Yesterday, I saw a ghost of 2000 first-hand. I spent the morning arguing a hearing in the chambers of Broward Judge Robert Rosenberg. Rosenberg was the election judge in 2000 who was the subject of the famous photo showing him looking at a hanging chad w/ a magnifying glass. That photo is on the wall in his chambers.
That experience generated considerable thought about the imminent selection of Barack Obama as the Dem nominee. If Zogby and others are to be believed, Sen. Obama is on the verge of winning a NH victory that will virtually clinch the Dem nomination for him. Gore clinched the '00 nomination w/ wins in IA and NH, Kerry did the same in '04, and history should repeat itself w/ Obama this time.
There's plenty to like about Obama's candidacy. He opposed the IWR, he has a solidly progressive record, he's bringing new voters into the process, and his election would break a major societal barrier. I will have no problems w/ supporting him as the nominee. Yesterday, however, tangibly reminded me of my major reservation about Obama.
The defining difference between the Edwards campaign and the Obama campaign is in their approach to political conflict. That issue has been addressed by Occam's Hatchet, by Krugman, and by others in recent weeks. I addressed the topic myself a few months back.
Because I experienced it first-hand, the theft of the 2000 election remains my most searing political experience. The only other major political event that I had some first-hand recollection of was the 1968 Dem Convention, and I was a kid at the time. I know that the 2000 election was stolen the same way that I know that my paycheck will clear when it is deposited. I also know that the 2000 election stands in sharp contradiction to the approach that Obama wants to take.
James Baker wasn't interested in reasoning or negotiating in 2000, nor were Jebby, Cruella, the FL lege, the national GOP, or 5 Supremes. Those people were all interested in only 1 thing--installing an ignorant, arrogant dry drunk frat boy in the WH even though he lost the popular vote and he lost FL by any halfway fair count. They succeeded in that effort, and the rest of the country have been paying for their success ever since.
We'll never know whether a Gore WH might've stopped 9/11, but we do know that he wouldn't have spent a month on vacation after getting a PDB expressly warning him that OBL wanted to attack the US. We know that Iraq wouldn't have been invaded, that our treasury would not be bankrupt, and that global warming wouldn't have been ignored. We know that our govt wouldn't be torturing people, that our constitutional system of govt would still be very much in place, and NOLA wouldn't be a basket case. We never would have heard of Abu Ghraib, Alberto Gonzales, or Scooter Libby.
This Pandora's Box was opened b/c, in '00, the Dems believed in the rule of law, and the GOP believed that might makes right. It's that simple. I worry a great deal, accordingly, about putting any faith in the good will of such people. I keep remembering W's mangled "fool me once" video from the end of F 9/11 every time I hear about the nonpartisan future that we will have in an Obama presidency.
Barack Obama is a good man who has run a good campaign whom we should all support as our nominee. A lot of good things could happen w/ a Prez Obama and a solidly Dem Congress. Every time I think of the events of 11-12/00, however, I worry a little that the poetry of his campaign will be difficult to translate into the prose of governing w/ a GOP that views compromise and conciliation w/ complete and utter disdain.