Mike Easley, North Carolina Governor, Endorses Hillary Clinton

Governor Mike Easley decided on Tuesday to endorse Hillary Clinton in the upcoming primary election. Notorious for voting for Democrats only for governor, but voting for Republicans for president, North Carolina nonetheless expects record turn out next Tuesday. For once, North Carolinians can pretend to count in these sorts of things. It's great that Easley has decided to endorse Clinton.

However, the governor's vote of confidence means little to me personally. Next Tuesday, I have every intention of going in there and voting for the candidate I think has the best set of policies and the best chance to win the general election. The policies that affect me directly on a local level are the same that affect the nation on a larger scale. Right now, top on my scale of things that need to be dealt with is health care. The overall difficulty of finding affordable, obtainable health care recently came to the forefront in my personal life.

It's not easy, particularly not as a lesbian with a child. Partner's benefits are scarce here in the South, and I don't wish my whole occupational decision making process to be based upon whether or not someone offers one of many possible benefits. In looking around, though, good healthcare on an individual level seems not to exist. There are certain companies that have a veritable monopoly over healthcare. In North Carolina, unlike in many states, healthcare insurance companies are permitted to submit applicants to rigorous questionnaires with hoards of demeaning questions about every aspect of one's life. As an added kick in the pants, as it were, the applicants may...nay, will...be turned down if anything out of the ordinary presents itself.

With great interest, I perused the plans put forth by all candidates. Clinton seems to miss the big picture. Mandating that people get health insurance won't help them pay for it. Broader reform is necessary. Obama's mandates just for children could make sense, but he still doesn't have enough coverage aid. McCain has decided to, as usual, throw a handful of change at the program and hope that it sticks. Maybe they should ask any other industrialized nation and see what they're doing about it. People I know say that it's better this way than in Canada, because in Canada they have terrible waits and poor doctors. I don't know about anybody but me, but I do know that I have to call months in advance to get a hold of a doctor who is hit or miss in terms of quality, only to pay out an arm and a leg.

As a lesbian, I'm interested in how the candidates view gay people. At least Clinton and Obama don't want us dead. No help there.

How about the gas prices? More research is needed to move the country away from dependence on foreign oil. Maybe we can use the hides from the Christmas elk in Alaska, but not for long. This is another topic that isn't adequately touched upon. I'm confused as to how Exxon can present both a woe-is-us campaign about how high barrel prices are but five minutes later gloat about "record profit." This probably should be looked into, but I haven't yet seen a candidate willing to do so.

But Clinton and Obama have some great qualities, too, even if they haven't absolutely presented every aspect of their policies in a manner that the general observer (such as me) can see readily. I like the Iraq policies of both of them better than McCain and certainly better than Bush. Their emphasis on green jobs and improving the environment helps both of their cases.

Ultimately, I don't know which way I'll vote, not because I don't like either candidate. Instead, it's because I like both candidates too much. I'll go and I'll vote, but I imagine I'll have second guesses after I leave the booth. At least I know for sure who I'm not voting for in the general election!