A Highly Meaningless Presidential Endorsement: Who I'm Not Voting For

This might be one of the most meaningless political endorsements ever (I can't remember when I put my visitor counter on the blog, but it was over a year and a half ago, so that 5,000 some-odd visitors sounds less impressive averaged out over 700+ days, and keeping in mind it counts all the times I reread old articles or go back to edit certain old and depressing posts.)

But on the unlikely chance that you stumbled across this blog, and you're either an undecided voter in a Super Tuesday state (or post-Super Tuesday state) or just someone who knows me and for some strange reason respects my opinions on politics, well, this is the endorsement for you.

First a little background on why I decided I'd be going with the Democratic Party ballot on Super Tuesday (and much thanks to the state of Georgia for allowing me to decide last minute and not have to register with either political party long before hand.)

There are four remaining Republicans vying for the party's #1 spot: Sen. John McCain, Gov. Mitt Romney, Gov. Mike Huckabee and Dr. Congressman Ron Paul.

Mitt Romney has struck me as an empty suit since I first heard him speak. The YouTube videos showing his changing positions depending on when and where he was running did not dissuade me of that notion. The simple fact that he's had to state "no, I am not a robot," tells me that if he wasn't a multi-millionaire able to fund his own campaign, he'd have exited this race long ago. Willard Mittens Romney believes that a CEO is best suited to run the country.

But the United States isn't a business...or at the very least it is not like any other extant corporation. Worse, the man largely responsible for the myriad of messes we find ourselves in as a country, and current occupant of the White House was hailed as a "CEO President" and the "first MBA President." How's that worked out for all us?

Yes, in November 2000, when I was young, and stupid, and drinking heavily on a regular basis, that "CEO President" mystique was one of the few reasons I had for voting for Bush over Gore. I thought he'd surround himself with capable advisors. Instead he surrounded himself with the worst detritus of the Nixon and Reagan/Bush I administrations. Again, I was young, dumb and borderline alcoholic. I'm sorry. And it won't happen again. No vote for you Mittens.

Governor Huckabee, it's a little harder to easily dismiss. He's a former preacher, and unlike most top-level GOP politicians, he doesn't exhibit the same disdain for the poor and unemployed. He favors a massive overhaul of the tax system, and presents it as helping the poor. He's actually funny and was able to muster what sounded like praise for a Democratic candidate (Obama) during one of the GOP debates.

However, he also freed a convicted rapist, who subsequently went on to rape and murder again. His son seems to come from the Mike Vick school of animal treatment, and Gov. Huckabee tried to cover this up.

Most disconcertingly, he doesn't seem to give two flying shits about the separation between church and state, wishing that the Constitution be amended to reflect Biblical law. Substitute "Bible" for "The Quran" and you've got Sharia law. Worse still, Huckabee has been getting praise from the worst Christian "leaders"--the kind that make mainstream Christians launch into tirades of "no, really, that man does not represent my beliefs"--including such asshats as James Dobson and the Parents Television Council crowd. Now, if you believe the biggest threat facing the USA is a 10-year-old seeing a titty on television, Huck's your man. But he's not for me.

Now John McCain, I have voted for once already. My first Presidential Primary, while still young and dumb, but drinking a little less, I bought into the Straight Talk Express hype. Since then I've seen McCain decry Bush's tax cuts on one hand, then openly embrace him on the other, propose campaign finance reform with Russ Feingold on one hand, and then propose we stay in Iraq for 100 years on the other, propose environmental legislation on one hand and then go on record as not really knowing much about the economy on the other. Since then I've read "Up, Simba" by David Foster Wallace, portraying the less public side of that first Straight Talk Express. Since then I've had to see "War is my favorite answer" Joementum Liberman, in a move that may simply be petty payback for Ned Lamont challenging him for his Senate seat, spew ricockulous statement after ricockulous statement for the "Maverick" who has been in D.C. since 1983 (and the Senate since 1987). I know a quarter century in D.C. isn't likely to come up in the media (after all, George W. Bush, despite being the son of a former President and former head of the CIA, and grandson of a Senator, Yale-and Harvard-educated legacy, was painted as an "outsider.")

