It’s been nearly two months since I’ve written anything here. But I’m not done. Oh, no. I’m not done.
I’ve been busy. I own one of them 
“automobile” things that people always talk about, and have used it to get myself out of town more than usual. Between that and time spent at work in the burbs, and time spent 
with Kate it’s been quite nice.
But things are brewing. Most of what’s interesting to me right now is stuff that I don’t feel like I should post right now, which is a bit of shame but will probably change soon. I hope. Because I don’t like not posting.
In other news, my sister asked me before Super Tuesday to post my thoughts on the Dem race, and I didn’t do so then. And I won’t post extended analysis now, except to say this: I really like Obama, I think he’d be a good president, and I would like to see him elected. And I dislike Hillary enough that I might actually think about voting for McCain, which is something that would have been sacrilege mere months ago. Why would I think about McCain? After losing 11 straight primaries I see one, and only one, reason that someone stays in the race: a sense of entitlement. You’ve been beaten, and you decide not to give, you do so only because you think that you somehow deserve victory. And that, to me, is the worst of the worst. I can deal with a president who has a pessimistic (and yet oddly realistic) view of Iraq, and who has skewed moral compass. But someone who feels entitled to the job? That’s the biggest knock against Bush, in my mind, looking back on it.
And with that, no more, until there’s more.
March 25th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
don’t you dare. don’t you dare think that anything excuses McCain’s habits. He is a pretty good Senator, but his complacency re: the Keating Five and his Nixon-like fixation on “winning” in Iraq are independently sufficient reasons not to vote for him. “Skewed moral compass” nothing. McCain has demonstrated over the last year that a man who labels his campaign the “straight talk express” can be both unwilling to discuss his past and have the moral flexibility to flop around almost as much as Mitt Romney. He’s just not getting the kind of press attention that Romney got. Kevin Drum had something about this recently in the Washington Monthly.
furthermore, do not dare think that Hillary’s remaining in the race and our current president’s campaign have anything in common. The biggest knock on george bush was (and I keep saying this, but by god it’s true) his involvement with the texas rangers, in which he allowed a minority stake to be bought by his fellow owners for massive profit. His hail-fellow-well-met casualness towards the moral necessities of his job and the nation’s standing in the world are nothing like Clinton’s resolve to not let this nomination go. The clintons are a hugely successful political pair because they have been willing to get in the mud and roll around with all the distasteful aspects of what it means to succeed at all costs; this makes them nothing more than successful modern Democrats (see: the Daley family). but they have NOTHING on the amorality demonstrated by the current occupant of the white house.
take it back.
March 26th, 2008 at 10:48 am
unrelatedly, that photo of you and kate is terrific. : )
March 29th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Barack Obama seems to agree with Tazo….from the NYTimes 3/29/08:
“You know, there’s no doubt that among some of my supporters or some of her supporters, there’s probably been some irritation created,” he said. “You can’t tell me that some of my supporters are going to say, well, we’d rather have the guy who may want to stay in Iraq for a hundred years, because were mad that Senator Clinton ran a negative ad against Senator Obama. And I think the converse is true as well.”