Primarily sickening
If nothing else, I've lost a lot of my cynicism about the role of cash in a presidential primary. Dean was able to raise $700,000 in a single day, while Clark is struggling to do it in a week's time. And we're placing ahead of him in the polls and the recent primaries.
And then I look at how Kerry, Edwards, and Clark are viewed by the media (and how the public seems to reflect this in their voting) and I get sick. The cynicism has returned, but it's in a different place.
The DNC has made a concerted effort to shorten the primary season so that the democratic candidate can raise more money. This short-circuiting of the primary process can't really help. It will provide an opening for disaffected liberals to desert the party and support Dean when he goes third-party or Nadar's re-appearance.
Being a registered voter in a "late primary" state, I've a feeling that I'll really see my interest in voting wane as the vote would serve only to endorse or register dissent against the front runner.
Of course, a lot of people are much more pragmatic than myself when it comes to voting. They're willing to vote for a candidate they dislike simply because they find the other repulsive. Many of these same people will turn around and claim that I must vote since voting is the cornerstone of democracy. Obviously, its hard for me to vote for something that I don't believe in, so when people argue that I should vote simply because we live in a democracy, it grates me the wrong way. Abstaining is a way of expressing yourself in a democracy.
