Super Tuesday? What's So Super about It?

1/21/08 update: Terrell informed me that Obama is a member of The United Church of Christ not the Churches of Christ. I researched and double-checked his info and found that there is very significant difference between the two denominations. So please disregard my comments about Obama's religious affiliation. Thanks, Terrell.

Well, it is about time for my annual (more or less) post about politics. If I were rating quantity of interest in political discussions on a scale of 1-10, with 10 being the highest, my siblings would all rank way on up there -- 8 or 9 at the least -- 12 or so for a couple of them! My rank, on the other hand, is probably 1 or maybe a smidgen more!

I am not bragging. I am very aware that a greater involvement and interest in discussing politics would be a good thing. I have tried; honest, I have! It just seems to me that most of the furor and discussion that goes on about political issues serves no purpose except to further polarize people. Everyone talks just to persuade others to their view. No one listens to anyone who holds a different view on whatever the topic du jour is. The liberals just soothe each other and get more liberal; the conservatives just soothe each other and get more conservative!

That said, I do want to air a few views on the upcoming presidential election (just because I don't like to talk about politics doesn't mean that I don't think about issues and form opinions! It is just that usually I don't feel compelled to try to have everybody else think about them exactly the same way I do.)

If you are still reading, please mentally preface each of the following observations (about the paltry choice we are being given for a future national leader) with the new-fangled texting fixture IMHO (In My Humble Opinion, for you non-texters.)

Do we have a choice on Super Tuesday? I don't think so! Here are my objections to the likely suspects and wannabes on both sides of the aisles (don't forget the IMHO now!) Let's alternate the political affiliations.

Mike Huckabee - As governor of one of our historically most backward states in the union, what can he bring to the national scene? We saw during Clinton's presidency that being governor of a non-progressive state doesn't translate well into the presidency. If he can't do it for a state, what makes anyone think he can do it for the nation?

Hillary Clinton - I hardly know where to begin. I thought she was a strong first lady for the eight years that her husband was president; she made up for a lot of his shortcomings. (Remember that IMHO!) My spirit just does NOT bear witness with hers that she has an ounce on sincerity in her. She comes across as terribly focused on herself and her own aspirations, self-centered, if you will. One could say the same thing about her that was just stated about Huckabee -- she was backstage-governor of Arkansas and backstage-president with her husband for eight years and neither the state nor the nation are better for her having been there.

John McCain - At least he comes across as experienced and presidential. He doesn't seem to think and speak on the fly as well as necessary; but he appears to be sincere, authentic, patriotic, and experienced. I wonder if he is too easily irritated and might make decisions based on feelings rather than rational thought.

Barack Obama - Where did he come from? Had anybody ever heard of him before he declared his intention to run for president? I'm all for enthusiam, but I think it is best paired up with experience and mature thought processes. I'm a big believer in "coming up through the ranks" and "working one's way to the top." I'd prefer my president to come into the OK Corral with his guns fully loaded with experience and knowledge. Okay, now a prejudice: He's a member of the Church of Christ - not the most rational Christian denomination in the world - actually one that is known for exuding prejudice against women and being closed to possible differing opinions.

John Edwards - I don't really have much to say on this one. He just seems like a phantom. Is he there? Does he have an agenda? I have no big objection -- also no reason to support him.

Mitt Romney - Ho hum - the John Edwards syndrome - no reasons for support -- no pros or cons - no excitement - no fireworks.

I guess I might as well throw in a comment or two about a couple of others who are on the fringes of this thing.

Fred Thompson - We once had a Methodist bishop who was in charge of the whole state's churches -- and we joked about him sleeping through meetings. Well, this seems to be Fred Thompson. I don't think he has the stamina for the job.

Rudy Giuliani - Who? Oh yeah, he's one of those who can't even hang in there with a wife - why do we think he can stick with us?

I hope you didn't forget those IMHOs! I wish we had a choice for a future president that could engender a little excitement and a little hope for a better future; but I believe that Super Tuesday is not going to be very "super" no matter how it turns out! And that, of course, will leave us with even less choice in the November elections.