I know many of you want consensus (and now! dammit). Well it's not that easy and thank god it's not. Democracy and especially national primary seasons are all about getting consensus from a large group of people.
Just thank god it's possible to even do this, I say, and don't whine that you want it quicker, clearer, so we can lockstep better, so we can get rid of the pesky confusing and messy democracy quickly.
You can blame me for enjoying a horse race, and you can blame me for being undecided on principle, (and probably will), but I still say it's a good thing the race is on again.
It may -feel- better to cake walk to the nomination, but it's not. It's not good experience for the general election, and it's not informative to the public, and the candidates don't get a chance to fire up all their pistons.
So thank god the race is back, and I never for a moment really thought it was gone.
Thanks Iowa.
Further Detail:
We were all a little suprised by the Iowa numbers, but not in general, in general I expect Iowa to shake it up, Iowa ALWAYS says, "It ain't over, it just began, look, Pat Buchanon may even win" (Iowans don't seem too worried about making you panic... I think those buggers revel in it).
Ok, if Kerry wins now, he did it by fighting, that's better for Kerry than the no-worries options he was spying a year ago. He'll not only look stronger, he'll be stronger, he'll have had to fire up the real engines.
Dean, well, I could say the same thing, if internet-funding and a few months of non-binding commercial polling had annoited him, that would be a weaker position than fighting for it. But consider something else: my case example. I like Dean and Clark. I'm fine with Edwards. I'm not too fond of Kerry. If I were in NH I would likely vote for Dean because the race there looks like Kerry v. Dean, a vote for Clark in my case might be a vote for Kerry if that situation holds. If Kerry were out and it were Dean v. Clark, then Dean would have more of a 50/50 chance at my vote.
It's messy, but how is this bad for me? How is it really bad for Dean? Does he not like campaigning? Does he not like the feedback that camaigning? It's not just learning to fix your mistakes, it's learning what constitutes a mistake... the President is not going to get this kind of feedback after the election, wouldn't have time to listen if he did.
The campaign is a trial by fire, espc. after the actual voting starts. You want to see how your (potential) president handles the lows, you want to see if they are gracious winners, you want to see if they are clever (Edwards + Kucinich: one of the best played gambles I've seen in a long time... mabye not for Kucinich, but who knows what Edwards promised Kucinich in return).
There is a problem that they might all show themselves to be shallow whiners, bad losers, bad winners, cheap manipulators, but then, only if that's what they are, right? I'm not talking about what the press says, I'm talking about what we see and know from our own collection of information. They might also show a few faults, but also show how they cope and negate them.
For example, we found out that W is weak willed and didn't grow up till 40 during his campaign, but that if he screws up Daddy will help, and that made the Rs feel better about their candidate. "Don't worry, boy., I'll send Jim Baker over there if it gets tough, here, have a Dick Cheney".
My suggesting is, don't whine, and even more, don't gloat about Dean's "fall"... that it was over before it begun was all illusion, this is a race, it was a race, it's still a race and if you didn't know that, well, now you know. To those that JUST KNOW Dean is out of it now? So now you know? I suggest you don't bother telling us here and go to Vegas where you can turn that psychic power into some cash.
Radical Undecides such as myself now get what we expect. I'm watching boys, prove yourself.