politics
So I still don't know who to vote for in the primary. Last time around I voted for Kucinich, 'cause why not. This time, I'm still a little unsure. I'll vote for Clinton in the general if she wins--and I'll feel good about it, I imagine--but I'm not inclined to vote for her this time around. On tribal grounds, I almost have to vote for Obama--it's not often that you get to vote for someone that people will honestly say that you physically resemble only because you're also blackish, or something. But I haven't been terribly impressed with his campaign so far, and he's settling himself pretty solidly in the 'center' with Clinton. I'm also still convinced that he'll be assassinated, and I don't want to see that. On grounds of policy and pragmatism, I suppose I would vote for Edwards--he's got all the good proposals, all the good rhetoric, and he's turned into a pretty good campaigner, it seems. I think he'd wipe the floor with whatever creature the Opposition coughs up. He's also honest enough to apologize for mistakes made and recognizes that 'personal beliefs!=policy' holds. So if it's close and he's still in it, I will vote Edwards. Finally, Chris Dodd has been really throwing it down in the last few months, I think that should be recognized and supported.
Thoughts?
Now, to verify my identity on the blog that we own for some reason.
1 Comments:
Hey, Cam. Sorry it took so long to write something in response here; I've been gathering my thoughts, and also watching the Iowa landscape change pretty dramatically in the last two weeks (Obama/Huckabee? who knew?). This is of note only because our votes in the California and Oregon primaries will have probably no practical effect whatsoever on the nomination process, and thus are pure gestures; while we're making those gestures, it's good to start getting familiar with the person who's actually going to be President.
I'm fine with Obama. He's shockingly able politician for being supposedly so green, he absolutely radiates intelligence, and his rhetoric, which has always been wonderfully poetic, is finally getting tethered to concrete policy talk. And his policies don't sound that safe and centrist to me, I have to tell you; he's starting to reach. All that worries me, honestly, is his God fixation, which I have to think is mostly another product of his political talent. Not that he's lying when he says he cares about God and faith, but in debates he is often the one to bring up the subject. That's a sign of the times, but it's always a little troubling to me; however it wouldn't stop me from voting for him, especially against Huckabee, who has also said a few things about God. At least Obama believes that science is a thing.
He also would KILL in the general election, despite the southern states who I'm sure are rife with a certain contingent that would be aghast to find a Black Man in the White House. It is very, very hard to assassinate the President of the United States. Much harder than it was in 1963. And if he were elected, I bet the FBI would infiltrate and investigate every white supremacist group in the US just to neutralize any such danger. If I'm worried about anything, it's that he'd be hurt during the campaign; he's had a Secret Service outfit for a long time now because of these kinds of concerns, so let's hope they're alert.
Now, onto the meaningless symbolic votes we'll be casting. I like Dennis Kucinich, and also voted for him last time just to laud his transparent idealism and attendant anger toward Bush. But Greg reminded me--and I forgot I had read this in Rolling Stone back in '03--that he was Mayor of Cleveland from 1977 to 1979, and made some famously bad judgment calls w/r/t policies, rhetoric and appointments that aggregated to run the city's economy into the ground. He was indicted for his idealism, on the grounds that it translated into an inability to govern. Which is fair. He was almost recalled. Check it out.
Meanwhile, John Edwards has all of Kucinich's anger, gumption and hope, but where Kucinich is unendingly, almost childishly hardheaded (remember how he actually went to the DNC in '04 with 1% of delegates?), Edwards is admirably, thoughtfully pragmatic, not to mention charming. His policy proposals--on health care, climate change, education, crime, immigration--read like a long list of "wouldn't it be great if"s, and he actually makes them sound easy to implement and hold up. He's come a very long way as a speaker and debater since the last election. And most of all, his dedication to the working poor--which seems utterly legitimate given his record as a plaintiff's attorney and working at UNC--and his fearless insistence that nothing else in the United States matters as much as wiping out poverty, are very compelling to me. That's why I can deal with the fact that he took a long time coming around on Iraq (and by the way, it's okay to change your mind about things; this should be said more often), and that he's still against gay marriage: because he and I both agree that poverty is more important. Now is the time for someone to be saying this; it is the realest issue there is. To even debate gay marriage when millions can't feed their families seems embarrassingly decadent to me, and it's refreshing to hear a candidate say the same. Long story short, I think he's my man.
Post a Comment
<< Home