You're gonna be bothered by how cool I am.

I hate posting about politics because all it usually does is make me feel dumb and ignorant. But I follow the candidates and issues, though not nearly as closely as a lot of people, and I have opinions that I'm glad I get to utilize in a voting booth. Even if those opinions are not as informed as they might be, and even if they end up being the "losing" opinion.

Which is why it incenses me beyond measure to see posts like this, telling supporters of John Edwards to essentially jump ship and hop on "the Obama train" so that we don't "give this thing to Hilary." Um, WHAT?! So I should vote for someone else because my guy might lose? FORTY-EIGHT STATES FROM NOW?! All my "losing" vote is doing is taking a vote away from the "right" candidate and enabling the "wrong" one (whatever the heck that means) to win the nomination?! How do you know Clinton wouldn't be my second choice anyway?

Quite frankly, I think Edwards WOULD be the most bankable Democratic candidate in a general election. But if it's not going to be him, I'm really not that passionately attached to which of the other two gets the nomination. None of them could possibly be a worse president than ... well, I'll just leave that be.

It's great that people are getting into the caucuses and following the candidates, but it's kind of a curse, too. By the time we hit November (or even the conventions this summer), everyone will be sick to death of ALL of the candidates and ALL of them will have done something or had some skeleton pulled out of their closets that turns public opinions against them. Look how little it took with Howard Dean in 2004.

I just think a lot of people are getting too impatient to find out what's going to happen this summer. Not that I blame them - it *is* very exciting. But I think the first two caucuses have shown us that this is going to be the kind of race that we haven't seen in a while. And as such, to write off an underdog candidate and paint votes for that person as merely votes taken *away* from a worthier/likelier candidate is just wrong.

I hate posting about politics because all it usually does is make me feel dumb and ignorant. But I follow the candidates and issues, though not nearly as closely as a lot of people, and I have opinions that I'm glad I get to utilize in a voting booth. Even if those opinions are not as informed as they might be, and even if they end up being the "losing" opinion.

Which is why it incenses me beyond measure to see posts like this, telling supporters of John Edwards to essentially jump ship and hop on "the Obama train" so that we don't "give this thing to Hilary." Um, WHAT?! So I should vote for someone else because my guy might lose? FORTY-EIGHT STATES FROM NOW?! All my "losing" vote is doing is taking a vote away from the "right" candidate and enabling the "wrong" one (whatever the heck that means) to win the nomination?! How do you know Clinton wouldn't be my second choice anyway?

Quite frankly, I think Edwards WOULD be the most bankable Democratic candidate in a general election. But if it's not going to be him, I'm really not that passionately attached to which of the other two gets the nomination. None of them could possibly be a worse president than ... well, I'll just leave that be.

It's great that people are getting into the caucuses and following the candidates, but it's kind of a curse, too. By the time we hit November (or even the conventions this summer), everyone will be sick to death of ALL of the candidates and ALL of them will have done something or had some skeleton pulled out of their closets that turns public opinions against them. Look how little it took with Howard Dean in 2004.

I just think a lot of people are getting too impatient to find out what's going to happen this summer. Not that I blame them - it *is* very exciting. But I think the first two caucuses have shown us that this is going to be the kind of race that we haven't seen in a while. And as such, to write off an underdog candidate and paint votes for that person as merely votes taken *away* from a worthier/likelier candidate is just wrong.