Follow-up to last post . . .

With it being understood that I don't actually dislike Obama, and will campaign for him if he wins the nomination . . .

There are a few major reasons I cast my vote for Hillary Clinton on Tuesday. The first is that I think her healthcare proposal is a lot better--that Obama starts at the compromise position and thus will get creamed on the issue if elected. Following from that is the fact that whenever I hear the candidates speak, Hillary Clinton is so much better able to discuss policy in depth, to drill down and explain her position with a clear understanding of how different agencies, economic forces, and people interact.

So my support is much more about what's right with Clinton than what's wrong with Obama.

But.

There are two reservations I have, one more to do with some of his supporters, one to do with his own choice.

To illustrate the first: Near my school's subway on Tuesday, there were Clinton and Obama supporters passing out flyers and urging people to support their candidate. I was trying to make a call and watched for a few minutes. Both supporters had mostly the same tack: yelling "Support ____!" But when the Clinton supporter was questioned about education policy, she actually answered the question. When the Obama supporter was questioned, she referred the person to Obama's website and then kept yelling, "The audacity of hope! The audacity of hope!" as the potential voter went down the subway stairs.

To that I have to say: what the fuck?

This was one incident, but it illustrated the weird cult of personality surrounding Obama that I flat-out don't get. There are a lot--a lot--of very intelligent reasons to support Barack Obama for president. This wishy-washy ideology of hope crap isn't one of them; it's a way for people to believe that if only we elect this one man, a new era will begin, America will be AMERICA! again--and they won't have to think about politics anymore.

Well, it isn't going to be that way. If he's elected, he'll do his best, and that will mean a much better job than the shmuck in office now. But politics is messy, and ugly, and he's going to have to compromise, make decisions people hate, and problems are not going to disappear magically.

A recession is kicking in and he is going to inherit it. The war in Afghanistan is falling apart and he's going to have to fix it. The war in Iraq--whether or not he would have voted for it, which we don't truly know (it's a lot easier to say outside of the Senate what you'd do if in it)--can't be miracled away; withdrawal is going to be difficult, dangerous, and costly. And every step toward progress on these fronts will be opposed by a movement for which George W. Bush was a figurehead, but by no means the only source of power. This is the American reality, this is the price we pay for having allowed these interests to ascend, and nothing but continued and active engagement by people who actually care can possibly change it.

So this new era, shiny hope bullcrap gives me pause. Not exactly about him--he's a politician, and "We May Be Fucked" is not a good campaign slogan. But about how much of his support comes from people who believe he is a leader who can join us in solving our problems, versus how much comes from people who think he can make them just disappear.

The second issue can be summed up in one word (and then discussed in many more!): McClurkin.

I'm singularly unimpressed by his embrace of McClurkin and subsequent framing of that embrace as a free speech issue. It isn't, really. I think McClurkin can be as homophobic as he likes, can shout it from rooftops, print banners, whatever. Go enjoy your free speech, asshole! I just expect any candidate--any person!--claiming to be in any way ethical/moral/intelligent not to have any part of it. It's really not a lot to ask. It seems to me that Obama made a calculation that McClurkin could get him more evangelical votes than he would lose by offending people who actually give a crap about the way LGBT people and interests are treated in discourse (not just in votes). That's the deal he made. He deserves to pay the cost of his bargain. Since I actually DO care when candidates give tacit approval to homophobia, part of the cost he pays is my vote.

Is it the worst bargain a candidate has ever made at the expense of the LGBT community? Nah. This is what they always do, though it's usually in general elections when they know there's nowhere else to go--what are LGBT voters going to do, support Huckabee? But it's a tired, cynical, calculating political move all the same. It's what almost all politicians do at one point or another. It's why I don't expect anything new from Barack Obama.

Posted by Adair at February 10, 2008 9:48 PM

Posted to Politics