||[Feb. 11th, 2008|12:30 am]
how often Senator Obama turns up, sponsoring or co-sponsoring really good legislation on some topic that isn't wildly sexy, but does matter, and still supports him.I'll be voting for Obama Tuesday in the Virginia Democratic primary. Partly 'cause Marsha was excited about him; partly because Hilzoy noticed back in 2006 |
Kinda feels odd, given the "Don't vote, it only encourages them" position of my twenties that's still sort of a default; and certainly, as Patrick Nielsen Hayden says, Obama, for all his idealism, is well inside the “centrist” consensus on how America ought to conduct itself in the world. He was against the Iraq war from the start, and that means a lot to me, but he’s also not someone who’s going to make the kinds of radical changes to American foreign policy that I would make on Day One if I were in charge. He’s not an insurgent; he’s the standardbearer for a faction of the country’s political elite.
But (maybe because I'm 56!) I've come to believe that radicals need reformers to keep us honest as much as reformers need radicals. And Obama does seem to be generating among his supporters a sense that things can be different; and that sense of possibility is crucial to radical change.
Of course, either Obama or Clinton would be infinitely better than the Republican in the short term, and a historic change for this country.
Others may be taking over the non voting role... that seems to be the direction I'm headed this time... though if they're still close in delegates by May, WV could actually make a difference... so I won't completely foreswear voting this year yet.
I find Obama much more acceptable than Clinton, except his stance on coal is a thorn... (he just has fewer thorns all around) but if he's still in the running in May and it matters, I will be tempted to vote for him.
Yeah, his coal position is not great. As Katrina says, "Coalition politics will break your heart" -- and there's no way to get elected president without a coalition. And in this country and this year, that coalition has to include a lot of rich people.
No matter what, we're going to be disappointed. But I'm inching toward the position that Obama (or Clinton, for that matter) is not so much the lesser of two evils as a wan and insufficient good.
I haven't decided yet. I like Obama and Clinton. I'm giving myself until May to decide. Thanks for sharing your choice.
I was edging toward Clinton, just because I think she'd be a stronger mud-slinger/bearer than Obama, but your post is making me reconsider. Hmmm.
[edit: didn't meant to post under redswirl, but she's cute so I don't mind too much ;-) ]
Edited at 2008-02-13 01:20 am (UTC)
One of the interesting things is that he's won all of the caucus states except Nevada. The conventional wisdom had been that caucus states favored the more well-established candidates -- Obama's caucus wins means that he's managed to create darn good ground organizations from scratch in a short time. Part of it's that he has the money to do so, which challengers usually don't; but even with money, organizing is hard. He started as a community organizer in Chicago; that's probably part of it.
Of course, purely from self-interest, his best bet if Clinton wins the nomination will be to rev up his organization in her behalf, so either way I think we'll see results in the general election from all that ground work in the primaries.