this is what the media wanted: a two horse race. john edwards dropped out this past week, and while his unabashedly populist campaign didn't gain the traction one would have hoped it would, his ideas live on. he was, after all, about ideas and standing along side them, willing to go down with the ship.
we are now left with a choice between the familiar and the unknown. hilary clinton, of course, is the familiar, while barack obama is the unknown. most of us can imagine what a clinton presidency would be like. but an obama one? there's the variable. obama is charismatic and he's all for change, but what does he exactly stand for? i'm still unsure about that. he speeks in such vague general terms sometimes, that it's easy to see how his platform can appear to be a catch-all, but he doesn't stand for his ideas like edwards was willing to do. and you know that saying: if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.
what you have now, however, is an opportunity for a real shift in the direction of not only the american psyche, but the global psyche, away from the past eight years. while i love what an obama presidency would represent, i'm afraid it may be a disaster waiting to happen. there's this great opportunity, and this man, while instilling hope, may not have the political will to truly make a stand, and thereby drop the proverbial "ball." still, obama seems to be someone who can reach out to all sides, and in this day and age, a real uniter is needed.
the nation editor, christopher hayes, seems to think so. i'm not the biggest fan of hilary, so i hope he's right. or perhaps at this point i'm so jaded, that all i want in the white house is someone who can string together a complete sentence. remember that time? when a leader could be substantial, eloquent and intelligent? yes, those were the days...
we are now left with a choice between the familiar and the unknown. hilary clinton, of course, is the familiar, while barack obama is the unknown. most of us can imagine what a clinton presidency would be like. but an obama one? there's the variable. obama is charismatic and he's all for change, but what does he exactly stand for? i'm still unsure about that. he speeks in such vague general terms sometimes, that it's easy to see how his platform can appear to be a catch-all, but he doesn't stand for his ideas like edwards was willing to do. and you know that saying: if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.
what you have now, however, is an opportunity for a real shift in the direction of not only the american psyche, but the global psyche, away from the past eight years. while i love what an obama presidency would represent, i'm afraid it may be a disaster waiting to happen. there's this great opportunity, and this man, while instilling hope, may not have the political will to truly make a stand, and thereby drop the proverbial "ball." still, obama seems to be someone who can reach out to all sides, and in this day and age, a real uniter is needed.
the nation editor, christopher hayes, seems to think so. i'm not the biggest fan of hilary, so i hope he's right. or perhaps at this point i'm so jaded, that all i want in the white house is someone who can string together a complete sentence. remember that time? when a leader could be substantial, eloquent and intelligent? yes, those were the days...
|