Well, the blog movement is catching fire these days, with the election this year, so I figure that I ought to get in on the action. Most of what you (yes, you, the one person who will ever read this blog) need to know about me is already up in the description. I will tell you more about myself as I progress this year (assuming I stay with this blog for that long). As you have probably gathered, I am a liberal. I am also a Christian. A Baptist to be more precise. Before you have a heart attack, though, rest assured that I am not Southern Baptist. I don't think. It depends on how you determine what Southern Baptist is. I would say that I am not Southern Baptist, but I am a member of a church that still, for reasons beyond my comprehension, has a few members who insist on their money going to the Southern Baptist Convention, and not the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. That may have to change in the next few years, however, because the Southern Baptist Convention has recently begun very serious talk of severing ties from the World Baptist Alliance.
For those of you who do not know, the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship is the moderate reaction to the Southern Baptist Convention. It was formed in the late 1980s, I believe, when it became clear that the moderates were steadily losing their voice to the fundementalists in the Convention. While officially, the Fellowship still holds out hope for reconciliation with the Convention, with the recent revelation that the SBC is leaving the World Baptist Alliance, it is unlikely that reconciliation will ever occur.
Now to my favorite subject: politics. Specifically, United States politics. (First, an aside. I refuse to refer to the United States as "America." I hate that, for two reasons. First, the United States is not just the name of a country; it's an idea, and a wonderful idea at that. For this same reason, I would like to see the Latin phrase "e pluribus unum" a little more often. Second, the U.S. is not "America" by itself. America is made of many diverse countries, spanning much of the Western hemisphere. I also would like to refrain from using "American" to refer to a U.S. citizen or occupant, but this is harder, since English does not have an equivilent for the Spanish word "estadounidense," which literally means "one who is from the United States.") As you might guess, I am a Democrat. Except when the Democratic candidate looks, smells, and talks like a Republican (yes, I'm talking about you, Zell Miller). Then I'm a supporter of the Greens. As far as this year's presidential election goes, I'm a Howard Dean supporter. I've followed him since before anyone outside of Vermont had even heard of him, thanks to my father, who sent me a link to his website in the fall of 2002. He is the most honest candidate in this race. He also was the first Democrat to show any signs of having cajones (apologies to Carol Mosely Braun, who I hope will never have cajones). Even as he fades, his effect is being felt throughout the nomination process. Almost every candidate has adopted at least some of his platform. Yes, I realize they're all Democrats, and therefore will have similar agendas to begin with. However, when I look at the race now, and compare it to the race of a few months ago, I sense that Dean pushed most of the other Democrats toward a tougher stance against Bush.
I realize that nearly every other pundit and blogger out there is handicapping the race right now (and to those few that aren't, I salute you), but I can't much resist doing it myself. Dean is likely cooked. He must absolutely do well this weekend to stay viable, and I just don't see it happening. Wesley Clark, I believe, is also cooked. He barely won Oklahoma, and he got clobbered in South Carolina, losing even to Al freaking Sharpton! I know that Sharpton spent gads of time in South Carolina, but that is still incredibly bad for Clark. He will probably stay in the race until at least Super Tuesday, but I don't see him lasting past the 9th of March, a week later.
That leaves it as a two man race between the two Johns, Kerry and Edwards. Edwards must win in Tennessee and Virginia to stay viable, but if he does, he may present a very formidable challenge on Super Tuesday, and if he wins big there, he could win the nomination. Otherwise, it's all Kerry. Kerry will make a fine presidential nominee, with a (mostly) untouchable national security record. Yes, he did vote to authorize Shrub to go to war, but in his speech before the vote, he spoke of making sure that the United Nations inspections were completed and of getting a large coalition to help the U.S. should we decide to go to war. He said that if Dubya failed to do either, then Kerry himself would be the first to denounce the "President," which he has done. I have no problem with Kerry, and I would be even more thrilled if he was to choose Wes Clark as his running mate. I like Clark very much, mostly because he has been against the Iraq war from the start, despite lies to the contrary, but also because, while he did vote for Republican Presidents in the past, his platform is quite progressive.
A postscript: in the future, I will have links to articles and/or quotes. I don't really have an excuse for not having links on this post. I don't quite remember where they are. This is an introductory post, and as such, the information came from what I remember reading. The Kerry speech is public record, as it was made on the Senate floor. Clark's platform can be found at his website. There. A link. Here's hoping it works. My future posts will be about current events, mostly, so the information that I have will be from current websites, so I will likely have just looked at the information, and therefore will have the link handy, making it easy to link. Kind of like this link to my old roommate's band's website.
