There’s an interesting discussion going on over at Matterdays, and I found myself wanting to weigh in without taking over the comment section of his blog for my own big fat political rant.
This follows on the issue I brought up in my last post, namely that some supporters of Hillary Clinton find themselves unable or unwilling to support Barack Obama in the fall election and have instead decided to vote for John McCain. I still stand by my assertion that the rift in the Democratic party is too raw at the moment, but that over the course of the remaining months between now and November a number of Democrats who’ve made this decision will change their minds.
This isn’t to call them wishy-washy or question the strength of their beliefs–after all, the day after Bush won the last election I was one of those people who swore up and down that I’d emigrate rather than spend another four years under Bush, and the best I’ve managed to do is spend an average of three to four weeks out of the country each year. Things change, aches heal, and people change their minds. I suspect that many will. I also suspect that many won’t.
I should start off by saying what I like about John McCain. It’s nothing specific. It’s just that the prospect of a McCain presidency doesn’t fill me with dread the way that a Bush presidency has. Part of this has to do with the fact that I believe that a McCain administration would actually be run to a large extent by John McCain, whereas I live under no illusion that George Bush has had very much to do with what has gone on for the past eight years. McCain is his own man, and he has experience.
The reason, however, that I plan to vote for Barack Obama in November is that, in McCain, I see a lot of policies that I don’t agree with remaining the same. McCain is a hawk, especially when it comes to the Middle East. Given that I spend quite a lot of time in the Middle East, this worries me. I don’t particularly think that we should sit down at the negotiating table with Iran until they’ve made some serious concessions, but I also think that suggesting that we need to bomb Iran-even in jest-is unproductive and harmful.
The notion that we need to be prepared to spend the next 100 years in Iraq is equally as harmful. I’m firmly of the “we broke it, we must fix it” mindset, but that’s stating outright that we’re planning to annex the country. It doesn’t go down easily in Baghdad, and it doesn’t go down easily with me either.
On the issue of gay rights, I don’t actually see a gay rights champion among any of the finalists in this campaign – Hillary included. None of the final three supported gay marriage. Obama supports the idea of civil unions and, at the risk of being labeled a self-hating homo, I can’t in all honesty argue for more. I think gay marriage is an idea whose time has not yet come–50 years ago, people didn’t marry outside their church, for heavens sake!–and we’ve seen a lot of DOMAs enacted in hasty response. Here in Texas we have two. When it comes down to it, I expect Obama to bend less on this issue than McCain, but again I’m playing party lines.
Matt’s commenter says point blank that he doesn’t trust Obama. I don’t have any reason to trust any politicians, period. I don’t trust one more than the other. When it comes right down to it, Obama is an unproven politician. So was JFK. In my mind, however, it’s a simple choice of the devil I know vs. the devil I don’t. And, frankly? I’ve seen what the devil I know is capable of, and I don’t like it.
In my heart of hearts, I believe that, while Obama may not be the savior his supporters claim he is (sorry, Will), he’s certainly not going to be worse than what we’ve had for the past eight years. The mere fact that he recognizes the country is on the wrong path–and hasn’t been along for the ride and is now actively trying to pretend he hasn’t–is enough for me.
