Not Quite a Blog 2.0
Sorry to disappoint...
people like Yuri, who cannot vote, but I'm more than likely not voting for Obama.
(I should emphasize that I won't fill out my ballot until Tuesday, so I can be persuaded for the next 40 hours... I'll be unavailable on Tuesday starting at 6am due to my duties as a polling inspector in Oakland, CA.)
I appear to be alone amongst my peers in having not been persuaded by the various arguments that Obama and his supporters make about his fitness to serve. I think Obama is paper-thin and overly idealistic. I finally came to a realization that voting for Obama because of Clinton's electability concerns is overly strategizing. I also had to convince myself that my desire to vote for Clinton had nothing to do with going against the almost unanimous voices of support from my peers for Obama. When it all comes down to it, if I ask myself sincerely who I think would make a better president, I resoundingly answer myself with the word, "Clinton".
And, frankly, I I've ceased to give a rat's ass if you'd vote for McCain over Clinton in November. That's your problem.
PS: The electibility issue as well as a seriously short-sighted answer by Clinton to a question about the DMCA almost tipped the scales for me towards Obama.
The DMCA question is the last one at the bottom of this page; these questions were asked by Declan McCullagh and Anne Broache of C|Net. Here's the question:
The 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act's section restricting the "circumvention" of copy protection measures is supported by many copyright holders but has been criticized by some technologists as hindering innovation. Would you support changing the DMCA to permit Americans to make a single backup copy of a DVD, Blu-ray Disc DVD, HD DVD, or video game disc they have legally purchased?
Clinton: Strong copyright protections and efforts to stem piracy are critical to ensuring that our technology industries remain competitive in the global market. As we go forward, I would support a review of a range of issues related to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act insofar as it did not concern degrading copyright protections or encourage copyright infringements.
Comments, Pingbacks:
· http://wolog.net/ While looking that over just now, I realized that you didn't answer the question. It's not about anointing a particular candidate as having perfect integrity. I'm just talking about which one is a better choice. Looking at the way they've run their campaigns, I see that Clinton's campaign has pulled a number of dirty tricks, and Obama's has not. If you have other reasons to believe that Clinton is the more honest of the two candidates, I'd certainly like to know what they are.
On the experience issue: I don't think it's as simple as most people make it out to be. True, Clinton has been First Lady, and Obama has not. But Obama has spent more time in elected office (11 years) than Clinton has (7 years). They have different kinds of experience.
There is no doubt in my mind that Obama's technology policy is much stronger and better thought out. Have you seen the summary by Popular Mechanics? Check out http://www.popularmechanics.com/geekthevote08
-- click the two check marks under the "Digital/Tech" column for Clinton and Obama and let me know what you think.
Finally, I recently came across the following sentence, which I think summarizes the situation effectively:
Clinton divides the left and unites the right. Obama unites the left and divides the right.
This isn't just about electability. I see real substance there. It just happens that this time, fortunately, the candidate with good policies happens to also be more electable against the expected Republican contender.
Permalink 02/03/08 @ 21:36 · http://josephhall.org/nqb2/ To me, dirty tricks are all in the game... I don't endorse them, I don't like them, but I'm not surprised by their use and what I've heard about the Clinton campaign hasn't approached the level that would affect my votedar.
Thanks for the popsci link, I'll take a look; obviously, technology policy is in my top short list of issues. This is definitely an area where I feel I can be suaded.
However, I'm just no longer persuaded by the division/electability argument. I think Clinton would be the better president, and that she had better focus on spending the time between now and November with some serious work to change what she can. Like the dirty tricks charge, I don't feel this issue has gotten to a point that affects my vote. That is, I feel the compelling need to vote for who I think would do better once president; to me, that's Clinton (right now).
Permalink 02/03/08 @ 22:06 · http://wolog.net/ Permalink 02/04/08 @ 07:30 · http://josephhall.org/nqb2/ Obama seems (to me) to have made some calculated decisions a while back that winning the primary and general would be about attracting a majority of democrats to his personality and platform. In order to attract them to his personality, he's emphasizing certain aspects of himself, instead of being himself. (For example, the "consistency on the war" message is pure bullshit to me. If one had access to classified intelligence (correct or not), one's decisions would be remarkably different.) He seems to think that this version of himself is what will win the nomination and attract the votes he needs to be president. I feel like Hillary has been more true to herself and pragmatic reality rather than simply winning an election.
Not to mention the "Hope" and "Change" messages that he's been championing... I'm sorry to say it but idealism, to me, is just not appropriate in presidential campaign politics... and when someone does bust it out, it should be used carefully, not bluntly and with such a broad brush. It cheapens idealism to me and renders a large part of his surface area phony.
Permalink 02/04/08 @ 14:30 · http://www.brookemaury.org I will say however I'm surprised by your support for Clinton over Obama, and especially your reasoning. My impression of the two candidates is somewhat opposite of yours - Hillary seems much more inclined to say things that will get her elected, whereas Obama has been singing the same tune all along.
On the 'hope and change' mantle, it is authentic coming from a young, smart and transcendent figure, whereas when the Clintons co-opted it, it became pablum.
I highly recommend Michael Chabon's editorial here in the Post.
I've more to say if you care to read here: http://www.brookemaury.org/2008/02/04/my-case-for-barack-obama/
Best,
Brooke
Permalink 02/04/08 @ 20:11 · http://josephhall.org/nqb2/ Permalink 02/04/08 @ 20:17 Leave a comment:
Previous post: 2007 ACCURATE Annual ReportNext post: What's more difficult than being a pollworker? Being a sick pollworker.