Well, as a registered Democrat (sorry, all you folks who tell me I should just give up and go Republican), my ballot will really have two choices on it.
After thinking long and hard about it, I’m going to vote for Obama. Here’s why.I ‘get it’ that Hillary is more likely to be cautious about doing stupid things in Iraq (announcing that everyone there needs to get on a plane and come home next week), and that electing her gives us a chance to make the Long War a bipartisan problem. That was the biggest argument in her favor, but it wasn’t enough to tip me in her favor.
Simply put, I’d rather close my eyes and vote for Obama than hold my nose and vote for Hillary. We have – really – no idea what kind of President Barack Obama might become. He could be JFK (all nice suit, no substance) or he could become FDR – who was a State Senator before he became Assistant Secretary of the Navy, and then an unsuccessful candidate for VP. I profoundly disagree with his foreign policies as set out in his speeches and articles; while I find myself largely in agreement with his domestic policies (guns: not so much) my belief is that neither will survive much contact with reality.
So the question is whether the values he expresses – love of country, a desire to create a political space open to people who disagree, a refusal to demonize – will grow into policies and programs that express those values. The differentiator here is that Hillary is the sum of her policies; what higher values does she express other than an entitlement to power?
Obama is often criticized as being nothing but charisma, and devalued for that. But the reality is that charisma is critical to the job of President – the biggest part of the job is convincing us of things, and charisma helps here a lot.
I’m not sure if I’ll vote for him in the final. There’s another bridge or two to get over between here and there. We’ll see how his foreign policy views develop under chanllenge, and how he stands up when he really gets hammered.
So let’s see how he does.
If you’re a Republican, you could vote for Romney – who, in my view, has the potential to be the Jimmy Carter of the New Millennium, totally arrogant in his certainty and certain to be confounded by the messy realities he would face in office. Let’s forget that the fact that he’s ahead here in California is a pluperfect manifestation of the idiotic nature of the GOP here, who should be striving for purple votes, and instead are increasingly tightening the ideological barriers to joining up.
So if you’re a Republican, have some sense and vote for McCain.
Meanwhile let’s talk about the propositions.
Prop 91 sequesters gas tax funds – which are supposed to be sequestered, but which are typically ‘borrowed’ by the Gov. and Legislature.
No. We hire the Gov. and the Legislature to run the joint; the idea that we’re going to keep tying their hands through budgeting-by-initiative seems just plan bad. Let’s not do it.
Prop 92 changes the formula for allocating school funds in a way that will substantially increase the allocation to community colleges.
No. More budgeting at the ballot box.
Prop 93 has been discussed already.
Hell, no.
Props 94 – 97 ratify deals the Gov made with the local Indian Tribes to allow them to expand their gambling operations, in return for cash.
No. Look, if we’re going to support the state on sin taxes, let’s go the whole way. And I have big problems with the semi-extraterritoriality of the tribes – and I say this as someone who could probably make a plausible claim to membership in one of them. The tribes are subject to US laws – or not. If not, they have to act like foreign powers when it comes to domestic politics.
So it’s easy – just vote ‘no’ on everything.
AL-
What bothers me is that either of the two, the Hildabeast or Obamamama, will make you just The Liberal. IOW, they will grab the guns and forcibly remove the ‘Armed’ part of all of us. Yeah, yeah, I know the arguments that “they couldn’t get away with it…”, yadda, blah, blah……
I prefer they not get the chance to try.
And can our economy really stand universal healthcare in the model of British Social Democrats? Heck, even the Brits cannot anymore. They are now rationing healthcare to those that are deemed ‘not worthy’ for various reasons. Obama and Clinton want to take the money away from us to pay for those who stand outside of the system, flaunt the laws of the nation and make very few motions about really becoming part of the country. And don’t go telling me I don’t know what I am saying. I live in one of the poorest states in the country with hosts and hosts of illegals right on the southern border. I am seeing what is happening to my home and it ain’t pretty. You can contact me privately if you cannot reason out where I live. My story might surprise you.
Then there is their positions on the GWoT (really bad choice of a name for the struggle we are in, IMHO). Reprehensible really.
Oh, well, good luck. I just remember the old saw about us getting the kink of government we deserve! Though I cannot think what we did to deserve what we may be about to get.
“kink” ????? Pretty Freudian!
Given your two choices, I commend the one you made.
May your futile stand against Kampfgruppe Rodham in the scrubby California Ardennes be long remembered in story and song.
PS: When the convention comes, beware of the flanking attack by the renegade Florida delegation – every swinging dick a mad-dog Clintonista and determined to be seated.
Peggy Noonan is sometimes right, and I think Answer Chavez, Friday, September 22, 2006 (link) was one of her better pieces or writing.
