[HejiraNYC]

I have given some thought to this recently (believe it or not!), and I have come to the following conclusions:

-I no longer consider myself a Democrat. At least the "new" Democratic party as it exists today, which, as Donna Brazile so notoriously pointed out, is comprised only of blacks and upscale white liberals. As much as I would like to say that I left the Democrats, in reality they left me. They have also become a party that rewards under-handed Karl Rove-ian tactics and has shown time after time how spineless they have become, as evidenced by the outrageously anti-American ruling by the RBC on May 31. The Democratic majority in congress has been completely useless, Pelosi is a total failure as senate majority leader (what about that Bush impeachment, Toots?) and Howard Dean is a complete moron.

-My beliefs tend to track more along the lines of what is now considered Libertarian- minimal government intervention, socially very liberal, fiscally very conservative- positions that are somewhat at odds with Obama's stand on the issues.

-As nice as all of Obama's plans seem to sound, I really have not heard how we are going to pay for any of this. I have no reason to believe that Obama has even the foggiest idea about basic economic principles, which leads me to believe he is the second coming of Jimmy Carter. At least Hillary offers some broad outline of how things would be funded, and she does have the advantage of being connected to Bill, who managed to eke out a 500 billion dollar budget surplus by the end of his term.

- Speaking of Jimmy Carter, I can't get beyond this image of Obama being the same kind of wet dish rag when it comes to foreign policy. I could easily see how Obama would allow an Iran hostage situation to drag on for years with no resolution- his record has shown him to be a person who is hesitant about taking a firm stand on an issue, a malignant pacifist and a person who will do or say anything to get what he wants, no matter how damaging it may be to others.

-In the sum total of things, you are defined by the company you keep. I think we all know the deal with Obama.

At the end of the day, I think Obama's "cinching" of the nomination is a tainted victory- by the electoral votes that were basically handed to him from MI. Only in some dictatorship would a person get votes from an election they didn't run in. And the caucuses were completely rigged (e.g., busing thousands of voters in from out of state, where voter IDs were not checked, etc.). And Hillary did win the popular vote. How very un-democratic of the Democrats. It is an utter disgrace, and it's sad that they have turned into a bunch of weak, indecisive, morally bankrupt elitists.

My main problem with McCain is his party affiliation. But at least he has a track record (unlike Obama) of not always voting with his party, so he isn't just blowing hot air when he says that he is different from Bush. He actually acknowledges global warming and the need for energy independence- and actually voted against Bush's ludicrous energy bill (which Obama voted for, BTW). He actually acknowledges gay rights and voted against Bush's proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, which, like Obama and Clinton, he believes should be decided at the state level . He does not come across as some kind of freaky evangelical (ala Huckabee), and he does not come across as some kind of hypocrite (ala Obama); he's been fully vetted after decades of public service. Regarding Roe v. Wade, the GOP has had decades to overturn this, yet they haven't. Considering all of the crap that's going on in the world today, I do not think a sh*tstorm like removing abortion rights is going to be a top priority any time soon; my feeling is that it is just one of those overplayed wedge issues that gets the right wing stirred up every election cycle. But ultimately, if Ann Coulter hates him, it means that he's probably a pretty decent guy... on some level.

Also, since it appears that both the House and the Senate are going to have a pretty significant Democratic majority under the next president, I am a bit concerned about giving the Democrats too much power, which could be just as bad as giving the GOP too much power. My main concern is that every manner of bailout, payout, subsidy legislation (which the Dems love) is going to be passed unhindered, taxes will be raised and our debt will increase even more. The most recent example of this was that idiotic housing bailout bill sponsored by Barney Frank, which would have passed if it wasn't for the wise (I can't believe I'm saying this) veto by Bush. In 8 years of being president, that is the one and only thing he did correctly. Anyway, my sense is that a Dem-controlled congress along with a GOP-controlled executive branch *may* be necessary in order to keep some semblance of checks and balances. This could help to prevent some really wacky legislation from going through.

So there you have it- if it's not Clinton (and she's still technically running ), then it's McCain for me.