You know, a lot of times, it's difficult to be a liberal Democrat in Alabama. Not because we're persecuted, or anything like that. But because of the constant reminders that our votes don't count.
I mean, GWB carried this state by a margin of 250,000 votes in 2000, and over half a million votes in 2004. So although I went to the polls, what difference did it make, really? In our "winner-take-all" electoral college system, the nearly 700,000 Alabamians who voted for John Kerry in 2004 might as well have stayed home. We made no difference.
Alabama has been similarly irrelevant in recent primary elections, as well. Our primary was held so late in the season, the candidates were already long-decided. In 2004, our primary was on June 1, for heaven's sake!! In today's political climate, we didn't count for anything; John Kerry had been the presumptive Democratic nominee for nearly three months at that point.
In 2008, things are different. Now, I hold no hope that Alabama will vote for a Democrat in November's general election. But at least in the primary, we here in the heart of Dixie have a chance to make a difference, as Alabama votes on "Super Tuesday," February 5. And with the overall race so close, and a recent Birmingham News poll showing Senators Clinton and Obama in a virtual tie, Alabama Democrats have a real chance to have our votes heard.
Here are the reasons that, on February 5, I'm voting for Senator Barack Obama (listed in order of importance to me):
1. The war in Iraq. To me, the 2008 election is, first and foremost, a referendum on the eight horrendous years of George W. Bush and his policies. And, the legacy of Dubya will always be this misguided war in Iraq, the war that has cost us 3,000 American lives and billions of dollars.
Senator Obama gains my respect because he's been against the war in Iraq from the very beginning. As early as fall 2002, while still serving in the Illinois Senate, Obama took a strong position against the war, famously telling a crowd of supporters: "I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars."
In contrast, Senator Clinton's position on the war has been unclear and has shifted several times. In October 2002, she voted for the President's authorization to use force in Iraq. Now, like all Americans, Clinton was lied to by the Bush Administration about the rationale for the war. But while others have admitted they were misled and should not have voted for the war, Senator Clinton has refused to apologize for her vote, or admit it was a mistake.
On Larry King Live in 2004, Clinton said: "Obviously, I've thought about that a lot in the months since. No, I don't regret giving the president authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade."
If Senator Clinton can't admit her past mistakes, can't see that this war was the United States' worst foreign policy blunder in decades, then I can't vote for her.
And indeed, Clinton would seem to invite me and others like me to vote for someone else. In February of last year, she said: "If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from."
Indeed, Senator.
2. Electability. It's crucial that we get a Democrat elected in 2008 and 2012. The eight years of Bush's presidency have done grave damage to civil liberties, legal protections, corporate responsibility, and the American economy. We need four or eight years to repair the damage that Bush has done to this country, domestically and to our reputation across the world.
We need a candidate that can defeat the Republican nominee. And with each passing primary, it appears as though the Republicans are finally getting their act together, and will nominate Senator John McCain, who is easily the most electable of their candidates.
In my heart of hearts, I don't believe that Hillary Clinton can defeat John McCain in November. They are similar candidates, but McCain trumps her on Senate experience, foreign policy experience, and has much more chance to win over independent and moderate voters. With Clinton, most people have already decided -- they love her or they hate her. Not a lot of middle ground.
If it's Clinton versus McCain in November, I fear McCain wins. Even more so if he does something "bold" like choose Joe Lieberman (the ultimate Republican-in-Democrat clothing) as his running mate.
If it's Obama versus McCain, it's still a tough race. But I think Obama has a much better chance.
3. Preventing an oligarchy. Counting George H.W. Bush's service as Vice President, there has been a Bush or Clinton in the White House for 28 consecutive years now. If Hillary Clinton wins this November, that streak extends to 32 years, possibly 36 years with a re-election in 2012.
Do we really want to entrust that sort of control in two families, two dynasties? Even discounting Bush's vice presidential years, a Bush or Clinton has been president for the last two decades. Do we want to extend that line?
