'tics

Y'know, all of this just makes me think that Edwards is smart to be staying in for as long as he can. He's never too far behind as it is, and eventually - soon, I think - people are going to get sick of this shit, and start looking for an alternative. Of course, that sort of dynamic happens all the time in politics, and I'm sure Hilary and Obama know it. Probably has something to do with the 'truce.'

But honestly, I'm already feeling exhausted by the two of them. I still like Obama, though I think the substance issue is valid at times. But in moments of doubt, I've been opting for one quality above all others: intelligence. After the past eight years - I don't know - it just seems like our most pressing need in a president. I know Hilary is smart, and so is Edwards, but Obama gives all indications that he is brilliant, and intellectually capable enough to reason an path through the massive pile of shit storms that wait for him on the oval office desk. Hilary would probably manage alright too, but doing so with a predefined toolbox of reactions and procedures. Edwards, though, is looking better and better all the time to me. He's got the brains, but without that toolbox.

Moreover, he's not talking so endlessly about this notion of national reconciliation, which is what I'm getting tired of hearing about from Hilary and Obama. I mean, I suppose it makes us a better country, to hold hands with each other and all, but haven't the past eight years been just a little too terrible and unfair to so immediately forgive simply because they're almost over? Eight years of rape and pillage by the Republican party should be forgotten for the sake of 'moving forward.' And does that even require unity? Did the GOP have any real trouble getting things done without the dem's cooperation? I think we could move forward just fine by railroading our own legislation through congress - just like they did - for a few years before we even begin to acknowledge their existence. Truth be told, I'm not ready to make nice to anybody on the right who supported this administration (99% of them), from the eldest senator to the average jackass on the street.

I realize that to win the general election, campaigning on unity is probably the best way to go, but I do wonder. I think a lot of people could agree that the past eight years have been a spectacular, extraordinary disaster, and as such change the rules of the game. Angry/passionate didn't work in '04 (Dean), but neither did sober/unifying (Kerry). I know that the Clinton/Obama campaigns of unity are safe strategies born out of public exhaustion of the endless litany and Bush/Cheney lies, but now there's 4 more years of crimes for a democratic candidate to synthesize into a catchy campaign. And I don't think the public would be so averse to a campaign that rehashed those crimes this time around if it were done just a little more skillfully. For that reason, I still haven't disavowed Edwards. At least he acts pissed off.

I know I said that I believed Obama would be capable of handling the full brunt of the Republican smear machine in the general election, but I'm becoming slightly less certain the longer he handles Clinton's attacks by taking the high road. I don't know - I'm petrified of having a Kerry debacle, although I can't see Obama being that passive. Edwards has been through it though, and I think the way he's running his campaign (on the attack, I suppose) shows it.

Oh, and I still think Hilary is utterly unelectable.

-Bo

P.S. I wrote this in fits and starts throughout the day. I'm sending it before I check it for coherency and flow.