My 2008 presidential pick
Jen Janes, Opinions Editor
Issue date: 2/5/08 Section: Perspectives
So it's Super Tuesday, and we've got four mainstream candidates left who have even a remote chance of winning. This is depressing, as usual, because once again we have no real options. So, since I have nothing better to do, I'm going to tell you why all four of these candidates are worthless beasts.
A lot of people don't like Mitt Romney because he's a Mormon. Whatever. I would not like a Mormon for president just because it would be too confusing to have a First, Second, and Third Lady. And then there are his smear campaigns. Anyone who would hide behind his vast personal fortune and strike low blows at his enemies from a safe distance does not have the spine to stand up to America's imaginary enemies we spend billions of dollars chasing through the desert.
And then we've got McCain filling in the rest of the GOP ticket (as far as I'm concerned, if candidates can't pay their staff, they're not worth my time - sorry Huckabee…not). McCain is a tricky little man. He appears to possess the Presidential kahones that Romney lacks, but does he really? I can't help but recall the Republican primaries just eight years ago, when he ran against Bush. The two of them were on each other like cheap toilet paper…until Bush won, and then McCain respectfully declined to dispute him four years later. Uumm…good one, John.
And now onto the Democrats' side. Let's start with Obama. It is terribly interesting that this guy has used his "youth," inexperience, Illinois residence, and non-whiteness to compare himself to Martin Luther King, John F. Kennedy, and Abe Lincoln. Now, I don't like grandiose people (unless we're talking about me), and I think the world would be better off without them. Comparing oneself to three (3) major political figures in American history makes the other candidates look humble. And that is saying a lot. But ultimately, I am just not seeing any on-paper plans from him, preferably with bullet points and clipart.
This brings me to Hillary. I'm not sure why we're on a first-name basis with her and not with the others, but I'll go with it for the sake of clarity. Oh, Hillary. Only you can start a big fight with Obama that no one notices except the press. And despite your ability to demolish the other dems in debate, you still hem and haw when someone points out that you originally supported the "war" in Iraq. And alas, it is not only you who aims to end poverty with a one-time tax cut that won't help with groceries in June, and it is not only you who refers to everybody as the middle class, even though you know full well that they are really only a small minority, and that everyone else is rich or poor (and mostly poor). So thanks, Ms. Clinton, for going for the people who can contribute more to your campaign, just like the rest of them.
A lot of people don't like Mitt Romney because he's a Mormon. Whatever. I would not like a Mormon for president just because it would be too confusing to have a First, Second, and Third Lady. And then there are his smear campaigns. Anyone who would hide behind his vast personal fortune and strike low blows at his enemies from a safe distance does not have the spine to stand up to America's imaginary enemies we spend billions of dollars chasing through the desert.
And then we've got McCain filling in the rest of the GOP ticket (as far as I'm concerned, if candidates can't pay their staff, they're not worth my time - sorry Huckabee…not). McCain is a tricky little man. He appears to possess the Presidential kahones that Romney lacks, but does he really? I can't help but recall the Republican primaries just eight years ago, when he ran against Bush. The two of them were on each other like cheap toilet paper…until Bush won, and then McCain respectfully declined to dispute him four years later. Uumm…good one, John.
And now onto the Democrats' side. Let's start with Obama. It is terribly interesting that this guy has used his "youth," inexperience, Illinois residence, and non-whiteness to compare himself to Martin Luther King, John F. Kennedy, and Abe Lincoln. Now, I don't like grandiose people (unless we're talking about me), and I think the world would be better off without them. Comparing oneself to three (3) major political figures in American history makes the other candidates look humble. And that is saying a lot. But ultimately, I am just not seeing any on-paper plans from him, preferably with bullet points and clipart.
This brings me to Hillary. I'm not sure why we're on a first-name basis with her and not with the others, but I'll go with it for the sake of clarity. Oh, Hillary. Only you can start a big fight with Obama that no one notices except the press. And despite your ability to demolish the other dems in debate, you still hem and haw when someone points out that you originally supported the "war" in Iraq. And alas, it is not only you who aims to end poverty with a one-time tax cut that won't help with groceries in June, and it is not only you who refers to everybody as the middle class, even though you know full well that they are really only a small minority, and that everyone else is rich or poor (and mostly poor). So thanks, Ms. Clinton, for going for the people who can contribute more to your campaign, just like the rest of them.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
Jensmom
Jensmom
posted 2/09/08 @ 11:37 AM MST
You have my vote, Sweetie!
Post a Comment