I'll confess: I've looked at more than a few of the candidates and thought, "I don't think I could look at that face for four years."
Thankfully, my politics don't align with theirs anyway. :)
You're more right than you know; politics aside, how many people could live with saying "President Huckabee"?
The democrats will take this one... not because they have the best candidates, which would still split the country if we were in a pre-Bush era, but because there are so many more "anti-Republicans".
I dislike the fact that there are really ONLY 2 parties in this country to vote for. I didn't vote on the last election, and to say I will be rocking the vote this year, is really not an honest assesment. Wouldn't it be better if we had like 3 or 4 different parties to choose from? Do you think that it would be more of a clusterf**k?
I think multiple parties would be great. In fact, I don't quite understand why there's only "recognized" parties anyway. Sounds like mob rule.
But isn't that the funny thing? We'll cheer when Obama or McCain says they're going to get something done, but none of us is asking them to--say--restrict the abilities of the office of the President. None of them is suggesting that other parties should be introduced in the system. Heck, one would think that--in light of being embroiled in a conflict that (seemingly) no one supports (anymore)--the American people would like a president to seal up some of those loopholes in the 1973 War Powers Act.
But no.
We want pull-out strategies, economic strategies, and foreign policy strategies to come from ONE MAN (or woman)...we want ONE MAN's (or woman's) vision to guide to this country. We want ONE CLEAR ANSWER to all of our personal problems. We hand the power over to a single entity because they've somehow convinced us that they're something more than a figurehead. And with each iteration, it seems we place more an more stock in having ONE MAN to get it done.
Ein volk, ein reich, ein führer, no?
It is extremely true that US politics relies on a broken system that chooses between two power-hungry parties that are too eerily similar to really tell the difference.
A multiple party system would help to limit the damage that a single president can do, although our system in Canada suffers greatly from having a minority government in power. Every time they wish to do something drastic, there is talk of an alliance between the two other parties that, if aligned, could force the current administration to call an election. The multiple party system actually makes the national government less able to make critical decisions in many ways.
The sad thing about the US is that even though everyone seems to be generally upset with the past 8 years of Bush as president, McBush is currently even in the polls against Obama, and I feel likely to win because of the success that Hillary Clinton had in convincing the nation that Obama is not strong enough to lead the nation and cannot possibly do it on his own. Just wait until the Republicans actually start to tear him apart.
Lost in it all, is the fact that neither candidate will likely make the least bit of difference and we will continue on our errant ways until the general population realizes that it needs to make the changes and demand that the government work for them.
Joined: 01-06-07
Almost eight years ago, my wife told me she put a checkmark next to "Bush" because "He looked cuter" (cute...in the "beanie babies and puppies" sense).
Back then, I hung my head in shame and almost called off the wedding.
Today, the roles have reverse. "Obama took South Carolina" she tells me as I make my tea.
I've become how my wife was back in 2000--my vote doesn't matter, and the best candidate is the one who looks best on the glossy cover of international magazines. Call me jaded, but the only promises any presidential candidate has lived up to--both in policy and funding--was JFK's space program.
And he had to die to really kick that one in high gear.
I now nod my head politely and smile when someone tells me about a candidate. Perhaps decisions of trade and foreign policy are of marginal importance, but I'm not looking for a president to ensure my retirement, feed my kids, help me buy a house, or give medicine to my parents.
I want a president to sit there and shut up for a change. No child left behind? NAFTA? The Patriot Act? Everyone cries for change and the presidents--interested in their own reelection--cater to that by cooking up solutions to problems that never really existed...not on a federal level, at any rate.
This year, I think I'm going to vote for the President with the nicest teeth and hair, and use the time spent not obsessing over pseudo-important political developments to actually try and affect change in my community.