I may not get to vote in next week’s primary in Virginia. That would be a shame because I’d decided against my own objections to every candidate running to cast a vote against Hillary Clinton. As I’ve written, I don’t buy into Obama’s marketing plan of “Change, rah rah”. I just don’t care, and the cynical part of me hates the unquestioning pep rally feel of this quest for a Dear Leader. I want specifics, and since those specifics I want are what the politician will stop doing, I’m not interested in Senator Obama’s progressive gobbledygook. But Hillary Clinton must be stopped.
I’ve thought about the reasons why, as I’ve come to this conclusion recently. Megan McArdle almost summed it up yesterday:
Barack Obama. No surprise here. He’s slightly to the left of Hillary on goals, but he’s well to the right of her on process. His goal is not more government so that we can all be caught up in some giant, expressive excercise of collectively enforcing our collective will on all the other people standing around us in the collective; his goal is improving transparency and minimizing government intrusion, while rectifying specific outcomes. His economic advisor, Austan Goolsbee, is brilliant. Plus, he doesn’t have Hillary Clinton’s deep administrative ties, which means two good things: less capture by the bureaucracy, and arguably less ability to get things done. And frankly, I’m creeped out by the notion of a presidential succession that goes Bush . . . Clinton . . . Bush . . . Clinton.
Again, I don’t like what Sen. Obama is proposing in his never-discussed agenda. I will not vote for him in November if he’s the nominee because he is offering us what he thinks we need. But he needs to be the nominee because Clinton is offering us what she knows we need. Her potential to change her course in the face of contrary evidence is on par with George W. Bush’s mastery of that skill.
I don’t like the short-term if Senator Obama is elected. The chance is too great that there will be a kumbaya grace period for his agenda with the Democratic Congress, but long-term, yeah, I think he will display a lesser ability to get things done. It’s a point made by a friend in another conversation recently; it’s a good one.
Since Virginia doesn’t require party affiliation to vote in a primary, I could vote in the Republican race. But why would I bother? As soulless and unpalatable as he is, I like the idea that Romney would have very little political capital to get things done. However, I also think he would sell any one of us out to another if he thought it would help him. Soulless is as soulless does. But he also has no chance of defeating McCain here, so I’m not interested in wasting my vote. Vote None of the Above.