Until New Hampshire the campaign was easy. I had my candidate Bill Richardson. He was the most experienced. He issued policy statements that I pretty much agreed with. I thought he would make the best president. Best of all even if he had little shot of winning it was a way of sticking it to the media figures who decided to annoint three famous one term Senators the only "real" choices.
My second choice Chris Dodd dropped out even before Richardson did and given I don't think much of either Kucinich or Gravel I'm forced back to the "big three."
To start unlike their partisans I don't particularly see much difference between the three of them. All three of them are fairly moderate figures who are desperately trying to pander to liberals to help secure the nomination. I don't have a problem with that. I'm fairly moderate and on certain issues such as Iraq and healthcare they needed the nudging to get themselves on the correct side of history. All three would make fine presidents. Certainly better than anything the Republican Party are putting up. I wouldn't be holding my nose when voting for any of them.
Issues I'm looking at.
Experience: Hillary has it. She's been around the White House for eight years. She'll have Bill Clinton with her. She already is intimate with world leaders. Despite her partisan reputation has built solid relationships with people in Congress. This earns her points over Edwards and Obama. +1 for Hillary.
Counterpoint: no President came into office with better experience than Herbert Hoover.
Electability: Hillary is seen as too moderate by the left, too liberal by the right, and mistrusted by the center. A lot of it is leftover baggage from when she was first lady. Obama could receive flack based on his race or the religion of his father but that is something I'm discounting since even thinking about that being a factor makes me lose faith in humanity. Edwards currently does the best by far in general election matchups. +1 for Edwards.
Counterpoint: if we've learned anything from this campaign season it's polls one month before an election nevermind nearly a year before the election should be taken with LARGE grains of salt.
Personality: Hillary comes off as a cold aloof lawyer. Edwards comes off as a swarmy salesman. Obama comes off as cool and collected and more down to earth. +1 for Obama.
Counterpoint: We're electing a president not someone to have a beer with.
Iraq: They all waffled and have something or another to explain. They all want to get out. Hillary perhaps loses points for Kyl-Lieberman. But is that general election pandering or a reflection of how she'll act as President? My inclination is to say pandering though a rather dangerous pander. -1 for Hillary.
Healthcare: Their plans are on the whole similar. But I'll give Edwards a point because his is a bit more ambitious. +1 Edwards.
Counterpoint: Unless we have a historic Democratic landslide in the Senate (I'm betting on a four seat gain for the dems) there is an excellent chance only the most modest health care reforms can be passed over Republican filibuster threats.
Trade: While I'm not in favor of unrestricted free trade I'm fairly free trade. I support NAFTA. Yes I know that is about as popular here as the Iraq War but that is just where I happen to stand. Edwards has taken anti-free trade stands in both 2004 and 2008. Hillary and Obama take a far less strident stand on the issue. -1 Edwards.
Counterpoint: Candidates always campaign more protectionist than they actually are.
History: Hillary would be the first female President. Obama the first African American President. The last non-southerner the Democrats elected President was John Kennedy who won less than 50 percent of the vote. The last non-southerner to win more than 51 percent of the popular vote was Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1944. +1 for Edwards since winning trumps everything else.
Counterpoint: Only one Democrats since FDR has gotten more than 51% of the vote. Lyndon Johnson in 1964. Only two Democrats since FDR have gotten more than 50 percent of the popular vote. Lyndon Johnson in 1964 with 61.1% and Jimmy Carter in 1976 with 50.1%. In fact besides FDR those are the only two candidates to manage more than 50% of the vote running as a Democrat in the 20th century.
Counterpoint 1a: As we learned in 2000 the popular vote is meaningless. It's all about the electors.
Where do I stand now? I was leaning towards Obama but after the self-destructive infighting of Hillary and Obama I'm now leaning ever so slightly towards Edwards but i have no idea where I'll end up by the New York primary.
But you know what the sad thing is? I've completely given up on the debates. Candidates rehash their talking points and hope not to trip themselves up or say anything foolish. Perhaps repeating memorized attacks or memorized responses. The media imposes their own artificial storylines on the debates (Race War! Sex War!). I've learned nothing from them and have given up watching them.
In fact much of the news coverage in general is unwatchable and completely uninformative. I watched the New Hampshire returns on BBC America where the BBC was reporting on the results. The difference between CNN/MSNBC/FOX and them was night and day. I really wish the BBC would create their own American news network so we could actually have a REAL 24 hour news station. But that's a completely different discussion altogether.