On Democracy

Rosalind Little tends to vote Democrat, almost without exception. (When she lived in the Bay Area, she voted for Green Party candidates in some local elections. When she was still living with her parents in Augusta, Georgia, she voted for a Republican candidate when there no choice.)

Very rarely do Democratic candidates best reflect my true opinions. When I take online polls matching me up with my ideal candidates (like these), I invariably match up best with Kucinich, or Nader, or whoever the crazy left-wing candidate is who supports gay marriage and legalization of marijuana. It's not a perfect match -- I do have a few issues I tend to be oddly conservative on -- but it's usually closer than anything else.

Yet I do not vote for these candidates. I don't even consider voting for them. I vote for the Democrat. I know this is infuriating behavior on my part in some respects. But I'm a pragmatic girl, and frankly, sometimes the most important factor in an election is who does not get elected. For example, in the 2004 election the most pressing concern for the country was that Bush NOT get elected, and not so much who actually won. We didn't seem to pull that one through, though.

Right now I am more optimistic about the 2008 election. At very least, it promises to be immensely entertaining. We almost can't go wrong in that respect. (What with all the Latter-day Saints and insane New Yorkers and women and African Americans and actors who were featured on Law & Order as recently as LAST SEASON.) And I don't want to jinx it, but it seems like as of now the Democrats are less of a train wreck than the Republicans.

So why don't I know who to vote for? I don't know who I support. I honestly have no idea.

Edwards isn't doing it for me. I thought he was a solid VP candidate last time, but he's not ringing my bells right now.

I suppose I'm leaning slightly towards Obama. It's hard to argue against the charisma. He's dreamy. But really, seriously, he isn't all that experienced. I wish that we could put him on hold for a bit. Let him serve a few terms first. Why the rush? When you compare his level of preparation for the job to say, Hillary's, he's not really competitive at all. Makes me nervous.

So why not Hillary? She has the experience. She's smart. She's polished, if a bit unnatural. The symbolism of a female president is appealing.

But she would be a female president who was riding, at LEAST a little bit, on the coattails of her famous presidential spouse. And what really bothers me is that she would be the second president in the past ten years who was exploiting the presidential status of a family member. The past four presidents would be Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Clinton.

The dynasty aspect of that is troubling. I am not so naive as to think that the process of electing a president is really about finding the best person on an equal playing field ... but if we start to turn to the same powerful families to provide us consistently with our leaders, we're not even bothering trying any more. We're not even pretending that this democracy is functioning.

I'm surprised that more people haven't observed this, to be honest. It really troubles me. What would Jimmy Stewart say, for crying out loud?