Super Tuesday? Super Hangover. (Everything is relative.)

Oy. Where to start?

The Dem race goes on and after everything, I'm still optimistic. By some counts, Obama is within a few delegates, even including the (disgustingly oligarchical) Super-delegates. Now, for Feb. 12, he'll have to shine as he did in Iowa, S. C. and the other early states. He kicks butt when he gets to introduce himself to the locals over a period. It allows people to see not only his truly inspirational persona, but that he has the substance on issues that many HRC voters seem to think he lacks. (Really - do they think Obama's running for POTUS with no well-thought out plan in mind? They must think he spends his time spinning in circles, laughing and saying “Gee, a substantive plan on policy? [smacks side of head] Why didn't I think of that”? Come on - even Ron Paul has policy answers for everything - crazy and potentially amoral as they might be.)

I learned something about myself as I watched the crazy national returns come in: as fun as it's been to get behind a great candidate and blog about it, I don't have the stomach for this politics stuff long-term. When Dem voters failed to meet my own (admittedly outrageous) expectations for them (i.e., they didn't vote more heavily for Obama), I headed to the kitchen to do the dishes. FYI and FWIW and BTW - I friggin' hate doing dishes. But on the bright side, since the dishes are now done, I'll have more time for video games and other important matters. What was I saying? Oh, yeah. I think over the long hall, I'd rather use this blog to talk about philosophy and scientific philosophy. And of course those pithy anecdotes about life on the Blue Line; like yesterday, when a homeless guy refused food because he said he didn't eat meat. Never again let it be said that beggars can't be choosers. See? That was better than politics, right?

Anyway. This morning, on NPR, they were running some interviews with Dem voters in the hotly contested state of Missouri. The bad logic and willful ignorance on display was breathtaking. This is where I heard a woman - I think she was a scientist or lawyer - voting for HRC because she wanted to see a woman in the White House. This is a terrible reason to vote for a candidate for POTUS. I didn't vote for Barack because he's a black man. I didn't vote for him in spite of his being a black man. I'm voting for him because I believe that he'll be transformative and substantive both here and abroad. I'm not a single-issue voter, but neither do I expect or require him to hit all my buttons. That's not possible (because of infinity, but that's another blog). Another man - union - basically said that HRC was the more experienced candidate. I think he said that that 'old lady' had been around forever and had experience. So did Bush. For me, the experience argument fails to play. McCain is old and has a bunch of experience, but I don't want him to be POTUS. Within reason, it's a bad criteria. Obama has plenty of experience and the mental faculties to delegate properly and inspire his designees to great heights of achievement. Name recognition is a terrible criteria, too.

I get that most people are looking for the easy way out when they vote. That doesn't mean it's not irritating for those of us who put in the time.

Wow. I think I've rambled enough. I'll try and locate my coherency later.