Politics

[tikiera]

If Obama wins the nomination, I will be once again voting against a candidate, rather than for one.

Obama gives one hell of a speech.  But in debates I have trouble telling exactly what his views are.  And he's too moderate for me.  He wants to leave the gay marriage situation at the state level (though he does want to revoke the DoMA) -

"But I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples — whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage."

I don't want this decided at the state level.  

And I no longer trust him regarding choice:

"The issue of abortion, I don’t think, has gone away. People think about it a lot, obviously you do and you feel impassioned. I think that the American people struggle with two principles: There’s the principle that a fetus is not just an appendage, it’s potential life. I think people recognize that there’s a moral element to that. They also believe that women should have some control over their bodies and themselves and there is a privacy element to making those decisions."

Some control.  Some control.

I don't trust to him help end the slow erosion of abortion rights.  I think he will make concessions here and there, and that he doesn't care enough about this issue that I can trust him to keep our best interests at heart.

If Roe vs. Wade dies with a whimper instead of a bang, it's still dead. 

I was hoping for a election where I was proud to cast my vote for my candidate, rather casting my vote in fear of what the next four years could bring.

I am watching the arguments on my feminist blog debating not voting for Obama - staying home, voting for a third party candidate - and I have always come down on the side of doing less harm with your vote - if you are pro-choice, not voting for the candidate that will nonimate pro-choice judges is stupid.  (And henceforth for the other issues - normally one candidate is more moderate than the other).

But I am sick and tired of it.  I am sick and tired of voting in fear instead of pride.  I am sick and tired of democrat candidates hating to be called liberals.

One of the articles that quoted Obama at the debates shown him saying over and over again "It's not liberal to want (universal healthcare, etc).

Damn it, is liberal to want universal healthcare.  It is liberal to advocate birth control sex ed rather than just telling kids to not have sex. 

There is nothing wrong with being liberal. 

And a democratic candidate that feels that he need to not be a liberal, is a candidate that I don't want to vote for.

I don't want to see this country get worse.  But maybe if the people who don't consider it shameful to be called liberal stay home or vote third party we might eventually get a candidate who doesn't think being a liberal is shameful.

Comments

[jamesofengland.livejournal.com]

Disclaimer: Of the three remaining candidates, Obama is at the bottom of my preference list.

That said, I'm not sure that these are really fair criticisms of him.
I'm under the impression that he's more supportive of same sex marriage than Clinton. He's been very clear that he wants to remove the DOMA that she voted in, whereas she's somewhat hedged. He explicitly supports transgendered rights, whereas Hillary has avoided taking a position on them. Is Clinton offering to have Congress enact federal same sex marriage laws?

On abortion, Clinton voted for the federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which effectively banned induced labor abortions, while Obama killed the Illinois version as head of the relevant committee. If a man's tough enough to support passive euthanasia for delivered infants, he's going to be able to face down most challenges to choice. Obviously, the most important part of a President's activity on choice is appointing judges, and Obama's record as a professor makes it clear that his SCOTUS appointments will be impeccably liberal. Roe v. Wade died as law back when Casey was decided, but it's absurd to suggest that Casey will die under Obama nominees.

I'm not sure that Obama's denying being a liberal himself. Clinton, on the other hand, has. Instead, she would prefer to be associated with eugenics, prohibition, and the other policies of "progressives" from the early 20th century. Sounds pretty ashamed to me.

Incidentally, I'm pretty sure that Cynthia McKinney would have an impeccable pro choice record, and it seems as if she could get a real vote share if she weren't oppressed by the white male media's suppression of her campaign. We should all do our part to ensure that people are aware of the genuinely liberal candidate for this election. Ralph Nader should not be allowed to steal votes from the genuine green party candidate, and the attention given to him is a national disgrace.

[tikiera.livejournal.com]

My problem with Obama is that his record does not match he is saying now.

I know what I am getting with Clinton, and I think if anything once she has the job, she will get more liberal.

Obama is backtracking. He's pandering to the moderates and the conservatives. Those are quotes taken from the New York times, James. He was real quick to say that his positions weren't liberal ones - and then he went through the liberal positions. He kept repeating "It's not liberal to want..."

He's moving to the right - and I am worried that the things I care about are what he has on his list of things he can move right on.

"women should have some control over their bodies" Those words came out of his mouth. And that is the kind of thing you say when you are willing to let some things go.

[jamesofengland.livejournal.com]

I'm not suggesting that Obama's quotes aren't genuine. I'm just saying that it's odd for a Clinton supporter to get upset by the denial of liberalism. Given, you know, Clinton's denial of being a liberal (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2oOoCdFblc).

