After Hillary, Voting With Conscience and Pride
Published May 09, 2008
This general election more than most will test the courage of voters to avoid lesser-evil strategic voting that has propped up our two-party plutocracy. People with intelligence and conscience must resist peer pressure and the temptation to vote against John McCain by voting for Barack Obama.
Of course, a McCain presidency that pursues much of the same policies and values of the totally inept and morally bankrupt Bush administration is something to loathe. But lesser-evil voting sustains our corrupt political system.
Many will say they are voting for Barack Obama in a most enthusiastic and positive way. For me, this does not work. I see no compelling evidence in Obama’s history that he has what it takes to be a true, solid reformer. All I see is a young, inexperienced terrific talker who has used slick rhetoric to sell himself. He has successfully fooled millions of people who are so disillusioned with our corrupt political system that they have let themselves be manipulated by promises of change. In reality, he has been just another super-ambitious mainstream politician who has taken considerable money and support from all sorts of corporate and other special interests.
Indeed, despite all the hoopla about huge numbers of small contributors to Obama, he has also relied on exactly the same kind of big, wealthy supporters as the other candidates. As the Washington Post noted in the article "Big Donors Among Obama’s Grass Roots:"
Seventy-nine ‘bundlers,’ five of them billionaires, have tapped their personal networks to raise at least $200,000 each. They have helped the campaign recruit more than 27,000 donors to write checks for $2,300, the maximum allowed. Donors who have given more than $200 account for about half of Obama's total haul, which stands at nearly $240 million. …The list includes partners from 18 top law firms, 21 Wall Street executives and power brokers from Fortune 500 companies.
Sure, Obama says that small contributors will have access, but Obama's bundlers help make up a more loosely defined "national finance committee," whose members are made to feel part of the campaign's inner workings through weekly conference calls and quarterly meetings in which they quiz the candidate or his strategists. Not exactly what $20 contributors get.
I remain troubled that Michelle Obama's salary at University of Chicago Hospitals when her husband won the US Senate seat was $121,000. Within weeks of his swearing in, her salary went to over $320,000. The following year, Obama did an earmark request for $1 million for her employer.
- After Hillary, Voting With Conscience and Pride
- Published: May 09, 2008
- Type: Opinion
- Section: Politics
- Filed Under: Politics: U.S., Politics: Policy, Politics: Government, Politics: Elections and Candidates
- Writer: Joel S. Hirschhorn
- Joel S. Hirschhorn's BC Writer page
- Joel S. Hirschhorn's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
Vox - my man...how's it hangin' - and how goes the world of international intrigue - ?
This is a new VP, troll, albeit a wittier one. He has a few other identities too, which I hope he will learn to control... Little Brother is watching you!
This is a new VP, troll, albeit a wittier one.
Well, halfway, maybe.
What about those of us who are voting for Mccain because he is the lesser of two evils?
Arch, as I recall, when I asked you how you would vote a few months ago you were going to write in Duncan Hunter's name because you felt his positions most closely matched your own.
What changed your mind? Tactical voting has its place, of course, but it's only really effective if it's coordinated.
I support the Liberal Democratic Party in Britain. It's the country's third party and has no realistic chance of forming a government, although it has grown in strength and influence in recent years. I usually vote for them because I agree with their platform more than those of Labour and the Conservatives, the two biggest parties - even though a vote for one or other of their candidates would allow me to have, theoretically, more influence on the eventual result of an election.
I've never voted tactically: the only circumstance in which I could see myself doing it would be if a dangerous extremist (such as a British National Party candidate) looked like they might win - in which case I would vote for the candidate most strongly placed to challenge them, regardless of who it was.
On principle, though, I don't like the idea of voting tactically because there's a certain sense of having sold one's soul.
Well that's the choice every voter must make dreadful.
Weighing one's ideals againt the practical concerns that could drastically affect one's life either negatyively or positively.
I am no great admirer of Mccain but I loathe Barry Hussein Obama and evrything he stands for so I beleive that unless Mccain does something to really piss me off, like asking Lieberman or Huckabee to be his VP, I will be voting for him this fall.
As far as Hillary goes..it is quite clear what her strategy is. She is deliberately going to stay in the race as long as politically possible and continue to hit Obama every chance she gets so that he will be so damaged by Nov that he cannot win and then she can run against Mccain in 2012. Hillary knows that once she gets out of the race she must feign public support for Obama. However it is rapidly approaching the point where she must get out of the race and cease all negative commentary on Obama or run the risk of spoiling both her and Bill's legacy as well as any political aspiratiosn for the future she may harbor.
Can't you just imagine the anger and rage behind the scenes away from the camera lens at camp Hillary? What I wouldn't give to witness it.
"And Nader is a genuine supporter of the national peace movement to end the US occupation of Iraq. Note that Obama supported the reelection of Iraq war supporter Joe Lieberman."
God, that's like, exactly like supporting the Iraq war.