Now I respect the hell out of the service Sen. McCain has given the country, and for taking stands against torture and for a better environmental policy when all the GOP frontrunners were against it (and more disturbing, all the GOP candidates who and NEVER SERVED IN THE ARMED FORCES were all for torture and waterboarding, while Sen. McCain, who knows firsthand about what torture feels like, stood up against the US waterboarding.) So end the end, I just disagree with too many of Sen. McCain's key issues. Of the three most likely GOP candidates, he's the one I hope gets the nod though (I'll come back to this later.)

And lastly, there's the man with the signs all over Atlanta, Ron Paul. Dr. Paul has run as a Libertarian before, and in 2004, that was the party I voted for (almost the entire ticket). But I can't support him now. Part of that is my changed view on the Libertarian Party (another post entirely). But here are a few other issues:

1. The Gold Standard Thing. I have yet to have someone explain to me how the US becoming the one first world nation leaving fiat currency for an asset-backed currency would be anything but an unmitigated disaster for the US economy. And that even assumes that he's not serious about 100% gold-backed currency (as there simply isn't enough gold in the entire world to back the existing US money supply.)

2. His foreign policy. Ok, I agree about the overspending on the Military-Industrial Complex, all the foreign bases, and how financially we'd be better off abdicating our Imperial leanings. But I don't buy into a 100% isolationist approach. I still feel there's benefits to offering humanitarian and financial aid to other countries.

3. His paleo-conservative dislike of all Federal Government programs. This is the big sticking point. Dr. Paul's solution to an education system that isn't working? Get rid of the Department of Education! I've yet to figure out how that will help, but then, I think the Invisible Hand often flicks a lot of us off too.

So that leaves me with the three (yes, three) Democratic Party Candidates: Sen. Clinton, Sen. Obama, and former Sen. Mike Gravel.

Ok: confession time. I've found myself agreeing with Mike Gravel on several policy issues. Sure, he comes off as a grumpy old man. The media calls him a grumpy old man. And, well, he IS grumped. Pissed off even. But after seeing things like Bush use over 1,100 signing statements to brazenly flaunt the Rule of Law, and most of the Senate lay down on challenging the warrantless wiretapping fiasco, among other things, I can say I'm pissed too.

But being pissed off at Bush won't get you elected. And as we head into a recession, being the candidate who's declared multiple bankruptcy, doesn't inspire confidence in Sen. Gravel's economical policy--even though being strapped for cash puts him more in line demographically with the average American voter. I wish he'd get a little more coverage, as getting word out about our massive military spending, from someone who has no real shot at the presidency, would advance the idea without either frontrunner having to take a hit on it. But he's got no real shot, and I plan on voting for someone with a shot to win this thing.

So to conclude part one of my endorsement blog post, here's why I won't vote for Sen. Clinton:

1. Going back to the 1990s is not enough of a change. Sure, some folks love the 90s. Me, I went through puberty in the 90s and had acne for a good chunk of the 90s, and braces for seven years in the 90s. I had my prom date cancel on me a week before my senior prom in the 90s. I see no reason the same media pundits that ripped on the Clintons mercilessly 10 years ago will suddenly change their stripes. That sets up for the fun of "Clinton fatigue" again.

2. Will the real Sen. Clinton please stand up? The talk radio bloviators are convinced she's a closet socialist (and they mean socialist in the Stalinist/Communist-conjuring way.) Swing a bit to the left (despite what Fox News said about them, the majority of posters at DailyKos don't seem far left, as very few even openly supported Kucinich, much less Gravel) and you find Democrats, Liberals and Progressives who openly distrust Sen. Clinton. Her husband ran as a Progressive against Bush I., but as his reelection neared, suddenly it was welfare reform, "the era of big government is over," and NAFTA.

3. Just say no to triangulation. See the last sentence in #2. Sure, in the short-term co-opting some of the GOPs key issues helped Bill get a second term, but it also reinforced existing Right Wing memes about government and moved the mythical "Center" to the Right. What good is a Democrat in the White House if she'll sell out Democratic ideals for votes?

