I know the Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul campaigns may take issue with me on this, but I thought I’d offer a short overview of my thinking on the four remaining candidates as I get ready, like the rest of New Jersey and 21 other states, to cast my primary ballot. This is not an endorsement, just me thinking aloud and offering the rationale behind the choice I am planning to make tomorrow.
First, I should mention, I am a registered Democrat, a fact that has occasionally been used against me in my position as a journalist and editorial writer. My registration, however, is not about party loyalty but about presidential preference. I am not so much a Democrat as I am a progressive, a liberal, a lefty — call it what you will. This has importance at the higher levels of government, but not at the local level. I have voted for both Republicans and Democrats — though not for federal office. And my papers, the Post and Press, have endorsed Republicans for local and state office.
In fact, I’ve been just as likely to vote for a third-party candidate as to vote Democrat. For instance, I voted for Ralph Nader in 1996 and 2000 and for a third-party candidate for governor in 2001.
I first declared party affiliation in 1984 so that I could vote in the primary that year for Gary Hart and have maintained my affiliation so I could have some say on who the Democratic nominee would be (I backed Jerry Brown in 1992), especially as the Republican Party has become rightwing establishment.
So, what does that mean for tomorrow’s vote? Obviously, given what I’ve just written, I can’t vote in the Republican Primary. Even if I could, though, I wouldn’t because none of the candidates on the GOP side share my values. All continue to support the war, want to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, think the market can fix the healthcare mess and so on. Of the candidates, John McCain is the least objectionable — he has supported comprehensive and humane immigration reform and opposes torture — but he remains a believer in this war and has flipped and flopped on all matter of issues (the Bush tax cut, his criticism of the evangelicals).
That leaves the two Democrats — Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton — both of whom are flawed, but both of whom are better than any of the men the party has chosen in years. So how to choose?
The media has been focusing on Obama’s “post-partisanism,” the idea that he represents a new paradigm in politics. Obama talks of change and getting beyond the simple Democrat-Republican divide, but too often his rhetoric makes it seem as if he has no underlying principles, no philosophy beyond compromise. We have reached a point in our history when we must move beyond petty partisan fights, but there are principles on which we must stand — a challenge to militarism and opposition to the upward redistribution of wealth, support for constitutional rights, civil rights and human rights, for instance — and on which we can’t compromise. I think Obama does understand and believe this and would be a steadfast defender of progressive principles. But the language he uses raises other expectations, muddying the waters.
Clinton has been portraying herself as the fighter, but her history and the history of the eight years her husband spent in the White House make it clear that they are at the other pole of this debate — purveyors of a harsh partisanship formed during the crucible of her husband’s presidency and empty of real principles. The Clintons are master compromisers who have made careers out of triangulation and you just have to track the statements she has made since 2004 to understand what I’m talking about. Remember the Iraq vote, but also consider the comments she has made over the last few years on cultural issues like violence in video games and movies (she called for a federal probe into “Grand Theft Auto”), her connection to union-busting attorneys and public relations firms, her past support for telecom reform that has benefited the bigger companies and so on.
Obviously, I have been leaning toward Obama (I had planned to vote for John Edwards, until he dropped out last week). On most of the issues, Clinton and Obama are not all that far apart. On the economy, climate change, immigration, abortion, their positions are virtually identical. On health care, Clinton offers a better plan (Obama’s lacks mandated coverage for adults), while Obama has made a rhetorical move to Clinton’s right flank — a troubling move.
In the end, I’ll be voting for Obama for two reason: Iraq and Iran. While both Obama and Clinton promise to end the war, only one has been right on the war from the beginning — Obama. Clinton voted to authorize the war with Iraq and, no matter how much she tries to explain it away, I can only view it as either a lack of judgment or a vote of political calculation, neither of which speak well for a candidate who repeatedly says she is the one who will be ready on day one to be president and commander-in-chief.
Her rhetoric on Iran raises some concerns, as well. While she is committed to diplomacy (as is Obama), she has no intention of sitting down with Iranian leaders — which would appear to make diplomacy impossible. Obama is prepared to meet face to face, a willingness that could be likened to Nixon’s opening to China or Reagan’s face-to-face meetings with Gorbachev. Iran is the United States’ chief rival in the Middle East; it is irresponsible not to talk.
So, yes, I am planning to vote for Barack Obama in the primary tomorrow, with some reservations, but no trepidation.
South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
E-mail me by clicking here.
Hank Kalet 