And what really makes the Democrats any better, eh? I know where you're going with this but I just have to disagree on general principles, really. Take a look at the history of the Democratic Party before proudly supporting it, please.
"Here, Mr. Bruce Lee, take a look at this blog post I wrote on how to perform martial arts--before you embarrass yourself."
I will tell you this...if the positions of the two parties were reversed we'd see the Democrats acting just as corrupt and power-hungry as the Republicans, I guarentee you, because they're all politicians, and those who spend so much time seeking power do not deserve to have it.
Demonstrably false. On the surface, just look at the timeline: It took the Democrats forty years to get voted out of power (and even then it wasn't for corruption); it took the Republicans just twelve years to collapse in the unholy corruption stew of their own brewing. But that's "not being fair," so why not consider this:
1) Democrats, being further to the left than Republicans, are naturally less inclined to be corrupt. Social justice, economic empowerment, government accountability, and environmental responsibility are major Democratic causes.
2) Democrats receive less lobbying money by major corporate interests. The fat cats know who is more likely to scratch their backs, and it ain't the Dems.
3) Liberals are vastly more Democratic than Republican. Liberals keep government officials on their toes. Liberals hate corrupt politicians.
4) The left-wing in America, by its nature, is more chaotic and disunited than the right-wing. That discourages organized corruption. This carries over to the Democrats.
5) Republicans believe in a government so small it won't threaten anyone. They are an enemy of big government. Put them in charge of that same government, and what do you think will happen? You don't need to think--just look at the past twelve years. In a sick sort of way, the Republicans have been entirely successful in their management of the government: They have brought it to its knees. Democrats believe in government as a force for good. They are much less likely to corrupt it.
Honestly, Kyronea, if you really believe that the two parties are just copies of the same corrupt beast, you have both fallen for the classic third-party propaganda line, and, worse, you simply have not been paying attention to politics. Which is what I am led to believe by your next statement:
I'm actually considering registering as a Democrat just to participate in their primaries and ensure Hillary Clinton does not win the primary...if I have to vote for any big party candidate, I want to vote for Obama, as he's the only real sensible one I've been seeing thus far.
Richardson is far more "sensible" than any of them. His positions, his public statements on the campaign trail, his recent political accomplishments, and his long resume make that perfectly clear. If you had been paying close attention, you would have known this. Obama is great; he is a great political personality and his ideology is in the right place. I would be genuinely excited to have him as president. But if you think he is the great one and the others are all forgettable, then you've only been eating he media narrative, and not thinking with your own head. Likewise, Hillary Clinton, for as odiously transparent as her campaign style is, is still a liberal. She would make a fine president. I don't think I'll be supporting her in the primaries, but I'll be more than glad to vote for her on Election Day, should she win the nomination.
Your mistake was to speak in such absolute terms. To do so reveals your lack of in-depth knowledge on the subject. None of the four major Democratic contenders are patently bad. None are ass-kissingly good, either, for that matter, although I am much more excited by the 2008 field than I was by the 2004 field.
