Iraq: the most important issue, and useless as a way to choose a candidate

[urbpan]

I just read this article by my lj friend g_weir, and I have to say I agree. The gist of it is this: everyone agrees that the war in Iraq is the most important issue (that's what the news media tells me anyway), but none of the candidates for president have any plan for the war. (with the possible exception of Richardson, who can say "bring them home now" because he's a long shot)

Instead there is agreement that the war isn't good (not that WAR isn't good, but that THIS war isn't going well) and the vague assertion that someone new will do better. It's hard to imagine a worse cock-up than Bush, but anything's possible, in my opinion. Personally, since I'm no more against the war now than I was in 2000, when the first rumblings that Iraq needs another thumping started to emanate from the White House--long before the country's post 9/11 paranoia made the war possible. It's a bad idea, it's always been a bad idea, and I didn't vote for Kerry because he voted for the war (I don't care that he was being lied to about the reasons for the war--those made up reasons weren't enough to justify it) and I don't want to vote for Clinton largely because she voted for the war. Obama makes me feel good when he speaks, but I agree that he hasn't done anything with his career to warrant being president (ditto Hilary). But I don't think that a stated position on Iraq can sway me on any candidate--unless it's some totally whacko position like bringing everyone home now or sending 20,000 more troops over there. Man, we're going to be paying for this fucking war for a long time.

Of course, living in Massachusetts, the question is moot. Our electoral votes always go to the Democrats, so I can safely cast my protest/not-the-lesser-of-two-evils vote for the Green Party, without being blamed for accidentally electing the wrong guy. Except by my dad, who seems to forget that I don't live in Florida or Ohio.

Comments

[melannen.livejournal.com]

Actually, of the currently announced possibles, I'm still leaning mostly toward Vilsack. I feel like we need somebody politically personable and liberal, but ethically squeaky-clean, and Middle-America enough that Fox News Republicans like my uncle wouldn't gag too much at voting for him. Richardson has a few things in his past that make me flinch, plus he's not boring enough, and none of the other boring candidates really have the experience I'd like.

But it's *way*, *way* early, it depends a lot on what use the Democrats make of their Congress, and for the next few months I think I'm just going to stay in the Anyone But Hillary camp, unless something dramatic happens.

[signsoflife.livejournal.com]

What makes you flinch about Richardson? I'm sufficiently politically naive that I don't know much about him except his campaign press releases, which are pretty attractive to me.

[melannen.livejournal.com]

Well, I don't really know that much about it either, but he was accused of leaking names to the press in that Chinese spy scandal, right? Which, whether it's true or not, wouldn't be the best thing to have on your resume if you're still kicking up dust about the Plame thing. Also I think he was accused of being misleading about his baseball career? Of course, Bush has managed to plow through that sort of minor stuff, but the idea is to be different from the other guys. And just in general, he's pretty closely associated (at least in my head) with the Clinton era, from which they're still managing to throw mud on nearly everybody. But like I said, I'm not as well-informed as I ought to be either. Mostly I just don't like the guy as much as some of the others! He'd probably do okay unless the racism got really, really bad.