So I decided to take the weekend off from jotting down any thoughts or rants about the ongoing Clinton and Obama contretemps because, frankly, I needed to take a bit of a breather. The last time I found myself both politically and emotionally involved in a campaign was way back in 1992, when Bill Clinton was making his first run. And although he had the fortune of being president during a period when the good times went rolling, by the time 1996 came 'round, the luster had worn off -- and soon after had progressed into deep, deep tarnish.
In 2000, I reluctantly voted for Gore -- an odd feeling given how much I'd liked him since back during his 1998 run. But post-Clinton, Gore seemed unable to tease the good from the bad in his own administration, so instead washed his hands of the whole damn thing to run a Shrum-tastic populist campaign that in defeat set us down the path we're on today. I voted for him because he was not George W. Bush, a good enough practical reason, but not one that elevated my soul or anything.
Then in 2004 we got John Kerry who, basically, was a jerk. How big of a jerk? He was able to make Mary Cheney likable by giving one of the most bumbling attack lines of the campaign-- "If you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian... ." But, again, he wasn't George W. Bush and that was enough.
Now we're back to the start of the circle, with Hillary Clinton running a jaw-dropping campaign in which she smears her opponent with the label "Ken Starr tactics," attempts to cheat by changing pre-determined rules in her favor, naming herself and McCain as the only candidates qualified to be commander-in-chief (as if), and offering the vice-president slot to her competitor who inconveniently happens to be in the lead. Not to mention proving her executive leadership skills with a campaign staff riven by infighting, unable to plan for a full election cycle and displaying the fiscal wisdom and restraint of an 11-year-old in a video game store.
Obviously, the weekend off did little to change my level of
involvement --I took some joy in watching the very pro-Obama results
come through in Wyoming -- though Clinton did continue to peg my
"flabbergasted" meter. There's plenty to work from there, but it's the
"He can be my vice president" tactic she and Bill are taking that
reinforces my decision about how I will vote -- or not -- come November
(even though the Ken Starr remarks and the "Hillary and McCain BFF!"
stuff pretty much sealed it).
Howard Kurtz today mentions Clinton's vice-presidential condescension:
In another zeitgeist shift, Hillary has been openly hinting at taking Obama as her running mate, and husband Bill (remember him?) says such a combo would be unstoppable. Do you think, just maybe, she's trying to assuage his supporters by suggesting she'll at least give Obama that nice house on Massachusetts Avenue?
Consider me unassuaged.
There's been hand-wringing over the idea that Clinton or Obama supporters would vote for McCain rather than vote for their primary election opposition. Or, as often supposed about Obama's youth and new-voter supporter, would choose not to vote at all.
I'm not shy about the fact that I would rather chew off my hand than vote for John McCain. I don't buy the "straight talk" line, he's about this close to insane on the Iraq war, he's chummy with the Bush warmongers who've set their sights on Iran and China, and -- it's not discriminatory to say this -- he actually is too old. The reasons for voting against John McCain -- or any Republican at this point -- are legion, which is why Hillary Clinton is making the bet that she is.
Clinton is betting that if she uses every dirty trick she can, pulls every political lever within her grasp, slimes her opponent and arm-twists her way to the nomination, we'll all still vote for her come November. "You're all Democrats," she seems to be saying. "What choice do you have?" She assumes that she can play this game because there will be no lasting consequences -- if she's president, what does she care about the tactics that got her there?
Lucky for me, I don't consider myself a Democrat -- at best I think of myself as "not a Republican" -- so I do have a choice. If Hillary Clinton grabs the nomination in the manner she's now attempting I will in good conscience cast a blank ballot. I am not going to be a part of this particular game.
Just to be clear, I'm not some starry-eyed idealist who thinks that
having Barack Obama in the White House will magically solve all our
nation's problems like some political Mary Poppins. But I believe we'll
have a better chance with Obama than with Clinton (or, obviously,
McCain). And I still expect he'll win the nomination, though it's going
to be a stressful few weeks. But what if he doesn't and Clinton's
tactics propel her forward onto the ticket?
Will Clinton roll back the executive powers that Bush and Cheney have unconstitutionally accrued to themselves? Hardly. Will Clinton take a stand against the encroachment of a surveillance society on the civil liberties that define us as Americans? Hell, she couldn't be bothered to go to the Senate and vote on FISA and telecom immunity when she was actually in Northern Virginia on the day of the vote. Will we have an economic policy that maintains a slim political plurality by kowtowing to the desires of Ohio at the expense of the rest of the country? You betcha.
I'm not signing up for that. Will my decision change anything on the national scale? Likely not. But at least in my own little corner of American democracy, I'll be able to say that there are consequences to bad behavior.
Unrelated, but check Karl
Rove out speaking at the Univ. of Iowa
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otQyfSYAnTI
Posted by: Jack Brown | March 10, 2008 at 05:34 PM