So, I haven’t really been following the US presidency stuff, but I got into a discussion the other night, so decided to learn more about the candidates; specifically, about Ron Paul, whose policies I’d heard were somewhat unrealistic but who the guy I was talking to described as "more than usually clueful, for a Republican".
Firstly, he’s a libertarian. What this seems to equate to is "let everyone do what they like with no state intervention, and rely on the kindness inherent in human beings to stop rich people screwing over poor people". Needless to say, I, as a committed pinko lefty, think that this is a load of bollocks, and if I need to explain why you probably shouldn’t even bother reading this. Various of his policies show similar, typically-libertarian lack of clue, like his belief is free-market environmentalism (i.e., "if corporations own lots of land they won’t want to pollute it", as far as I can tell, and maybe also "if corporations pollute other peoples’ land, they’ll get sued for it"), and his advocacy against federal management of healthcare—because again, it’ll obviously be in the best interests of the rich people owning the hospitals to provide free healthcare for those who can’t afford it otherwise. Seriously: the healthcare system in the US is bad enough as it is, without buggering it up even more. If nothing else is nationalised, healthcare should be.
Secondly, he’s anti-abortion. Not only does this mean I’d never even consider voting for him if I was actually an American citizen, but in his case it utterly confuses me—a supposed libertarian who’s in favour of reducing individual freedoms? Yeah, that makes sense. Not only that, but as a qualified doctor (and, in fact, obstetrician), he shows astonishing lack of clue when he claims that "life begins at conception". Oh, wait, it’s okay, because he thinks it should be handled at the state level, not the federal level. That makes it okay.
I do respect his stand on civil liberties issues—I’d expect nothing less of a libertarian, in fact, though there do seem to be some oversights, like his opposition to abortion and his voting against adoption rights for unmarried/same-sex couples.
Anyway. On to the other candidates
Huckabee should not be allowed to be president. He should not be allowed out in public, let alone allowed to hold public office. The man is a possibly-dangerous psychotic, and should be locked up. Religion has no place in government, and nobody who thinks that it’d be okay—even advisable—to "amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view" should be allowed to run a country. Also, he should take more care with his grammar. Seriously, though, if anyone could be worse than Bush, it’s Huckabee—he’s homophobic, he’s racist, he’s a creationist, he’s in favour of the death penalty and against gun control. If he’s elected, I’m finding a place as far as possible from the US and any of its likely targets, and avoiding civilisation for 4-8 years.
Clinton and Obama present a problem; they’re both good candidates in that I think it’d be a good idea for the USA to have a black president or a woman president, and it’s a shame that currently they’re forced to compete against each other rather than against the real problem, the extreme conservatives among the Republican party. It’s also been mentioned that Obama seems to be sneaking sexist comments about Clinton into speeches, and Clinton seems to do the same with racist comments about Obama—it’s a shame that they can’t rise above that kind of thing.
Otherwise, they seem to be excellent candidates—looking at their voting records on VoteSmart, Clinton seems to have supported the invasion of Iraq, which is a shame (Obama wasn’t a senator at the time), but they both seem to have been fairly opposed to the war since then. They’re pro-choice, and in general fairly sensible—apparently, their voting records are something like 97% similar. With that in mind, I’d probably choose Clinton simply because she has more political experience, even though I’m slightly more in favour of Obama in terms of policies.
One last thing regarding the two of them—anyone who suggests that a feminist who supports Obama over Clinton is somehow "betraying the cause" needs to be beaten with a cluestick, and asked if supporting Clinton over Obama isn’t racist. kthxbye.