4. How she's run her campaign. It's harder to believe the memes about "the Clintons will do anything to win" are just the Right Wing Noise Machine after the shit they pulled in the South Carolina primary. It's also hard to believe Sen. Clinton is a huge union supporter when her top campaign official, Mark Penn, makes his non-campaign living busting unions (and defending such wonderful folks as Blackwater).

5. Her foreign policy. This the biggest issue for me against Sen. Clinton. She voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. I don't believe she was naive or not smart enough to know Bush wanted war in Iraq--her husband got multiple signed letters from a group that held most of Bush's cabinet begging him to go to war with Iraq. Which raises the disturbing likelihood that her AUMF vote was a political calculation. Worse, she, unlike John Edwards, seems incapable of apologizing for her vote. Given her vote on Kyl-Liberman this year, perhaps she isn't really against pre-emptive war at all.

I was nervous about the precedent invading Iraq would set, and not entirely convinced that, while yes Saddam was nuts and no fan of the US, he was actually able of doing any damage to us. I didn't use my tiny public pulpit of the Red and Black to speak out against it, and I regret that. Sen. Clinton didn't read the National Intelligence Estimate and voted for the AUMF and won't apologize, and for me, that means I can't vote for her tomorrow.

Memo to Bill Clinton: Just Shut Up Already

I had nice, happy thoughts going into to 2008 about politics. By this time next year, Bush will be out of the White House (and I dislike Bush more than a casting director for porn films) and thus far, it looks like Bush-Cheney's pipe dream of a wider Middle East war with Iran ain't going to happen (and what does it say about where our trust in our leaders that my first thought when I saw the Strait of Hormuz "incident" was "they expect us to be scared of this? That sounds like some drunk kid." And then it turned out it was the Filipino Monkey.) The warmongerer would be gone, and odds were, someone with a D next to their name would be moving in.
Sure, I didn't think it'd be a landslide, and odds were looking against us getting the first ever First Lady with tongue stud (incidentally, I also recently found out that Mrs. Kucinich is only two years older than me, whereas Mr. Kucinich is my dad's age. It gave me a decent case of the howling fantods.)
And after the NH debates, I came away thinking that the Democratic "Top 3" all came out looking fairly well. Sen. Clinton was actually funny, Sen. Obama managed to avoid a lot of the awkwardness that characterised some of his earlier debate performances, and Sen. Edwards displayed great heart in talking about the dwindling middle class in the US.
It was only after the NH primary that things went downhill.
First, a side note: I don't care if someone running for president "cries" (incidentally, the media now has a very loose definition of "crying" as at worst, it appeared Sen. Clinton got a bit choked up.) What she actually said, I agreed with wholeheartedly. My hope was "ok, now actually run your campaign on this: it will work with other voters too, and it's far better than offering vague platitudes about '35 years experience' but offering no examples."
Sadly, it didn't happen.
Clinton has been great lately on the economic issues, and if that was the only change made by her campaign, I'd have no umbrage nor feel the need to write this blog post.
Disclosure time: I was not a big fan of Sen. Clinton going into early-early primary season a year ago. Most of this dislike I've discovered came from two sources: my previous over-reliance on listening to and reading way too much Boortz, and association with her husband, who I still dislike.
So you can imagine how pleased I was to see Bill suddenly angrier and more vocal about his wife's Democratic competition for the Presidency than he's been about anything the Bush Administration has done.
And of all things to pick on Bill, you choose Iraq?
Really?
Best I can tell, this is playing the Rove/GOP strategy of "I'll just keep repeating a lie until people believe it."
Obviously, Bill's in a bit of bind here, as if he comes right and says "Iraq was a mistake" it contradicts statements he made around the time of the AUMF vote, as well as the fact that he bombed the country multiple times when he was President. And it looks bad to have bombed a country that wasn't a threat right as you're about to have impeachment votes taken in the House...
But what's worse about this sudden "attack dog" Bill Clinton is it's damaging the whole united "whoo-hoo a Democratic in the White House" coalition--which I think has held together quite well given the dismal results the Democratic "Majority" in Congress has offered thus far.
And the Clinton campaign apparently sees no reason to stop.

