Hey, everyone. I know it's been a while since I posted anything. Even longer since I've posted anything, y'know, good. Sorry. I may have something in the works about eco-friendly cleaning products (which also happen to be more human-friendly) in the works.
In the meantime, I'd love to get people's opinions on the following issue:
The major race for the presidential Democrat nomination seems to be between Clinton and Obama. I find myself completely in the dark about who is the better candidate. I'm hoping to improve my knowledge before the primaries, but I was wondering if any of my readers (what are we up to now? 4?) are leaning one way or the other, and for what reasons. I know that ultimately a third-party candidate would be better, but part of making change is sometimes going for the compromised win instead of the uncompromised loss. So I tend to vote Democrat. Though, this time around, if there is a Green candidate, I may vote green since my state's electoral votes go blue the vast majority of the time. So, seriously folks, weigh in.
Finally, Safeway makes tasty organic peanut butter and Silk's new line of soy yogurts seem no better than the old line, but the flavor selection seems to have expanded.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
There's basically nothing to like about Clinton. She's a complete centrist and, although she's making statements (weak statements, even against the backdrop of her unimpressive party) about pulling out troops, she has yet to admit that this war was a disaster and she probably shouldn't have voted for it.
Obama, meanwhile, while he has a somewhat compelling track record of community service prior to entering politics, opposes marriage rights. Also, as Joe Biden accidentally admitted, a lot of the admiration for Obama comes from a place of deep prejudice. "Wow, that sure is a well-spoken bla-, uhh, Senator!" Yea, he's well-spoken enough, he's not that phenomenal. (Others' prejudices, of course, do not impact his worth as a candidate. This is more to say that he's over-hyped.)
In any case, they're both far from ideal, but Obama is slightly less objectionable.
regarding your question,.... I am very interested in both candidates but have heard very little "specifics" and more generalities. Usually, I find I agree with everyone's generalities and the specifics of very few candidates (hence your long despised habit of mine of not voting).
However, living in this little red county in a little red state, I've decided the next presidential election, I need to suck it up and will probably be voting for the next viable blue candidate available. I think Clinton makes a more attractive candidate because she is more of a centrist -- she will draw more of that middle-voting group (like me) out of their caves. Obama -- while I do like him better, generally, is probably too liberal to suit most of middle america.
Regarding your change of blog: I like it. I think the green looks sharp, and I like the new direction.
To Anonymous:Well, Clinton has said that knowing what she knows now she would not have voted for the war. Which I know for many people seems like avoiding taking responsibility, but I think it's a legitimate statement. With the information the administration gave both Congress and the American public, I myself was quite ambivalent about whether the US should invade Iraq. Of course, I also was affected by the fact that Hussein funded terrorism in Israel. At any rate, I was never able to make up my mind about the war at the time the troops were first deployed. So if Hilary Clinton says that she thinks the decision she made at the time was the right decision for the information she had at the time, that rings true to me. And I would rather have her take that stance then to only say she made a mistake because it is the sound bite that people want to hear.
I'll tell you this though: any candidate who choses John Mayer's "waiting for the world to change" as their theme song is a long way from winning me over.
The authoritative message :)
Post a Comment