OVERBREADTH

After a solid victory in North Carolina, and despite a Hillary victory in his own Indiana backyard, Tuesday, Obama further solidified his lead position in the race to the Democratic nominee. I am preparing to accept that - legitimate or not, for better or for worse, there is simply too much momentum and too much force behind Obama to slow him down en route ot the nomation.

My Reaction

How do I feel about this? As a Clinton supporter, I am somewhat dismayed. I did not choose my Democratic candidate randomly. I chose Clinton for the reasons I choose to vote Democratic. I believe that we make our society more well-off for all by reaching out to its poorest and most abused first. And if it cannot help every single person, at least it should do no harm; it should be a national policy to tolerate people of different backgrounds, genders, sexual preferences, disabilities, and so on. I believe that we must do this at home and with our foreign policy. I believe in a competent and accountable government. In his North Carolina victory speach, Obama made a comment I found particularly brilliant: he described the potential of a McCain presidency as the unofficial “third term of the Bush administration.”

By contrast to what I want from the U.S. government, the Bush administration has been the opposite. And as I’ve said, well before Obama’s speechwriters, McCain, though sometimes marching to the beat of his own drum, has promised to continue the Bush legacy. War. Incompetence. Unaccountable government. Intolerant judges. If he wins the election, we’re going to be knee-deep in shit for decades to come. The repercussions of continuing the Bush legacy will be felt by me, and by future generations of Americans (should we be lucky enough to have any) long after McCain himself is six-feet under.

“One person, one vote” - a principle worth the T.P. on which it is printed?

Most of Overbreadth’s readers would probably agree with me on that. But where I’ll part company is here. I am still not convinced that we Democrats are doing everything in our power to make sure that doesn’t happen. In short, we’re beating ourselves. This primary has revealed to some just how ill-conceived the DNC’s primary process is. Institutions like “caucuses,” and the quasi-proprtional primary. Sure, if you’re an Obamaniac, you’ve gotta be thanking a higher power (like McGovern) for it, because it really gave Obama a kickstart. But deep down, can you really say a caucus is democratic? That it’s a good way to pick a candidate? Do you really think that “proportional” primaries that aren’t proportional if you’re in a minority-voter heavy district are consistent with the values that this party stands for - the values that prevailed in Baker v. Carr: one person, one vote?

It shouldn’t even be a partisan issue, but often times, Washington Democrats are the only group standing up for those rights; Republicans are constantly trying to disenfranchise Democratic voters - and succeded yet again when the Supreme Court affirmed nonsense voter ID laws in Indiana (in fact, if you read Vieth v. Jubelirer between the lines, you see that a majority of the Court basically believes that disenfranchising Democrats enjoys a constitutionally-protected status). But if we democrats don’t take the stand for democracy within our own party, how can we, with any moral legitimacy whatsoever, hold Republicans accountable when they try to undemocratize America?

Look at the differences between the primary - where there was a real turnout - and the caucuses, in states like Washington and Texas that had both. Tell me you really believe this nonsense effectuates the will of our party’s voters. I am not against caucuses and proportional representation that isn’t really proportional because it hurt my candidate; I’m against it because it isn’t democratic, and it isn’t what Democrats should stand for. Whichever candidate wins this primary, or this election, the system is about 36 years past due for an overhaul.

But there’s even more to it than that…

There is a second, more practical and less theoretical reason why this is a bad system. There are no caucuses in November. There are no technicalities to exclude Michigan and Florida voters from having their say either. If Obama goes forward under a cloud of questionable legitimacy, there will be hell to pay. The Obama nomination will come at the expense of a significant quantity of Democratic votes in places like Michigan and Florida - California and Texas too, and perhaps in Pennsylvania, New York and Ohio as well. Our party has had enough of a hard time beating corrupt, nonsense-uttering, and sometimes just plain idiotic Republicans in nationwide elections for the last 4 decades. Does taking a shot at our own foot first and then tying both hands between our back really seem like the way to reverse that trend?

Although I, like many of my classmates, took to the streets of the capital city to celebrate his election to the Senate 4 years ago, and would have welcomed the chance to salute him as the first black president of this union, the more that I’ve seen throughout this election process, the less I’ve wanted him to have that role. We do not need a President whose message of tolerance extends to anti-Israel terrorists abroad or anti-Gay  terrorists at home. We do not need Jimmy Carter part deux. In short, I would have been an Obama voter, but he alienated me with his political mealy-mouthing, a mix of moral relativism and expedient ethics that fails, in my opinion, to set him aside from Metternich, Talleyrand, or Newt Gingrich. At least Carter was a true believer in his ideals.

Don’t get me wrong, Carter would be a huge upgrade over Bush, and has done great things out of office, but don’t tell me he was a good president, or a good choice for the DNC. He was misguided on so many issues, and those of his actions that did have  long term positive ramifications did so only by accident. Obama would be an upgrade over Bush too - if he can get elected. But can he? Does he really represent even a majority of his own party, much less this divided country? I don’t think so. Can this enormous “love-in” and Carteresque, “he’s not a politician, he’s different” charm really carry him to the white house? I definitely don’t think so.

Jimmy Carter is smarter.

The more I see of Obama, the more I am convinced that he is going to be another Carter at best - and at worst, a doormat for John McCain’s march to preserve the Bush Administration status quo. In other words, we are walking into two bad choices. As such, I am very concerned. 

 And I’m more than just concerned. Frankly, I’m dissappointed in some of you - not the people who aren’t wise enough or smart enough to know better. I’m dissappointed in the smart, well-educated Democrats like Nancy Pelosi, or Cameron, who should know better than to fall for the bill of goods that the sweet-talking, Carteresque Obama is selling us.

So let it be known: I think this Obama thing is a horrible idea. If I’m wrong, and he can win, and he can do good in office, I’ll eat my words. But I do not have a good feeling about his chances of being elected at all, much less doing any good in office.

Cue the tumbleweeds…

I’m still committed to supporting him and voting for him, because I could not be responsible for letting McCain into the White House without a fight. But if and when this turns out to be as bad an idea as I’ve been saying, don’t blame me. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Tags: Diaries //