Still undecided
I gots to vote on the primary next Tuesday, but I’m still undecided.
Here’s the situation.
I don’t vote on issues, I don’t vote on character. My vote usually goes to whomever can build the most competent cabinet, and whose politics are not totally abhorrent to me. Cause face it, nobody can do it all their damn selves. So I try to think not about the candidate, but about the candidate’s network.
I tend to hate the “authenticity” candidates like last election’s loathsome Howard Dean, possibly the least intelligent silver-spoon candidate to run for the presidency since George W. Bush. (Or so I thought, until Bush’s Skull-and-Bones pal John Kerry’s dismal Yale GPA was made public). As much as I think it was unfair the way that Dean’s candidacy was derailed by getting made into a joke, I still just don’t see what my fellow supposedly Internet-savvy east coast liberals saw in his schtick. I couldn’t figure out what Dean was up to, other than taking donations over the internet and then turning them over to Old Media outlets.
So by my usual logic, I should be voting for Clinton, who arguably has the best capacity to build a strong cabinet. But she’s the same kind of spineless say-anything-to-get-elected weasel as Bill, sans the I’m-getting-away-with-this charm.
I’m leaning Obamawards, but just am a little concerned that he’s more speechifying than substance, and in 4 years, we’re going to still be in Iraq, he’s not going to roll back any of the encroachment of civil liberties of the last few years. But in spite of myself, in spite of my whole basic outlook on life, which says that nothing is more bogus than authenticity and that nothing is more real than artifice, I can’t help but think that there are things in life that can’t be done but without some modicum of faith in one’s own sincerity, in faith in the future, some amount of “I know, we’ll put the show on right here! In the barn!”. And the ability to ignore the fact that this is basically an untenable point of view. And I think Obama’s got that more than any candidate I’ve seen in my lifetime.
The good news is that I’m not a Republican. I’d be in a worse position then, because they’re pretty much all joke candidates, except for McCain, who would be funny if his insanity weren’t so genuine. He used to appeal to the authenticity-minded middle-grounders. But in recent hears he has been able to distinguish himself by being simultaneously a party-line weasel AND a totally wacko loose cannon, so I don’t think he’s going to be able to grab too many independents or undecideds (who will tolerate wackos but not party-line weasels).
February 2nd, 2008 at 1:10 am
I’m in the same boat. The compromise I’m hoping for is that Clinton will win the nomination and pick Obama as her running mate. Then, after he’s had 4-8 years to gain experience and build up his network he can run for President again. Supposing Hillary doesn’t generate the same level of Clinton fatigue that plagued Gore’s campaign I think Obama would be more electable. More importantly, he would better capable of governing. Until then, he’s just a smooth talking, charismatic guy in a nice suit who remains unproven.
Of course, 4-8 years is plenty of time for his image to become tarnished and as a hold-over from the previous administration he’ll have a harder time convincing people that he’s an agent of change.
February 2nd, 2008 at 1:32 am
I of course have no such problems; I’m voting for Kucinich. No, he won’t win. But if all the people who actually want him to win voted for him, instead of not voting for him because “he can’t win”, he still wouldn’t *win*, but he’d be a credible candidate.
February 3rd, 2008 at 1:30 am
I’m getting out of it by refusing to sacrifice my registration as an independent so I can vote in the primary; not that it matters, since Oregon’s primary is on May 20. From the people on the streets, though, it looks like a tight race between Lyndon Larouche and Ron Paul out here.
For the record, though, I’d vote for Obama – I’ve never imagined that I could be so powerfully moved by the rhetoric of someone who wanted to be president; maybe I’m being hoodwinked, but I feel like he actually does cross the line from “real” authenticity to real authenticity. Will it work? It almost seems as if that’s not the point.
February 4th, 2008 at 10:44 am
I’m in a similar position. I know it’s stupid, but part of me wants to vote for Hilary because there is little that I would like more than to see a female president in my lifetime. And I don’t think she’d be a bad president. When Obama first came on the scene I loved him. Now I’m not so sure. I do try to vote on substance–what would this person do. And the cabinet angle is a really important one as well. I do think experience matters, though of course it’s not the only thing. It’s hard to push past all the politicking because at times like these it seems like there’s nothing else under there. In reality, I hope that’s not the case. Kucinich is interesting, but I dunno… I guess I better hurry up and figure it out, eh?
February 4th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
C’mon, it isn’t so bad over here in the other camp. Or it’s the same kind of bad. You’ve got the same choice, essentially.
Vote Romney, a party hack with no idea yet untested by a poll. Mix in a cold fish personality, and you’ve got Hillary without the Bill-Baggage, but with some of Kerry’s flip floppity.
Vote McCain and get someone who sounds appealing, is certainly more energizing, and really just plain sticks it to the other side. Read Obama.
Vote Paul, well, you can see the Kucinich comparison a mile away. And, as a resident of the great state of Minnesota, let me remind you what happens when a protest candidate like Jesse Ventura runs up against a legislature full of professional politicians – four years of nothing. Which might actually suit Dr. No quite nicely, but which is easier to stomach when you don’t have to have a foreign policy.
As a guy from the other side of the aisle who has the singular honor of sort-of-caucusing to vote in a non-binding straw poll (which is still a mile closer to direct democracy than what I could do as a Democrat), I’m going to ask you to pitch your support to Obama. I can disagree with the man’s politics, but I can get behind his leadership qualities. Clinton, not so much. And why does she remind folks that Clintons follow Bushes when it begs the question of whether another Bush will follow Clinton.
Before you vote the network, remember which recent president was hands down guaranteed to have the best network and the most experienced advisers – George W. My old, bleeding heart college roomie Chris and I bandied this point around back in 2000, and now we both regret it.
February 4th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Note that Kucinich dropped out of the race. I know there are reasons why voting for him still sends a message, but… given that in Massachusetts my vote really only counts in the democratic primary, winnability is a factor for me this time around.
Mike, I think if I were going to draw parallels, I think you could build an equal case that McCain is the Clinton and Romney the Obama. But I think it breaks down either way. But Jesus, Mike, did you hear McCain sing the “bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran” song?