First off, Sniffle.
Goodbye, Richardson, candidate that I loved, Candidate who thought globally, Candidate who wanted to scrap "No Child Left Behind*," four-time Nobel Peace Prize Nominee, the man who had SAT ACROSS A NEGOTIATION TABLE FROM SADDAM HUSSEIN AND GOTTEN THE RELEASE OF TWO AMERICAN PRISONERS FOR CRYIN'OUT LOUD, not that anybody cared.**
Anyway, I am candidateless for the moment, so I'm going to start a series where I compare where the candidates stand on the issues. If I help myself figure out where I stand, great. If I help you, that's even better.
But first, my initial impressions of the candidates going in:
Honestly, I've never liked the man. His understanding of economics doesn't impress me. His assholishness about Hillary's crying (particularly given his own frequent use of his wife's cancer and his son's death) was a helpful reminder that sexism still does very much exist on the campaign trail. Seriously, he may not want an emotional woman's hand on the nuclear button, but I don't want the hand of a guy who proves his masculinity by being a bully either.
For the record, I do NOT think that an Edwards supporter should refrain from voting for him because he's not black and he's not a woman. But I think there are a lot of better reasons not to. And in fairness, I also don't believe in voting FOR Edwards because you think that Americans are too sexist and racist for a Democrat to win the white house any other way.
I get an asshole vibe from the guy. At the same time, I don't know that I want a man whose wife is dying running the country. Maybe I'm a bitch for that, but I'd rather not be speculating which role is getting short shrift, president or husband/father. And I'm going to be speculating that everytime there's a fuckup in the Edwards presidency while his first lady is dying. Again, maybe I'm a bitch for that.
He's really young. My inclination right now is to say "Go home, dude. Take care of your wife and get some experience and some class and I'll reconsider my position in four years."
But I still basically think he'd do a good job.
I'm not sure that Morgan Freeman has done the world a service by playing seemingly a billion "mystical and wise African-American man" roles. I think Obama has both profited and suffered from that stereotype. But at least people aren't making fun of him for crying and making a fuss over the fact that he has wrinkles and calling his laugh a "cackle"***.
I don't know about this guy, y'all. He has vision, but so did a Clinton circa 1996 and while Clinton did a good job, none of his visions came true and his experience sure came in handy. And honestly, Richardson's foreign policy creditials make Obama look like a Junior High School math club president by comparison. ((I know, I know, I need to let it go. But give me a freaking break, Obama cast some (admittedly) good votes on Darfur, while Richardson went to Darfur to negotiate for peace. He WENT TO DARFUR and got them talking. Didn't work that time, but still... I know, I know. Let it go.))
What I know about Obama seems fine, but that I know so much less about the substance of his views than I know the other candidates bugs me.
But I still basically think he'd do a good job.
I do think LBJ doesn't get the credit he deserves for the good he did. But that was still a stupid thing to say.
Moving on, the Clinton years were awesome ones in many respects. Again, people, largest peacetime economic expansion in the nation's history. I'm pretty sure we would STILL be electing Bill if it weren't for term limits.
My impression is that she's the only remaining candidate to have a truly global foreign policy, but I hate that much of her domestic policy has a populist "there oughta be a law" ring and I think she's way wrong on criminal justice issues.
As a former aspiring First Woman President candidate myself (age 4-8), I have to say that having the first Woman president be someone who more or less got the job because of her marriage annoys me. Because if she wins, she will have.
But I still basically think she'd do a good job.
Yep, the racist articles in his newsletter really sucked and show poor judgment. It was awesome to have someone out there getting people excited about the constitution. I hated some of his views, but I really liked other ones.
For the record, I don't think Paul was a racist and I still think the argument "Well, a guy whose probably lying said something bad about someone I don't like, so it must be true" is bizarre and crappy coming from liberals who are quick to accuse Republicans of believing in "truthiness."
Paul and I have similar taste in political enemies.
And I get that the man doesn't have a chance in hell. I'm going to look into his ideas anyway, if only to emphasize how similar the other three candidates really are.
And I don't know if he would have done a good job. But he would have been fun to watch.
I will continue the candidate comparison later/tomorrow with my first four-way examination of the issues.
*The remaining candidates want to overhaul it in similar-sounding ways. A comparison will probably be Chapter two in this series.
** I'm still mad at the American public for not watching Veronica Mars, and now they pull this?
***Having the most annoying laugh of anyone in history hasn't held George W. Bush back much.