Yes, I think its time. Its election year and since I'll be voting before to long I thought I should get off my tail and do a little more for the fellow I've settled on. Apologies if I say things you might not like in advance. But do know I could find a great many things to say to slam every candidate from both parties including my own.
For a sense of perspective, at this point I had already been a Deaniac for around 9+ months. This round I've been leaning for a while but have not declared myself to be backing any candidate 100%. Well the time has come folks. All things considered, and recognizing the state of the world and the fields of candidates, I find that I shall endorse, support, and vote for Barack Obama.
My reasons for this are such.
-As with most Democrats these days, he understands that a sane and well managed government can be a solution to Americas problems, as opposed to a cause of too many of them. (wars, guilded age economics, domestic spying, ect.)
-Understanding is one thing, but competence is another. On this test I've seen only positive things to support the idea that Obama is able to think clearly about problems and find the best solutions. His work as a community organizer, state legislature, and as senator have shown this as well as an ability to find ways to find common ground in unlikely quarters to get things done.
-As with Dean, he's not been living in the Washington world since who knows when. He's a fresh face, hasn't been totally greased up by the usual inner beltway stooges whom's only goal is to protect their inner sanctum of privilege. In fact some of his legislative efforts have hampered the usual game of earmarks with his legislation (together with crazy Sen. Coburn (R OK), how's that for an unlikely partner?) that would create a searchable database for the budget and all those special projects.
-His experience is the right kind of experience. Actually working with people and teaching is a big plus in my book when it comes to non government experience. As there's not been hundreds of people from those days coming out to condemn him, but instead to praise him, that tells me that he took his previous efforts seriously and was damn good at it. To be good at such things means a person is able to understand people and their struggles. That's a good thing.
-He's been anti war from the start. As someone who's been against the Iraq insanity from the start as well I can only see this as a good thing, a sign of intelligence and good judgement, and a trait desirable in a candidate.
-I believe he understands that democracy itself is in peril. And that the only way to save it is to be honest, and to even say the things people might not want to hear. That it requires someone to stand up and say that torture is wrong and unwise, but also that one's opponents in the political game are misguided when they think its a good idea, not that they are inhuman. That it requires one to be partisan yes, but not corrosively so to get things done and to run America with a real mandate. If you look your opponent in the eye and tell them they are wrong, that's a sign of strength. But to then tell them they are evil is sign of lunacy when it comes to wanting to accomplish things.
-That hope thing. He thinks we can have an America that finally does away with the bigotry and hate of the previous generations. An America where one isn't condemned to be a second class citizen due to the color of one's skin, first language, sexual orientation (he's pro civil union guys!), or gender. Combined with the other stuff, I'd say we have a chance to move forward as opposed to tread water or move backwards here.
I could go into policy wonkery here, but I'll save everyone the headache. Look up his website if you're interested.
(Now for the part some people might not like. If you can't take rejection, please stop reading now.)
There were a couple candidates whom came close. Props to Dodd and Edwards for getting that we're kind of in a mess and wanting to fight for change. Earlier last year I was looking at Richardson but since then I've come to realize he's kind of clueless on some of the big things going down, and when he does address them its very clear he's just reciting memorized lines (at least that's how I see it with his 328 point plans and all that).
Its also clear that this election's bullshit buzz word is 'experience' (last time it was 'electability' and we saw where that got Kerry). If experience was all one had to have to be a good president my top three would be Dodd, Biden, Kucinich, and Richardson for the dems, or Hunter or Paul on the republican side. But 'experience' has always been an excuse to not talk about the real qualities of a candidate, same as 'electability' was previously. Does your candidate support universal civil rights and universal health care? Does your candidate understand what's gone down since 2001 with executive power grabs? Does your candidate feel like leading on an issue of importance or do they demagogue their way to power? Do they understand what is actually needed to balance the budget? Just claiming they have one of the e words won't answer those questions for me.
So yeah, that's where I'm at. 4 years ago I suffered through the Iowa caucuses. Quick note about those. The youth vote DID turn out. It just didn't all go to Dean, and on top of that many precincts where college students were voting had very few delegates to send on due to the formula used which included turnout for the 2002 election. As I don't think 100 people voted out of the couple thousand in my precinct in 2002 that kind of made things uneven. I'm kind of happy I'm in New Hampshire now.
Take care folks!