Neither the South Brunswick Post nor The Cranbury Press will be making endorsements in the New Jersey presidential primary that is now just 33 days away. That said, I am a voter and I think it useful to share my thinking on what I might do come Feb. 5.
In general, I like Dennis Kucinich. The Ohio congressman is one of the only candidates to oppose the war in Iraq from the beginning, opposes war generally, is pushing for impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney and supports a single-payer, national healthcare program.
But Kucinich is not the only interesting candidate out there — and something he did the other day has given me pause. Kucinich has asked his supporters to toss their caucus votes to Barack Obama if Kucinich does not crack the 15 percent threshold needed to stay on the ballot.
I hope Iowans will caucus for me as their first choice this Thursday, because of my singular positions on the war, on health care, and trade. This is an opportunity for people to stand up for themselves. But in those caucus locations where my support doesn’t reach the necessary threshold, I strongly encourage all of my supporters to make Barack Obama their second choice. Sen. Obama and I have one thing in common: Change.
But change to what? I was intrigued by Obama in the beginning, after his rousing speech four years ago. His freshness was very Kennedy-esque. But attempting to read his vapid book — “The Audacity of Hope” — disabused me of the notion that there was anything to the Illinois senator. The book is a vacant tract that is critical of both sides for being too partisan and ideological and essentially tries to paint the senator as being above all that. The problem, at least in the couple of chapters I managed to slog through (I gave up because I found the book to be nonsense), is that he posits a lack of ideology as a solution.
What’s wrong with that, you may ask? Well, ideology is just another word — a political perjorative, admittedly — for political philosophy. What Obama is offering, basically, is a candidacy long on hope (i.e., feel-good buzz words that make him a natural for the Oprah/Dr. Phil set) and short on substance. His actual candidacy has tacked to the right as Obama has sought to prove how different and new he is — a Clintonian approach that has out-Clintoned Hillary Clinton. On nearly every issue, he has positioned himself not only to the right of Kucinich, Mike Gravel and John Edwards, but also the former first lady.
And yet, it is to Obama that Kucinich wants his supporters to turn.
As late as this morning, I was still pretty committed to Kucinich, but then I read this piece by Norman Solomon on Tom Tommorrow‘s blog. He says
Reasons for a Kucinich vote remain. The caucuses and primaries are a time to make a clear statement about what we believe in — and to signal a choice for the best available candidate. Ironically, history may show that the person who did the most to undermine such reasoning for a Dennis Kucinich vote at the start of 2008 was… Dennis Kucinich.
Solomon was offended by Kucinich’s Obama statement, which he says “doesn’t seem to respect the intelligence of those of us who have planned to vote for Dennis Kucinich.”
It’s hard to think of a single major issue — including “the war,” “health care” and “trade” — for which Obama has a more progressive position than Edwards. But there are many issues, including those three, for which Edwards has a decidedly more progressive position than Obama. But the most disturbing part of Dennis’ statement was this: “Sen. Obama and I have one thing in common: Change.” This doesn’t seem
like a reasoned argument for Obama. It seems like an exercise in smoke-blowing.
He continues:
The best argument for voting for Dennis Kucinich in caucuses and primaries has been what he aptly describes as his “singular positions on the war, on health care, and trade.” But his support for Obama over Edwards indicates that he’s willing to allow some opaque and illogical priorities to trump maximizing the momentum of our common progressive agendas.
Presidential candidates have to be considered in the context of the current historical crossroads. No matter how much we admire or revere an individual, there’s too much at stake to pursue faith-based politics at the expense of reality-based politics. There’s no reason to support Obama over Edwards on Kucinich’s say-so. And now, I can’t think of reasons good enough to support Kucinich rather than Edwards in the weeks ahead.
It’s a tough argument to dismiss — and one that leaves me wondering what the Kucinich campaign is really about.
So, for whom will I vote? I don’t know. Give me a month to mull this over and I’ll get back to you.
South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
E-mail me by clicking here.
Hank Kalet 