Jen's Green Journal

Elections are like dating. Most people see only what they want to see in the candidate or potential partner. Well, they might see a few flaws, but they are pretty certain that once they've formed the relationship, they will be able to change the person to fit their idealized view, or that person will change with the change in relationship status. The reality, of course, is that they usally can't.

After making the commitment or electing the politician, there is an extended period where the glasses are fogged up and a state of denial about the flaws of the partner or politician becomes even more entrenched. After all, you chose the person, they must be wonderful. But after a few years, some of the worst qualities begin to rub away the loving glow. 

Fortunately for presidents, they don't remain in office long enough for their most ardent supporters to long for divorce. Even a not so healthy and good relationship in the past can look positively heavenly when followed by an extremely horrible one.

My prediction: The Dems will select a candidate that is willing to compromise issues like peace, healthcare, environment and will be so overjoyed if that person wins the presidency that they will overlook his (or her) flaws for a very long time, or will hope that they will change and become better people in office. After all, we will just be getting out of one of the worst relationships of our lives. Just about anyone would be an improvement. 

My 2nd prediction: I'll probably tick off a Democrat or two with this post. 

Not if you vote for the front runners.

DemocracyNow! asks this question. The front runners for both parties have advisors who are ex-U.S. officials involved in atrocities around the world. Republicans, of course have a lot to answer for, but Clinton, Obama and Edwards all have problems amongst their advisors as well.

From DemocracyNow! :

" . . .these cliques generally can be categorized as not only pro-establishment, but more pro-interventionist, whether it be the so-called liberal interventionists on the Democratic side or your war hawks on the Republican side.

But what became clear is that the candidates weren’t reaching outside of these establishment cliques and that they were getting no fresh ideas, no vision outside of these pretty standard parameters."

(snip)

"AMY GOODMAN: And is Edwards and Clinton any different on those issues? 

ALLAN NAIRN: Not as far as I can tell. None of them have come out for single payer. The only one who came out for single payer was Kucinich. Campaign contributions is just one of many tools that rich people have to get their way. There are basically two parallel factors in any democracy. One is one person, one vote. The other is one dollar, one vote. And those two are mixed together. So, although the people do have some say, there are usually a lot more dollars out there than people, and they find ways of prevailing in the end, unless the people become aggressive and disruptive and demanding and threaten to shake the system so that big concessions are made." (emphasis mine).

Looks like the only way to get change is to support those who are currently fringe candidates. Sadly, most Dems won't agree with me and it will be busine$$ as usual. If a Dem front runner wins will see further steps away from progressivism a la Bill Clinton at best, or continually giving into the Republicans on major issues a la the last 8 years at worse. Or is it the other way around? If the Dems lose they will of course blame it on the Greens or the progressives who can't in good conscience vote for what the Dems are starting to stand for.

Read the entire interview transcript here.