"I want a brand new candidate."

[vakkotaur]

That's the almost the title of a Capitol Steps tune of a few years ago. Their song was I Want A Brand New Pair of Candidates. That's about how I feel right now, and the primaries are only just starting so the field is still pretty full. Ouch.

I took that gotoquiz candidate matching quiz. I've taken it a few times. As bad as it is (it's horribly simplistic) the results are interesting for me. If I don't weight most of the answers I wind up with Huckabee. If I do weight the answers I get, depending on how I answer one question, Hillary Clinton or Fred Thompson - now that's jarring. And with either, the field is a mix of red and blue stripes and not the obviously stratified "blue on top" or "red on top" I've seen others get. This surprises me.

None of the candidates jump out at me as being a really good idea. None of them even strike me as being very good second choices. A few I consider just plain unacceptable, and not just the ones I consider obviously nuts.

For the Democrats, I can see why Obama swept Iowa: he's not anyone else and has no significant baggage. Unfortunately he also has no significant experience with an awful lot. If he should end up with the Presidency I really hope he can learn fast and well. Hillary, well nothing I say will be new to anyone there. You either figure she's good, bad, or maybe just hasn't got a chance. Edwards? I heard (via NPR) him give a primary campaign speech last time around. For a minute or two he was golden, looking to the future, being positive, making me wonder if that's how FDR sounded, and saying how bashing the current administration was counter-productive. Then he said, "..but if I may make an aside.." and proceeded to do all the things he said not to do. He blew it right there. This wasn't an "open microphone accident" or a misquote but right there in his own unedited campaign speech.

On the Republican side, Huckabee bothers me. He's religious, fine, that's his business. But it's not anyone else's and shouldn't be made so. Mitt Romney sounds good, until you realize that he's not saying so much what he believes but what he thinks you want to hear. We don't need a Slick Romney. McCain? I couldn't see voting for him the last time he ran and he's made even less sense since then. Giuliani? Yeah, he seemed to handle a few days in one (admittedly very large) city well. Can he handle four years of a whole country that well? Fred Thompson, well maybe he is that missing "second choice" after all. He's far from ideal, but since there's plenty worse...

I left a few out, but I suspect it hardly matters. Surprises do happen and things could change, but that's how it looks now.

I've heard some folks going on about "change" and being for it. I'm not against change, but I would like to be sure it's for the better. Things can always get worse, too.

Comments

[cathyr19355.livejournal.com]

You have my complete sympathy, and a lot of your observations tally mine. I look forward to the rest of Primary Season with vast but morbid curiosity, and dread the choices I will have to make in November.

[nefaria.livejournal.com]

I'm in the "None of the Above - Do Over" camp myself. It seems like all the candidates have exactly one qualification for office (good speaker, lot of experience, smart, etc.) and are completely unqualified in all the other requirements. I don't want Barack Castro Obama, Pope Huckabee, Empress Hillary, or any of these other clowns. I think all the qualified people either decided not to run or are hovering at the 1% mark in the polls because they're not annoying enough to garner media attention.

As for my prediction, I think Obama will win against whatever turkey the Republicans pick because he will successfully campaign without letting the country know what he will do once he becomes president. Then, after he wins, the USA will be royally screwed, because he's a freaking socialist.

[thecanuckguy.livejournal.com]

I'd kind of like to take that quiz myself if I knew where it was. As a Canadian, I'm always curious as to how I'd come out in an obviously American quiz.

I notice that people have mentioned Obama's lack of experience and foreign policy knowledge (I saw it mentioned in a local paper here once how he said once he was in office he was going to talk with the president of Canada about NAFTA!) But people forget that you had the same if not worse for the past eight years and the US is still, remarkably, there. How could another four or eight under an equally foreign-policy-and-other-things-vague president make a difference? (He doesn't even make all the decisions, his team does!)

Oh, and nefaria, just what is wrong with socialism? ;) (Asks this self-proclaimed "small-c socialist")

[vakkotaur.livejournal.com]

No matter who we wind up with, the country will go on. It's just a matter of how well. It survived both Grant and Carter, after all. After eight years of hearing folks saying how bad the current President is it's amazing and depressing that it seems the folks who've been saying it the loudest haven't come up with an improvement.

When GWB was first elected, it didn't seem to matter all the much. And there was Cheney who was an experienced guide (or a puppet-master, for those who like to believe in conspiracies). By the time he ran again he had some record on foreign policy. The unfortunate reason for his sudden growth in that area continues and so now it's seen that it is an important matter right off. I do wonder who the various candidates (on either side) are considering for Vice President.