Well he said before the Iowa caucus that if he wasn't viable, go to Obama. HOWEVER, in my district they all went to Biden. Is he still in? (I know NOTHING about him.)
Let me make this clear- I'm aware its going to be either Obama or Clinton in November. I don't dream for a minute anyone else is going to end up with the Dem nomination. However, I was planning on voting for Kucinich in the primary, to record my support for him.
Obama has let me down on a fair few things since he was elected, but I really don't care for Clinton. Dunno, maybe I need to explore the independents.
Biden is gone. I liked him. But mostly because he was the person with the most in-depth expertise about Iraq.
They're all pretty imperfect. I am tentatively supporting Obama. But I keep coming back to the notion that Clinton could be our Tricky Dick or Maggie Thatcher, someone evil enough to get the job done, except more or less on our side. Plus, you know, the more Teh Media hates her, the more I'm prone to vote for her. But Obama's politics of hope is smarter and more practical than it looks, and I think he'd be the most likely to priviledge expertise over ideology and cronyism when he picks his advisors.
violachic, you have GOT to be the only one I know following the US elections on al-Jazeera.net. :D
Go with Gravel... unless you are in SC. Then, go with Edwards and see if we can shake up the Democratic First Family™ a bit with a third place finish.
They're now all pretty crap. I'd say go for Edwards, he's at least talking about taking on corporate power, whether he means it or not, but unfortunately he looks pretty much out of it. Unless things turn round for him pretty darn soon.
Obama is more anti-Iraq war than Hillary, and also seems much more against attacking Iran. Clinton voted for Kyle-Liebermann, Obama voted against.
Despite the NIE, I think there's still a serious risk that Bush might push for war with Iran before the election. Or maybe Israel will take a pot-shot, and then when Iran retaliates that might be Bush's excuse for the US to go in.
If this happens, it will be so much easier for Bush if the main 'opposition' figure, which will pretty much be whoever is the Democrat nominee, is supporting him or at least not opposing, and I think Hillary is much more likely to do that than Obama. Conversely, if the Dem nominee is opposing war, then that could make it considerably more difficult.
I hold out few hopes for what an Obama Presidency might achieve, though certainly no less than for Clinton, but ironically what they do before the election might just matter more.
A) glad to see you werent delusional about his long term prospects. B) they are all lying. they are all telling us what they think we want to hear. Evidence for this is in the fact that my aunt Linda (the ex-cop republican) is thinking Obama is a good guy.
Everything's topsy turvy. What can we do but place our vote for whomever we think will bring the most peaceful and rational thinking to our ravaged country and to the world.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
Let me make this clear- I'm aware its going to be either Obama or Clinton in November. I don't dream for a minute anyone else is going to end up with the Dem nomination. However, I was planning on voting for Kucinich in the primary, to record my support for him.
Obama has let me down on a fair few things since he was elected, but I really don't care for Clinton. Dunno, maybe I need to explore the independents.
no subject
Won't it be fun if Clinton comes in third in SC tomorrow?
no subject
They're all pretty imperfect. I am tentatively supporting Obama. But I keep coming back to the notion that Clinton could be our Tricky Dick or Maggie Thatcher, someone evil enough to get the job done, except more or less on our side. Plus, you know, the more Teh Media hates her, the more I'm prone to vote for her. But Obama's politics of hope is smarter and more practical than it looks, and I think he'd be the most likely to priviledge expertise over ideology and cronyism when he picks his advisors.
violachic, you have GOT to be the only one I know following the US elections on al-Jazeera.net. :D
no subject
actually, most of the news on al-jazeera.net is from the wire anyway.
no subject
no subject
no subject
They're now all pretty crap. I'd say go for Edwards, he's at least talking about taking on corporate power, whether he means it or not, but unfortunately he looks pretty much out of it. Unless things turn round for him pretty darn soon.
Obama is more anti-Iraq war than Hillary, and also seems much more against attacking Iran. Clinton voted for Kyle-Liebermann, Obama voted against.
Despite the NIE, I think there's still a serious risk that Bush might push for war with Iran before the election. Or maybe Israel will take a pot-shot, and then when Iran retaliates that might be Bush's excuse for the US to go in.
If this happens, it will be so much easier for Bush if the main 'opposition' figure, which will pretty much be whoever is the Democrat nominee, is supporting him or at least not opposing, and I think Hillary is much more likely to do that than Obama. Conversely, if the Dem nominee is opposing war, then that could make it considerably more difficult.
I hold out few hopes for what an Obama Presidency might achieve, though certainly no less than for Clinton, but ironically what they do before the election might just matter more.
no subject
no subject
B) they are all lying. they are all telling us what they think we want to hear. Evidence for this is in the fact that my aunt Linda (the ex-cop republican) is thinking Obama is a good guy.
Everything's topsy turvy. What can we do but place our vote for whomever we think will bring the most peaceful and rational thinking to our ravaged country and to the world.
no subject