Repeating some political advice:
Feb. 4th, 2008 05:11 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
urbpanIf you can vote in a primary this week, I urge you to vote for Obama. I'm not thrilled with his record, his lack of experience, or the style-over-substance that seems to characterize him in general. But I truly believe that he has a better chance to win in the November general election than Senator Clinton.
The reasons for this are mostly bad: conservative leaning independents never much cared for her, feel bitter about Monica-gate, or think she's "a bitch." It doesn't matter--what matters is that there are huge numbers of Americans who wouldn't vote for Clinton if she was running against Montgomery Burns, Count Chocula, or Charlie Manson. And if the Republicans nominate McCain (who even I think is the best member of their field) she wouldn't stand a chance. If every registered Democrat voted the party line, the Republicans would still take it.
I'm one to talk: I voted for a third party candidate in 2000 (not even Nader). But now I'm a car-driving meat-eating middle aged man, and I'm scared to death that the extreme right will continue their chokehold on democracy: spying on Americans, torturing prisoners, bankrupting the public schools, overextending the military on follies and lies, trying to overturn roe v wade, and making enemies out of the rest of the world including former allies and brand new states. I don't think any Democrat will magically fix everything, but I think any Republican will continue to make me feel less safe, and more ashamed. Even McCain. Who will win if the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton.
Dear Mailing List,
In the eight years I've managed this list I've never agitated for a politician. I hope you'll let me abuse your trust this one time.
If you're a friend of mine, or a fan of "Get Your War On," you probably know how important the issue of cluster bombs and landmines is to me.
It was America's use of cluster bombs during Operation: Enduring Freedom that led me to start GYWO seven(!) years ago this fall, and it has been my pleasure and my honor to donate the royalties from the two GYWO anthologies to Mine Detection & Dog Center Team #5, a landmine removal team in western Afghanistan.
If you ever attended a GYWO reading, you probably sat through my video of landmine removal teams in the field, or listened to me read off statistics about that dangerous mission, or indulged me by taking an informational flyer about MDC Team #5 and the sacred work they do.
(If you bought one of the GYWO books, you've helped that work, and I thank you.)
Cluster bombs and landmines are particularly terrifying weapons that wreak havoc on communities trying to recover from war. They are fatal impediments to reconstruction and rehabilitation of agricultural land; they destroy valuable livestock; they disable otherwise productive members of society; they maim or kill children trying to salvage them for scrap metal.
Over 150 nations have signed the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty. It pains me that our great nation has not. But in the autumn of 2006, there was a chance to take a step in the right direction: Senate Amendment No. 4882, an amendment to a Pentagon appropriations bill that would have banned the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas.
Senator Obama of Illinois voted IN FAVOR of the ban.
Senator Clinton of New York voted AGAINST the ban.
Analysts say Clinton did want to risk appearing "soft on terror," as it would have harmed her electibility.
I'm not a single-issue voter. But as Obama and Clinton share many policy positions, this vote was revelatory for me. After all, Amendment No. 4882 was an easy one to vote against: Who'd want to risk accusation of "tying the hands of the Pentagon" during a never-ending, global War on Terror? As is so often the case, there was no political cost to doing the wrong thing. And there was no political reward for doing the right thing.
But Senator Obama did the right thing.
Is Senator Obama perfect? Of course not. Nobody who voted for 2005's wack-ass energy bill is perfect. Nobody who voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act is perfect.
But of the two remaining Democratic candidates, one decided her vote on Amendment No. 4882 according to a political calculation. The other used a moral calculation.
I'm 35 years old, and over the years, I've had two experiences in the voting booth: I've voted for politicians I really respected, who I knew could never win. And I've voted for politicians I didn't really respect, because I knew they could win.
Tomorrow, I'm going to vote for a politician I really respect, who I know can win.
(DEEP BREATH)
I urge you to vote Senator Barack Obama for the Democratic Party's nominee for President of the United States.
Thanks,
David Rees
The reasons for this are mostly bad: conservative leaning independents never much cared for her, feel bitter about Monica-gate, or think she's "a bitch." It doesn't matter--what matters is that there are huge numbers of Americans who wouldn't vote for Clinton if she was running against Montgomery Burns, Count Chocula, or Charlie Manson. And if the Republicans nominate McCain (who even I think is the best member of their field) she wouldn't stand a chance. If every registered Democrat voted the party line, the Republicans would still take it.