“He’s the most popular Democrat in the country; he is the most successful president in recent memory, and attacks on him by Senator Obama and his surrogates will be rejected by voters,” said Howard Wolfson, a Clinton spokesman.

Let's unpack this shall we? "Most popular?" Well, no I don't think I've seen any polls to back that up. Best known? That I'll give you unnamed Clinton spokesman, but recognition and popularity are not the same thing. A lot of people know who George W. Bush is too, but you don't see any GOP candidates explicitly invoking his name in their debates (well, I imagine you don't. I don't have the stomach to actually watch 5 angry, view-women-as-second-class-citizens, immigrant-blaming old men argue about who can help rich people the most.)

And "most successful in recent memory" isn't saying much either. Who's his competition? Dubya, George Sr.? Being more "successful" than the two Bushes is beating Chris Mathews in a Who Can Be Less Sexist contest: it doesn't take a whole lot of effort. And St. Ronnie? Well, he was successful at hoodwinking vast swaths of America into believing his "Voodoo economics" and successful at neither fatally tarnishing the Republican brand despite numerous scandals and selling arms to the very folks shooting at us in Iraq now...so you can actually kind of see what Obama's comments about Reagan meant.

He didn't agree with the message, but he's right in that it'd be nice if the Democrats could get someone to convince traditionally Republican voters that things like corporate and governmental transparency, universal health care, and a less bellicose foreign policy are good for everyone.

But if this guy's right, maybe very little has changed in politics in 2008, and that's bad news--for either Obama or Clinton--come General Election time. Another telling NYT quote:

“Bill Clinton seems to not be in his traditional mode,” said Jack Bass, an authority on Southern politics at the College of Charleston, who has observed Mr. Clinton for more than 30 years. “I’ve just never seen these negative emotions in public before. I know he has a temper, but this confrontational attitude with journalists, and the anger itself, is surprising to me.”

Again, it's surprising to a lot of people because in the past 7 years, there've been an increasing number of things with both the current administration, and, if he really just wants to pick on Democrats, with Congress he could have gotten angry about. To me, it's the fact that he's only getting angry when his wife suddenly faces a credible challenge to the Democratic ticket that hurts his credibility, and worse, makes it harder to dismiss those Rush Limbaughian "the Clintons only care about power" memes.

Machiavellian tactics aside, Sen. Clinton is light years better than any Republican nominee (though sadly, far, far, far more hawkish and to the right of Ron Paul on foreign policy). Pragmatically, I'm stuck with her in the general because to me, it's not worth risking the courts, and potential further declines in our civil rights. But for die-hard Obama people, as well as moderates who are currently undecided, this "win at all costs" tactic doesn't bode well. Alienating part of your base when the Right already hates your guts? How do you win a general election like that?

And worse, I can see a myriad of ways you can lose.

Sen. Clinton vs. McCain: McCain simply picks Lieberman as his VP, running on a "united/bipartisan" ticket (sure, it'll be bullshit because Joe is about as liberal and as much a Democrat as Neal Boortz at this point, but you won't hear anyone on the major media networks saying it.)

Sen. Clinton vs. Romney: Sure, you think they can tear Romney apart based on his flip-flopping...but Romney can do the same to Hillary on Iraq, and worse, Romney can make the appeal of the outsider against Clinton's decades in D.C. (and D.C. isn't much liked by anyone outside the beltway.)

Huckabee, who also has a semi-decent chance at the GOP nomination, could also run as an "outsider" vs. Clinton as the "insider" and sadly his Willie Horton moment has barely registered with the hardcore GOP voters (my conclusion: they really, really hate the Clintons, and are sexist bastards to boot.)

And really Bill, like it or not, Hillary doesn't need you to win the party nomination. Her numbers were highest when you were keeping your trap shut, and didn't have to read articles about smug GOP supporters talking about a "divided Democratic party." So Bill, for the sake of the Democratic party, and America, go back to playing golf with Dubya's dad.