Scanning postcards and thinking

So if my thoughts seem a bit scattered or incoherent, you will know. I am writing this while my scanner is doing it's thing. Then I stop and do my bit on the cards and save them, then I write some more while the scanner is doing a couple more.

The Georgia primaries are going to be held on February 5, 2008. The Super Duper Tuesday as some are calling it now. This whole primary uproar has got me thinking:


Remember way back after the 2000 election when every body was getting up in arms about the Electoral College and many were wanting to change the way Presidents are elected and do away with the College? One of the big excuses for the continuation of the Electoral College was some drivel about that being the only way to ensure that no region was made any more or less important than any other. I still don't see how or why that matters. If we went by the popular vote, then every one's vote would matter equally. Why are 'regions' more important than individuals? Are we not all Americans? Should we not, each one of us, be just as important as the next one? Anyway... the point of this is this: Why do the state's get to say when they hold Presidential preference primaries? And why are the national parties so concerned with protecting Iowa and New Hampshire? Doesn't that give them undue influence over who gets the nomination? It does, and everyone knows it. It's a rare candidate that gets the nomination without having first won at least one of those. So... how does that square with the reason given to keep the Electoral College? It doesn't, does it?


And since the GA primary is in early February, I should really get a better handle on who I'm going to vote for, shouldn't I? I watched part of the Democratic debate on MSNBC the other night. Moderated by Brian Williams and Tim Russert. Once again Mr. Russert asked foolish, hypothetical questions and Mr. Williams asked all the smart questions. I haven't figured out yet why Tim Russert has been asking such stupid questions. I've seen him moderate in two Democratic debates so far this season and both times he asked the stupidest questions. Questions that were so hypothetical that it would have been foolish in the extreme for any of the candidates to answer them. Wonder what's up with him? I always kinda liked him. I watch his show sometimes and I thought he was smarter than he's proved to be on the debate stage thus far.


Like I said, I watched part of it, about half. To be truthful, I changed the channel when Ninja Warrior came on. But, honestly, I don't know how much more of Mr. Russert I could have taken. Barak Obama said some things that made me think harder on exactly how truthful he is. He was chastising Clinton and the rest (but especially Clinton) about needing change in Washington and them (her) being part of the Washington 'business as usual' crowd. But when he plays the campaign game the same as everyone else, attacking other candidates, saying what his 'handlers' tell him to say, etc., how is that change? He vowed to run a clean campaign, to not attack his fellow democrats, to not go around smearing anyone he was running against. And he's not kept that vow, that promise. So, how is he any different than any one else who is running? It sort of turned me off.


And John Edwards is looking more and more like a smooth talking, say anything to get you to buy, used-car salesman. His smile is too slick, his body language is too smooth, if you know what I mean. I like his wife better than I like him, but his wife isn't running, he is. And I don't think I'll be voting for him. At least that narrows the field, eh?


I know I won't be voting for Dennis Kucinch, either. So that's two out right there. Not that Kucinich doesn't speak truthfully and say some things that make sense, sometimes, but he doesn't have a chance in hell of getting the nomination, so... why waste my vote? I know John Edwards could possibly, maybe, perhaps get the nomination, but I'm still not voting for him. That would require me to set all my scruples aside, and I'm not willing to do that in the primary. If, by some chance, he gets the Democratic nomination I would vote for him in the general election. But only because I will not under any circumstances, vote for a repugnicant, sorry, Republican, for President. To vote for a Repukelican would require me to set aside all my scruples and all my morals. And I just don't see myself doing that. To vote for one of them would be plain wrong, bad, bad, bad. I can't foresee, at this point in time, anything that would make me vote for one.


Enough of that... back to the debate. I like Bill Richardson, but he doesn't seem to be a very good public speaker. He's getting better, but I don't think it's in time to really catch fire, so to speak. He's a smart man and whoever does get the nomination, if they win the general, should look into appointing him to a cabinet post or something like that. Not sure if he's forceful enough to be President.

Chris Dodd is also a very smart man. He knows the ins and outs of Washington and of holding public office, but... that's one big problem with him, right there. He seems a good, decent, intelligent man. However, he himself brought up another issue I have with him: electability. He was speaking of Hillary Clinton and her electability, saying that she was not electable because polls indicated that fully 50% of Americans would not vote for her. What he did not mention was that more than that would not vote for him. Not because they don't like him, but because they don't know him. Most Americans don't have a clue who he is. To be fair, most Americans don't know who any of them are, except Clinton and Obama, perhaps.

Joe Biden is also a very smart man, but he has a lot of the same issues as Chris Dodd. Plus, he has the long history of gaffs and blunders that most people know him for, if they know of him at all. He's shown to good effect in these debates. But he'll never get the nomination and I doubt seriously if he'll be called on to fill the number two spot by whomever does get the nomination. He just has too much baggage. He speaks sense, a lot of the time, but so do many of the others.

I guess that leaves Hillary, she looks good on paper, but I don't like the way she talks around the issues sometimes and downright refuses to answer certain questions. She's far too evasive to suit me, at times. I love Bill, but Bill isn't running, Hillary is. That is a problem. If I vote for her, will I be casting a vote for Bill or Hillary, in my heart? I don't know. I think, in many ways, she is a Washington insider, too. But in some respects, it takes one to know how to deal with one, right? And if she does become our President, she will have to deal with them. She also has an arrogant look on her face that I don't like. It could be that my sub-conscious is doing that old double standard thing, but I don't know. I don't like anyone who wears a habitual smug or arrogant look on their face. Neither male nor female. She's smart, tho, unbelievably smart. She can do the job, I think. But so could many of the others. Biden could, Richardson, Dodd, perhaps even Obama.

I know that most Americans don't think the way I do. Or at least it doesn't seem like they do. And I understand that the candidates have to do what they have to do to get their names out there to the masses. Still, I find it all somewhat repugnant (okay, more than somewhat). The whole process is just bad; filthy, fraudulent, flawed. There has to be a better way, doesn't there?

And Hillary is ticking me off a little bit. She's starting to act like she thinks she is the nominee already. Again, it may be that double standard thing, again, I don't know. Things that we take for granted in men, we tend to look askance at in a woman. And I especially don't like to see a woman behaving in a manner that is distasteful, if typical, in a man. Perhaps inside I feel a woman should know better or behave better. But why should a woman be held to a different standard than a man who runs for office? I suppose I am as guilty as the next person of having that perception. I shall try harder beginning immediately.

And I have just one thing to say to Mr. Mukasey: Waterboarding is TORTURE. Simulated drowning of a person is torture. It was torture yesterday, it's torture today, and it will be torture tomorrow. It is wrong. It was wrong for the Nazis to do it, it was wrong for the Russians to do it, it was wrong for the Vietnamese to do it. It's wrong for us to do it. It's wrong. Why is that so hard for grown men and women to understand? I can't even believe they are debating it. What is there to debate? How could anyone in our government think that torturing people is a good idea? It boggles the mind, it truly, truly does.

Enough, this has become a novel.
More later, I'm sure.