According to the one and only Jake Tapper (Officially Certified Idiot) at ABC, Democrats are taking this Clinton vs. Obama thing seriously.Apparently, tons of Clinton voters will bail on the Democratic party if Obama wins, handing McCain a decided advantage in a general election.
It's the same on the flip-side. If Hillary wins, Obama backers won't help her out. Good news for McCain. Not really, because a Clinton win would require the intervention of Mr. Rourke and Tattoo, but more on that later.
Let's assume that Jake Tapper got lucky enough to actually report the poll findings correctly for a moment. Considering his history of dumb-shittery, there is a strong likelihood he didn't, but we're going give him the benefit of the doubt this time. Plus, let's pretend like the data is accurate. We're just playing with ideas here, after all.
If it's true that Hillary people won't back Barack and that Obama people won't turn out for Hillary... If it's true that this race has fractured the party... If it's true... Well...
I'm okay with that.
Look, Hillary isn't going to win the nomination. That will not happen. Period. The 10% chance thing is a pipe dream. The odds of her winning are zero. A Coppin State NCAA tournament championship was more likely than a Clinton nomination (Sorry about the play-in loss, Fang.).I don't have to worry about choosing between Hillary and McCain. Hillary isn't going to win.
So, we have the now-inevitable match-up between John McCain and Barack Obama. What in the world will happen if the Taylor Marsh crowd and assorted other fans of The Monster decide to pout and stay home? What will happen if they backlash and throw their support behind John McCain?
I guess McCain will win. And I can live with that.
About a year ago, I saw some guy driving around with a bumper sticker on his car proclaiming "Anyone but Hillary". I thought that was a pretty silly sentiment. After getting a refresher course in Clintonian politics and reacquainted with The Monster, I have to give that dude kudos for getting it right. Hillary Clinton causes soul cancer and is bad. Period.Compared to Hillary, John McCain is super awesome! I would totally tape his poster to my wall and write "John Brown McCain" all over my Trapper Keeper a billion times before I considered voting for The Monster.
Obviously, Obama is my first choice. But I'm going to level with you... I don't agree with everything he says and believes. I think he's silly about some things. I think he's wrong about some stuff. It just so happens that John McCain is a better match for me on some of those things, too.
Shhhh... I know, I'm supporting Barack. I'm supposed to be a true believin' cult member with a belief that Barry is a messiah. Don't spread it around that I'm a reasonable Barack backer. It will kill my rally cred.
I believe we need a change in our national vision. I believe we need someone in the White House who is genuinely dedicated to approaching our divisive politics and knee-jerk animosities seriously. I think we need someone who really does believe in America's potential and recognizes the way our current arrangements compromise that power. That's why I'm voting for Barack. I'm voting on meta-issues.When it boils down to procedure, mechanism and policy alterations Barack and Hillary occupy similar turf. I like some of what both believe on this technocratic level, I disagree with some of it, too.
I feel the same way about John McCain on that level. I don't think he has the "vision thing" and I don't think he gets The Big Problem like Barack, but I'm damn near as comfortable with the idea of McCain's positions as I am with Barack's. Near, but not there.
So, if I can't get someone to help with a paradigm shift, I'm okay with getting the old-timer who's probably smart enough to avoid engulfing me in a nuclear fireball for four years. He'll just be the last 8-track tape we toss into the deck before moving on to better technology next time.McCain may be a traditional pol. He brings more ho-hum than hope. I don't think he's evil, though.
I don't think his soul is a gnarled, dried up pod holding only a maniacal drive for power. I don't believe his brain has been reduced to an election calculation device that fragments populations, looks for cheap shot opportunities and disregards honesty in pursuit of victory. That describes The Monster.
I wouldn't be okay with rewarding the sick and degenerate politics of Hillary Clinton, though. She is the poster monster for the meta-problem. She is the fucking meta-problem.
Thank goodness I won't have to make that decision. Obama vs. McCain is forthcoming. I'm voting Barack. If the Hillary people stay home in November that's their fucking problem.
To borrow a sentiment from Hillary (who borrowed it from John Edwards who may have borrowed it from Bill in the first place):Whatever happens, we'll be fine.
Technorati Tags: barack obama, Bill Clinton, hillary clinton, Clinton, Obama, Politics, Election, john mccain, McCain, monster, voters, polls Del.icio.us Tags: barack obama, Bill Clinton, hillary clinton, Clinton, Obama, Politics, Election, john mccain, McCain, monster, voters, polls Furl Tags: barack obama, Bill Clinton, hillary clinton,Clinton, Obama, Politics, Election, john mccain, McCain, monster, voters, polls
Great post! I'm with you most of the way except that the Iraq problem would pose a big problem for me when faced with the choice of voting for McCain.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, I really like your use of the term "meta-issues". It's perfect!
