Here we are, less than a week before the election. It's almost over - a flurry of activity, a few last rounds of mud-slinging, a Tuesday at the polls, the votes are counted... and America returns to its political torpor until the next election cycle.
Never have I paid as much attention to an election as I have this one, though I'm certain I'm not the only person for whom this is true. Many of us feel there's a lot at stake in this election - and rightfully so. We're fighting wars in two different countries, our economy is in a recession that's dragging the rest of the world down with it, we're plagued by a myriad of social problems that have no readily available solution (immigrants' rights and the healthcare 'crisis' for example), and people seem to be more politically polarized than in previous years. The only thing people can seem to agree on is that the country's headed in the wrong direction.
Next week, we - the citizens - get to choose who inherits this grand mess of a country.
As previously stated, I've paid more attention to this election than I have any others. I've watched every debate I could access, and spent time researching the candidates. And, in the days before election day, I've become slightly less optimistic about the future of the country, and exponentially more frustrated with the current system.
It's difficult to sum up my thoughts on the subject in a brief manner, but I'm going to attempt to anyway. In terms of the candidates themselves, my thoughts are as follows:
McCain/Palin - I believe John McCain has at least a few noble intentions and honestly wants to improve America; however, he's horribly out of touch with reality and totally misguided in just about every way. A McCain administration would almost certainly mean four more years of Bush-esque corruption, cronyism, violations of the Constitution, and dismantling of our civil liberties (in the name of fighting terror, of course). War with Iran would be not only inevitable, but imminent.
Sarah Palin. Where do I begin? She's a right wing nut job who was picked (I believe) because she was a woman with speaking experience whom nobody had heard of, meant to draw in disillusioned would-be Clinton supporters. A Christian and a social conservative, she thinks that humans aren't to blame for global warming and that gay people can be 'cured.' She also flaunts her retard-baby in photo-ops whenever she gets the opportunity, which I find to be incredibly irritating. At least, though, she has the security of being totally protected from witches.
Incidentally, choosing Susan Collins or Olympia Snowe as a running mate would have been a much better choice on McCain's part, in my opinion. They're both intelligent and have a history of bipartisanship. (But, I don't think either of them is married to someone who works for BP like Palin is.)
Obama/Biden - Barack Obama professes to be the candidate of change, but I've seen very little from him that would suggest his presence in the White House would change anything about this country other than the skin color of the guy running it. With the amount of money he accepts from corporate sources, (including Big Oil), it can't be expected that he will do much for the average citizen.
Joe Biden is all right, except he comes off as a condescending know-it-all sometimes. Other than that, he's pretty much a rank-and-file Democrat. Although I don't know what the HELL possessed him to make those "If Obama's elected President there will be a major crisis" remarks. Why would he SAY that?
I'd also like to add that I'm rather disgusted at all the mud-slinging going on between McCain and Obama. All the nastiness between them makes it difficult for me to respect either of them, because they spend so much time defending themselves from each other's attacks that important issues that need our attention rarely get discussed beyond soundbite level.
I know I'm supposed to stop here, because I'm only supposed to vote for a Republican or a Democrat. But, there are actually six major candidates running for office, and a smattering of other candidates from some even smaller political parties than I mention here.
Barr/Root - I would have voted Libertarian (as is my tendency) if the party would have selected someone decent for their nominee, like Steve Kubby. Instead, the Libertarians picked Bob Barr and Wayne Allen Root for their candidates.
Bob Barr was a Republican until about ten minutes before he started trying to get the Libertarian nomination (he joined the Libertarians in 2006). Before that, he voted for the PATRIOT act, was one of the more zealous supporters of the War on Drugs, and a proponent of the Defense of Marriage Act. He also tried to get the Pentagon to ban the practice of Wicca on military bases when he was in Congress. Although he claims to have reversed his positions on these issues, I just don't buy it for some reason.
Barr's running mate, Wayne Allen Root, is an annoying mix of used-car salesman and little league coach, with the temperament of a hyperactive Pomeranian, full of catch-phrases like, "I'll keep big government out of your wallet," "I'm a small business owner, just like you," and the like. His speeches are crammed full of vapid sentiment and pie-in-the sky promises. (He narrowly beats out Sarah Palin for my vote for Most Irritating Candidate '08.)
McKinney/Clemente - Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney says a lot of things I agree with (she's a proponent of alternative sources of energy, for example), but because of the "Capitol Police Incident," I can't support her. Anyone who can lose their temper and hit another person so readily clearly has some anger management problems that need to be addressed before that person should even consider such a stressful position of leadership. (The offense is particularly egregious to me when considering that McKinney technically was in violation of official policy, and therefore in the wrong, in the whole situation.)
In addition, McKinney's running mate Rosa Clemente has done an excellent job of alienating anyone who isn't a thirtysomething black feminist from the ghetto in most of her media appearances. She actually used the phrase "hip-hop generation" while discussing U.S./Israeli/Palestinian foreign policy. Sigh.
* I'd like to go off topic for a second here. I noticed with interest that a lot of media attention was focused on Obama being the first black presidential candidate, and Palin was given a lot of attention for being a woman candidate, but the media's said very little - if anything - about McKinney being the first black woman candidate (or Rosa Clemente, for that matter). Just something I noticed there. *
Baldwin/Castle - The nominee of the Constitution Party, Chuck Baldwin has been endorsed by Ron Paul. The Constitution Party is an interesting blend of constructionism and social conservatism; for example, they believe that the "right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" clause in the Constitution applies to unborn fetuses, but somehow does not apply to gay people in terms of marriage rights. Baldwin holds these views, and also has a complete lack of experience in politics. He is, however, a minister; and religious leaders who seek political power tend to make me a little suspicious.
I know next to nothing about Baldwin's Darrell Castle, other than he's a old white guy who agrees with the stances of the Constitution Party.
Nader/Gonzalez - I'll have to admit straight away that this is the ticket that earned my vote. I voted for Nader in 2004 when he was the Green Party nominee. This election, he's running as an independent, and unlike the Republicans and Democrats, he actually presents solutions and plans to fix some of the huge problems in Washington.
Nader opposes the Iraq war, opposes the Wall Street bailout package, supports a living wage for all workers ($10/hour), and supports healthcare for all citizens. He opposes the War on Drugs and actually wrote Bush a letter asking him to grant clemency to 30,000 non-violent drug offenders (his request was ignored). He doesn't believe corporate entities should be given the same legal recognition as people (as they currently are), and has petitioned the court to that effect. Ralph Nader has spent a considerable amount of time and energy protecting the rights of consumers, and has managed to have more legislation passed than any other non-elected official in his 40+ years of service to the American consumer.
Matt Gonzalez served as president for the San Francisco board of supervisors, and ran for mayor as well, losing narrowly to Gavin Newsom. He was instrumental in establishing Instant Run-off Voting (Rank Choice Voting) in San Francisco. He has worked as a public defender and a civil defense attorney. His views are nearly similar to Nader's.
I don't envy the winner of this election. The new President will inherit an ineffective Congress whose members bicker incessantly, an economy in recession with no end in sight, cumbersome military entanglements that are helping to break our budget and causing us to lose the respect of the international community, and a polarized citizenry who only seems to see things in terms of red and blue.
I'm a bit apprehensive about the future, especially considering the tone of this election. I've heard a lot of talk about voting for "the lesser of two evils," which bothers me. As the saying goes, voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.
It's my hope that citizens who choose to vote this year will research ALL the candidates as thoroughly as possible before making their final choice this election, and vote their conscience. Making politicians earn our votes is the only way to affect some change in this flawed system.
"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." - John Quincy Adams
