February 18, 2004

Moving right along

Dean has "dropped out" of the race.

But what does that mean? First of all, it doesn't mean we can't vote for him in the primaries. If you were a Dean supporter and don't have a preference between Kerry and Edwards, it certainly can't hurt to give your votes to Dean. If Kerry doesn't take >50% of the vote in primaries, the convention will be brokered and a sizable Dean bloc will be able to wield power and gain concessions before lending their support to one or the other of the frontrunners.

In the more long term, we look to what the next phase of the presidential campaign will bring. GWB for the Republicans, I guess Kerry or Edwards from the Democrats, and a raft of third-party candidates. Those of you voting against Bush have an easy choice. Those of you who believe in voting for people may have a harder time of it, and I don't have much to say. At this time, I guess I'll vote for whoever wins the Dem nomination, but I can't guarantee it and I certainly don't favour them enough to campaign for them.

But they have plenty of advocates. Apparently. Fortunately, there's another important thing to work on: getting liberals and progressives elected to the House and Senate, and to state legislatures. After all, the President can't accomplish much if he's battling a hostile legislature. For the U.S. Senate, Illinois has a huge field of competitors (an argument for voting reform if ever there was one), and the race will be an interesting one. Blair Hull is the current frontrunner, but his campaign seems to be "I have lots of money, so you should vote for me!" He seems like sort of a flake. Barack Obama looks promising, though; he's been in the IL Senate for a while, and has sponsored and voted for a lot of really good stuff. Check him out! This is the sort of guy we need in the Senate.

"w/r/t self-determination: I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The rules changed in 1918. Period. Historical examples before then are not analogous to examples after then." --Michael Kimmitt

Posted by blahedo at 11:57pm on 18 Feb 2004
Nancy Skinner has been campaigning hard for the Senate seat and has the support of a lot of suburban Democrats, but I'm not convinced that a woman whose only political experience is as a talk radio host is a good candidate for Senate. Obama looks to me to be the most viable of the candidates I've seen. Posted by kelly at 6:21am on 19 Feb 2004
I'm a fan of Obama. Apart from the fact that he's built a substantial and good political record, he's a fantastic speaker. Posted by Michael Feltes at 2:30pm on 22 Feb 2004
Post a comment

Sorry! Spammers have temporarily overloaded the system. Reload this window in a little while to try again. [?]

Remember personal info?

Valid XHTML 1.0!