Wow, charlotte hit the nail on the head for me when it comes to the Democratic party nominees. I, too, have been struggling with whom to vote for the past few weeks, and I had been trying to follow their policies closely, especially on energy, and I just couldn't really discern any big difference. I don't want to repeat too much of what people have alredy been saying, but it basically boils down to some more ethanol and bioenergy/renewable/green/etc resources over the next few decades or so...
I found a nice site,
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/
which had all the nominees' issues laid out nicely, but between the Hillary and Barack, I just couldn't find anything substantial to say, "oh I like this one's policy better than that one's." So, in the end, it also came down to their personalities when I voted last week. I know it's not a very educated approach, and I kind of felt bad that I might be wronging someone, but it's my vote, and I found no better way to go at it, currently. I think both candidates are good, but I always found Obama to be more about the flash than the substance. For me, Clinton was 50/50 on the speeches and the action, whereas Obama was more like 75/25 respectively. Anyways, I think either would be a fine President, and I'm backing the Democratic nominee, whomever it is in the end.
I just wish they had a few more differences that I could take a liking to.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I don't think you need to feel bad for not being able to take a more empirical approach to selecting a better candidate when none is offered to you. Despite many opportunities throughout the campaign season, neither democratic candidate has sought to strongly differentiate his or her campaign from the opponent's regarding energy (or really, almost everything). Chalk this one up as a shortcoming of the candidates rather than an inadequacy of the voters.
Post a Comment