Possum Holler

Moving to New Jersey has thrust me into a position that I thought I was prepared for, but now realize I may not be. I am now eligible to vote in a meaningful Presidential primary.

I received my sample ballot and polling place assignment in the mail today. The ballot was nothing I hadn't seen before. There are no local races on it (no wonder there are no campaign signs on the side of the road!). It is simply a list of the candidates for the Republican and Democratic nominations. But for some reason I was overwhelmed by the choice to be made.

I am a registered Democrat, and I have been driving around for over a year with a John Edwards sticker on my car. Before moving to the north a couple of months ago, I lived 5 minutes from his house. I worked as a volunteer for his "Welcome Home" campaign event after his first week touring the country after his announcement to run for President in January of 2007. If he hadn't done so before, he won me over that day with his message and his calling of Americans to serving. In 2004, I was uninspired by John Kerry until he named Mr. Edwards his running mate.

So, my choice should be easy, right?

Well, as I sit here now, I have no idea which lever I am going to pull next week.

My heart tells me to vote for Edwards.

I know he has no chance of winning the nomination. But shouldn't we vote for the candidate whose ideas, goals and vision match up best with our own regardless of what the polls and media tell us? If you believe in a candidate, is there really such a thing as wasting a vote? I guess the answer to the question needs to come from someone who voted for Ralph Nader.

I don't see Edwards being tabbed as a running mate a second time (though it's not impossible), so I really hope that he is able to reinvent himself; maybe take a look at Jimmy Carter and Al Gore. That, or move to Iowa and run for governor (I am not kidding, this would be a great career move for him).

My head tells me to vote for Hillary Clinton.

Of the three top Democratic candidates, I feel like I know the most about Ms. Clinton, and I feel like she is the best suited to step into the job on day one and start making progress. This is one of the most important qualities to me because I believe that we are in need of immediate change and progress. Bill Clinton entered office in 1993 determined to buck the Washington establishment, and as a result, it took him 3.5 years to get anything done. I worry that Barack Obama's message of changing Washington could result in the same sort of stalemate in a time when things need to get done now.

I do believe that Clinton's time as first lady matters. She was a much bigger part of her husband's administration that any other first lady before, and I think that the lessons learned from that experience will be beneficial. Also, her time in the Senate has proved that she has grown as a result of some of her past failures.

But I still can't shake Obama.

He's fresh. He's hopeful. He's a dynamic speaker. And while I question the substance behind his rhetoric, what happens if he becomes the second coming of Jack Kennedy, combined with Bobby, with a splash of Cyrus from The Warriors?

Would I feel stupid in 20 years for not voting for him?

Though that sounds like a weak reason to vote for someone, with a candidate like this it can't be totally dismissed.

The truth is, the Democrats have two once-in-a-generation...or maybe lifetime...candidates on the ballot at the same time, yet neither seems to be driving the substantive debate. I just hope that they don't doom each other.

I will keep the Edwards '08 sticker on my car, but my decision may come all the way down to Tuesday morning. But it is a good position to be in, because regardless of the results, I would feel comfortable voting for all three in November.



I'm 3/5 of my way through the Best Picture nominated movies. I'll post some reviews soon.