My final post on the presidental election

I've decided for whom I will vote. This only documents my reasons. And they're possibly not what you think.

But first, some background on my politics. My family is notoriously liberal Democrat. So, I suppose, am I, but I am very conservative on fiscal matters. I pay my bills. I watch my credit card spending, though I am in a little more debt than I am comfortable being. I like my gadgets and my technology. Too much.

Where I am definitely biased liberally, is on the value of social services. Education in particular. For my money (and it is) we really must focus on improving and maintaining the quality of public education. For everyone in this country. Education is the greatest equalizer. Just ask India. Just ask China. We can compete, we just need to teach our children well. Better, if we can.

I also see benefit in other types of public assistance, even if no one in my family depends on them. I am not naive enough to think they are, or will be 100% effective. There will be abuses and missed opportunities, but that's not enough reason to simply abandon programs. The poorest Americans need help, and we are obligated to provide that help. Just because we can.

But along with everything the government must collect and allocate money to, we need to be intelligent about our budgeting. We cannot intentionally continue spending when the money isn't coming in. National defense is important, but so is education. I would argue that if we educate ourselves well enough, we will need less defense, but that's not my call. America must get its spending under control.

On to the presidential election.

I am not against John McCain. I was very interested in him back in 2000, because I thought he represented as good an alternative as Al Gore, the presumptive Democrat candidate. In retrospect I think Al Gore would have made an excellent president, but in 8 years as VP he hadn't yet made the right kind of impression on me. Now there's no question he's the most qualified man for the job. Why? Because he gets it. But this is not about him. Why not John McCain?

McCain is older, and in even less control of himself and his emotions than he was, before. He's too irascible, too volatile, too politically motivated. He truckled under to the Bush political machine, and has been giving Bush handjobs for too long. Rebel? Not that I can see.

McCain should have chosen Joe Lieberman for VP. Or Hillary Clinton, even. His current choice is unconscionable, and dangerous. I cannot risk Palin becoming president, so sorry, John, you don't get my vote.

But, what about Obama? He is largely untested, but he's anything but lacking in leadership or intelligence. I recently read criticism against him from someone who claimed that his ability to keep his cool was indication of his lack of both intelligence and leadership. Seems they're seeing only what they want to see. He really cannot afford to lose his cool in this race. It's one very obvious way of distinguishing himself from McCain. I do not want my president losing his cool when the next 9/11-style attack comes, and rushing off to bomb Iran. And John, I'm looking at you, here.

I am disappointed that Obama is high on platitudes but low on details. McCain has much more in terms of substance, and this is a point in his favor. McCain has also been around a long time, also a good thing. But, unlike one pundit who commented "McCain has been around 25 years, and Keating is the only scandal you can come up with?", the lack of controversy in McCain's tenure doesn't quite fit his "maverick" persona. Maybe he is ethical and honest, and the sleazy ones leave him alone. I think the same thing is characteristic of Obama, as well. Ayers is not a scandal for Obama. Ayers isn't a scandal to himself, either. He's a frigging college professor, for pete's sake.

I'm probably where a lot of people are mired. I can only vote against someone, and not for someone. The same was true in both the past elections, when I did not vote for Bush. Kerry missed some opportunities to take to task the sleaze-meisters behind Bush, and therefore lent credence to their specious claims. Obama isn't making that mistake; he's taking the offensive, and that's as it should be.

My history of voting isn't very auspicious. I have notoriously voted for candidates that lost, and I have wasted my share of votes by voting for candidates that had no chance of winning. This time around I have to vote for the candidate that I fear the least, and whom I believe will do things in the best interests of the bulk of Americans. And not just for the wealthy. As Obama says, trickle-down hasn't worked. Shit, it never worked, even when Reagan (who is being hailed as a great man?!?) said it back in ... I dunno, 1980, or so.

No. Any time you give more money to the wealthy, they just get wealthier. Now, maybe they deserve the great wealth they have, but it's because they are wealthy that we can expect them to pay their fair share of the bill. Buffett agrees; he's not griping about the taxes he has to pay. Frankly, I'm not, either. I just want it spent on things other than getting our soldiers killed in Iraq. Yes, my stepson is still in Iraq, and his mother wants him to come home.

Who is the most likely candidate to bring them home? Obama, and that's for whom I'm voting.