|
It is very likely that the 2004 elections will be an ambivalent experience for me. On one hand I weep and rage over the horrible devastation cause around the world and to this great land by four years of the worst, most dishonest and tyrannical and anti-American administration that I've ever known in my lifetime.
Yet on the other hand, I have a candidate that I deeply admire, who inspires me personally, who articulates his message in a way that stirs my heart, who rekindles in me a feeling of genuine patriotism that I felt was long dead - and that candidate is trailing in the polls. By all pragmatic measurements, a different candidate is making a strong showing to win the party nomination. And this candidate is a person who does not articulate his message in a way that stirs my heart, he does not inspire me to anything, in fact he turns me off completely. I don't enjoy listening to him, and I disagree with many of his past positions.
So what does that mean? It means that I'll go through yet enough election year where my first choice doesn't win and where I don't feel particularly warm and fuzzy about the alternative. I'll get to go through another election year where I don't get to feel emotionally involved in the process. I won't get to feel misty-eyed when the candidate speaks. I won't get to feel inspired or rekindled in my passion. I won't get to feel like I love my country again or that I genuinely think my candidate is the singular best man to lead the country. All I'll get to do is breathe a sign and say, "anybody but Bush."
But here's the thing, and there's just no way around this fact: politics is never a zero sum game. If Wesley Clark were to get the party nomination, during the course of the campaign it is absolutely certain that things would emerge about Clark that I personally disagreed with. Clark would have some positions that weren't perfectly aligned with mine. There is no such thing as the perfect candidate, no matter how blind some people force themselves to be.
In the end, its ridiculous to approach candidate support for the standpoint of "I'll only support the candidate that I fully agree with on everything, that I fully like personally, professionally, politically, emotionally, etc." That will never happen. That's why the question should never be "who is the perfect candidate?" The question should be, "who is the best candidate?"
Right now is the time for people to support the Democrat they believe is the best candidate. And I'm not ashamed of expressing why I believe Clark is the best candidate, and no matter how hard the other guys try to quash dissent, I make no apology for pointing out the concerns I have about other candidates. I *am* afraid. I am not ashamed to tell you that I am genuinely afraid that we may lose the election if we run the wrong candidate against Bush. The overconfidence displayed on these forums terrifies me. I do not believe that Bush will lose in a landslide. I do not believe that Bush's chance at reelection is on oxygen.
I thank god that his poll numbers are lower than they were in January, but at the same time, I'm smart enough to realize that Bush has managed to convince the people to go along with him while he strips away civil liberties that have been guarded as sacred for the last 200+ years. He has convinced the people to go alone with him into a war the reasons for which were totally fabricated and never convincing even befor they were discredited. He has convinced the people to go alone with massive breaks on the rich at the expense of the poor, and convinced the people to go alone with just about every treacherous and mind-boggling thing he has set his mind to. He has some of the most talented and sophisticated political strategists on the planet working in his corner, and he has the biggest advantage of them all in this society - he has ten times more money than anyone else.
I don't believe Bush is nearly as weak of a foe as many of us blindly believe. And because of this, I am extremely terrified of running the wrong candidate against him.
That being said, this is the time to make that case. This is the time to stand up and proudly say "I support my candidate" and yes, as much as many of you hate it, this is also the time to say "I don't support your candidate for these reasons, let me try to persuade you."
But when its all said and done, and the Democratic nominee is chosen, I understand one important truth - politics is not a zero-sum game. Every candidate is going to have something that I don't like about him/her or something that I disagree with. The REAL question is, of the candidates running, which candidate is best - which candidate has the most net positions that I agree with, which candidate has the most notches in the plus column. In the primaries, that person is Wesley Clark for me. In the general election, based on every thing I see so far, that person will be any Democrat who receives the nomination, including the infamous Howard Dean. Now, I don't agree with Dean on several issues, and I personally don't like Dean's style at all - it is an absolute turn off to me in every way and doesn't make me feel good personally at all. However, when comparing the platform of Dean to the platform of Bush, the person of Dean to the person of Bush and the potential of Dean to the potential for Bush, to me the choice is obvious - Dean is the net-winner.
In a perfect world, we wouldn't have to make these kinds of compromises. But this is not a perfect world, and in this world Dean is the better choice over Bush. But dont you expect me to act like the primaries are over now, or start supporting Dean one millisecond before the candidate that I really admire and support is no longer an option. Until that time, I'll continue to express what I like about Clark and why I support Clark over every other candidate until I'm blue in the face. And I would expect those of you who support other candidates to do nothing less...
..now if we can just keep it civil. :)
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
