Time To Fall In Line?
Memo to the 5 Hillary supporters who read this blog:
Its becoming increasingly clear that Sen. Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee after the closest Presidential primary in modern American history.
Inevitably, there will be calls for Hillary supporters to fall in line and support the Democratic nominee. While obviously I'd like to see that happen, my personal opinion is that you ought to follow your conscience, and you should never feel compelled to vote for the Democrat just because they have a (D) next to their name.
If, when the dust clears, you think Sen. John McCain is going to be a better President, or you simply don't think Sen. Obama has what it takes, then by all means, vote for the Republican.
Nobody should feel compelled to vote party line, or guilted into doing so. Personally, I've never voted for a Republican, but that is simply because I've never had a better Republican than Democrat to vote for.
So weigh the candidates platforms, their personalities, their 'values,' and if you come to the conclusion that Sen. McCain or some third party candidate is best...vote for them and don't take any shit from anybody.
Now, I could list a whole host of reasons why Barack Obama would be a better President than John McCain; be it his break from a Bush foreign policy, to his better grasp on economic issues, to his support for equality, to his belief in a woman's right to chose, to his consistent advocacy for unity between people of all races and creeds.
But its not my job to convince you, its Sen. Obama's. All I ask is that you approach the general election with an open mind, and allow him a chance to earn your support.
10 comments:
Thanks for the instructions Sean. Now I know why you don't find Barry condesending.
No problem TC.
If [] you simply don't think Sen. Obama has what it takes, then by all means, vote for the Republican.
Is it OK if I vote for the Democrat anyway?
If you don't think he's capable of running the country, why would you?
Because McCain is less capable and more dangerous, and them's my choices?
Well, there you go...so Obama may not be as "capable" as you like but he's more capable than the alternatives...I was thinking of those Clinton supporters who thought McCain would be better equipped than Obama.
Is it an experience issue with Obama, or policy?
Experience in the ways of Washington. I know he says he's going to change that. Hope he can, but I'm not sure it's realistic, especially with his lack of political connections.
And what usually happens when we "reach across the aisle" is that we get burned. This "post-partisan" stuff sounds great, but old codgers like me want to protect Social Security and Medicare. I don't trust him to not deal it away in this "post-partisan" world.
I'm guessing that's why he's not as popular in the senior demographic.
As per seniors, it may just be the same reason Obama wins overwhelmingly blacks; they want someone to identify with. Old white women are going to be more comfortable with an old white woman than a young black guy begging for change ;-)
Seriously though, the American people want to hear bi-partisanship, even if we can't realistically achieve it. If you approach a legislative battle with the outward appearance of wanting to work with the other side of the aisle, the voters will be more inclined to listen (and blame the other side if you fail) than if you go at it with brass knuckles.
As for Social Security, Obama was the only one to even address the issue and come up with a realistic proposal to improve the solvency of the system (amending the cap). Hillary was the one who wanted a bi-partisan commission to 'investigate' an issue we already know plenty about.
Re. SS, Clinton also said that any changes to Social Security were off the table until a thorough study was conducted to see where it stands now in the face of the trillion dollar deficits as oppposed to the billions in surplus that her husband's administration left behind that would have fully funded it. So to me, "no changes" = good for now.
Obama said that nothing was off the table with regard to SS. I don't know what that means. Privatization? Cutting benefits? I do appreciate the fact that he was agreeable to removing the payroll tax deduction cap. Didn't Edwards propose that early on while Obama was still trying to figure out his position on SS?
As a youngin', I disagree that the status quo is working in Social Security...more investigating simply means more not doing anything.
As for John Edwards...it could be, considering he ran for President in 2004 and I'm sure would've been on the record with what he wanted to do. Though this wasn't exactly a secret policy idea.
Post a Comment