Eight years ago, I was very annoyed when McCain dropped out of the primaries much too early. Now, though, I’m annoyed by Clinton’s tenacity.
I think the big difference is that there was (emphasis on “was”) a bigger difference between Bush and McCain than there is between Obama and Clinton. There was a point in McCain staying in because there were differences to consider.
Or maybe just that even then I was in the “anybody but Bush” camp.
4 comments:
I'll have a very difficult time voting for either party's nominee.
Oh, do I know what you mean.
Even with Obama, the cynic in me says that—even if he is as good as he sounds—he can’t beat the system. He’ll either have to compromise to get a few things done, or he’ll get nothing done.
To me, the real problem remains that the two parties are so entrenched that they look more like each other than representatives of the people. I’m not necessarily convinced we need more than two parties, but I do think we need to change the mechanisms so that whatever two parties come out on top are more accountable.
But I don’t have much political idealism right now. So, it tends to come down to “anybody but Bush” and then “whoever is farthest from Bush”. (^_^)
C'mon, it's all about whose ox is being gored.
I don't trust the government to do much of anything right (I subscribe the Jefferson/Paine/Taft school-of-thought), but both major parties have become big-government advocates, just in different ways. Consequently, I'm seriously considering a vote for Paul, or perhaps for the Libertarian candidate.
Post a Comment