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

[bellisaurius.livejournal.com]

I actually think the biggest topic out there is national health care, but I don't think I've ever voted for a candidate based on policy; I just vote thumb in the eye of the establishment, unless there's someone who strikes me as having some character and/or integrity (prepare to grimace: McCain and Richard Daley come to mind).

[melannen.livejournal.com]

I wish I could safely vote Green on principle. But I've heard enough about some of what Nader's been doing, and specifically his tendency to not take wide-scale consequences of his actions into account, that I really don't think I want him as president either.

I'm going hope that we're smart enough to get a Dem candidate in who *isn't* Hillary or Obama and has enough going on other than the war to make him worthwhile. OR the Greens finally run somebody who gives me fewer feelings of 'Ick!' than Nader.