politics as usual

I tend to write more about fluffy things like music and my favorite fashion, as opposed to politics, mostly because of my love-hate relationship with politics. I love politics. I find it fascinating. I could discuss politics for hours. I get very caught up in the debates when I actually sit down to watch them. I volunteered on campaigns and discovered the adrenaline rush of being in a campaign office in the last few nights before election. I fed on that collective energy, and felt the exaltation when we were successful. Then I won my own campaign, and I discovered the side of politics that I hate. I will not get into that. I am trying not to be too negative! (Besides, I think I really love to hate it, and that is just bad.)

Today, however, I read the New York Times endorsements and I am going to make some of my own comments. I need something to keep my brain from turning as mushy as the stuffing I use to make Thanksgiving sandwiches at my incredibly intellectually demanding job.

I will offer a disclaimer that I have not read a great deal about the candidates yet. I watched the New Hampshire Democratic Debates. (By the way, I can't stomach even the idea of watching a group of Republicans debate. Watching a group of people discuss the "appropriate" ways to reduce the freedom of Americans, one example being the ability of gays to marry--I'm sorry, what happened to separation of church and state?!? Who has the right to say who can get married and who can't!?!) The reason I have not followed this closely is that I can't vote in the primaries, as I am not a registered Democrat.

Yes, Virginia, there is a third party, and it's called the Green Party. I believe very strongly that this country needs a third party. Think about it: the candidates have to be centrist in order to achieve any success. Then we liberals all complain about the left moving too much to the right. But how can you win a primary and a national campaign without being centrist? Say you are a Democrat hoping to win the nomination. You have to say things that appeal to the Dems, i.e., liberal things; but, you cannot be too liberal, because once you get the nomination and then have to win Republican votes, you can't change your mind. Then you would be accused of Bush's favorite campaign term, "flip-flopping." (Thanks, George, for lifting the intellectual capacity of our nation.)

So we are left with two candidates sitting in the middle of a seesaw. The seesaw goes nowhere.

Anyway, as my dream of a viable third candidate for president is far from being fulfilled, I offer my thoughts on the candidates. First, I respect the New York Times' explanation of their endorsement of Hilary Clinton. I agree that she would do a fine job. Those people that like to call her a bitch need to learn that women can be just as strong as men. Do people refer to male candidates (other than Bush, Guliani, or Romney) as assholes because they speak strongly to each other? No, they roll their eyes and say, "politics as usual." So, Clinton is not going to roll over and let a man walk all over her: I think that's a prerequisite quality of a politician and commander in chief.

However, what worries me about Clinton is that she is more of the same. I just worry that her hands are too tied to corporations. Her husband got this country in a good place economically, I'll give him that, but he supported NAFTA and the FTAA, and I cannot deal with that. I know she is not her husband, but we can't separate any politician too much from their politician family members. If we are not going to do it for George and Jeb, we shouldn't do it for Hilary, feminist or not.

Maybe Barack Obama is more of the same as well. Let's face it, all the candidates have accepted campaign contributions from the same group of investment firms, most with some interesting ties to Enron and interest in privatizing social security, but I would like to believe Obama is more honest than the others. I agree with the New York Times that Clinton has more experience and that Obama might just be a hopeful voice without much to back it up, but right now, I'd like to go with hope. Call me youthful, call me idealistic, but I think this country needs some hope. When was the last time we had a presidential candidate that the country felt energized by and hopeful about? When was the last time this energy was created by someone not youthful and idealistic?

Don't you think it's time this country returned to idealism? Isn't that what our country was founded on?