|
Edited on Thu Oct-04-07 01:27 PM by Mythsaje
For all the in-fighting happening on this side of the political divide, we should at least be grateful we're not in the position in which the Republicans find themselves. Fred Thompson finds himself asking for applause after a speech, which certainly doesn't bode well for HIM. "America's Mayor" is discovering that his potential candidacy is sending the religious right into the kind of wackadoodle frenzy that prompts their leadership to contemplate running a third party candidate to promote "Christian Values" (whatever the hell THEY are).
John McCain, on the other hand, is doing the political equivilent of standing on the streetcorner in a mini-skirt, hoping that the NEXT car to drive by will be interested in sampling his dubious wares.
It seems like no one on that side of the fence is particularly excited about ANY of their potential presidential candidates. And it's no wonder. The most "religious" of them comes from a sect that the majority of Christian types in this country still consider little better than a cult. And that's probably the most sadly amusing thing about Christianity in America--a good portion of those who self-identify as Christian can't even agree on a single definition of what Christianity IS.
Of course, we're not immune to this lukewarm political expression ourselves. The candidate who probably embodies the ideals held by the majority of Democrats in this country finds himself, as Conan O'Brien suggested, finding most of his campaign financing between the cushions of his sofa. To be fair, he has been portrayed, at least by the corporate media, as a "far left" candidate who appeals to the "fringes."
Ignoring the fact that issue-based polls suggest that many of his policy positions are shared by a majority of Americans.
The front-runner in the Democratic race, leading by a wide and ever-increasing margin, is a candidate who seems to share very few of the ideals of the Democratic base. A candidate whose primary criticism of the war seems to be in its handling, not its very existence. A candidate for whom "universal healthcare" translates to "universal health insurance," giving far too much influence to the very insurance companies who've helped put us in this tenuous position in the first place.
Here at DU, at least, her reception has been even less than lukewarm. It's been downright chilly. Yet, across the nation as a whole, there are a lot of people who seem encouraged by her potential candidacy. People like David Brock, for example. And certainly a large number of corporate CEOs.
Maybe it's just me, but when people whose basic social, political, and economic ideals are almost completely at odds with my own embrace the candidate I'm being told should be mine as well, I have to stop and wonder what the hell is going on.
We expect our candidates to stand for something. Something uniquely Democratic, hopefully. It's not all that much to ask to hope they support universal healthcare, an end to the war (or at least combat operations), more stringent regulations of the banking industry, insurance industry, oil industry, media industry, etc, Fair Trade, and the restoration of Constitutional protections that have been weakened under this current administration.
It's hard for some of us to get too excited by what we're seeing. Especially considering that this administration seems to be going about its business with little concern for democratic principles or legislative oversight...despite the fact that we voted in an opposition congress to put a stop to its excesses, if nothing else.
On the bright side, it would be nice to finally see the day when a woman becomes President of the United States. That's no small potatoes. But it would be even better if we knew that woman stood for solid Democratic principles. Unfortunately, we don't know that at all.
And that's too bad.
Then again, at least it's not OUR party that's currently imploding.
I guess we have to take our silver linings where we can find them.
edited to close quotations on a particular phrase.
|