What's wrong with the candidates?

[Neo-wobbly]

I am a liberal. I favor, with some caveats and exceptions, Civil Liberties, Socialist economic policy, and government transparency. I am neither racist nor sexist, and I hold no personal enmity towards any of the political candidates for President of the United States of America.

That being said, I steadfastly REFUSE to vote for a candidate just because they are (technically) a Democrat; while I surely do not want to see another 4 (or 8) years of corrupt, reactionary, pro-corporate Republican rule, I believe that 4 years of corrupt, reactionary, pro-corporate Democratic rule would be even worse in the long run, because it precludes change in the next election cycle, and I believe that this would result if either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama win the election.

If McCain (or, gods forbid, Huckabee) is our next president, it will be bad; horribly, horribly bad. But if either Clinton or Obama win the White House, not only will it be horribly, horribly bad, but our choices in 2012 will be even worse.

We are in a period of intense change and divisiveness in our country, so much so that the standard labels of "Republican vs. Democrat" and "Conservative vs. Liberal" no longer adequately describe the motivations and values of the majority of Americans, as evidenced by the massive internal divisions within both parties. I myself have significant disagreements, not only with the Democratic Party's platform, but with "Liberal" philosophy in general; not to get off-topic, but the best example would be gun-control, with which I (generally, with the afore-mentioned caveats and exceptions) disagree. However, I would be willing to support (and usually do) a pro-gun-control candidate if I believe that he or she will enact change on issues that I believe are more important.

This is the heart and soul of the political process: To decide on what issues are most important, and to come to the best arrangement of policies to address those issues. It is on this level that all four of the major candidates, Clinton, Huckabee, McCain, and Obama, fail. We have a pretty good sense of what issues are important right now: The war in Iraq, the economy, healthcare, education, civil liberties. We also have fairly reliable data on how (and how strongly) most Americans feel about these issues; why, then, are all of the candidates on the other side?

I ask the question rhetorically, because it doesn't matter. What does matter is what we can do about it, and I can only think of one solution: We have to let the politicians know that they must support our positions on these issues, or they will lose. "Steadfastness", "party loyalty", "lesser of two evils" are all excuses that help to perpetuate the status quo, and we've had about as much "status quo" as we can take.

Agree, disagree, flame me, do whatever you like; just call me when we get a Democrat to vote for.

[ClassWarrior]

1. "Call you??" Hey, it's easy to whine. Quite another to get involved in the Party...

...and help make changes happen.

NGU.

[Neo-wobbly]

2. We tried`

The wife and I tried to volunteer for Kerry in '04; the local party told us that they didn't want our help unless we were willing to travel "to a state that matters".

This isn't whining, this is trying to salvage a disaster.