Wild, wild election season

David Broder and the Economist have two funny takes on this topsy-turvy election season.

Turning for the wierd

The nightmare before Christmas

Best lines:

From Broder: "Only a newspaper that could find Keyes a credible candidate but bar Kucinich at the door could endorse both McCain and Clinton."

From the Economist: "Mrs Clinton is still the woman to beat, however. Other candidates pander. She does her homework and then micropanders."

The Economist seems to be endorsing Barack Obama and John McCain, with the best critique/endorsement of Obama that I have read to date. Andrew Sullivan is for Obama and Ron Paul, and getting lots of gruff from readers (I agree with Ron, generally, around his libertarian commitments, but I think he'd be a difficult leader to take seriously on important diplomatic and security matters, internationally, and I think he disregards the role that many governing institutions, like the Federal Reserve and the World Trade Organization, play, politically, in buffering and maintaining a free economy and free society). George Will likes Rudy and is unenamoured with Clinton.

And I'm an independent, whose spent the bulk of his life as a liberal, who is voting for Obama or McCain (at this point; that could easily change, depending on how this election season and the larger democratic discussion and debates unfold), but who is most interested in what conservatives have to say during this liberal political period.

It is a strange democratic world, isn't it?

I love it.