And oratorical prowess, and charisma, which Barak Obama has and Hilary Clinton has not.
George W. Bush proved neither capable nor interested (often enough) to defend America against the defamations that are hurled at it. Hilary Clinton would be no better in either respect. But Barak Obama would be capable, if he was willing.
Of course he’s had ample opportunities to show willing, and he hasn’t taken them. The only foreign leader I can remember him taking to the woodshed effectively was John Howard of Australia.
But you choose from what’s offered. A man who could do the job if he was inclined, and who you don’t know very well, is a better, more optimistic choice than a woman who you do know very well and who couldn’t do what needs to be done even if she ever decided to do it.
Glen Wishard, I think the horseshoe Hilary Clinton has in each glove if it comes to a convention isn’t likely to be employed directly, rather it’s value will be in deterring potential Obama supporters who can see that the fix is in.
McCain? Are you serious? Talk about arrogance. His open borders policies, crushing of free speech, and Dean-esque simmering hatred is just too much to bear.
Obama terrifies me with his talk of “change” which is code for Socialism. Nothing in his resume says leadership. He’s all platitudes and empty rhetoric (then again what politician isn’t). Furthermore his foreign policy stances should disqualify him outright from being Commander in Chief.
I don’t know how anyone who believes we need to succeed in Iraq and Afghanistan could willingly vote for Obama.
Lets face it, there is a sad and pathetic lot running for President this time around. All the choices suck, and I don’t trust any of them to do the right thing for the country.
“… close my eyes and vote for Obama” is an unfortunate choice of words to apply to a black candidate.
Ouch, AL–Romney as the Carter of this era? 🙂 I don’t think he’s that light-weight and naively idealistic, nor that pessimistic about America.
Armed Liberal:
bq. If you’re a Republican, you could vote for Romney – who, in my view, has the potential to be the Jimmy Carter of the New Millennium, totally arrogant in his certainty and certain to be confounded by the messy realities he would face in office.
I don’t really understand this view of Romney that a lot of people have. He was definitely not my first choice, but I have voted for him for Gov in MA and I think he could do the job.
Not able to deal with Real World messes(TM)? How about:
– Governor in state with a legislature overwhelmingly the other party and hated him nearly as much as the Dems hate Bush
– Salt Lake City Olympics
– Big Dig (Okay, not so successful, but I would have liked to have seen any Governor who would have been)
– Turnaround of Bain & Co from financial ruin to profitability without layoffs
-Turn around of a $3B state deficit in first year to small surplus when he left, including a tax cut
– Missionary work, which is often messy in various ways, as you often deal with those who are, shall we say, not at the high points in their lives.
Yes, there are legitimate reasons to dislike, or even distrust Romney. As I said above, he was not my first choice. However, given how much of his career has been involved in jumping into the heart of screwed up situations and assuming positions that are directly responsible for cleaning them up, I do not think it is a fair criticism to say that he would not be able to handle Real World Messes(TM).
In fact, if anything, such a charge would more readily apply to those who have spent much of their careers in the bubble/echo chamber that is Washington DC. Those in the Senate work together as a team (not always a functional one, mind) and seldom take direct responsibility for cleaning up any sort of mess. This does not mean that I think they can not handle Real World Messes(tm), just that the preponderance of evidence favors their capabilities less than it does Romney in this specific area.
StargazerA5
Here in Tennessee, the law requires prisoners sentenced to death to be given a choice between lethal injection or electrocution.
That’s an excellent analogy to choosing between Hillary and Obama.
And probably Romney and McCain, too.
I’m leaving for the polls in a few minutes. I will vote for Romney, not because I want him to be president, or necessarily even the nominee, but because McCain has plenty more splainin’ to do. And if he sews up the nomination today, he won’t ever have to do it.
“Better the devil you know than the one you don’t”? Not in this case on the Dem side. We’ve seen eight years of Clinton. Even Obama, extrememly poor presidential prospect as he is (“empty suit” is right, AL) is more desirable than another term for anyone named Clinton.
Gabruiel, #7, wrote, “there is a sad and pathetic lot running for President this time around. All the choices suck, and I don’t trust any of them to do the right thing for the country.”
So I have thought for seberal months.
Here’s my question about Obama, where is he going to pull his foreign policy team from?
Assuming he’s unwilling or unable to use the ex-Clintonistas, are there any other available talent pools on the D side?
The Repubs have several different foreign policy groups that candidates can pick/draw from, but I’m only aware of the one on the Dem side. What don’t I know about?
For pure hilarity, one of my co-workers just got a text message to vote for Ron Paul. Even funnier, he’s not a US Citizen. Now theres some Paul dollars spent well.
