It’s hard to stop feeling melancholy, remembering and then recognizing that what’s gone is gone for good.
I play Mary Chapin Carpenter’s album with which blogger friend Dave Rogers kindly gifted me through ITunes. It’s melancholy resonates with mine and fills me. And then the melancholy is gone, at least for now. I can think of something else besides what’s lost.
I can think of something like the elections.
I’ve had mixed feelings about Hillary Clinton for the same reasons that many others do. But I’m slowly becoming more and more convinced that she’s the better democratic candidate.
I was particularly interested in the points made in the Washington Post by Geoff Garin, strategist on the Clinton campaign.

So let me get this straight.
On the one hand, it’s perfectly decent for Obama to argue that only he has the virtue to bring change to Washington and that Clinton lacks the character and the commitment to do so. On the other hand, we are somehow hitting below the belt when we say that Clinton is the candidate best able to withstand the pressures of the presidency and do what’s right for the American people, while leaving the decisions about Obama’s preparedness to the voters.
Who made up those rules? And who would ever think they are fair?

[snip]

The bottom line is that one campaign really has engaged in a mean-spirited, unfair character attack on the other candidate — but it has been Obama’s campaign, not ours. You would be hard-pressed to find significant analogues from our candidate, our senior campaign officials or our advertising to the direct personal statements that the Obama campaign has made about Clinton.
The problem is that the Obama campaign holds itself to a different standard than the one to which it holds us — and sometimes the media do, too.

There are no saints in politics. But there are those who can get the job of fixing this country done more effectively than others.
I originally supported John Edwards. Hillary Clinton is my next choice.