I'm one to talk: I voted for a third party candidate in 2000 (not even Nader). But now I'm a car-driving meat-eating middle aged man, and I'm scared to death that the extreme right will continue their chokehold on democracy: spying on Americans, torturing prisoners, bankrupting the public schools, overextending the military on follies and lies, trying to overturn roe v wade, and making enemies out of the rest of the world including former allies and brand new states. I don't think any Democrat will magically fix everything, but I think any Republican will continue to make me feel less safe, and more ashamed. Even McCain. Who will win if the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton.
Dear Mailing List,
In the eight years I've managed this list I've never agitated for a politician. I hope you'll let me abuse your trust this one time.
If you're a friend of mine, or a fan of "Get Your War On," you probably know how important the issue of cluster bombs and landmines is to me.
It was America's use of cluster bombs during Operation: Enduring Freedom that led me to start GYWO seven(!) years ago this fall, and it has been my pleasure and my honor to donate the royalties from the two GYWO anthologies to Mine Detection & Dog Center Team #5, a landmine removal team in western Afghanistan.
If you ever attended a GYWO reading, you probably sat through my video of landmine removal teams in the field, or listened to me read off statistics about that dangerous mission, or indulged me by taking an informational flyer about MDC Team #5 and the sacred work they do.
(If you bought one of the GYWO books, you've helped that work, and I thank you.)
Cluster bombs and landmines are particularly terrifying weapons that wreak havoc on communities trying to recover from war. They are fatal impediments to reconstruction and rehabilitation of agricultural land; they destroy valuable livestock; they disable otherwise productive members of society; they maim or kill children trying to salvage them for scrap metal.
Over 150 nations have signed the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty. It pains me that our great nation has not. But in the autumn of 2006, there was a chance to take a step in the right direction: Senate Amendment No. 4882, an amendment to a Pentagon appropriations bill that would have banned the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas.
Senator Obama of Illinois voted IN FAVOR of the ban.
Senator Clinton of New York voted AGAINST the ban.
Analysts say Clinton did want to risk appearing "soft on terror," as it would have harmed her electibility.
I'm not a single-issue voter. But as Obama and Clinton share many policy positions, this vote was revelatory for me. After all, Amendment No. 4882 was an easy one to vote against: Who'd want to risk accusation of "tying the hands of the Pentagon" during a never-ending, global War on Terror? As is so often the case, there was no political cost to doing the wrong thing. And there was no political reward for doing the right thing.
But Senator Obama did the right thing.
Is Senator Obama perfect? Of course not. Nobody who voted for 2005's wack-ass energy bill is perfect. Nobody who voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act is perfect.
But of the two remaining Democratic candidates, one decided her vote on Amendment No. 4882 according to a political calculation. The other used a moral calculation.
I'm 35 years old, and over the years, I've had two experiences in the voting booth: I've voted for politicians I really respected, who I knew could never win. And I've voted for politicians I didn't really respect, because I knew they could win.
Tomorrow, I'm going to vote for a politician I really respect, who I know can win.
(DEEP BREATH)
I urge you to vote Senator Barack Obama for the Democratic Party's nominee for President of the United States.
Thanks,
David Rees
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-02-04 10:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-05 12:24 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-04 10:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-04 11:29 pm (UTC)Voting is tomorrow, so I gotta push the issue while I can.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-05 01:00 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-05 12:35 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-05 01:34 am (UTC)what would be great in november would be obama/edwards.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-05 06:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-05 01:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-05 03:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-05 03:37 am (UTC)I say "mostly" because I've concluded from the last two election cycles that trying to predict a candidate's electability is a complete crock. We nominated candidates like Kerry, Gore, Dukakis and Mondale because the party perceived them to be the most electable of their crowd. That often seems to translate to "the blandest candidate available".
(For the record, I really liked and still like Gore. But he was trying to play it safe in order to be the most "electable" candidate, and it was a disaster.)
Anyway, I do otherwise agree with you about Obama, and back home posted a longer explanation of why I feel that way.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-05 11:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-05 06:27 pm (UTC)I voted this morning. Obama. I'm not going to be able to think about anything else now all day until the polls in California close.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-05 04:46 am (UTC)