First off, the easy part: I wont be voting for McCain because I’m not a fucking retard who ignored everything that happened the last 8 years, A vote for McCain is like saying Bush did nothing wrong, war in the middle east is good, and the relaxing of banking regulations was a good move because the market must be free. (Gee, look what happened.) Nevermind the fact that as the gay-marriage-hating party, they now literally are the party that wants to use the govenrment to repress 10% of people from having equal rights, simply because those rights are counter to their prevailing religius beliefs.
Now, the hard part: I wont be voting for Barack Obama, although I will say he is clearly, clearly, clearly the better candidate out of the two.
Why? Becuase he sure as hell doesn’t represent “change”. If by “Change” he means, “Not Bush”, I would expect that from any sensible candidate. (Note that this does not include John McCain.) But he barely represents change.
Let’s see…
Barack Obama voted for immunity for the telecom corporations that illegally spied on Americans after claming to be against THAT as well! I 2007, he said: “To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.” Yet in 2008, he failed to do just what he said, and helped grant immunity to the telcos, who helped commit what is quite likely the greatest illegal mass surveillance of a company’s own customers in American history.
Barack Obama said he was against the Patriot Act, yet, just like with the telecom immunity, helped vote to re-authorize it anyway. “This is just good leadership” people will claim, probably citing that it was the leseser of two evils versus not passing it. Of course, that’s just how they want you to think… That our politicians have no other choice but to do the things they are. In which case, if they are so helpless, why do we bother to vote? (Oh wait. Americans vote far less than most democracies. 2008 will hopefully turn out to be a big exception to that!)
I have to ask — is it really “Change” when he doesn’t live up to his own word and changes nothing?
Barack Obama supports the failed drug war and does not believe in the legalization of marijuana. Of course, this drug war is something that has cost more American lives and dollars than 911, Afghanistan, and Iraq put together. He has also called for stepped-up enforcement. Considering that the drug war disproportionately jails racial minorities, we have black people basically voting for a black man that would cause them to continue to be jailed. Real smart. (But again, he’s better than McCain in this aspect.) Of course, if you truly believe the drug war is a problem, you should never vote for a candidate who supports it. The Libertarians have not once run a candidate who supports the failed drug war — other than in 2008. Bob Bar is a scumbag who directly blocked the D.C. Medical Marijuana referendum as a Georgian congressman. Just because he had a change of heart and now supports the Libertarian platform doesn’t mean he’s not an enemy to democracy. The Libertarians fucked up big this time. Of course, Ralph Nader does not support the drug war at all. At least Obama (and McCain too, I hear) both want to end the federal government’s involvement in raiding marijuana dispenseries that operate within state laws. Go federalism!
Barack Obama supports military action against Iran (“The U.S. should take no option, including military action, off the table.”) It’s off the table with Nader. And regardless of what the consensus is, it would be a BAD, BAD, BAD idea (the Pentagon agrees). Nevermind the fact that we never won the war in Afghanistan, despite what conservatives may claim. Joe Biden has stressed that Obama is strongly pro-Israel. I’m not. I don’t think they should be getting the amount of money we get when they are already the per-capita leader in military expenditures (america is #2, and #1 for total expenditures, not even counting what we fund Israel). And I think Israel is largely behaving like a bully — much like America, actually. We shouldn’t protect their peace when they refuse to make any with the Palestinians. And I say this as someone of Jewish decent. (Grandma in Nazi camp, Grandad liberated her, yada yada.) That of course means that if anything happens between Israel and Iran, we’ll somehow be “required” to step in. Just great, considering Israel has been trying to clear the way for an invasion of Iran for some time now.
Barack Obama also supports military strikes inside of Pakistan. Ironically, McCain doesn’t appear to support this. (!!!!) Nevermind that Pakistan actually has nukes, UNLIKE Afghanistan. Nevermind that we have not once, but twice now caused Pakistan troops to fire on American troops. Nevermind that we have now dropped bombs inside of Pakistan, killing civilians. It’s not possible for us to simultaneously fight every nation of our choosing on the planet. Nader simliarly does not support any action against Pakistan at all. It’s off the table.
