vote republican

one of the most hilarious political spoofs i’ve seen — although that may be more a comment on the amt of time i don’t spend surfing for spoofs

vice presidential XX factor

now that hillary has conceded, political speculation will turn to obama’s pick for a running mate. some democratic activists think an obama-clinton ticket is unstoppable, but i’m not convinced of that, nor am i convinced that it’s needed to bring hillary’s supporters out to vote for obama (no vote = mccain vote).

that said, the hillary factor can’t be ignored given the extreme vitriol among hillary supporters. to give obama the time to court her supporters, hillary should publicly state that obama should not be pressured to name his running mate until a complete vetting process has taken place and it’s clear his selection is what’s best for the party, the country, etc. that would get some of the die-hard hillary supporters off his case and create the space for favorability polling & political reality to inform the consequence of his options. take, for example, kathleen sebelius, kansas’ governor, or claire mccaskill in missouri: both are pro-choice women who may be able to carry traditionally red states, but taking either out of their current positions opens those up to special elections or political appointments to replace them — which could lead to ultra-conservatives being the replacement. so here’s a brief vice presidential handicapping of women reportedly being considered:

clinton: social justice advocate-turned-first lady-turned-u.s. senator-turned-presidential candidate, clinton can write her own future now that she has shown the leadership she claimed on the campaign trail, officially suspending her campaign and lending her support for obama and a united democratic party.
pros: she pulled half of the turnout in a year where record numbers of democrats participated in the presidential primary contests. voters know her and know where she stands. she has a strong, loyal base among pro-choice women who see hillary as the best hope to break political glass ceilings. by having hillary on the ticket, obama’s task of courting hillary’s base is made that much easier. despite threatening to do so, it’s questionable whether hillary’s base really would vote mccain (either by staying home or actually pulling the lever for the venerable senator from arizona) once they learn obama’s policies are nearly in lock-step with hillary’s, rather than the 180-degree difference exhibited by on issues like reproductive rights, universal health care, the war in iraq, and economic stimuli.
cons: voters know her and know where she stands. republicans have been strategizing ways to defeat hillary since at least 2007, which means the storyline of the presidential contest will shift from policy differences between obama and mccain to what a clinton vice presidency really means. likewise, the bill factor still hasn’t been resolved — a sticky question not only of how obama would control a former president who’s wife serves in the administration, but how republicans will spin bill’s potential influence. clinton on the ticket will galvanize voters still skeptical of mccain’s conservative credentials, making it that much harder for obama to pick up independent and swing voters. despite her claims that primary victories in battleground states like ohio position her as general election asset, it’s unclear how democrat-only primary results will extrapolate into general election turnout and voting behavior.
net effect: neutral leaning positive — but i don’t think this is the best use of hillary’s skills and strengths. i think she could influence american society and public policy in a much more substantial way either staying in the senate and carrying significant legislation; holding other key positions within the administration like attorney general, white house counsel, or chief of staff; being appointed as a Supreme Court justice; or entering the non-profit sector to lead a social justice advocacy organization in an area that revolutionizes the socioeconomic system that affects health care access.

sebelius: first elected as kansas’ governor in 2002, she was re-elected in 2006 by a 17-point margin over her republican opponent, 58%-41% — although political history reveals that democrats have held the gubernatorial seat for 30 of the last 35 years in kansas, red-state label be damned.
pros: as a pro-choice governor in a red state, sebelius can act as hillary’s proxy to attract the pro-choice feminists who expressed betrayal when naral, the political leader of the pro-choice movement, announced its endorsement of obama on the same day edwards made his endorsment public.
cons: according to national review online, sebelius could drag on obama’s coattails, rather than helping him carry the state in the electoral college fight. despite democrats’ near-monopoly on the state’s highest office, kansas reportedly is already in the republican column, with obama trailing mccain by 20 points. a rasmussen poll reveals adding sebelius (polling at 56% combined “good” or “excellent”) to the ticket is more likely to make voters not vote for obama rather than support him.
net effect: jury’s still out

