johnnyhongkong says…

Big day tomorrow. South Carolina and Nevada. The People’s Candidate must drop the people’s electoral elbow on one of those states and it looks like Nevada is the more likely recipient. It’s a caucus state and from all his folks I’ve talked to, Edwards has good organization in Nevada. Not so much in South Carolina. However, with reports that Hillary and Obama are splitting the black vote in S.C., maybe Edwards can sneak in between them and finish second.

Anyway, there’s been a lot of chatter on the interwebs by Obama supporters about how Edwards’ should drop out of the race and how Edwards’ supporters should help hasten this process by voting for Obama. Then, Edwards won’t maintain the 15% threshold, get no delegates, and in essence, expose his vanity candidacy and shame him into dropping out of the promary. The extreme proponents of this also seem to be the ones claiming that Edwards is acting Nader-like in the 2000 general. They also assume that all Edwards supporters will magically become Obama supporters, so therefore, if only that pesky Ken doll would just get the hell out of the race, the annoited one will capture the nomination, ascend to the White House and change the way shit works.

Nir-fucking-vana.

First, with regard to the Nader issue - please, shut the fuck up. This is exactly how it’s supposed to go - it’s an intraparty primary, we’re supposed to determine who is our best candidate to go in the general election. And with seven delegates separating Obama and Edwards, I don’t see why Edwards should drop out.

Byond that, I used to be one of the Edwards, then Obama, then Clinton guys but the more and more I’ve seen and heard from Obama, the less and less I like him. The inspiring speeches are so paper thin on substance and dictionary thick on self-puffery and they fail to give me any indication that he will be any different than Hillary or any of the other centrist fuckers running. I also have no damn idea what he actually stands for.

I know that Edwards stands for the poor people. I can dig it.

I know that Clinton stands for her experience. Whatevs, but i can dig it.

Obama? From all of the speeches and debates I’ve seen, it sure sounds like the only thing Obama stands for is Barack Obama, the hopeful uniter (more on this later).

Folks tell me that I should jump ship on Edwards and support Obama because like Edwards, Obama is more progressive than Hillary Clinton. Really? It sure sounds like he and Clinton are exceedingly similar.

Also, I’m not sure how many progressives would find themselves punching a ticket for for Ronald Reagan, “the Annakin Skywalker of the Conservative movement.”

But jhk, you say, “But he looks like change.”

Oh yeah? Here’s how he doesn’t look like change:

If elected, he’ll be a president who struggled with drug use, is a born-again Christian, isn’t so good with details, and ran a campaign based on being a “uniter, not a divider.”

Sound like anybody we know?

Personally, after having eight years of someone trying to unite, I’m soooo over that uniting shit. I’m willing to change course, instead of simply changing a person.

“Barack is so full of hope,” you say.

Look, I don’t want a president who fucking hopes. I think we’ve had quite enough of hoping for the best after fucking shit up (see War on Terror, the Economy, Iraq, the Middle East, Katrina, Enron, etc.).

I’m not saying that I wouldn’t vote for him if he is nominated; he’s obviously better than GWB. I’m just saying that upon closer inspection, he just doesn’t seem like the agent of change he so feverishly claims to be.

We deserve better than that.