While it is true a number of my friends in London seem interested in the current goings-on in American politics, I can't say any of us are quite on the level of these folks.
- Music:The Cardigans - 'And Then You Kissed Me (Part 2)'
From an article on McCain's potentially improved prospects comes this quote from the Huckabee campaign manager about their plans for New Hampshire next week: '"We’re going to see if we can’t take Romney out," Mr. Rollins said. "We like John. Nobody likes Romney."' When are political campaigns this honest? And, thus, how much did I laugh to read that? Because who exactly does like Romney? When I was in Florida for Christmas, we drove a vehicle emblazoned in MITT08 stickers, and I wanted to stick my head out the window and stare in wonder that such people actually existed.
Having been away for the past year (and it's nearly been that, if you can believe), I've been able to pick and choose how much attention to pay to of The Never-ending Campaign. But now that something has actually happened (even as bizarre and almost anti-democratic as I find the Iowa caucuses), it's starting to get more interesting. I have honest reservations about all of the Democrats -- some more than others, to be sure -- but I'll be happy to cast my vote for any of them. Well, the viable ones. Which is to say Obama or Rodham Clinton. So 'either' of them, if we're going to be grammatically precise. My favourite Sarahs apparently have no similar hesitation: they're Obama Ladies. Exhibit A, the concerned parent; Exhibit B, the scholarly sentimentalist. Which is amazing.
Because, regardless of who comes out ahead, it's nice that -- so far, at least -- people are actually excited about whom they can vote for rather than disgusted by whom they must vote against (Romney notwithstanding). That, in itself, seems like progress.
Having been away for the past year (and it's nearly been that, if you can believe), I've been able to pick and choose how much attention to pay to of The Never-ending Campaign. But now that something has actually happened (even as bizarre and almost anti-democratic as I find the Iowa caucuses), it's starting to get more interesting. I have honest reservations about all of the Democrats -- some more than others, to be sure -- but I'll be happy to cast my vote for any of them. Well, the viable ones. Which is to say Obama or Rodham Clinton. So 'either' of them, if we're going to be grammatically precise. My favourite Sarahs apparently have no similar hesitation: they're Obama Ladies. Exhibit A, the concerned parent; Exhibit B, the scholarly sentimentalist. Which is amazing.
Because, regardless of who comes out ahead, it's nice that -- so far, at least -- people are actually excited about whom they can vote for rather than disgusted by whom they must vote against (Romney notwithstanding). That, in itself, seems like progress.
- Music:Bird, Andrew - 'MX Missiles'
With every ruling, the SCOTUS breaks my heart a little bit more.
Why did the Dems let both Roberts and Alito through?
Why did the country allow GWB to be the President again?
And, for that matter, why did the country allow Cheney to be the Master again?
I know the argument that electing these people would continue to have an effect long past their four year term wasn't v. compelling to a large portion of the electorate, but man. It's not like any of this is a surprise.
Why did the Dems let both Roberts and Alito through?
Why did the country allow GWB to be the President again?
And, for that matter, why did the country allow Cheney to be the Master again?
I know the argument that electing these people would continue to have an effect long past their four year term wasn't v. compelling to a large portion of the electorate, but man. It's not like any of this is a surprise.