mccaskill: another red-state pick, mccaskill leap-frogged from state auditor to u.s. senator in 2006. perhaps best known as the candidate who won on stem-cell research — though political pundits will tell you with 20/20 hindsight that highlighting the stem-cell issue was more of a turnout wash because it gave the evangelical base yet another reason to vote against mccaskill.
pros: mccaskill could act not only as another proxy for hillary for pro-choice feminists, but also attract swing voters in the south to buttress the black vote that, despite its intensity, lacks the sheer numbers to carry obama to victory in the region.
cons: mccaskill narrowly became missouri’s junior senator, eking out a 49.6%-47.3% victory in 2006 — which means the chances of another democrat reclaiming that seat by popular vote would require a round of well-financed politicking featuring the.perfect.candidate. in the interim, the vacancy could be filled by a republican through gubernatorial appointment, given matt blunt’s affiliation. the loss of a democratic senator in a chamber that already holds the majority only because 2 independents caucus with the party would be a blow toward goals of using a democratic majority in the senate to confirm liberal-leaning justices, ratify strategically important treaties, and speak with authority on the iraq war.
net effect: not worth the cost

i think i figured it out

I’ve supported Obama for a while, but when I attended my caucus in February, I was almost equally supportive of both Hillary & Obama. There was just something about Obama that I was drawn to, but I couldn’t really articulate why I felt compelled to support him over Hillary Clinton. I mean, Hillary pretty much personifies everything that I believe in: she’s a successful woman who has acted as a leader and hasn’t apologized for being who she is. You all know how as women, we’re often marginalized, patronized, demoralized, or deligitimized because of our gender — and when we exhibit personality traits that society tags as “masculine,” we can find ourselves described as bitchy, pushy, or overbearing; have our sexuality questioned; and other nasty things. So as a feminist, I really felt like I was not being true to all the positive aspects of the feminist movement that Hillary Clinton represents. From a policy perspective, Obama & Clinton are fairly equal, although there are differences in the details — but their big-picture approaches and visions are so similar as to be nearly indistinguishable.

 

So since February, I’ve been trying to put words to my gut decision to support Obama, and it wasn’t until last night, listening to both of them speak, that I figured it out. From Obama’s speech:

[I]f we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth. This was the moment — this was the time — when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals.

That was the part that got me — again. It’s the same message that Obama has been delivering to people. Where he has been criticized within the Democratic Party for promising change without concrete strategies to do so or for a perceived lack of experience demonstrating changes he has led to enactment, it is that last part of his speech that summarizes what his whole campaign has been about and why I support him. He isn’t promising to deliver a panacea of solutions on a silver platter; he is challenging each and every American who has felt frustrated, left behind, unrepresented, and disenfranchised to do two things: believe in a better alternative to the current situation, and do something to move our society to that better alternative.

Remnisicient of JFK’s call to action that indirectly has been tied to an increase in public service among my parents’ generation and the establishment of the Peace Corps, Barack Obama has said it’s time to stop standing on the sidelines, waiting for politicians to enact the policy changes you want to see happen. It’s time for you, America, to talk to your neighbors about ways to save money on gas and groceries and to ensure that your neighborhood doesn’t become a wasteland because of record foreclosures and jobs being outsourced. It’s time for you to believe in the power of yourself. The only role I play is to inspire you, to remind you, to encourage you, and to perhaps facilitate the infrastructure to empower you. My job will be to work to mitigate the barriers to your empowerment; my job will be to engage you and to encourage you. But my job will NOT be to do the work for you.

That’s the indefinable “it” that differentiated Barack Obama from Hillary Clinton for me: Hillary Clinton, with all her touting of experience and a desire to serve the people, almost overpromised without setting out a clear expectation that everyday people like you and I would have to roll up our sleeves and get our hands dirty to achieve the policy changes for which she and Obama both advocated. I don’t want a president who’s going to promise me the moon when I know, I know that one person alone cannot change a dysfunctional system. I want a president who’s going to promise me the moon — but only if I’m willing to build the infrastructure to reach it.

Barack Obama has been clear from the day he announced his campaign in Illinois that his campaign was not about him; it was about the American people. I believe him. I believe that his origins as a community organizer are what propelled him to victory as the Democratic presidential nominee: He asked people to dream. He provided a canvass and encouraged people to paint the picture of the America they believe we can be — and he has told us that for that picture to become real, we now have to put down our paintbrushes and start laying the bricks and mortar of whatever it is that we painted — but WE have to do it. And that’s what a community organizer does: instills a sense of purpose in a community by finding a common bond, then empowers each member of the community to contribute his or her expertise to achieve an end that could not otherwise have been reached individually.