_Here’s my question about Obama, where is he going to pull his foreign policy team from?_
That’s my number one question and it might determine whether I would vote for him. I understand its too soon to answer, but I recall Bush II, named or let it be known that Powell would be his Secretary of State to bolster up Bush’s weak foreign policy credentials. Obama needs to do the same in time.
Well we all know that Hillary has top minds like Sandy Burglar working for her, so unless Obama pulls in say Ramsey Clark, how much worse could he do?
Man I wish we could edit.
A quick glance across the web provides this little blurb from May. If these are the people he is still relying on, and in fact may push to positions of SecState/Def/?? color me even more worried than before.
Some more recent ramblings are here
AL, just a note that FDR was also governor of NY state, which dilutes a little his ability to serve as a potential model for Obama’s future political career. I voted for Clinton this morning, nostrils wide open, though I’d be more than happy to have Obama as a candidate. Either will do for me. I chose her over him because, in my middle age, I prefer pragmatism over idealism, and because I prefer her approach to healthcare to his.
mark, agree with your reasons for choosing Clinton, I think she has the potential to be more effective than Obama if elected…despite what some people make her out to be (i.e., the Clinton Haters) she has a good reputation in the Senate for working with Republicans and Dems alike.
Of course, it is likely that the Congressional Republicans will go nuclear with any Dem president and make their lives a living hell anyway, so past experience might not count for a whole hell of a lot. In which case, the ability to appeal to the public (via the media, unfortunately, which is also anti-Clinton and, for the moment, pro-Obama) might carry more weight….and I think Obama has the right qualities for that.
However, like you, I’ll gladly support either in November, without having to restrict any of my senses in doing so.
I see Obama, who really doesn’t have a foreign policy, and who seems to have gotten to this point by, when confronted with questions about foreign policy, he survives by snowing his questioner under with eloquent but content-less sound bites long enough to escape. Which may indicate talent at diplomacy now that I think about it.
So the question is if one has enough fortitude to stick out watching Obama learn to drive on the job.
On the other hand we have Hillary who I don’t think is even aware of, let alone knows the location of, the line between standing on principle and standing on pride.
So in her case it’s a question of whether the benefit of watching the rest of the world run in fear justifies the cost of us running along with them.
To be fair, on the Repub side we have McCain who, while having a impeccable foreign policy credential set, has a rather loose grip on this whole Bill of Rights thing, and then there’s Romney, the focus group candidate, who I’m not sure understands what sets leadership above and beyond simple management.
I’m reminded of what my Grandfather once told me about dating, it’s not about picking the strengths you want, it’s about picking the weaknesses you can live with.
I too find Armed’s analogies and analysis strange.
I find both Democratic candidates very weak. Both are undoubtedly smart, but neither have much achievements. Simply being smart doesn’t mean one would make a good President. Hillary is inherently divisive, and her own example of political management (health care) ended in disaster. Her campaign persona seems insincere to me (even if it is sincere), and I dislike the dynastic angle. Her whole candidacy is based on clout and connections from her husband’s past 8 years in the White House.
Obama is charismatic and has a lot of potential, but potential is not enough. “But he could be brilliant” is just as likely as “but he could by disastrous.” If your retort is “how bad could he be?” I start running for the hills. He needs more of a resume and his candidacy this year was premature. Comparing his resume to FDR’s in 1932 is simply preposterous. FDR had far more political and executive experience than Obama. Furthermore, no one knows what he’ll really do. His campaign is a lot of vague promises that don’t give me any idea of what his priorities are. His entire run is based on joining the bandwagon.
I actually find both McCain and Romney to be qualified candidates. McCain has good bonafides in foreign policy and defense and a stellar Senate record. He also has bipartisan reach. Romney has very impressive executive and leadership experience. He knows how to get things done. Romney is certainly no Carter. His experienced gives him a far better sense of managerial skill and political astuteness than Carter ever had. The only knocks either of them gets is from disgruntled conservatives who feel either is not really part of the tribe. That’s an internal GOP issue, and not one I think detracts from either of their qualifications for office.
In any event, I think the Democrats have done the impossible – the Republicans will win the Presidency in 2008 despite Bush’s poor war leadership. The only question is one of coattails. If Obama is the candidate, there is a greater likelihood of Democratic gains elsewhere even if he should fail.
There AL, fixed it for you.
Exactly.
Obama has stated he wants to ban all guns in America. There AL. You’ll just be liberal. Obama has stated he’ll “fix” the Jihad problem with a “summit” of “Muslim Leaders” … so he’ll either offer creeping sharia and Islamism (which would not surprise me, Obama is deeply sympathetic to Islam as a Black Nationalist) or come away empty handed and worse than before (because of expectations by Muslims world-wide that America will become under Sharia Law).
