Blah blah politics.
My school had a snow day! I made cake and watched No Country for Old Men. I enjoyed it.
I find I'm lucky to not be in New York and to not be a registered Democrat because (yes, I know it wouldn't have made a difference) I actually cannot politically make up my mind. No, that's a lie. I've been consistently "waffling," as they say, feeling strong conviction for one candidate or another depending on the day, for several reasons.
First, this is mildly ridiculous, but I feel a strong loyalty to Elizabeth, who of course worked for Clinton and is a fierce advocate. And, apart from her being my best friend and one of the only people whose judgment I trust almost absolutely, she is also the only one who has personally made a case, to me, for a candidate. There is secondary loyalty to Greg, yes, but he's marginally more annoying about it. As in, calling me on Super Tuesday to pester me about voting even though I wasn't in New York. (No offense.) Anyway, to paraphrase Beth's words, and also because I can't remember them exactly, Obama talks a big game, but can't back it up.
Now, my knowledge of both candidates is cursory at best; I've done a little research on their positions, but I haven't been following either campaign closely, except for the "scores." But I have read a few articles, haphazardly, one of which was a first-hand account of a New York resident who met with Clinton about his community's concern regarding a proposed coal-burning plant. Actually, sorry, here: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/1/234527/0014/392/448115 it is a blog. Rather than an article. Anyway. I've read about a few instances where Clinton exhibited (sadly) typical smarmy politician behavior. If anyone can provide me with similar examples regarding Obama, I'd appreciate it. I know I'm under-informed.
I think it's impossible to truly know either of these people, to accurately predict how their presidential terms would play out, to separate the slander from the true material out there, or even to ingest all of the information that exists.
I also don't think Obama's current lead is about gender. While my strongest reason for supporting Clinton is that she is a woman, and I am a feminist, and any woman in office is tremendous progress, I don't think it's true that people are "more ready to vote for a black man than a white woman," even in the South, where some Democrats still fly the confederate flag. I think it's more about personality, or the public perception of it. Obama is an amazing public speaker. And, just look at the overwhelming response to Clinton's "breakdown" in NH.
But, while it is about character and image for the voters, it's far harder for Clinton to navigate the rocky waters of public perception. When she showed signs of weakness, it was because she's a woman. When she's tough, and powerful, we call her cold or unfeeling. How much easier it is for Obama to give a moving speech! Any sign of emotion from him is endearing. I get so heated when I think about this that I start shaking. Because it happens to me, and every other woman, almost every day. This is why I might vote for Clinton SOLELY BECAUSE of her gender.
Anyway, as you may have noticed, I'm ambivalent, but at this point (today) I have come around to thinking, okay, even if Obama can't accomplish the things he promises, well, who can? If he can't make change happen, we should blame the flawed system. At least someone is trying. At least someone is not skirting tough questions, trying to please everyone, never making a definitive statement. At least someone has a real opinion.
Sigh. I miss Kucinich.
(By the way, you know how he demanded a recount in NH? When the count showed he'd only gotten about 1% of the votes? My dad says that when they asked him what made him think it was wrong, he said, "everyone I talked to said they voted for me..." Crazy but lovable.)