But now things have changed. Obama and Clinton are neck and neck in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, the three earliest contests. The nomination is up for grabs. Even Edwards has a shot at winning Iowa, although after Iowa it is tough to see where his next victory comes from if Iowa does not give him sufficient momentum.
So my vote is going to matter after all, and I owe it to my party and to my fellow Kossacks to take a stand. But then I get back to my first dilemma: I like them all.
So I have to narrow down the list. But before I do, I have to warn you, I am a political pragmatist. Thus, most of my decisions concerning the candidates are political in nature rather than substantive, especially since I discern no real major substantive differences between the major frontrunners, and where there are substantive differences between the major frontrunners and the minor candidates, I either disagree with the minor candidates or I eliminate the minor candidate on practical political grounds.
Kucinich and Gravel. They are issue candidates. Issue candidates are needed to raise issues during a campaign, but only the most strident purist would really vote for them. And a strident purist I am not. Indeed, I have many disagreements with Kucinich and Gravel, so it is highly improbable that I would vote for them anyway.
Dodd, Biden and Richardson. Competent and experienced statesmen. Skilled politicians all. They all would make fine Presidents. But their campaigns never caught on. They could never raise enough money to compete. And Biden and Dodd have both accepted public financing, I believe, which is a no-no in my book...
Edwards
He has also accepted public financing. Thus, I cannot vote for him in the primary. I agree with Kos' logic on this issue, and I am sorry, there is no way Edwards supporters can convince me that it is not a major negative for his campaign. So the vast army of Edwardsians here can spare me "He is noble and right to accept public financing for he is making a point about the system." Yeah, that is nice in Fantasy Land, but in the real world you are asking me to support a campaign that will be dark message and response-wise from March until September, all the while the Republican nominee and the GOP will have a field day teeing off on us. The day Edwards made that decision, he lost my vote in the primary. If he should happen to win the primary, of course he gets my vote in the general. But that is irrelevant to my decision making now.
So we come down to Hillary and Obama.
This election, like most, comes down to the themes of change and experience, which are not mutually exclusive, by the way. Hillary is tough, seasoned, and experienced, but she can be stand for change as well. Obama is young, fresh and hopeful, and he argues that times like these demand new experience, rather than the tried and true.
If I could somehow smash these two candidates into one Hillbama candidate, I would be transformed into a passionate supporter of Hillbama. Alas, I left with two candidates and a choice. And the choice is difficult to make because I have not really decided yet what kind of election this will be (i.e. change v. experience) and hence what kind of attribute would be necessary.
So, my fellow committed passionate Kossacks who are Hillary and Obama supporters.....convince me.
And convince me without attacking the other candidate. Despite what you may believe Hillary is not evil, and Obama is not naive. Convince me on your candidates' strengths, rather than tearing down another with smears.
Comments are closed on this story.