I'm not suggesting that Obama's an absolutist on abortion, but none of the candidates are. Clinton voted for the born alive infant protection act. She's talked about wanting abortion to be rare, adopting her husband's compromise rhetoric. She supports notification requirements, albeit only in theory. She remained silent when her husband signed the permanent Hyde amendment into law and has not attacked it since. Her '90s health care plan saw incredibly broad exclusions on abortions. Her current health care plan is unclear on the issue, and it seems deeply unlikely to me that she'd be willing to lose her biggest battle a second time for an issue that she has not made so much effort over in the past.

It'd be perverse to vote against Clinton on the basis of her non-fanaticism on that score (although I suspect that Cynthia McKinney is purer), but it's also perverse to attack Obama for saying things that are closely related to one's first candidate. There are differences, but they're not where you're looking.

I've listened to the "it's not liberal" speech in person. He's not saying that it's bad to be liberal. He's saying that anyone with any common sense would have these views. That all Americans want universal health care and such. In the same way as I find his opposition to the born alive infant protection act odd, but deeply entertaining, I find his "America is united in wanting a deeply liberal democrat government" schtick slightly disturbing, but worth a smile. It's not a conservative, right wing thought, though. Republicans rarely believe that common sense, non-liberal Americans are crying out for universal healthcare.

Thinking about it, I'm not sure that I know where you stand on induced labor abortions? With Clinton for banning 'em, or with Obama for supporting 'em?

[diabhol.livejournal.com]

I never vote in fear and I don't recommend anyone start.

[ngrylilasianboy.livejournal.com]

I empathize with Tikiera. It's a darn depressing election year. I realized my prospects have seriously degraded when I cheer up inwardly at the thought of Nader being in the race; and not because he may or may not take votes away from anyone, but rather because I am beginning to wonder if he might be a tolerable choice.

I'm a Non-Partisan, but this year feels like the year of no choices. The Democratic ticket is demagoguery at its finest. I can't find a single politically-consistent nominee amongst their numbers, and its chilling to think that every platform being bandied about these last few months is likely to become a set of complete and utter lies that will be tossed to the wayside come January of 2009.

On the other hand, I am waiting for the Republican party to drag itself out of the Stone-Age and present an actual alternative for the Thinking Man's vote. No luck there. Apparently to vote Republican this year, you've got to turn in your brains as well as your balls. There's not a single nominee who can be fiscally savvy without being socially stuck in the mindset of Pilgrims and Shakers. And I bemoan the utter lack of Second Amendment Protection in any of the nominees as well. Well, Ron Paul maybe has some potential, but socially he's stuck the era of Harper Lee's childhood.

So yes, just like Tikiera, this is a year of finding the candidate you wnat to do the least amount of damage over the next four years, and voting against the others. I'm wondering if joining the write-in campaign for Mickey Mouse might be a better use of my vote this year.

[tikiera.livejournal.com]

Send me a link to the text of the bill in question and I will let you know - I am unfamiliar with that of which you speak.

I use two different sites to get voting records, and Clinton is 100% on record as voting pro-choice - and without those pesky "present" votes that Obama has on several.

[jamesofengland.livejournal.com]

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h107-2175

It's worth noting that the compilation of these sites tends not to be managed by apolitical entities. This bill's absense from their lists of abortion bills might tell you something about the loyalties of the compilers.

[jamesofengland.livejournal.com]

I think it depends on the thinking man's level of cynicism. I'd like to offer up a few of McCain's finer qualities: He's astonishingly dishonest, ineloquent, angry, and unlikely to persuade anyone of anything at any point. His arguments consistently descend swiftly to ad hominems, which is particularly problematic when he later adopts the positions he's attacked (see corporation taxation levels, in particular). He bears grudges and is unlikely to maintain positive bipartisan relationships for much of the time. He's keen on vetoes and hostile to spending (although he is pretty pro-regulation). Is the thinking man keen on 4 years of gridlock? How much does emotional appeal matter to the thinking man? Does the thinking man get terribly upset about the "gook" thing? If the answers are yes, not much, and no, and the thinking man wants a president who is likely to appoint centrist judges (given that they'd need to be confirmed by a Democrat controlled Senate), I'd have thought that there was a candidate.

On the specific issues: His NRA ratings are because of his assaults on the 1st amendment; he's pretty sound on the 2nd. He was one of the signatories on the Hutchinson brief on Heller. I'm not sure how much better you get than believing in an absolute right for individuals to own guns for self defense. Horrific human being though he is, on that issue (and trade) he's head and shoulders above every president since Reagan, and before Reagan since... Coolidge?

Not many of the Pilgrims or shakers publically dated strippers, or publically maintained many mistresses before leaving their wives for one of them.