Political debates

Despite my interest in who will be the Democrat's nominee for president in 2008, I had not watched any debates until this week. This was partly to save my sanity and partly because as I have read the various positions from the nominees, none really suited me.

After watching that debate, I feel the same way. Oh, I know who I don't want-- still. Hillary Clinton. I have my reasons, but I didn't doubt she'd be a smoothly packaged debater and she is. Watching the debate disturbed me for several reasons and maybe it's why I hadn't watched them before.

First of all debates are packaged. They are not about who would be a better leader, who has better judgment, but rather about who looks good. Representative Dennis Kucinich addressed that by saying, (paraphrased) you can elect a president who can get us out of Iraq, who can provide universal health care, who will balance the budget or you can elect someone who is tall. That's pathetic but true. Elect a guy who looks like the guys who play presidents as heroes (or woman) and ignore what they stand for or can actually do, ignore their skills, their records, just go by pretty and look where that has gotten us.

Then I have not watched because of what I mentioned above. None of them totally suit me. I know no matter who the Republicans nominate, I will be voting for the Democratic nominee. The only possible Republican candidate that I would consider, Representative Ron Paul, simply doesn't have a chance and might be too libertarian for me if he did. His stand for the Constitution would make him tempting if I thought anybody could get in there and really restore it. I am afraid it's a done deal because power once given away carelessly is often very hard to repossess.

Debates are these quick little sound bites which are meaningless, but there were some things that came from the Dartmouth one which did concern me. Hillary voting for the designation that Iran's Republican Guard is a terrorist organization and should be dealt with as such. She has admitted she was hornswoggled (cowboy term meaning bamboozled) by Cheney/Bush in her vote to authorize power to go into Iraq. Gosh golly gee, she says now (not in those terms) I just didn't know they'd do that. Now, as I saw it, she turns around and is tricked again and she thinks we should trust her with the presidency? Obama didn't even bother to vote on the measure-- too sick or something but he hasn't said how he'd have voted either that I heard anyway. The top three all said they would not guarantee getting us out of Iraq-- what do we have to do as citizens to say they darned well better???

For me, Hillary is too concerned she look tough to get some far right voters (which she will never get anyway) to realize what she's doing. Gotta look strong. Well Americans are sick of war (all but that far right percent who want a war but just don't want to pay for it) and these Senators just voted to trust Bush again! Are they as nuts as he is? What is that saying? Fool me once and it's your fault, fool me twice and it's mine.

I don't know which Democrat is going to get the nomination but it looks, according to polls, that it will be Hillary and that scares me almost as much as that it's good old $9.11 Rudy Giuliani on the other side. I will probably donate money to either Edwards or one of the acceptable long shots who frankly look better to me than any of the front runners-- still am not sure which ones.

Although come November 2008, if Clinton is the party's nominee, she will get my vote for president-- with my fingers crossed that it'll work out better than I fear. Think that will help?

(I am back from California and will be posting a few photos from the trip but have to downsize them first-- and this was on my mind now.)