a (don't hate me) political entry

ben has been tirelessly touting bob graham as the neglected candidate in the dem showdown. indeed people haven't been taking him seriously as a contender, despite his actual experience, the fact that he hails from the south -- whence, as everyone keeps telling us, the only winning dems hail -- , and actually quite liberal views.
he didn't make nearly as much money as kerry, gephardt, or dean this past quarter, for one thing. he's also not jostling for room on the the-government's-been-lyin-to-us! soapbox, unlike several candidates i could name, nearly all of whom voted for bush's damn war.

although i think anything anyone says to undermine america's misguided faith in our president is a step in the right direction, as well as anything that keeps criticism of the white house on the front page, it's hard not to see it as craven vote-mongering. especially since the only people shouting are those trying to draw attention to their campaigns.

which brings me back to the point: it's refreshing that graham isn't among them. maybe that's because he voted against the war in the first place.

i'm finding it difficult to get energized about a particular candidate at the moment, myself. the rhetoric is so bland and interchangeable. fight for the future, wrong direction, blah. graham, though sympathetic, strikes me as more of a well-meaning guy than a firebrand (be a bobcat? come on). i understand why dean is so compelling. the man at least has passion. aside from all the name dropping of dead white males + mlk jr, he's actually saying something, strongly. and he understands the way to surf the wave of the future: blogger, man, all the way.

what's the issue with dean again? is it just backlash? i mean, alex likes him as does janeane garofolo. frankly the man looks presidential (how tall is he exactly?) and sometimes that's totally what it comes down to.