One thing, after all this NC and Indiana stuff. Pundits are asking Hillary to drop out. WHAT!!!???? That is like the Yankees being down 2-0 in the 8th inning. shouldn't they just walk of the field and give up? Until it is a mathematical impossibility, you don't quit.
Unbelievable what a bunch of losers the pundit/press corp and political advisors are. Geez, losers trying to guide our country. We are going down fast with this loser mentality. with the delusion of being a winner. This country never got anywhere by being a loser.
best,
DM
The irony of the title of this article is that most people won't associate pride or even conscience with a self-serving egomaniac like Nader or with voting for him.
Dave
I want to find out if there is any truth in this story a friend sent me...
IF A PASTOR IS KNOWN BY THE COMPANY THEY KEEP..............
When the Rev. William Procanick put his hand on the Bible during his sex-abuse trial in Oneida County Court earlier this year, he swore to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. But as the former pastor was sentenced Friday to three years in prison for inappropriately touching a 7-year-old girl at his home last March, Judge Michael L. Dwyer said Procanick sacrificed his honesty the day he testified.
Okay, so now that Bill and Hillary Clinton's pastor has been convicted of child molestation, will we see the same furor directed at Hillary that Obama has had to endure these last few weeks?
IF A CANDIDATE IS KNOWN BY THE PASTOR THEY KEEP
Here the Pastor is convicted of child molestation. So, if Obama bears the guilt for his pastor's comments, then Hillary has to be equally tainted by this guy's crimes. His pastor is full rants....if the story is correct, then their (Clinton's) is full of PEDOPHILA actions.....
Can someone clear this up for me? If this true, then how do mothers in West Virgina feel about this one?
Well, good for Hillary, she cleaned up W. Virginia. Then there is still that talk of getting out of the race by so called experts.
Today's news just pissed me off to the point where this is my official statement: All you motherfucking 'losers' get the fuck out of MY COUNTRY!!!
All you maggot fucking pieces of shit pundits/advisors/media, etc. can go to hell. Your attitude of losership does not belong in MY country.
Yeah, I am slamming you mo-fo's really hard. Bedwetters trying to tell the hardworking, goal oriented what to do? Get out of MY country. You losers do not belong here. Illegal aliens are hardly a problem compared to you guys.
As a Canadian would say, "take off".
losers out,
DM
Doug,
Huh?
Who?
As for Hillary, she earned new respect today. I suspect that a lot of people are going to swing her way after todays hard-hitting speech.
She's not a quitter. She's a fighter.
Oh boy, the election season is finally heating up!
She was right about one thing:
Her base is the rednecks.
Nader?
Ralph Nader?
Does Hirschhorn mean the Arab-American Jew-hater who is finally letting his feelings be known after shutting them inside himself for all these decades?
Has Hirschhorn taken leave of his senses? (I really need to ask this?)
If he wants a Jew-hater in the White House, all he needs is Obama.
Nader has as much chance as Ron Paul of getting in. And he will be as much a bought and paid for servant of the Arabs as Obama. What's the point?
Ruvy, you clearly haven't been keeping up with Joel's body of work.
Dave
bliffle! exactly, you got my point. She is not a quitter. It is the media, etc. that is really pissing me off, telling her to quit. In a way it is sublime communism at work...
funny thing, after I write my foul mouthed, accusatory comment, I open the pages of one of our daily newspapers here (The Seattle Post-Intelligencer) and political comic writer David Horsey (a local done good) pretty much came up with something along the same lines.
It kinda validates the fact that I am not the only one sick of the vultures of media, etc. and their quit attitude just to prove themselves right. I say, "go jack off to yourself in a mirror, you media, democratic committees, etc."
But, I surely agree. KEEP ON TRUCKIN', HILLARY! You don't stop till the final tick of the clock. That is a good message to send out to this country. We have had thoughtless, selfish Presidential guidance for the last 8 years. That is what this change talk is about.
The point of my whole foul mouthed rant is that this loser attitude doesn't get anyone anywhere. It is sinking this country like an anchor.
Back to life, USA
DM
Dave,
Ruvy, you clearly haven't been keeping up with Joel's body of work.
Has Joel actually changed his articles from calls for Article V conventions (I could smell Article V lurking under his endorsement of Nader - it smells like bad cheddar or kashkeval) - or has he already taken leave of his senses?
Ruvy,
Nothing's changed. Joel's articles still always call for an Article V convention. It's just that now he knows we're on to him, so he takes a while to lead up to it. You just have to have the patience to read all the way through and there it is, tucked away in the corner under the butter dish.
;-)
I prefer his call for boycott
But troll, if we all boycotted elections, who'd be left to vote pork for your bridge?
I guess I'd have to start imposing a toll: answer three questions...or pay 5 bucks
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/76702)
This piece is flawed, Joel. Ralph Nader is a very, very bad man. He has bushy eyebrows and therefore cannot be trusted. I'm sure you will agree with me and Dave Nalle.