Freedom of choice

Ralph Nader is running for president again. Cuba has a new president. Nader has about as much chance of winning as Raul Castro had of losing. Is there ever a real choice in an American presidential election? Do the candidates themselves even have much choice, given the demands of both funding and political positioning? I realize that this certainly isn’t a new question, but a two-party system really doesn’t provide much more choice than a one-party system.

As an American living in Europe, I’m often asked who I like in the election, Clinton or Obama. (No one ever assumes that I’m Republican, but they’re surprised when I tell them that I’m not a Democrat either.) Nader has not yet announced his party affiliation (as a Green, I’ve always questioned Nader running as the Green candidate–since I’ve always thought of “think global, act local” as essential to being a Green, running a presidential candidate has always seemed to me to be profoundly unlocal thinking, and anything that got Bush into the White House was profoundly unglobal thinking). My question about the candidates is this–who is going to use the tools of diplomacy to open the channels of communication between conflicting parties and help them find common ground. Who is going to put the interests of all of us ahead of the interests of business to quickly (not by 2050) put the brakes on global warming? Who is going to keep the US out of war without allowing it to become isolationist–who will wage proactive peace?

Knitting today–I finished a sock that I’m knitting in Cherry Tree Hill, Barbara Walker’s Elegant Rib pattern, with a star toe to save yarn–it’s gonna be a challenge to see if I make it all the way to the toe of the second sock….