At a time when our economy is headed for disaster, it would be nice to know that its future is in capable hands.
However, its currently in the hands of George W. Bush, a man who was riding a standing lawn mower as the Dow dropped 400 points, as shown on A Daily Show with Jon Stewart that night.
Our president has become a mockery; late night TV fodder and the laughingstock of the better part of the nation. With each of his ridiculous actions, he is taken even less seriously, and so is the entire United States.
For me, however, as our economy plummets, it loses humor and becomes scary.
In my opinion, this coming election represents a chance to bring not only economic change, but also a chance to replace our joke of a president with someone who will be taken seriously.
In short, I believe what we need is change.
It is the basis of Senator Obama's campaign, and with good reason. At a time when the current administration is failing miserably, change is needed for our economy and our image.
What I'm trying to say is, in short, we need a change in this country. In my opinion, it is one of the biggest issues in this election. Our country needs change in leadership for our economy and our image worldwide. We need a leader that we can be proud of rather than mock endlessly. Whether Barack Obama is perfect, I can't say. But I can say that he is a fresh face, a change from having a president who has already spent years of their life in Washington. He represents fresh ideas, and conveys them with enthusiasm, along with great speech giving skills. He is CHANGE, which may be exactly what we need.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Here. Read this, and see if this change is within grasp or not.
:
http://www.progressiveu.org/215523-change-we-can-believe-and-hopefully-a...
Obama and Clinton make me wanna Ralph.
http://www.naderexplore08.org/index.html
But isn't Nader a wasted vote?
He has no chance of ever winning, so a vote for him is basically a wasted vote.
You can argue that the current candidates aren't perfect, but there never will be a perfect candidate.
Ah, a vote for a third party candidate with no chance of winning isn't a waste. True, he won't win. But I want to remind you of Ross Perot. He drew about, I believe, 17% of the vote, and swung the election in favor of Clinton, since most of his votes were drawn from Republican circles.
True, but he still couldn't have won.
Yes, he affected the election in Clinton's favor.
A vote for Clinton would have done the same thing.
Sure, there will never be a perfect candidate. We must push them all to support a more progressive agenda for all. But after this is done and we've made the signs and had conversations with neighbors and friends, we the people have two choices: to vote in favor of so-called 'electability' or true democracy.
Perhaps you feel a check for Nader in the ballot is a wasted vote. But in this country, voting is one of the few expressions i can activate in this democracy, apart from political activism (running phone-banks, working for interest groups, working at polls, etc.).
Why would anyone vote against the person who represents their tip-top issues (to the extent they want the issues pursued) in a democracy?
I've heard countless folks say, 'I've gone from Kucinich to Gravel to Edwards... so now what do I do?" I say, Why does electability ever matter?
Voting for the best representative starts with you and me, because until we have a national primary where people in Iowa and New Hampshire will not have the humungo effect they currently have on our candidates, we cannot compromise our interests!
Well, you can practice democracy and vote for Nader, or you can vote for the second best candidate in your mind. At least that way you can support someone with a chance to win.
Otherwise, your vote could allow your least favorite candidate to win.
Change is definately something our country has needed for a while.
I agree that we need change. But honestly, no matter who gets elected, whether it be a Democrat such as Clinton or Obama, or even a Republican such as McCain, I believe anything will be better than what we have now and that change will occur.
Anything would be better than what we have right now.
Will you blog about the issues that are important to you and research them? I think Bush-bashing is really losing its creative edge. Please, make it more personal.
Maybe Bush-bashing is important to the writer.
Bush bashing isn't important to me.
I think its getting old.
and also.. i wouldnt know it was getting old on here.
i just joined tonight.
Well, it's the writer's blog. The writer can do whatever.
It sure is generating a lot of comments...
Sure, but the writer's freedom aside, do you feel this is constructive?
Sure. It's generating some debate. I'd say any debate is constructive, in a manner.
This is not a debate. If a debate consists of one person saying they don't favor bush-bashing, another saying it's their right to blog about whatever they want to blog about, another saying no i don't want to bush bash, the former saying 'oh no but it's your right', then it is a debate. New topic: Is anyone impressed by any candidate's specific environmental policies?
New topic: Write your own blog on your new topic. Comments are for the starting writer.
To the starting writer: Good job. You generated a lot of comments.
To the starting writer: my best wishes on your future writings.
Sustainably yours, Green Underbelly
To the starting writer: my best wishes on your future writings.
Sustainably yours, Green Underbelly