Yeah, that's pretty much how I feel, John. I only barely cut it a different direction, and that is only if I don't hear anything different from Barack in the general election (which I probably will, given that it will be a general election and not a primary election he's got to starting thinking about folks like me more than his base).
ReplyDeleteBut, what I do know is that Clinton loses my vote every fuckin' time. She's sleazy. And sleazy in that hypocritical, sanctimonious kind of way. It's the same reason why you don't mind Bill Clinton getting a blow job nearly as much as Jim Bakker getting his knob slobbered on all while telling the world how they we're going to hell. They're not bad people. But, especially when it comes to wielding power, they just can't be trusted as well as someone more honest.
I will be honest, John McCain's support for campaign finance regulation and knowing how a bill is likely to reach a President McCain's desk is concerning for me. Even though I campaigned for the last Democratic candidate, Bill Bradley, who made it one of his signature issues, and favored that legislation, at that time. Just watching how that legislation has been used - the Russ Feingold election where Common Cause abused that legislation to keep Feingold's opponent from running ads for his business, independent of his political campaign, illustrated the problem pretty well, I thought - and thinking more about money and the role it plays in our lives, including the lives of politicians, just led me to reconsider that whole mess. I'd love to have a world where people don't use unfair advantage with money and power, but that world will not likely to exist. But, in the long term, it is generally to their disadvantage, I think. And the solution is worse than the problem, I think.
And I have to say that I'm not thrilled about Obama's economic proposals nor his talk about pulling troops out. Powers is probably right. Much of it is probably talk that he will backtrack on closer to the general election (though even that bothers me, since Obama's running as a more honest candidate; I want him, thus, to be more honest). But I'm still concerned.
John offers me a clear commitment to stick in Iraq until the job is done (I would prefer is Mr. McCain were more interested in what Iraqis had to say about the matter rather than what he decided when enough was enough, but I'll have to live with a more self-centered assessment, I imagine), and I hope that is as soon as possible. McCain offers me more of a free trade commitment, generally, and a free trade commitment on health care, which I think leads us in the better direction, long term, than even Obama's marginal plan insuring kids, as much as I am complete agreement with his intentions, obviously.
I think Barack needs to be less concerned about Hillary voters - who, by virtue of their candidate and much of their behavior, are not the most loyal or trustworthy lot in the world - and more concerned about what is a better vision for America and the world - the reason he's winning this primary, I think, for all of Bill Clinton's foolish scheming to deny the power of this quality this election and in the last elections where Democrats had stronger candidates - and how that translates into policies that take us in that direction.
When he talks foreign policy, this is a strong point for him, even as the pundocrisy poo-poos ideas that, generally, not a goddamn one of them has any practical experience with or any reason to give Barack shit about them except that they do not compose our currently failed efforts iwith muscled diplomacy. Andrew Sullivan likes Barack for this reason and is voting for him, at this point, as far as I can tell. I think that's a good reason. I just haven't given up on this war effort like Andrew has.
If Barack goes center on the war and economics, he becomes unbeatable. He's just got to figure out what he's gonna do. He won't give up the health care plan, for fear of being called a sell-out by his clan. But giving up the anti-NAFTA talk should be pretty easy, actually. And shifting his rhetoric on the war is probably something he's already planned.
I have to say, that, at that point, it becomes a race for me. I have to swallow hard and accept either a national health care mandate or a likelihood of a campaign finance mandate. Either way, I'm not thrilled, even as I appreciate the intentions (I get tired of saying that, after a while, because I'm learning that every illiberal measure is justified on its intentions; why do we think we passed adultery laws, back in the day? To fuck up people's marriages? C'mon). And Obama's foreign policy of constructive engagement - the policy that worked with China and Vietnam on Bill Clinton's watch if we had 2 minutes of political memory - and sticking with Iraq until the security situation is safe for Iraqis to handle, is unbeatable.
Unless, of course, John McCain offers up some constructive engagement of his own - which he's not likely to do, lest he called a sell out by his clan, unless he were to appeal to the successful experiences by Bill Clinton in China and Vietnam, but also in Northern Ireland, the most successful anti-terrorist effort by an American President ever, I believe (though, really, David Trimble and John Hume deserve credit for the Belfast Accords, then Tony Blair, then Bill Clinton, and probably people before those two) just in terms of terrorism.
But a Republican candidate praising Bill Clinton, this election, would be like a Baptist minister praising his own penis in church. It probably deserves it, but it's not gonna happen. Although stranger things have been known.
I think we need more boobs in politics, John. I'm all for some Candidates Wives' Gone Crazy. I wouldn't mind seeing Michelle Obama's breasts. Cindy McCain, on the other hand, I want to see much more than tits. I, personally, want to know if she's really pro-Bush or if she's abandoned Bush like the rest of the country. I think if we're going to bypass substantive policy debate, it would keep things interesting. I actually think that it would keep things interesting, either way.
Someday, this shit is going to be published somewhere and its going to be a scandal. Thank God I get to be a part of it.