With Obama, a little uncertainty

[Middle finga]

You may not like the article below, but it does make some decent points. Even if some of them make McCain look good, and Obama look iffy.

I must admit the only thing I too know about Obama doing that I admire, was give a spectacular speech once. He even made me believe he was anti-war. But all the points he scored with me there he has since lost with his FISA betrayal, and his talk that he will continue to war-monger and throw infinite cash at the Pentagon much the same as Bush or McCain after elected. And he might not do much towards universal healthcare, either.

No, I'm not voting McCain. I preferred him over Bush in 2000 as the Republican candidate, especially when he bad-mouthed the Pat Robertson bunch. But since then he's turned completely around and kissed their ass.

I prefer Obama simply in the hope he'll be a better President than he says he will at the moment (yeah, that sounds dumb, but we ain't got many choices here, do we?). Where my vote is concerned, McCain is doomed for becoming Pat Robertson and the GOP's water boy, plus the real-life catastrophe his Republican party has made of America over the past 8 years. We pretty much KNOW terrible things are going to happen if the Republicans retain the office. With Obama, there's a least a little more uncertainty about how terrible things will get.

Obama's problem with many progressives like me — the bedrock of Democratic support — have had Obama puncture our hopes of him like a child's balloon, since getting the nomination. We're no longer as enthusiastic and willing to talk him up as before. When we go to the polls, we'll be hanging our heads and muttering "Goddamn it, I wish I had somebody better to vote for." That feeling could easily translate into lots of voters switching to a third party candidate (as helped Bush win in 2000). Or simply not showing up at the polls at all (as may also have helped Bush in 2000).

One of the strategies Republicans love most to use in elections is to dampen down voter enthusiasm for Democratic candidates, in order to reduce Democratic turnout. Since capturing the nomination, Obama has been doing that all on his own.

To me, that seems awfully stupid of him. But maybe he's really smart, like some say. In that case, maybe it's not stupidity on his part, but plain old arrogance or egotism instead.

Whichever it is, the end result could be the same: a Republican win in 2008.

Source

[TwilightGardener]

1. Oh, look, it's the "arrogance" charge again--this time because he's not

progressive enough? You've got to be shitting us. Go write in Kucinich.

[Middle finga]

3. It's not my writing, I just posted an article that I felt was worthy

of discussion that's all.

[emilyg]

10. Be careful

you'll be called a PUMA soon. DU doesn't tolerate discussions.

[TwilightGardener]

5. Apologies for assuming you wrote it, but your post reads as if you did.

Still a crap article.

[ixion]

7. lighten up, Francis

someone makes a thoughtful comment you start letting the monkey poo fly. :rofl:

[TwilightGardener]

8. I am on hair-trigger alert with my monkey poo. Back off, Jack!!

[stillcool]

2. Vote for McCain!

[Middle finga]

6. Nope can't do that, I don't like the right wing agenda

Thats why I'm a little disappointed that Obama feel the need to adopt them.

[stillcool]

9. I'm not really sure what your beef is..

either than the FISA bill. And if that's going to stick in your craw..oh well. I guess my worries are elsewhere so I'm not getting it.

[Skittles]

13. that's what is worrisome

that you're "not getting it"

[DarthDem]

4. Yawn

Boring. Unnecessary.

[bdf]

11. Welcome to reality

Over here, in reality, you don't vote for the best candidate you vote for the least worst candidate.

If it's a three-way race, with first-past-the-post voting, you don't even get to vote for the least worst candidate, you get to vote for the least worst of the candidates that stand a reasonable chance of winning.

Sorry, that's just how it works. You might believe in a three-way race that the independent candidate is the best of the bunch, but if you vote for him all you're doing is throwing your vote away and increasing the possibility that the really fucking evil candidate wins. Few of the alternatives to first-past-the-post are any better because all can be "gamed" to some extent.

It would be different if we had a voting system that meets the Condorcet criteria, such as pair-wise comparison. Then your ballot could indicate that you really, really want Nader, but if you can't have him then you really want Gore, and there's no way on earth you'd accept Bush. But the problem is you need computers to tally that kind of vote and we do not have trustworthy computerized voting systems as it is. It could be done, but not under this maladministration.

So hold your nose and vote for Obama. He might, if some extreme tinfoil-hat wearers are to be believed, be just as bad as McSame. But there's a chance that Obama isn't as bad as McSame, whilst it is 100% fucking guaranteed that McSame is as bad as McSame.

[Skittles]

12. that SHOULDN'T be "how it works"

we could have - and SHOULD have - had MUCH better candidates

[Prophet 451]

14. Agreed - but we don't n/t

[Prophet 451]

15. But is he better than McCain?

Really, that's the only question that matters now. Obama has never been as progressive as I would like and right now, I'm scratching my head over his campaign but the late Molly Ivins once said that in the primary, she voted to change the world but in the general, she voted for the lesser evil so really, the only thing that matters now is: Is he better than McCain?

[mopinko]

16. if you don't know the answer to that, then you are in the wrong place nt

[Prophet 451]

18. Well, I do know the answer but it was intended for the OP n/t

[mopinko]

17. if this is the kind of discussion you are looking for,

i believe you have taken a wrong turn. this is a board for democrats. supporting the democratic nominee is required. constructive criticism is fine, but this kind of hand wringing nonsense has no place.

[MasonJar]

19. Bush did NOT win in 2000 or 2004. He stole those elections and he

proceeded to mess up many parts of the world. Obama is a good candidate, but McCain now has the Rovian disciple to lead the attack in pure Rovian style. That pressures us to work harder because the GOPers love to steal elections. No more PUGs choosing Supreme Court judges ever is my call. I am very disappointed in the FISA vote. It was an error. But on the other side is McCain, who is apparently nearing senility. He will be another disaster; we owe the world a better choice.

[HousePainter]

20. The election is for President of the whole United States

not just my or your little piece of it. This is a large complex country (and world) with many competing and contradictory needs that are in a constant state of flux.
The fact that Obama is trying to reach out to a larger constituency than just your version of the "bedrock of Democratic support", you know, self-titled Progressives who feel they have a monopoly on enlightened thought makes me more enthusiastic about his candidacy rather than less enthusiastic.
I know I don't have all the answers or even very many absolutely definitive answers to our country's problems. And if you are honest with yourself neither do you. But I feel I do have a reasonably clear vision of where the country should be heading and I feel certain that Barack Obama shares much of that vision. I also believe that many people in the political center and on the political right share many elements of that same vision. So how do we coalesce around that shared vision of a just, prosperous and free America and move forward ?
Certainly not by replacing the ideologically driven mistakes of the last couple of decades by an equally rigid set of preconceptions. Political progress is hardly ever a straight road, it involves patience, compromises and detours in addition to firm pronouncements. Coalitions must be built and critical mass must be reached to move the larger issues ahead. Thinking that one man can ignore those realities and lead the faithful few to a promised land despite them is the realm of religion or Hollywood rather than real politics and a politician who based a run for the Presidency on such a narrow platform would indeed be stupid or arrogant or egotistical. Thank God we have a candidate who is none of the above.