I’ll be leaving the country again on Wednesday, January 16. We won’t be back until February 6, the day after “tsunami Tuesday” and the California presidential primary. I am eagerly awaiting my absentee ballot, quietly confident it will arrive in the next couple of days. I haven’t missed voting in an election since I turned 18 in 1985, and don’t want to break that streak now.
A prediction:
I’m fairly confident that neither party will have decided its nominee by February 6. Even after so many huge states cast ballots on the 5th, no candidate will have clinched his or her party’s nomination. I suspect that for the Democrats, Obama and Clinton will still be neck-and-neck, with dear John Edwards — sadly — eliminated. For the GOP, there will still be four candidates with a shot at the nomination: McCain, Romney, Giuliani, and Huckabee. McCain and Huckabee will be in the best position, but look for Republican party elders (who not-so-quietly loathe both these mavericks) to do everything they can to help their favorite lad, Romney, put together a coalition that helps him win a brokered convention. Frankly, I’d love it if both parties had exciting conventions.
So, below the fold, my endorsements for the California primary.
President: John McCain (GOP); Hillary Clinton (Democratic). Both on his positions and his character, McCain is the best the Republicans have on offer this year. He’s the only Republican in the field to oppose drilling in ANWR, the only Republican to stand up for strong fuel economy standards. And he’s better on immigration than any of his fellows in the party, with the possible exception of Mike Huckabee (who would be my second choice).
The Clinton endorsement is provisional; it’s based on the assumption that the Edwards campaign will have fallen too far behind by February 5 and that the Democratic race has come down to just two candidates. I love Obama’s energy, enthusiasm, and passion. He will make a marvelous president some day, and would make a fine vice-president now. It’s not an easy call to make between two such worthies, but if I have to make the call, I’ll make it for Clinton. As others have said, all else being equal — and here all else really is damn close to equal — I want a woman in the White House. And this is not a way of choosing sexism over racism in the suffering Olympics. Still, I’ll support whichever one of these two gets the nomination in the fall, even over my boy McCain.
California ballot propositions:
Prop 91 (Transportation): No. Everyone recommends “No”, even the folks who got it on the ballot by mistake.
Prop 92 (Community Colleges): Yes! Yes! Yes!
Prop 93 (Term Limits): Yes, reluctantly. I hate term limits as a violation of voter freedom. “Stop me before I vote for you again” is poor politics.
Props 94-97 (Indian Gaming): No.
It is very hard to choose between the two Democrats. However, the more I have been reading into their past policies, I like Clinton more.
I’m still not entirely clear why you prefer Clinton to Obama, but maybe that’s because I’m not convinced all things are equal. Doesn’t Obama take stronger liberal stands on, well, pretty much everything?
I also like Clinton, Obama and Edwards. Living in a USA — living on this planet — with any one of them in the White House would indeed be much sweeter than what we’ve had the last seven years. Still, I have to say Obama has charmed me silly with an intelligence that works in so many dimensions: Policy, interpersonal, inspirational and more. Clinton is also extremely intelligent but I don’t think she matches Obama’s breadth of talents. I think a president has to lead and inspire as well as make decent choices.
I’m very concerned we’re initiating a dual dynasty: President Bush, President Clinton, President Bush, President Clinton. If Hillary serves for 8 years, the majority of voters in 2016 won’t know what it’s like to live in a USA with a president who is not a Bush or a Clinton. That treads heavily on the spirit of the 22nd amendment to the Constitution.
Ultimately, I haven’t entirely left sexism behind if I “want a woman in the White House.” That sounds like sexism with a gentler face, and has an eensy bit of the dynamic at work when we hear Obama is a “credit to his race.”
…Sorry, I should have written “the majority of citizens in 2016 won’t know…” Unless, of course, we extend voting rights to children!
I also agree with you on NO on 94-97. This is a bad deal for California and an EXCELLENT deal for the four tribes (pop. 1800)
Pechanga (no on 94) should not be rewarded for violating the civil rights of its people.
I’m for Clinton, but I’m keeping quiet about that for now. I like Obama, but I honestly don’t think that he has enough experience to run the nation yet.
Prop 92: Awesome. I wish I could vote for something like that here in WA. Do you think it’s likely to pass?
I think it would have been more likely were we not staring this massive budget crisis in the face…
If the choice is between Clinton and Obama, I’d have to say Obama. Clinton touts her “experience” but she has only one term more on the national level and not much more legislative experience over all than Obama. And she voted wrong on the Bankruptcy and Medicare bills IIRC, wrong on Kyl-Lieberman, wrong on the PATRIOT act (twice) and wrong on the biggest of the biggies, the Authorization for use of Force in Iraq. We don’t need another Republican in the White House, even Republican-lite as a Hillary Clinton.
I would prefer Edwards. His positions on the budget, on unions, on healthcare are the best out there. But, if we take your point that Edwards won’t last, then I guess Obama. But I’m not sure if I agree with your supposition. He is only 4 delegates or so behind the front runners at this point. He’s being counted out by the talking heads of the punditocracy, not by those who count, the voters. I hope he keeps it interesting.
I used to be a bigger Obama supporter, but the more he talks about “reuniting” the country, the more worried I am. He continues to use Republican talking points in his speeches and I don’t trust that getting “beyond partisan politics” is the best thing for the country right now. We need to clean house and clean House, with lots of people going to jail for all manners of crimes, high crimes, and misdemeanors.
I can only think of the Republicans in terms of “who would I want the Democratic nominee to run against.” I can’t think of a single one who would do anything to improve our country. They all seem to try to out Bush Bush on the war and foreign policy and try to be the reincarnation of Regan when it comes to fiscal policy. Both Bush and Regan have proven to be absolute horrors for the middle and lower classes and we are still suffering the effects of their policies. Nope. It is time for about 20 years of Democratic rule so we can, again, have a surplus budget, a strong middle class, and a thriving economy (all of which happened under Clinton).
Wait…Let’s start a third party! What do you all think?
Last night I watched the South Carolina Democratic debate sponsored by the Black Cacus. I get fed up with the media coverage. One commentator said that it got personal between Clinton and Obama. Who are they kidding? They must have a selective memory and stick their heads in the sand. Since when doesn’t politics get personal? It always gets personal, even if the demonstrations of personal is more covert, subtle and slick. It is also always repetitious and I didn’t see any difference here than what generally has been going for decades in the politics. I like Edward’s strong stance against corporate greed and the detrimental influence of corporations through lobbying, which in my opinion is destroying our country. This is a mess that has been going on for a long time, inherited by each successive presidency. I don’t see the other candidates speaking to this or much attention given to this huge problem by the media. Only one political analyst suggested the reason is because it doesn’t translate well in the media. I’m impressed with Edwards and we need more people like him leading our country and working for our citizens. We need to look at candidates records and think about substantive issues, not superficialities such as race and gender. The whole emphasis on race and gender is just another way to deflect attention off of the real issues. It infuriates me.
I would’ve totally assumed you would have picked Obama. I would’ve bet some serious money on it.