jackiedoherty.org

Jackie talks about being more pragmatic in our political choices as we get older, see below.  I feel the same way, but my pragmatism has taken a different turn. George Packer’s article, “The Choice,” in the January 28 issue of the New Yorker points out that:

the alternatives facing democratic voters have been characterized variously as a choice between experience and change, between an insider and an outsider, and between two firsts–a woman and a black man.

None of these polarities resonate much for me in this race.  I think Clinton has had to fight for everything she has gained and is probably in some ways as much of an outsider as Obama.  Experience can be gained and change, while needed, is hard.  And, I cannot cast my vote simply on the base of gender or race.  Packer describes the most important difference between the two as between their “rival conceptions of the Presidency.”

Obama offers himself as a catalyst by which disenchanted Americans can overcome two decades of vicious partisanship, energize our democracy, and restore faith in government.  Clinton presents politics as the art of the possible, with change coming incrementally through good governance, a skill that she has honed in her career as advocate, First Lady, and senator.

Based on the above, which I think is an accurate assessment, I’d be voting for Clinton; but my gut is telling me to vote for Obama – because I think he can get elected. It’s not fair, but many people seem to have a visceral hatred of Hillary, which has little to do with her record or qualifications.  So, I think I’m going to vote for Obama, but I won’t really know until I fill out that little black box later today…

As an avid voter, if there’s a magic formula for deciding who to support, I haven’t found it. Based on my past record, I don’t vote gender, race or religion specific—nor am I totally issue oriented although it depends on the issue. Instead, deciding who will get my vote occurs through a strange confluence of my heart, mind, guts, and lately pragmatism. (It seems the older I get, the more practical and less idealistic I become.) About a month ago, Todd Domke wrote an op-ed in the Boston Globe where he used a “Candidate Comparison Scorecard” to rate the GOP field. Domke scored the Republicans in 10 areas, such as credibility, catalyst for change, compassion for the downtrodden, convictions, commander-in-chiefiness, and courage to “take political heat for unpopular decisions” among others. According to Domke, John McCain had the highest overall score. I agree with his assessment of McCain’s credibility and conviction, but I would never give McCain my vote because he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, he’s hawkish, and he’s too conservative overall—as are all the Republican candidates. When considering Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, whose positions on the issues are similar to each other and mine, I must rely on factors other than the issues to make my decision. In my heart, I love Barack’s fresh voice, irreverence, inspiring speeches, and talk of hope, but my experienced gut tells me we don’t have time for him to figure out how to change the real world—where democracy is about compromise and consensus building that tends to blur lines. Our nation needs immediate progress to address the needs of our children, our schools, the war, healthcare, the economy, and the environment. These are issues and battles Hillary has been fighting for decades. She has been consistent in her beliefs, and she knows how to play the game. (I don’t have insider fears because I see democracy as a team sport.) I guess I’m adding a rating criteria of my own here: Who can hit the ground running and get the job done? Hillary Rodham Clinton is a strong, smart, tough, assertive woman—all admirable qualities despite what some say. She will clean up the Bush mess and lead us all to a brighter future. Hillary’s got my vote. What about you?