Let me be clear about this: I will support and accept any of the 3 Democratic candidates once the primaries are said and done. I think each one of them displays strengths and weaknesses, and any one of them will get my support against any of the Republican candidates.
Having said that, I finally realized about a week ago that, come Feb. 5, I'm going to have to vote for one of them. I hadn't been paying any attention to the primaries because I have really disliked primaries in the past...particularly since, by the time they got to California, a candidate already had it locked up.
That's not the case this year. This year, most likely even Super Tuesday won't decide the final candidates. I very firmly believe that I must take my responsibility as an American citizen seriously enough to vote in all elections. Apathy, I believe, is one of the greatest poisons in our democracy.
So I watched the South Carolina debate last Monday with an open heart and mind. I personally enjoyed the little swipes - probably because it wasn't my girls fighting for a change! But I looked it up today on FactCheck.org to see how much truth each candidate actually spoke that night.
The winner for the most honest candidate: John Edwards.
The only person to mention that single, working moms aren't getting a fair break: John Edwards.
The only candidate to actually give me reason to vote for them instead of against someone else: John Edwards.
I don't agree with him 100% on everything, but I actually think he's the only candidate that would address my concerns at some point, too.
I'm blogging about Edwards because I don't feel like he's gotten an equitable share of visible coverage, and I would love to see Super Tuesday make this a real 3-way race. As FactCheck.org said, Edwards is there, too!
4 comments:
Yeah, I have been having some trouble deciding because well, the only candidate that I seem to agree with the most (Edwards) is also the white male. LOL. and wouldn't it be great to have a woman or African-American president? But I can't vote for someone based on race, sex or religion because I don't think that any of those things should have anything to do with government.
Hey - here's an idea. Anonymous campaigning. You have access to their views, plans, and full background checks, and the debates would be completely online like AIM. But you don't know the name or the face of the person - now that would be pure Democracy.
my decision is split between Obama and Edwards.
I'm not a Hilary fan at all.
Kate - your idea has some great merit, however, I do believe that how effectively a candidate communicates should be considered. Now, I don't think we should all vote for the candidate that we feel like we could "have a beer with," but if we want to promote diplomacy, we need to see their diplomatic skills at work.
Lunanik - totally understand that. Bill's actually been bugging me lately, and I feel like the Clinton's campaign went dirty first.
I was going to vote for Kucinich, but he left. Edwards was my first candidate before I discovered Kucinich. I wonder if he'll be a vice...
I find it hard to see Clinton or Obama being the vice nom to another...
But, I'm supporting Obama now, and Hilary if she gets it.
Post a Comment