![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Indecision '08
Salon has a couple of great articles on being undecided today:
Walter Shapiro on the policy and style differences between Clinton and Obama.
And Rebecca Traister on why identity matters. She really sums up my conflicted feelings well. Back when John Edwards was my candidate, I was more than content with him ideologically and as a potential leader. But I had a nagging guilt about it: in the end, despite all the other options presented before me, I was supporting the white guy. A progressive, feminist, class-aware white guy, to be sure. But still. And now I have the opportunity to cast my primary ballot for the first woman with a real shot to win this thing. Will I really refuse to be a part of that?
Which is why, despite everything I've said about dynasties, and all my reservations about voting for someone who is such a product of the Democratic machine, I'm still thinking about casting my ballot for Hillary. Because in a world where Walmart can refuse to sell a t-shirt with the motto "Someday, a woman will be president" because it's "too controversial", yes, identity politics still matter. Hating that fact doesn't make it any less true.
Of course, a vote for Obama is just as historic in its own way. And in the end, I may well cast my ballot for him.
I don't know whether it's more frustrating or exciting that I still get to be undecided at this late date. I never imagined that my most difficult presidential voting choice would be due to having too many options, rather than not enough.
Walter Shapiro on the policy and style differences between Clinton and Obama.
And Rebecca Traister on why identity matters. She really sums up my conflicted feelings well. Back when John Edwards was my candidate, I was more than content with him ideologically and as a potential leader. But I had a nagging guilt about it: in the end, despite all the other options presented before me, I was supporting the white guy. A progressive, feminist, class-aware white guy, to be sure. But still. And now I have the opportunity to cast my primary ballot for the first woman with a real shot to win this thing. Will I really refuse to be a part of that?
Which is why, despite everything I've said about dynasties, and all my reservations about voting for someone who is such a product of the Democratic machine, I'm still thinking about casting my ballot for Hillary. Because in a world where Walmart can refuse to sell a t-shirt with the motto "Someday, a woman will be president" because it's "too controversial", yes, identity politics still matter. Hating that fact doesn't make it any less true.
Of course, a vote for Obama is just as historic in its own way. And in the end, I may well cast my ballot for him.
I don't know whether it's more frustrating or exciting that I still get to be undecided at this late date. I never imagined that my most difficult presidential voting choice would be due to having too many options, rather than not enough.
no subject
no subject
I agree with this, to the point that I was really surprised that he did so poorly in the voting. I really thought that the early-voting states would take the easy way out, like they did in '04. Of course, that didn't exactly work out for us.
Yeah. It boggles my mind that anyone could think that, though. To me, Obama is by far the most obviously Christian of the Democratic candidates, in terms of his rhetoric, to the point that it makes me a little less comfortable with him than I might otherwise be. I guess I'm just glad this story is coming out now; it makes it harder to "swift boat" him, if he does get the nomination.
no subject
no subject
no subject
At least it's the dark of having two viable options, instead of trying to decide between no viable options!
no subject
I am not pleased about Clinton and Obama. I’ll vote for them if I must, but I think they’re both losers in their own special ways. And I share your other friend’s cynicism about the white-cock factor. I think Democratic primary voters have got their head in the clouds and their hearts set on making history, the real world bedamned.
no subject
It's entirely possible. I wonder, though. The early primary states embraced the "safe" candidate last time, and he failed miserably. Maybe going for Clinton or especially Obama is an over-correction, but I think it's an overcorrection that the party needs. And hell, the opposition is the weakest it's been in a long time. We had to give this a try eventually, didn't we? Or were we really going to play it safe with white men for the next 200 years?
I do agree that both Clinton and Obama have their problems (I originally supported Edwards myself, and not for identity reasons -- mostly), but there is also a lot of excitement around them, a kind of passion that Gore and especially Kerry failed to generate. That's worth something, I think. Will it be enough? I don't know. I hope so.
no subject
I'll tell you my decision. :) What's most important to me is that any of these Democrats are elected president — I'm fine with President Clinton II, fine with President Obama, would have been fine with President Edwards (and probably with some of the other candidates who didn't do so well, also). If there were huge policy differences between them I might feel differently. But to my perception, none of them are very different in their political stances, not compared with many past primary seasons, and certainly not compared with the Republicans. I don't feel that one versus the other will lead to huge differences in policy, at least not if I take them all at their word. I just want one of them to be president.
So then what's made up my mind is a picture that has emerged from reading articles, reading blogs, looking at polls and, yup, even talking on LJ. For whatever reason, independent and moderate voters, including moderate Republicans, seem to have a good impression of Obama and a bad impression of Clinton. You probably read the comments in my post (http://peachespig.livejournal.com/92988.html) — there was a Democrat who said she might vote for McCain if Clinton were the nominee, and a Republican who said he was intrigued by Obama but couldn't stand Hillary. That's anecdotal of course, but polls bear this out. Obama and McCain are the two candidates drawing a large number of independent voters in the primaries, and if McCain wins the nomination, the Democrats will need to fight him for the independent voters. I saw a national poll about the general election just a day or two ago, in which Obama beat McCain by three points in one hypothetical match-up, but McCain beat Clinton in the other.
I don't think Hillary particularly deserves the animosity she gets from many quarters, and I sympathize with her for that. But I want a Democrat in the White House, one of these candidates who for me are basically interchangeable on policy. At least at this point, it seems that a significantly larger part of the country will agree with me about Obama than with Clinton.
A lot can happen between February and November, of course. I'm sure Hillary would tell you that when the Republicans attack her she'll be able to withstand it, while Obama will wilt and all those poll numbers will fall away. But I don't see any particular reason to believe that more than the opposite, that if she were the nominee even more people would get upset at the prospect of four more years of Clintons. I'm supporting Obama because I think he is more likely to get the country to elect him. It's a pragmatic decision, and I'm comfortable with that.
no subject
Thanks for sharing it, though; it helps to have my thoughts confirmed in such a logical way!