Why The Little Guy Should Quit, And Other Thoughts

I'm a democrat, but even more so, I'm a Bush-hater. I laugh at anti-Bush bumper stickers, I felt the suffocating weight of despair after the 2004 elections, and I seriously wonder who besides the theocrats could possibly believe that the man is anything but dangerous to the future of this nation. He has proclaimed himself to be the voice of God, has proposed a constitutional amendment not only legalizing but forcing discrimination against law-abiding tax-paying U.S. citizens because his interpretation of his religion endorses it (Doesn't that same bible say that unmarried sexually active women should be stoned to death? I wonder then, about the fate of his own daughters.), has picked apart the meaning and intent of the Geneva Convention more than Clinton ever did with the word sex, and has managed to start not one but two wars (and then effectively abandoned the one against the people who actually attacked us). So yes, I'm a Bush-hater. And if anyone can tell me one thing he has done that may actually benefit this country, without throwing religious beliefs at me, I welcome and encourage your comments. And for the record, the war in Iraq doesn't count. Yes Saddam was a bad man and we got him. But the world is full of bad men and it's not worth, in my opinion, 2000+ American lives per villain to run around and dig them all out of holes. Kill Saddam, kill 2000+ American troops, kill Saddam, kill 2000+ American troops. The scales aren't even close on that one, sorry.

So imagine my joy when the Democratic party shows promise with not one but two promising presidential hopefuls. Yes, there are going to be people who will vote against them rather than for the name beside the hole they do punch, but for the most part it's Obama vs. Clinton in the primary. I know it; everybody knows it. But now the other democratic hopefuls are running around pouting that they're being left out of the spotlight. Hey! We finally have the spotlight! As far as I'm concerned the rest of the dems should take a cue from Vilsack and drop out and leave the primary to the main two. Then whoever wins should put the other on their ticket. Obama Clinton 08 or Clinton Obama 08. Either way it's the best chance we have of keeping this country out of the Bush followers' hands.

This country is fighting theocracies around the world, yet the conservative Christian right wants to make us one as well. When we fought the "Godless Communists" we didn't denounce religion, so why should we live by a centuries-old book while fighting injustices which are clear evidence of what happens when a nation lives by a centuries-old book? Islamic law or Christian law. They both boil down to interpretations of words translated over and over again and then twisted to mean whatever people want them to mean or think they should mean. Yes, there are passages in the bible warning of the evils of homosexual sex. But there are warnings just as stern against premarital sex and against adultery whether or not you're the one cheating (coveting ring a bell?), yet no one tries to push constitutional bans on single people having sex, or against allowing people to marry their former mistresses or male equivalent. And why? Because even though the bible mentions a lot of places you should not stick a penis, as well as times when not to stick it there, unless it grosses out the straight white male elite it gets kind of downplayed. According to the bible it's a sin to even jerk off about another man's wife. And yet, most of the sex symbols today are married and no congressman rallies against that. We all know that when you put Halle Berry in a catsuit and tell her to crawl around and purr with her back arched, very few male audience member are going to go home raving about how well she mimicked a siamese. No, those men are going to go home, pre-order the DVD, and stock up on tissues, even though she was married at the time of the filming. Well BAM, you're going to hell. You just coveted another man's wife; that's a commandment you're breaking and even the fags didn't make it into the top ten. But the Republicans want to jerk off about married women, and even the single ones want to get laid. But for the most part, they don't want to suck dick or take it in the bum so they pounce all over that as being an Abomination.

It bothers me that these people may once again choose the president. And it bothers me even more that the little guys, the Chris Dodds and Bill Richardsons, might actually take some votes away from the Big Two. Sure, it's just the primary now. But what if one of them decides to go Lieberman and run anyway? Independents don't win the presidency. This country may be ready to elect a woman or a black man president, but not an independent. Perot, Nader, they just took votes away from the other candidates. And the Democrats can't afford to lose any votes; didn't 2000 teach us that already?

Of course, the biggest fear would be that somehow one of these guys could actually win the primary. Hillary (although I still question her electability) has the closest thing to presidential experience a person can get without having been President or VP, and Obama has some sort of other-worldly charisma that fills stadiums and generates Beatlemania screams. Those two might be able to win over some swing voters, but an unknown senator from Delaware? I don't think so. My money is on an Obama - Clinton ticket.

And as for the whole "Obama isn't black because he's not a slave's descendant" thing that seems to have gripped the media lately: WTF does black mean anyway? I don't seem to recall too many black Americans arguing whenever Nelson Mandella was referred to as being black. And thirty years ago the black community was wearing African inspired clothing and Afros and naming their daughters Shaniqua. Why is an African man (second generation notwithstanding) suddenly not black? If you want to argue that he's not black, argue that his mother's white. That at least makes sense.