Barack Obama voted against a federal gay marriage, yet he is against it personally, and thinks that laws about marriage should be left to the states. Can you imagine if we had said the choice to discriminate against black people best be left to the states? People would justfiably go ape-shit at such a statement! Either you consider the choice of being able to marry who you love a basic civil right, or you don’t. If it is a basic civil right, it should exist it the federal level and apply to all Americans, and a President should support making this happen. We don’t have “Freedom of speech, except in Texas”; we have freedom of speech for all. There’s really no room for compromise in this. Nader thinks the government should “get out of the marriage business”, which is what I’m all about. I may be splitting hairs, but I’m simply trying to make the point that Obama is not the best candidate. Like Obama, McCain also masked his tolerance for intolerance as being pro-states’ rights as well. Neither of these guys is going to make a difference for the right to marry at a federal level, but McCain is of course more intolerant — he thinks gays should be out of the military completely.
Barack Obama supports the criminal bailout of failed corporations, as does John McCain. It’s no coincidence that the two corporate business-loving parties love the idea of socializing losses (but keeping profits private; Exxon broke it’s record AGAIN this quarter). Of course, every other major 3rd party candidate (Bob Barr, Nader, McKinney, Baldwin) sensibly opposses this measure, which was bullied on the american public like a mafioso visiting a Mom-and-Pop convenience shop, big stick in hand, threatning softly: “You wouldn’t want anything to happen to the economy, would you? Accidents happen. People get hurt. Better pay up your protection money.”
Barack Obama supports lawsuits against gun manufacturers for murders. That’s like suing McDonalds for making you get fat. Or suing a detergent manufacturer if someone poisons your spouse with detergent. Anyone who thinks it automatically makes sense to sue someone who manufactured something that killed someone is obviously forming their opinion from the emotional area of “I don’t like guns, therefore I support any action taken against guns”. If you don’t care about the constitutional right to own a gun, or the freedom for people to do things that YOU DON’T LIKE, then please move on over to the “suppressionist” side; you are not a freedom lover, you just love actions that you agree with. Freedom means allowing people to do things they don’t want, and last I checked: Owning a gun was a constitutional right. Like free speech. Exactly like free speech. This has been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court for the first time in 70 years just last year.
Barack Obama supports towns having stricter gun laws than what is federally allowed. Gee, last time I checked it was a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Imagine if a candidate said, “I support towns having stricter freedom of speech laws than what is federally allowed.” It would be a death knell to any campaign to broadcast a basic disdain for the constitution, especially since the first thing a President does is take an oath to uphold the constitution. Yet, because bleeding-heart liberals hate guns, the constitution somehow becomes something that can be disregarded. These are the same people who are mad that they are arrested at protests, and made to protest in “free speech zones”. They are mad that their first amendment is violated, yet they are quite willing to stand behind someone willing to violate the second amendment. That’s hypocritical, and not true respect for freedom. Barack supported the D.C. gun ban as well, until it was determined to be unconstitutional — at which point he had no choice but to flip-flop.
Barack Obama does not believe in concealed carry licenses, despite the fact that not knowing which people around you might be carrying a gun is indeed a deterrent to crime. If it wasn’t, then why do we have secret air marshalls on the planes? They’re not just there to enforce the rules, but to deter as well. I have had friends who have been seriously attacked and hurt by ex-spouses/lovers, and have had to resort to such measures to protect their own lives; I support anyone’s basic right to life, and the right to protect their own life is even more basic to me than the right to free speech or food.
(Even more so since the police get to excercise this right in spades, being able to legally kill anybody they even falsely perceive as a threat; even a robber with a plastic gun inside a bay window at a Halloween party on Halloween, which I use as an unfortunate-but-true example.)
Barack Obama wants to expand the H1-B visa program. No surprise. Democrats love profit too. Ralph Nader wants to stop the H1-B “brain drain” visa, which definitely harms american workers. A lot of the liberal tech community (readers of Slashdot, for example) believes this as well, and it’s no surprise: We want to protect our own asses. I’ve worked with H1-B Visa holders. If they lose their job, they go back to China. Of course they’re willing to work for cheaper when faced with that, and of course that distorts the market by supplying cheap labor. It hurts the wages of every citizen and helps the corporations. I don’t see eye to eye with Barack here at all.
