Change or Bust

And McCain? Well, in this round-up of news from the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/), McCain was in favour of the whole psychosomatic explanation before being in favour of making Gramm the ambassador to Belarus. Call me old-fashioned, but isn’t insulting the American public the best way NOT get elected? Even Obama’s bittergate could at least be interpreted as inelegant but not demeaning if the nuance was read properly. Telling American voters that their problems are imaginary is just plain demeaning. No wonder McCain backpedaled like crazy.

So remind me: why like McCain? Setting aside all the wonky policy stuff he flip-flopped on, like campaign finance reform, and setting aside what his minions say, McCain is – how shall I put it? – still an embarrassment. After singing about bombing Iran (that really gets my goat, but I’m sure you’ve noticed that), he now jokes about killing Iranians through our cigarette exports. (Cue Bob Cesca with video http://www.bobcesca.com/ and well-pitched outrage http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca) Never mind that he didn’t even bother to vote on the G.I. Bill that expands veterans’ benefits (http://www.gibill2008.org/state.html) – McCain missed 379 votes, compared to Obama’s 263 – he can’t even talk about birth control without getting all squishy.( http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire) This is a presidential candidate?

Captain Democrat…to the Rescue?

But enough about McCain. What about Captain Democrat? Obama sure ticked off a whole lotta lefties with his vote for the FISA Surveillance Bill…the one that grants retroactive immunity to telecom companies. And his talk about tweaking and expanding Bush’s faith-based initiative isn’t too pleasing to the keep-church-and-state separate crowd. Suddenly, that good ol’ “yes we can” glow seems a little bit dimmer. Unsurprisingly, Republicans have been trotting out the old flip-flop argument that worked so well against John Kerry. Throw in other bad words: changeable, pandering, what have you. When even lefty supporters are wondering which way their candidate is going, it’s hard not to picture Republicans with a big fat gloating smile on their faces.

Except for one thing. Maybe Obama is sincere when he recently wrote, in response to the criticism he received for his FISA vote, at the Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barack-obama:

“I learned long ago, when working as an organizer on the South Side of Chicago, that when citizens join their voices together, they can hold their leaders accountable. I'm not exempt from that. I'm certainly not perfect, and expect to be held accountable, too. I cannot promise to agree with you on every issue. But I do promise to listen to your concerns, take them seriously, and seek to earn your ongoing support to change the country.”

Mr. Cynical might say, “He’s a politician. Of course he’ll say that,” and that would be fair enough. Yet Mr. Optimist might respond with, “Well, isn’t that we want politicians to say? After years of Bush’s arrogant indifference to other viewpoints, don’t we want somebody who’ll listen and take dissenting concerns seriously?” Whether Obama’s actions as president live up to his words as presidential candidate is, of course, the big question. But amidst all the accusations of changeability, the argument can still be made that Obama’s apparent centrism is an attempt to show he will not simply be a president for “liberals,” but that he will also try to work with “conservatives” on the issues that matter to them. In other words, what seems like pandering could also be interpreted as post-partisanship.

So what is the most sensible strategy for people who want to give conservatismo the boot, but are wary of Obama? I wrote (http://www.thefrontpageonline.com/new/) in January that, for tactical reasons, it was probably best to vote for the Democratic candidate instead of pushing the button and scorching the political landscape. I still hold that view. As much as Nader is right about the problems of a two-party system, among other things, voting for a third-party candidate will probably result in Bush’s third term – a disaster for the country. But with Republicans having blown their chances and invertebrate Democrats on their last legs, the politics of choosing the lesser evil can’t go on indefinitely. Democrats should not get a free pass simply because they aren’t Republicans. From a tactical standpoint, then, a vote for Obama is a vote for a candidate we hope lives up to this promise. One more change, but with the proviso that if he doesn’t embody the change he claims to represent, angry voters will, indeed, push the button.