About this user
I'm a girl in Iowa. I'm leaving a career in health care for a career in academia. I'm also leaving the U.S. for Canada. I have slightly off-mainstream views on most any subject you can imagine. I'm intensely self-aware, highly analytical and used to verbalize both of those things a lot, but then people started calling me neurotic, which annoyed me. So now I just spend a lot of time in my head, or interacting with others in stereotypically "normal" ways.
I love Barack Obama to such an extreme degree that I often feel uncomfortable with my own passion for him. It's not coming from a place of logic or rationality. It's painfully reminiscent of religion.
I liked McCain in 2000, but I'm not so big on him since he became the Bush butt-boy over the past 8 years. I probably wouldn't slit my wrists if he won in November, though, I definitely won't be voting for him.
Hillary shouldn't bother me as much as she does. Her healthcare plan is far superior to Obama's. She, like Obama, would represent a major change from the status quo in terms of the face of the Presidential office. But other than her gender, I'm not sure that another Clinton in office can be all that revolutionary. My biggest problem with Hillary is that she represents division. She gets the nomination, and we can say hello to President McCain in 2009, because there are enough people in this country who, inexplicably, despise Senator Clinton to the same emotionally extreme degree as those who (like myself), inexplicably love Senator Obama.
I have friends and family members who have said that they aren't sure they'll vote in November unless Hillary gets the nomination, in which case they'll rally and carpool to get to the polls and vote for her opponent. We don't need that kind of divisive person in our White House. Eight years of a divided nation is plenty. It's time to get behind someone. I think that's probably going to be Obama.
As for the non-CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) contingency, which includes Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader - I completely agree with these guys (and their often off-putting supporters) that Washington is currently a self-serving network of good ol' boys and girls, and serious overhauling is necessary in order to keep politics as usual from destroying this nation. I agree, I agree, I agree. But I think it's been proven over and over again that these three guys aren't going to be the ones to do it. It's not that they're incapable. It's not that their ideas are wrong. It's that the American public won't let them. There have been several referendums on each of these guys, and every time, the American people have said, "nope, we don't want you." That speaks volumes. You can't change the world if you can't convince the world that it needs to be changed. So for the end goal of getting the CFR out of major U.S. policy, let's sweep these guys aside and try another cast. Over time, the American public will see enough people saying the same thing, and some of it will start to stick. And then maybe we'll find ourselves a highly charismatic and lovable non-CFR who can come in and lead us out of the CFR BFE. Kucinich, Nader and Paul may have pointed the way to the Promised Land, but they won't be the ones to take us in.
