New Hampshire Changes Things

I know it has been a ridiculously long time since my last post, but I have been savoring some vacation time that was desperately needed. I am returning to the blogosphere on the news that Hillary Clinton has won the Democratic primary in New Hampshire. Personally, I think that the worst thing for the Democratic party is for Clinton to win the nomination. She is a highly polarizing figure and, in my mind, the Democratic candidate with the largest possibility of losing. With the GOP in the state that it is in, thanks to Bush and his colleagues (Hastert, Libby, Gonzales, Craig, etc.) and the overwhelming unpopularity of the Iraq war (or conflict or whatever it is called), a Democrat losing would be a feat. Unfortunately Hillary, with her highly polarizing qualities, has that possibility of losing in 2008.

Would I consider a Republican candidate? The ones in this race don't particularly excite me. You all know how I feel about Giuliani. Romney is just too fake for me. Huckabee's evangelicalism is a bit much. McCain has been a staunch supporter of the war in Iraq, saying its failure is simply due to mismanagement and that victory can still be achieved. Whatever happened to Duncan Hunter? What a joke.

So, I will not be voting Republican this election. As far as the Democrats, the only one I would vote for is Obama. Looking at his stance on issues, I agree with him on many fronts, and the only major disagreements that I have with him is his opposition to gay marriage (it seems that he argues marriage is a religious endevour, but it has legal bases as well and the only reason I would still vote for him despite his stance on this issue is his clear aim for equal rights for gays - including civil unions that are equal to heterosexual marriage), and while his call for separation of church and state seems sincere, a big deal has been made of his faith (not necessarily his fault because the media loves that shit). Lack of experience? To me, experience in Washington means you have many connections with lobbies and private interests. Obama is clearly an intelligent man and he has made it to the Senate, so he's not stupid when it comes to American politics.

John Edwards does not particularly appeal to me. I disagree with him a little more than Obama on the issues, but what is most troubling is the fact that Edwards not only voted for the war in Iraq, but said two years later that he would do it again. Additionally, he voted for the Patriot Act in 2001, one of America's worst legislative moves in the past century. As far as his tort-lawyer past goes, some of the lawsuits seem excessive on their faces, but I do not have enough information about them to comment on their credibility directly.

So, back to New Hampshire's winner: Hillary Clinton. She is a very frustrating individual. She claims that Obama and her rivals have received easy rides in the media and she is the only one subject to scrutiny. Edwards' haircutting has been reported, which I would consider scrutinous. Obama has been accused of being educated in a madrassa and his religion has been called into question. She also voted for the Iraq war, voted against a timetable to return our troops to America in March 2007 (she voted for a timetable in November 2007), voted for the 2001 Patriot Act, then voted for the 2004 Patriot Act. If Hilary wins the nomination, I will not be voting for her.

In summation, Clinton is the only Democrat I see who could possibly lose the presidency for the Democrats. Obama is a candidate that I can actually vote for with confidence - something I was unable to do for the 2004 election. If it is a Clinton-Giuliani showdown for the presidency I may just move to Canada. Hopefully Obama will win the candidacy, the presidency, and then deliver the change that he promises and that is so desperately needed in Washington. Peace.

Photos - Clinton at Rutgers (coolskipper's flickr), Obama at Keene High School (NH) (fugitiveblue's flickr), What the candidates are vying for (intersubjectiv's flickr)