In any event “Muslim leaders” extend as far as their tribal authority takes them. Which is not very far.
Obama wants a host of new taxes. Immediate surrender in Iraq AND Afghanistan. “Negotiations” instead of killing Osama.
He’s all the worst parts of Jimmy Carter, the weakness, the appeasement, the anti-Americanism, the hatred of the West. With a great heaping dose of the Nation of Islam.
Obama’s campaign staff is filled with Nation of Islam people. Either he’s too stupid and inept to keep these guys out of his campaign, or that’s how he really feels. Given his choice of a nutty anti-White, anti-Semitic preacher and church I’d say the latter. Just like Ron Paul’s association with 9/11 Truthers, Neo-Nazis, and KKK people is indicative of his real beliefs.
Essentially AL you are voting for the Democratic version of Ron Paul.
Obama domestically proposes “reparations” for Slavery to Blacks. Release of black criminals in jails. Various other identity politics including various measures to “punish” straight white males. Beneath the media image the man is the most hard-left identity politics pol since Al Sharpton.
Romney is no Jimmy Carter. That’s Huckabee on the Rep side.
Jim Rockford #22 —
bq. Obama’s campaign staff is filled with Nation of Islam people.
News to me. Who, exactly? Not “these people”:http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/05/sweet_column_inside_look_at_ob_1.html (h/t gabriel #26):
bq. Besides [Navy Reserve Lt. Mark] Lippert, the core Obama group consists of three people who worked in President Bill Clinton’s administration: former National Security Adviser Anthony Lake and former senior State Department officials Susan Rice and Gregory Craig.
As to “Given [Obama’s] choice of a nutty anti-White, anti-Semitic preacher” like Jeremiah Wright, yeah, he’s a “red flag.”:http://isteve.blogspot.com/2008/01/why-obamas-church-matters.html and church,” But as far as I know, Wright is disgruntled on the sidelines, rather than a key player in the campaign.
” my belief is that neither will survive much contact with reality.”
So you cast your vote because you think he WON’T do what he says he will do,
Reverse psychology for politicians?
all politicians lie therefore vote for the one who promises the opposite of what you want to see done?
Armed Liberal,
We think similarly. On Jan 7, I wrote this on my blog:
_I like that Obama is black, and better, multicultural and cosmopolitan, relatively young, which is to say, he’s post-Baby Boom, Civil Rights campaign and Vietnam War, and a pragmatic progressive idealist. Obama is inexperienced, but he has the right stuff to rise quickly and well to the challenge. It doesn’t hurt at all that he’s a fellow Columbian. I also believe, despite the boilerplate (and infuriating) anti-war rhetoric – required of all Democrats – he espouses, that Obama would not do anything rash and irresponsible about Iraq, such as precipitous withdrawal. Obama’s mantra is the Kennedy-esque, “Let’s go change the world”. Does that sound like someone who would so seriously undermine America’s power to effect change and abdicate our nation’s leadership and moral responsibilities by surrendering in Iraq? Like me, Obama has a desire to use American primacy and power to make a progressive difference in the world, which cannot work by subordinating American will to other nations. In that way, he’s not unlike the post-9/11 liberal-convert George Bush. We are in the midst of a generational challenge, a multi-faceted global revolution and competition, and I believe Obama has a clearer perspective without the deficiencies and historical baggage of the Baby Boomer generation. He’s not trapped in the Cold War. Once Obama is actually in position to decide Operation Iraqi Freedom, he’s not going to pull us out of Iraq, or the Long War, in a manner that would cause harm to his greater idealistic mandate. He wants to change the world for the better as President, and retreat and surrender in Iraq by his orders would collapse his goals from the outset. No matter the controversial start to Operation Iraqi Freedom, the stakes in Iraq now are world-changing. Once we are clear of the baggage of President Bush, who did what needed to be done, if not always done well, the next President will be able to clarify those stakes. A charismatic and articulate progressive liberal like Obama, as opposed to the frustratingly inarticulate liberal-convert Bush, will have the opportunity to highlight the progressive nature of our Iraq mission for the American and global audiences as well as warn of the long-term harm to the liberal world order that would result from our failure there._
I was already torn about Obama because of the dissonance between the anti-war statements Obama is saying during the campaign and what I (would like to) believe his liberal principles would lead him to actually do as a war-time President. Obama could be a disaster or he could become the inspiring, visionary President and Commander-in-Chief we badly need in the Long War. As such, Obama is a high-risk/high-reward candidate. But, the Moveon.org endorsement of Obama gave me a hard shove away from him. As much as I want to support Obama, I support John McCain as the safest choice for the Long War.