Post-postscript: The links work! Woohoo!
Another postscript: I just realized that blogspot doesn't post my e-mail address. While I realize that very, very few people will ever read this, I would like feedback from those that do (if anyone does). My computer is stupid, and won't let me register a new e-mail address, so I will post one tomorrow. It will contain some variation of "random liberal" in it, and will probably be a Yahoo! address. Beyond that, who knows?
For those of you who do not know, the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship is the moderate reaction to the Southern Baptist Convention. It was formed in the late 1980s, I believe, when it became clear that the moderates were steadily losing their voice to the fundementalists in the Convention. While officially, the Fellowship still holds out hope for reconciliation with the Convention, with the recent revelation that the SBC is leaving the World Baptist Alliance, it is unlikely that reconciliation will ever occur.
Now to my favorite subject: politics. Specifically, United States politics. (First, an aside. I refuse to refer to the United States as "America." I hate that, for two reasons. First, the United States is not just the name of a country; it's an idea, and a wonderful idea at that. For this same reason, I would like to see the Latin phrase "e pluribus unum" a little more often. Second, the U.S. is not "America" by itself. America is made of many diverse countries, spanning much of the Western hemisphere. I also would like to refrain from using "American" to refer to a U.S. citizen or occupant, but this is harder, since English does not have an equivilent for the Spanish word "estadounidense," which literally means "one who is from the United States.") As you might guess, I am a Democrat. Except when the Democratic candidate looks, smells, and talks like a Republican (yes, I'm talking about you, Zell Miller). Then I'm a supporter of the Greens. As far as this year's presidential election goes, I'm a Howard Dean supporter. I've followed him since before anyone outside of Vermont had even heard of him, thanks to my father, who sent me a link to his website in the fall of 2002. He is the most honest candidate in this race. He also was the first Democrat to show any signs of having cajones (apologies to Carol Mosely Braun, who I hope will never have cajones). Even as he fades, his effect is being felt throughout the nomination process. Almost every candidate has adopted at least some of his platform. Yes, I realize they're all Democrats, and therefore will have similar agendas to begin with. However, when I look at the race now, and compare it to the race of a few months ago, I sense that Dean pushed most of the other Democrats toward a tougher stance against Bush.
I realize that nearly every other pundit and blogger out there is handicapping the race right now (and to those few that aren't, I salute you), but I can't much resist doing it myself. Dean is likely cooked. He must absolutely do well this weekend to stay viable, and I just don't see it happening. Wesley Clark, I believe, is also cooked. He barely won Oklahoma, and he got clobbered in South Carolina, losing even to Al freaking Sharpton! I know that Sharpton spent gads of time in South Carolina, but that is still incredibly bad for Clark. He will probably stay in the race until at least Super Tuesday, but I don't see him lasting past the 9th of March, a week later.
That leaves it as a two man race between the two Johns, Kerry and Edwards. Edwards must win in Tennessee and Virginia to stay viable, but if he does, he may present a very formidable challenge on Super Tuesday, and if he wins big there, he could win the nomination. Otherwise, it's all Kerry. Kerry will make a fine presidential nominee, with a (mostly) untouchable national security record. Yes, he did vote to authorize Shrub to go to war, but in his speech before the vote, he spoke of making sure that the United Nations inspections were completed and of getting a large coalition to help the U.S. should we decide to go to war. He said that if Dubya failed to do either, then Kerry himself would be the first to denounce the "President," which he has done. I have no problem with Kerry, and I would be even more thrilled if he was to choose Wes Clark as his running mate. I like Clark very much, mostly because he has been against the Iraq war from the start, despite lies to the contrary, but also because, while he did vote for Republican Presidents in the past, his platform is quite progressive.
A postscript: in the future, I will have links to articles and/or quotes. I don't really have an excuse for not having links on this post. I don't quite remember where they are. This is an introductory post, and as such, the information came from what I remember reading. The Kerry speech is public record, as it was made on the Senate floor. Clark's platform can be found at his website. There. A link. Here's hoping it works. My future posts will be about current events, mostly, so the information that I have will be from current websites, so I will likely have just looked at the information, and therefore will have the link handy, making it easy to link. Kind of like this link to my old roommate's band's website.
Post-postscript: The links work! Woohoo!
Another postscript: I just realized that blogspot doesn't post my e-mail address. While I realize that very, very few people will ever read this, I would like feedback from those that do (if anyone does). My computer is stupid, and won't let me register a new e-mail address, so I will post one tomorrow. It will contain some variation of "random liberal" in it, and will probably be a Yahoo! address. Beyond that, who knows?
posted at 8:28 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home