Barack Obama, health-wise, will be bad. A many people have pointed out, BOTH PRESIDENTS would result in fewer people getting medical coverage! Between 1 and 50 million, depending on what you read. Nobody anywhere is saying either candidate will result in more people being covered! How many young liberals who don’t have proper medical plans are going to get bankrupted by medical bills (the leading cause of bankruptcy) themselves over the next 4-8 years? And out of those, how many will have voted for Obama? Ralph Nader (and Cynthia McKinney) supports a single-payer health care system and full Medicare for everyone. EVERYONE. You can still have your fancy expensive private doctors if you are a rich (and you can afford extra taxes too! Don’t be greedy, rich!). But the 40M, soon-to-be 41M, 60M or 90M (depending on who’s numbers you trust) Americans without insurance would be able to have care too. And 95% of them are going to vote against their own care, by not supporting a candidate who supports this! Just stab yourself; it’ll be the lesser of two evils! Even Libertarian candidate Bob Barr wants to cut costs by reducing controls and regulations.
Ralph Nader has said he is specifically against corporate welfare. I wish Obama would say something like that. Maybe he has?
Barack Obama wont pull troops out of Iraq as fast as Ralph Nader, but at least he says he will eventually do that.
Joe Biden supports the 21 drinking age, something that I’m pretty sure 100% of people would be against. Yet how many people who complained when they were 18, 19, and 20, now support him and vote for him? How many people who got in trouble for drinking underage are going to turn around and vote for someone who supported it?
I also read Joe Biden helped create the mandatory minimum system, but don’t know if that is the case. If so, then he’s helped take away more unnecessary liberty from American citizens than almost anyone I know — even Bush.
====================
Suffice to say that, while in the middle of writing this posting, I went out and voted for Ralph Nader. The Democratic party is certainly a lot closer to what I would call “sanity” than the current withered Republican party, and if this were truly a 2-party election, they would get my vote. But it isn’t, and they are way too centrist for me, and not nearly pro-freedom enough. They’re not even socially liberal enough!
====================
Also, be prepared for me to say “this is what you Obama voters caused” at every bad thing prepetrated by this administration’s platform for the next 4-8 years.
When we attack another country in a bullshit war, when we break the annual record for marijuana arrests yet again (which happened under Clinton, too, even though he smoked it!), when the next bad thing happens, and there’s no one else to blame it on — I’ll be telling you: “Don’t blame me; *I* didn’t vote for him!”
====================
Still, I have a sense that there will be less to complain about than during the Bush administration. And for that, I will be thankful for the extra free time I get when NOT having to bitch about something online. :)
LINKS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_United_States_presidential_candidates,_2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Barack_Obama
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader_presidential_campaign,_2008
Mood: would like a car to go vote with… can either walk or wait for Carolyn
Music: D.I. – Wounds From Within
Claire's blog 
November 4, 2008 at 4:36 PM
The blog post you provide as support to the notion that Obama’s health care plan would cover fewer people only cites estimates given by the candidates themselves in their attack ads. You might as well say you shouldn’t vote for Obama because he’s a socialist who supports infanticide, since that’s what you’ll get using sources who are citing the McCain campaign or the RNC.
If you can’t find anyone saying that “either candidate will result in more people being covered”, you’re not looking very hard. Here’s a Washington Post article from just six weeks ago that cites two high profile analyses from two non-partisan sources:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/16/new_studies_report_wide_dispar.html
The upshot?
Is Obama’s plan perfect? Nope. Does it have a chance of actually happening? Hell yeah.
—
“Joe Biden supports the 21 drinking age, something that I’m pretty sure 100% of people would be against.”
Care to throw some support behind that? An AP poll in 2001 (I doubt public sentiment on this issue has experienced a sea change since then) found that 2/3rds of Americans support 21 as the drinking age. I’m not saying I agree (I don’t), but it’s unfair to try to paint Biden as a radical on this by suggesting he’s completely out of step with public opinion. And why should I care if I disagree with Biden on this issue? It’s an issue that’s not likely to change anytime soon even if he WAS a fervent opponent of the 21 drinking age. And let’s balance it out with some of the good; this is a guy who authored a piece of legislation (the Violence Against Women Act) hailed by the National Organization for Women as “the greatest breakthrough in civil rights for women in nearly two decades.” I’m willing to give a pass on the drinking age issue for a guy willing to step up to the plate and take on an entrenched culture of domestic violence against women that all too many people were willing to ignore.
