God Snot, teetering on the edge, switches to Obama.

Well, now that John Edwards has dropped out of the race, I'm supporting Obama without the nagging feeling of betrayal. I, like many people, was torn between Obama and Edwards. Initially I supported Edwards because he spoke to a lot of the core values I endorse. He wanted to get rid of the lobbyists and reform those things you can't reform because of the lobbyists and also because he was white. Not that there's anything wrong with race, but I was worried that racists would keep Obama down. A good section of this country is downright unacceptably hatefilled and I thought this race was too important to avoid the same charismatic, southern, Christian, white, male mold that has served this country well since the founding fathers stopped getting elected (mostly deist). However, I was ready to jump ship after South Carolina. Specifically for the reason I didn't want Clinton. I think the Hillary Clinton lacks coattails. There's honestly close to two decades of built in hate. And even people who stand no chance of voting this their state blue (electoral votes are such that if you live in Illinois or California, there's basically no point voting; you should always vote). However if they drive out to vote against Hillary, a number of other pivotal candidates will lose. There are opportunities to make large strides in the Senate and some strides in the House but mostly if democratic voters vote and to an extent if Republicans don't (addendum: if you're a Republican go ahead and ignore the always vote advice). Well, Obama drove out so many voters in SC and young voters in Iowa that I was tempted to switch based on the fact that he could win in a landslide and drive a vast number of voters to the polls who might not have gone otherwise the the voting booths as Democrats.

With Edwards out of the race. Obama has it pretty well sewed up. That and the coattails issue. I have a choice now between negative coattails and positive coattails. Also Hillary is pretty right wing. Her position against video games may put her heavily loved by mothers, but not so heavily on the other side of me. Also, I view her as an establishment figure.

I was ready to jump ship and now I will. I hope Obama will choose Edwards as VP. Hillary could be secretary of state, Dean the surgeon general. It could be one happy family. And we could replace everybody incompetent with competent people. Ah, competence!

Soft number in NH / Endorsement

Everybody has a theory as to why Hillary won the NH primary my guess is that it has a lot to do with liking most people running on the Democratic side.

The Republican numbers were pretty straightforward because sometimes you hate one a bit less than less than the others, and the hate doesn't switch as easily as mild preference. Though I support Edwards, the field isn't that bad, I won't be mourning the eventual nominee. I actually like all three of the top folks. Though, I do rank them Edwards, Obama, Hillary as Hillary isn't liberal enough, doesn't have many coattails, and I'd just really love Edwards style reform.

Though, might as well make it official myself and Godsnot (this blog, of which I'm the only blogger) are hereby endorsing:

John Edwards for the Democratic nomination.

Previous I did endorse Alan Keyes for the Republican nomination. I think insuring a loss for the Republican party would be a more productive use of Keyes time than ranting about Cheney's lesbian daughter while ignoring his own lesbian daughter.

John Edwards will win the nomination. This prediction brought to you by Is-From-An-Ought Inc.

Hillary? NH?

Hm. I hope she doesn't win. I'd prefer a bit more of a liberal, more a shoe in, and with larger coattails... Edwards.

Driving up voting against her in areas that make a difference in her race but would in other races is a worry. That and I'd prefer some fresh blood.

I called it!

Mental note: Edit post claiming John Edwards would win the caucus.

I knew Obama would win the Iowa Caucus!

... And that's when Edwards lost my support.

It isn't his religion, it's his lack of faith that really has pushed me away from support. He says that it would be wrong to to use faith beliefs to make any policy decision. That is obviously correct. But, doesn't that make him a liar or at the least dishonest? It would be like me saying, "I fully understand and completely believe in chemistry, but I would never use my chemistry beliefs to inform my political decision." -- So when some bill comes up asking to ban all chlorine from everything, I won't rely on my background in chemistry to say, 'hell no'. 'We need chlorine for water, PVC pipe, and salt'. I will not do such a thing. I will make my decision on fear mongering alone!"

No certainly there's a difference here. Chemistry is real, objective, and science and faith is nonsense. However, he shouldn't know that. In order to be honest, he should rely on his unsound beliefs to make unsound decisions, or he should not have those unsound beliefs to begin with. What good is the belief that Poinsettias are poisonous if you don't rush your child to the emergency room just to find out it's an urban legend. Would you have any support for somebody who believed that, but when their four year old ate Poinsettias told him to walk it off?