I also look forward to hearing about the Libertarian nominee, as you will be one of my primary sources on that front.

On the subject of elitism, I wonder if the media has just been using “anti-elitism” as a synonym for racism rather than for “populist”. I think this term is less about “We want a candidate who is just like us…” than “We want a candidate who is one of us, and not one of them…”

If you think this issue isn’t still central to whatever choice one will have come November, consider who McCain would nominate to the Supreme Court should he become president. Presidents might change every 4 years, assuredly in 8, but bad Supreme Court Justices are a life sentence for all of us.

Also: I don’t what alternate media reality you’ve been living in, but characterizing Obama and Clinton’s position on Iraq as “we’ll just leave” rhetoric is astonishingly ignorant. In reality, both of them explicitly call for measured withdrawals, albeit with quite different milestones. See here and here.

And, unlike McCain, at least they both can see that the occupation of Iraq has been–and will continue to be==a dismal failure that will break the back of our smaller high-tech, all-volunteer military. Frankly, the occupation isn’t winnable without a massive build-up (300-500%) of US ground troops in Iraq, and that would require a draft, and not even McCain is willing to face that music. Empire doesn’t come without a price tag.

As for your poor reasoning re elites, why don’t you finish it? You admit you oppose Hillary because of her last name, state you are embarrassed by that fact, question whether that alone constitutes anti-elitism, indulge in droll character assassination by belittling Hillary’s long and substantial record of crafting policy as no more than “sleeping with the President,” then go on to defend a choice among elites as the best thing for us. But you never return to the issue that is central–who is actually better qualified to lead among the elites the system is coughing up this year? Or perhaps you’d rather become a Fox-news pundit, proclaiming merit as the decisive factor and then letting your own spin and clever misdirection take the place of an honest assessment of merit.

One last point: Hillary spells her name with two L’s.

Except, as we’ve seen in this cycle we have pretty damn competent people running and not the usual shortage of them. Suddenly it’s not an example of rejecting someone simply based on her family affiliation and potentially corrupting experience, but rather just giving someone else a chance to play for a change. New ideas, new styles of leadership. Who’s to say that maybe having other countries like us for once isn’t such a bad idea after all? Or maybe it’s not worth it, and we’re the strongest country in the world (for now) so the others can just tough it. I can’t say, but fortunately our system allows us a four year experiment with change. We tried this last one and I am as shocked by the damage he’s cause as I am by the lack of it. This [the Bush administration], too, shall pass.

I am no more concerned about McCain’s anti-abortion stance than I was of the Catholic John Kerry’s (who is personally against abortion). McCain is unlikely to act on this issue as it’s not significant enough to him; a problem that gets him in no shortage of hot water with his conservative base. It’s not a good thing, but I also don’t expect to agree with everything a president thinks either. (Abortion rights are the most common single issue/deal-breaker issue for many U.S. Americans. I struggle not to let it be a single issue for me too.) His 100 year Iraq strategy is also likely hyperbole, but at least it’s honest. More honest, frankly, than the we’ll just leave rhetoric from Clinton and Obama. It’s not so easy as that, and they know it. I am not supporting McCain here either, but I think his track record is more mixed than the ‘rabidly anti-choice social policies’ you claim.

My own reservations about Hillary stem more from the fact that she will not face the mathematical reality that she cannot reasonably expect to win the pledged delegate count and hence must believe she might get close enough to win big among the superdelegate, unelected party-insider delegates. I don’t know about you, but I want a president who can exhibit leadership by doing the math and then facing the music in the open, whether that math is the facts about the economy, the cost of the Iraqi war, the realities of how CO2 emissions and other pollutants impact the environment, or how people have voted. If she can’t face the difficult math and then step aside, how can I trust her to do the difficult math and lead the country in the right direction?

As for the general election though, suppose Obama stumbles somehow–say so badly he just withdraws– and she does get the nomination in a more fair fashion. Then listen to what she says and what McCain says. I may like how honestly McCain says some things, but the fact remains that I differ with him on almost every major policy issue, from his view that we might need to stay in Iraq 100 years before we “win”, to his rabidly anti-choice social policies, to his views on who good Supreme court nominees would be, and to his repeated insistence that “economics is not his strong suit” when asked for his views on how we should deal with the current economic malaise. I suspect you might be closer to his position on some of these matters, but in the end shouldn’t the choice come down whether you generally agree with what the candidates and their advisors say about the most important issues?

In short, what worries me about McCain is not his ability to face facts, it is his inability to grasp them in the first place.

I guess the difference
was only in my mind

I also remembered today
that Thailand is ruled by an elite(st).

They love the guy,
(and he seems like a decent and capable guy)
but I’m not sure it always works so well.

Maybe when the people trust an elite(st)
leader too much they run the risk
of letting the leader do everything
and don’t take enough personal responsibility.

‘Elite’: noun
1 a group of people considered to be the best in a particular society or category, esp. because of their power, talent, or wealth : China’s educated elite | [as adj. ] an elite combat force.

I don’t know about the ‘wealth’ part, but um, doesn’t seem all that bad to be elitist or elite, nor do I see a huge difference.

I would hope
that everybody
would agree with your feelings
about having the smartest,
most talented person
as president.

(Although as I remember
many understandably bitter
Midwesterners clinging
to guns and religion
voted for Bush because
he’s the type of guy
you could drink a beer –
not someone with whom
you probably couldn’t.)

Showing favoritism toward
only the intelligensia
might not be the best idea.

(Although I can’t think
of a time when that’s
really happened politically
on a large scale,
so maybe it’s time
to give it a try.)

One things for sure though-
I feel more like having a beer
with Obama more after
reading his “elitest” remarks.