What difference?

Now that we are (effectively) down to two nominees for the Democratic Nomination for President, I would like to ask a few questions to help clarify why we are voting for one over the other. Issues such as race, gender, and religion I am leaving aside because, although they probably will influence the results of the election one way or another, they shouldn't, and it would accommodate a flawed system to speculate on them. So I give you my questions, and then my impressions:

Exactly what qualifications are our two top presidential nominees bringing to the table?

Hillary Rodham Clinton has been a corporate lawyer, First Lady of the United States, and U.S. Senator from New York, (2 terms). Barack Obama has been a civil rights lawyer, Illinois State Senator (3 terms), and U.S. Senator from Illinois (1 term). Neither of them has any real foreign policy or military experience, and their legislative experience is minimal.

What issues do our nominees disagree on?

This is tricky, because although they seem to disagree more with each other than with the opposition, their platforms are very nearly identical: lip service to Universal Health care, without actually doing anything about it; withdrawal from Iraq, maybe, sort of, if and when it's convenient; politically expedient, rather than effective, environmental reforms. The biggest difference seems to be over education, where Obama promises to provide "funding" as well as "accountability", while Clinton has a list of goals; neither of them seem to have a plan to actually do anything, though.

What issues do our nominees agree on?

This is easier, if less encouraging; both Obama and Clinton are supported by large corporate donations, guaranteeing that said corporations will receive favorable treatment. Clinton is somewhat ahead in this "race", mainly due to heavy support from the pharmaceutical and insurance industries. This also probably rules out any form of campaign finance or lobbying reform from their administrations, actually ceding the "liberal" viewpoint to John McCain! Unbelievable.

What do we risk if we pick the wrong candidate?

Not much, as it turns out. As a candidate, either of them should be able to handily dispatch the opposition. As president, neither of them has much to offer, other than being a minority and not being, technically, anyway, a Republican; neither of them will be able to help win congressional seats due to their divisive rhetoric, nor can they count on bipartisanship to accomplish their goals. The "best" result is that one of them becomes president, and we get gridlock. The "worst" result is that a Republican wins the White House, and we can try to get a useful candidate in 2012.

What should we do?

Well, I'm not going to tell anyone to march in lockstep; that's the Republican game. But I'm also not going to go along this "with us or against us" crap that the Democratic leadership would have us swallow. So I say: vote your conscience. If you feel that one of the candidates adequately supports your views, then vote for them! Just allow me to say two words: a vote for someone who does not share your views, just because they are a "Democrat", is a recipe for disaster; a vote for a third party, any third party, might break up the system that perpetuates elections with no choices, like this.

If we do not insist on a real choice for president, then we will never get it.

politicians, I'm sorry to say. It's systemic - Dem or Rep.

But I disagree with you about voting for a third party. As good as it might feel, I don't think that a third party vote would go far in breaking up the current system.

If a Rep gets the nod, then so many people who were energized for the first time in their lives by this campaign may just say fuck it and drop their interest in politics.

WIth either Clinton or Obama in office, we still will feel a sense of movement forward and hopefully keep working to elect more representatives who more closely share our views.

There is now way I could not vote "D" in the GE, but I certainily honor your right to. :hi:

Thanks for a great post.

With all the flames running around, it's nice to see civil disagreement :)

I only have two counterpoints:

1. With so many young voters, the disillusionment might be worse if they win, and still nothing happens. I grew up watching Reagan BS the country, then bush Sr., and felt energized by Bill Clinton - what a disappointment that turned out to be.

2. Ross Perot came within inches of creating a true 3-party system in this country; if anything, he screwed up by not pressing for local and congressional candidates. He came so close that the Reps sent their good little soldier Pat Buchanan to destroy the Reform Party, and both the reps and the dems got together to make sure it doesn't happen again. Well, with that attitude, we had better make it happen.


I could easily be persuaded to vote for either Clinton or Obama; Just get them to endorse one (or more!) of the following plans: Operation "America-out-of-Iraq-Yesterday", "Medicare: All Ages", "Bush: the U.N. War-Trial and life-in-prison years", "Picking up the Children Left Behind", "Civil Rights: This time we mean it!", or "Drugs: pure, legal, and heavily taxed".

Those who voted for Nader in 2000 somehow get to wash their hands of the consequences of 8 years of Repiglickiin Bush-league rule.

Will those who vote third-party this time do the same for what happens under President McCain and President Huckabee? (It's gonna be a twofer, don'tyaknow?)

In 2000, there was a clear difference between Gore and Bush; where's the difference between Clinton/Obama/McCain?

I'm ignoring Huckabee for the moment, since his candidacy is either hilarious or horrifying, depending on how you look at it.