So we're five hundred some-odd days away from election day 2008. There are about 20 candidates spanning both sides of the spectrum, embodying both the ultra famous and charismatic (Hillary Non-Rodham Clinton, Barak Obama), and the unknown and boring (Duncan Hunter, Tommy Thompson). The country is all over the place ideologically, perhaps starting to wake up a little from the Bush/9-11/American Defense/Security haze. This is the first non-incumbent race in eight years, and it stands to be an interesting race to both the party nominations and the White House.
So why don't I give a shit?
I was hoping to watch the debates and get an idea of who is going to come out near the top. Listen to the candidates talk about what they believe in among their semi-like minded peers. After 10 minutes of each debate, I came to the same conclusion: this is pointless. Yes, it's pointless. Unless Bill Richardson (D-NM) or Ron Paul (R-TX) get a sudden influx of money or positive press (or press at all), everything has already been decided. For the Democrats, it's a two-way race between Clinton and Obama for the nomination. John Edwards may be cute, but he's a lightweight. His former association with Kerry and everyone's assumption that he's done nothing for the past four years is weighing heavily against him, and will continue to. For the Republicans, it will be a three way race for the nomination between John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Rudy Giuliani. These are the only five candidates that have the name recognition to get money, press, and votes. End of story.
It's interesting. The Dems have a choice between the (female!) wife of a former philandering president, and a black man with the middle name Hussein. The Republicans have to choose between a war-positive military man, a Mormon, and a socially moderate 9-11 hero. None of these people are really electable, yet none of them are losers in their own right. One of those five people will be our next president. So even though I think Bill Richardson and Ron Paul would make interesting additions to the mix, it's not going to happen.
When they hold these big party debates, they're really just talking in minor degrees and nitpicking minute details. The words coming out of their mouths don't matter (sometimes, it's just a hand raise answer). They will start talking in solid statements that matter when people like Chris Dodd, Tommy Thompson, Sam Brownback, and Duncan (Donut) Hunter drop out. So why should I take the time to listen and care when it seems that the only candidates that do are the ones that have no chance of getting the nomination?
Yes, it's a very cynical, jaded, and lazy way of looking at things. I'm aware that since my Junior year at GW (2004), I've become less enchanted with the political system (which I didn't think was possible). I guess I'm waiting for someone to say or do something that sounds true, that sounds important, that sounds like they might actually follow through on, and I don't think the debates are where I'm going to hear that. I'm sick of hearing about Giuliani's 3984 marriges, Hillary dropping her maiden name, and John Edwards seven billion dollar haircuts. But you know why the news is covering this inane bullshit? CAUSE NO ONE IS SAYING ANYTHING OF EVEN MINOR IMPORTANCE. Yeah, Ron Paul and Bill Richardson are saying a ton of important things. But why would the news cover that? Even they know who is going to win the noms and the money, and it's not going to be Ron and Bill.
I'm not sure I like rolling around in this political conundrum.
No comments:
Post a Comment