Surely there must be someone qualified to be President who isn't named Bush or Clinton, right? The United States is not a monarchy, or an oligarchy, where power is concentrated in a few elite families. Is it really good for the nation to go from Bush to Clinton to Bush to Clinton??
4. Escaping from divisive politics. Ever since 1992, there has been a President in office that half the country absolutely detested. Bill Clinton was hated with a vengeance by the Right, somewhat unjustly, but still. And since invading Iraq and ignoring the Constitution, George W. Bush has been detested by the Left in this country.
Aren't we sick of it? Do we really want to elect another President that engenders such vitriolic hatred? Now, it's not all Hillary Clinton's fault that she conjures up such venom from the Right. A lot of it is simply that they hated her husband, so they hate her by association. There's also some sexism to it, as a woman with ambition and a desire for power is seen as less of a woman, as a "bitch" or an "ice queen." A man would never be viewed that way.
So while I have some sympathy for her in this case, I'm also tired of the widening divide in this country. And yes, there will always be partisan politics. Republicans aren't going to fall down and kiss Obama's feet if he wins, and Democrats aren't going to instantly fall in love with McCain if he wins. But either of those candidates would be less divisive than Senator Clinton.
5. A Dirty Campaign. And speaking of "divisiveness," this brings me to my last point. Senator Clinton and her husband have been running a nasty, nasty campaign. It certainly seems as though they are out to win, at all costs, regardless of long-term damage to the Democratic Party.
In 1992, the first Presidential election in which I was able to vote, I wasn't very tuned in to the process. I knew I was a liberal, knew I'd vote for Clinton over Bush, and so I didn't pay much attention. (Of course, we didn't have dailykos.com back then, either.)
So maybe this is how Bill Clinton campaigned for President as well, and I just didn't know about it. But the tactics that the Hillary Clinton campaign is using make me sick to my stomach, as she's driving wedges between core constituencies of the Democratic Party.
For example, a Clinton pollster had this to say: "the Hispanic voter -- and I want to say this very carefully -- has not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates."
Now. Very little in a political campaign is said unscripted. This statement was carefully crafted to "remind" Hispanic voters that they "don't support" black candidates. Why? Because the Clinton campaign assumes they are going to lose most black voters, so they make a play for Hispanic voters, using this racist claptrap. "Remember, Hispanics? You don't like black people."
But in November, don't we all need to pull together and support the Democratic nominee? Why are the Clintons trying so hard to divide the party? Does win at all costs really mean "all costs"???
And of course, there are the constant "Obama is really a Muslim" references. The Clinton campaign made calls in Nevada, stressing Obama's middle name, referring to him as "Barack Hussein Obama."
On CNN, former Senator Bob Kerrey, a Clinton supporter, disingenuously said: "It’s probably not something that appeals to him, but I like the fact that his name is Barack Hussein Obama, and that his father was a Muslim and that his paternal grandmother is a Muslim. There’s a billion people on the planet that are Muslims, and I think that experience is a big deal. I’ve watched the blogs try to say that you can’t trust him because he spent a little bit of time in a secular madrassa. I feel quite the opposite."
What a fucking slimeball!! First of all, getting in the implication that Obama is still a Muslim (which shouldn't really matter, but he's not!); and then secondly, implying that he spent time in a Muslim school, a madrassa. Which he never did; and additionally, there's no such thing as a "secular madrassa." That's like saying a "secular Catholic school."
The Clinton's winner-take-all attitude is reprehensible. It's also reminiscent of the way George W. Bush ran his campaign against Kerry in 2004, and Gore in 2000. And I think it will come back to bite them in the ass. If Clinton is the Democratic nominee, I think a lot of liberals will stay home in November, unable to stomach voting for her.
If I do that, in Alabama, it won't matter. As I said in the beginning, the Republican nominee will carry this state no matter what. But if liberal Democrats stay home in Ohio, or Florida, or Pennsylvania, or Washington, or New Mexico? Then it might make a big difference, and Republicans will sweep to victory.
And that's why I'm voting for Barack Obama on February 5.