Presidential Pansies

I think I may be the only member of this blog who will be unable to vote in the 2004 election.

The Presidential Debate was... not interesting, enlightening, or useful. Last Tuesday, I interviewed Michael Badnarik, Libertarian candidate for president and David Cobb, the Green Party candidate. I don't understand how anyone can vote without having at least a 15 minute conversation with each candidate. How they can respond to an audience of one is a very interesting, enlightening, and useful bit of information.

I was given 30 minutes with Mr. Badnarik. He was riding in the rain to get to a press conference. He has a penchant for answering questions with rapid-fire rhetorical questions: "Would you want... Do you know... What if... And now what... Do you think...?" It's a habit that's irritating in practice, endearing in retrospect and just ridiculous in theory. He also talks in slogans. DAMN! I wish I'd been able to record the conversation. I need to learn shorthand.

I was scheduled for 30 minutes with Mr. Cobb but apparently his secretary double-booked him and the interview was cut down to 15 minutes. He was like your eighth grade history teacher (or my 12th grade government teacher). They only seem to know so much, so in answering my questions they must pick out a key word, work the little search engine in their brain, pick out a stock answer that might loosely fit, and tweak it just so that the answer is just convoluted enough to seem like it was sensible. I wish I'd had 30 mintes--maybe I would have gotten him to say something interesting. Or at least unrehearsed.

To wrap up this terribly long and disjointed post, I'd just like to ask what presidential criteria are important to you. I'd also like to say that Kerry and Bush are both unprepared pansies when it comes to public debate. Beating the public over the head with your main message, in the same words, again and again and again, is BAD FORM!

Et fin.