care Justice Act,” due to pressure from his lobbyist buddies.
He continues to fund the Iraq war with his Senate votes
He supported Condi Rice
He didn’t fight against Roberts or Alito but suggested compromise and reason instead (How’s that working out for us?)
He supported tort reform
The list goes on… is anyone paying attention?”
http://txsharon.blogspot.com/2.....-hype.html
I love folks who don’t want petroleum to be used, but also oppose nuclear power.
What, exactly, are we supposed to use to generate electricity?
Nuclear power is the answer. Really, anyone who gripes about “global warming” and opposes nuclear fuel just doesn’t like electricity all that much.