—
Opposing corporate welfare, particularly in the form of tax breaks for companies who send jobs offshore, is a cornerstone of Obama’s campaign. I opposed the bailout as well, but there’s an argument to be made as to whether that was truly corporate welfare. One could say that it’s hardly a welfare program to throw a life preserver at a drowning man. Again, I’d disagree, but it’s not an outlandish argument. On more traditional forms of corporate welfare, there’s no question who the big corporations have reason to support, and it’s not Obama.
—
And while I agree with some of your other points, I think Obama is a consummate politician; and I think he knows what positions are political suicide right now, and is applying a bit of Machiavellian theory to his rise to power. Moreover, unless I myself run for office, there is never going to be a candidate who accurately reflects the way I myself would run things. Opposition to certain parts of a particular candidate’s platform doesn’t necessarily make them “evil” or the lesser evil of two. It just makes them an individual distinct from me. We spend too much time in this country worrying about the consituency of one. Looking at the small picture.
As I’ve said before, progressives need to learn to think big and play by the game, until we’re truly in a position to change some of the rules.
November 4, 2008 at 4:43 PM
Ian, Thanks for the updates. I certainly didn’t research what I said very thoroughly (no, I didn’t look hard, and have largely ignored this campaign – I don’t have cable)..
I’m depending on [apparently] you at times :)
November 4, 2008 at 4:45 PM
@#1/Ian:
“As I’ve said before, progressives need to learn to think big and play by the game, until we’re truly in a position to change some of the rules.”
I couldn’t agree more.
November 4, 2008 at 4:46 PM
And I think you’re deluding yourselves because it feels nice to think your vote counts more than 1 vote :)
November 4, 2008 at 5:49 PM
[…] And Obama? I’m going to start a new post for Obama. Coming in a few minutes. […]
November 4, 2008 at 7:48 PM
I think this last statement illustrates a very important point about American politics. Whenever I see Europeans debating American politics, they are always quick to remind any Americans who post to the thread that, “You don’t have a liberal party.” The Democrats are slightly right of center on most European political scales.
November 6, 2008 at 3:35 PM
Good point, Ryan. Americans are obsessed with the idea that you can only join 2 existing groups of thought. Seeing everything as only 2-sided can be a major logic FAIL.
November 7, 2008 at 2:33 PM
My dear Clint:
My boyfriend has held many of the same objections to Obama’s candidacy that you do.
I’m comfortable with Obama’s choices regarding the warrantless wiretapping, and even the Patriot Act, which is odd considering I have been a rabid opponent of the war since before it started.
The FISA was created under President Jimmy Carter to surveil threats without having to make them known beforehand — hence there was a secret court created to issue warrants. It seems President Bush decided the FISA court was an annoying formality, and he stopped getting those warrants. In the true spirit of capitalism, I do not think we should penalize the telephone companies for doing what the Bush Administration ordered them to do. I should provide links to the FISA history, but I’m in a hurry to get going on my day….
In any event, glad you feel good about throwing away your vote. I understand. I think the reason we don’t have a bigger third party in the U.S. is that the third party leaders are quite obviously fringe. I saw Nader speak on Bill Maher, and it’s so obvious why he doesn’t have broader appeal. He’s shrill and uncompromising, and that is not a recipe for victory, consensus, and the belief that even if we can’t agree on everything, we are all Americans who need to start caring for (tending to — like a gardener) our country again.
The idea of more than two parties is a great one, and I actually think we should go to the parliamentary system.
But for this moment, this nightmare of a dystopia ending, Barack Obama is the man, and he indeed represents change.
November 7, 2008 at 4:59 PM
^^
In the true spirit of capitalism, the telco’s(which have an army of lawyers on retainer) should have had the balls to tell the Bush administration to kindly fuck off to what was an illegal request in the first place. Some did. Those that didn’t should be held liable.
March 26, 2009 at 6:06 PM
[…] response: Well, DW. Some of us were smart enough not to vote for Obama. Did you really the Democratic party was going to change anything? They just swing the pendelum in […]
October 22, 2009 at 11:39 AM
I suspect that the latest compromise regarding state banking regulation points to the influence of large corporations on the Congress as a culprit in the on-going eclipse of federalism. Pls see my blog if interested. Thanks.
October 15, 2015 at 1:33 PM
I was mostly right. The health care thing, I was wrong about. Though the way that was done was shitty. And Iran never got attacked.