Admit it.
You may not be a fan of the Democrats, but it's STILL going to be tremendously cathartic to watch Obama (or whoever) stomp the shit out of Huckabee (or whomever) come November. Are we really such hardened cynics that we can't watch this spectacle with the simple, childlike joy it merits?
posted by GeoX, one of the GeoX boys. at 2:53 AM
There might be some catharsis in an Obama victory against Giuliani. Such a thing would, regardless of Obama's true beliefs, still mean that the public had rejected outright, blatant militarism of the kind Rudy espouses. But Huckabee is smart enough to distance himself from the war (he said somewhere that "we broke Iraq"). Yes, he wants to stay in Iraq forever, but hey, so does Obama. Choosing Obama over Huckabee wouldn't necessarily mean that the public has turned away from a Bush-style foreign policy. And I don't think it has.
I fear that, regardless of who beats whom, we may yet come to think of Bush's reign as the good times. None of the candidates except for Ron Paul will even suggest the possibility of rolling back Bush's expansion of presidential power. No matter who wins, domestic spying, torture and the Patriot Act are here to stay forever.
Regarding Obama specifically, he opposed the Iraq war, which is a plus, and he said that he'd be willing to meet with the leaders of Iran personally, which is also in his favour. But he also talks about using "surgical missile strikes" in Iran and even Pakistan. He's also being advised by Zbigniew Brzezinski, a derelict of the Cold War who orchestrated the support of Osama bin Laden in the eighties, and has repeatedly stated that the goal of American foreign policy should be to support Islamic terrorism in Central Asia until Russia disintegrates. So I really don't feel like supporting him.
- SK