In 2003, I was a Deniac, recently converted with all the zeal and fire that goes with that, from political apathetic to hard-core supporter. I gave money (that I couldn't afford). I went to meetups. I walked precincts. I started 2 of my own blogs (one of which now still functions off and on). The reason for my catharsis was the war - the horrible way in which it was sold, the costs in human suffering that it brought, and the feeling that I, as a tax-paying American, was enabling it. No, that's not the whole story... Because the real catharsis came when a man named Howard Dean - truly or falsely - convinced me that together, the millions who felt as I did, actually could have an impact. Previously, I believed - truly or falsely - that I was completely powerless to change U.S. policy.
That's not to say that I wasn't liberal-minded before the war. I've always been aware to some degree or another, of the needless suffering that results from a broken healthcare system, needless poverty, a retributionist system of "justice", and inequity between the sexes, the races, and the religious factions. It's just that I looked at those things the same way I look at cold in winter and hot in summer - part of life I could do nothing about. Why the war and a charismatic Presidential contender changed my mind when nothing else could or did, I don't know. Whether I was right to change it or not, I don't know.
Then came Iowa, and Yeaaarrghhh, and the sudden realization that if I was to keep this new-found hope, I was going to have to place my faith in a stranger named John Kerry, who had a strong record of military service, a mixed record of public service in the Legislative branch, and a set of political credentials I couldn't quite make sense of. I was aware of his war vote, and that of his eventual VP selection, and tried my best to believe that he was sincere in his primary conversion to Howard Dean's side. I watched the debates, I watched the media, and I watched the election, cringing every other week over a slow response to the Swiftboaters, a photograph of my candidate pitching like a girl, windsurfing, or dressing as the Easter Bunny to crawl through some tube. I hoped against hope that people would vote for the windsurfing Easter Bunny who threw like a girl because they had had enough of George Bush's flagrant disrespect for the American way and his obnoxious dismissal on our behalf of America and Americans as responsible world citizens.
We almost made it.
Through the process, I realized that I could neither give up on or rely upon hope. I realized that there was too much at stake.
I live in Chattanooga, TN, and in 2006, I saw one and only one local or state election that my vote would matter in. (There was another local election, in a neighboring city that I tried to support a progressive candidate in, against a horrible, unethical slob of a Republican... that didn't go so well either). In 2006, I voted for Rosalid Kurita in the primary for the open U.S. Senate seat, then held my nose and voted, with loathing, for Harold Ford.
It's a depressing political landscape out here.
Now we are back to the big Presidential election - the fun one - or at least it should be. Oh dear God, why did Al Gore not run? Oh dear God, why can't this flawed, but caring and intelligent man be chosen for the VP nod? I don't know.
But unlike many here who think this year's field is a cut above - that all of the top-tier candidates are going to be just great - I'm not there. Yeah, I'll support the nominee - I'll vote for him or her. But I'm not sold on any of them completely.
I did select a candidate, and for now at least, I'm sticking by him. I got to him by a process of elmination, just as Kos did - though maybe for different reasons. It was an easy process. Here are the outlines:
- Hillary Clinton: She voted for the war. She stood by, and stood by, and stood by that vote. She voted for Kyle-Lieberman. She stands by that vote. She says that nuclear annhiliation isn't "off the table" in dealing with Iran. Besides that, her negatives with independents and moderate Republicans put her in John Kerry territory in the general election. I'm not at all eager for a repeat of 2004. I understand that she makes promises to fix the mistakes in Iraq and to govern without the neo-con sensibilities that started that war. And, I mainly believe her. But I've seen too much poor judgment on foreign policy from her to trust her with the keys.
That said, I would be proud to pull the lever for the first woman President. I hate glass ceilings. I hate marble ceilings. She has never sung "Bomb Iran" as has the GOP candidate with the least belligerent foreign policy has done. I don't think she would start wars to prove it could be done, and I think she is smart enough to put people around her who will challenge her and help craft a relatively unoffensive set of foreign policies. I think she will be attentive to the domestic problems that place American poor and middle class people at risk. I think she will at least pay lip service to efforts toward cleaning up our environmental mess - and at least not impede progress at every step of the way.
- John Edwards: I expect readers of this (extraordinarily long - sorry!) diary (who get this far) to try to convince me to un-eliminate him. I understand that sentiment. As he surges in Iowa, and as I see progressives from Paul Krugman to Ezra Klein (all bow!) to the impassioned diarists & commenters here at Kos rally behind him, I try to convince myself - as I did of John Kerry with him as VP candidate - that I can believe in him. I will have difficulty explaining why I can't support him in the primary. What was easy with Ms. Clinton will be difficult with him. In fact, one of my biggest impressions of him is a positive one - the result of his admission of error and apology for his war vote. That, to me, overshadows his war vote in importance.
Sure, there are the standard complaints. His Senate record was less than stellar. He removed himself from public service to advance his Presidential/Vice Presidential hopes. He didn't use his membership in the bar to do pro bono work for the needy. He didn't help the 2004 ticket - maybe even hurt it. He lacks experience. Those things all factor in to my elimination of him, but only in a very small way.
I know this may sound stupid and small, but the fact is that he strikes me as fake. He can't tell you what he believes in without an exaggerated southern accent and an extreme workout on his blinking eyelids. His policy stances line up nearly identically with my own, and with most other Daily Kos readers very faithfully ... to the point where I feel pandered to. To the point where I feel that we are doing the leading, and he is doing the following. To the point where I feel that his White House would be similar to the Bush White House - not in policy, but in loyalty to "the base". Don't get me wrong. I love our "base". I am our "base". But, living in an America where the views of 20% define our policies, whether the rest of us like it or not - that's repulsive to me. And I don't want to live there even if I'm part of that 20%. I don't want to elect a President who refuses to consider other points of view. I don't want to elect a president who only understands what he hears in the echo chamber.
- Barack Obama. Unlike Kos, I haven't eliminated him yet. Like Kos, and like the Clinton and Edwards partisans, I see real problems with him. I don't like his near-hypocrisy (maybe actual hypocrisy) on negative campaigning. I agree with him in opposing mandates for adult insurance coveage, but I am disappointed with his seeming lack of commitment on the matter of making sure every person living in America can recieve the healthcare he or she needs. I don't trust him to keep K Street out of our politics. I don't admire his debate performance. I don't know whether to expect him to do a good job of ending the war without creating greater problems and more suffering in the Middle East.
When he offers "hope", I don't know whether to dust off my hope from 2003 or to tell him "nice try". I am inclined toward the former - less because of his exhortations (which may actually be a political ploy) - more because he does not seem fake at all. He gave up a lucrative career to dangerous, local oganizing. He still seems a man of principle, even if I disagree with some of his principles. He promises an end to the Iraq war, shows willingness to put up a defense in the case of a real outside threat to our security, yet shows willingness to deal with unfriendly nations without unnessecary belligerence. He shows hallmarks of intelligence and discernment. He understands the American Constitutional system better than anyone, including my real favoerite - Al Gore.
He isn't pure, and he has shown a politician's willingness to compromise on principle. But, his rhetoric tells me that he understands some things that I think are important. But unless one of the bottom-tier candidates surges, or someone I can wholeheartedly believe in emerges, he'll have to do more than that to lose my primary support.