Why Should Anyone Vote for Either of These Two Guys?

I came to work this morning wearing my "McCain 2000" hat. I'd really like to vote for the 2000 version of McCain. I'd also probably like to vote for the 2016 version of Barack Obama, and might even wear his "Obama 2016" hat, but that one's not available yet. Our choice this year seems to be between the over-ripe and the under-cooked -- someone about whom too much is known, and someone about whom we know too little.

The McCain of 2000 was a maverick, refusing to kowtow to the religious right, mocking the certainty of George Bush and attacking the corruption of Congress by lobbyists and fundraisers. He was as likely to be seen with Democrats as he was with Republicans, and so close to John Kerry that Kerry talked to him about being the Vice-Presidential nominee on the Democratic ticket.

In today's New York Times, David Brooks characterizes McCain's previous behavior as "part of McCain's long-running rebellion against the stupidity of modern partisanship. In a thousand ways, he has tried to preserve some sense of self-respect in a sea of pandering pomposity." But now, the new McCain has gotten as pompous as the rest of them. Quoting Brooks, "McCain and his advisors have been compelled to adjust to the hostile environment around them... Now they are running a much more conventional race, the kind McCain himself used to ridicule."

Obama, on the other hand, was regarded as the new Abe Lincoln, the smoothest orator of his generation, who called for a fundamental change in American politics. Now he equivocates and avoids, much like the politicians he's bemoaned in the past, even while he himself hems and haws -- and we count all the "uhs," "ums" and "ems" in his once flawless speechifications. The certainty of his sermons has vanished. He has become a contemplative conceptualist, a man seeming to pre-test every word, every idea, before it comes out of his mouth. He's campaigning as if he were Adlai Stevenson. I just don't know who he is.

David Brooks writes, as "McCain's campaign has become more conventional, his political prospects have soared." On the other hand, as Obama's campaign has become more conventional, his prospects and America's hopes are dwindling. My friends who support McCain are growing more fervent in their loyalty. My friends who support Obama are growing more and more disappointed and concerned.

As for me, given all of the above, I've got no horse in the 2008 election. As I sit here in my "McCain 2000" hat, I invite all Huffingtonians to tell me why I should care.

Comments

[wayoutleft]

with over two months left and before they've even been to conventions, it's perfectly natural you have yet to choose. but don't expect any particular appeal to you yourself from either of them. you'll have to accept being pretty insignificant to the process. also, it is important to recognize that what these people will actually do if elected bears no resemblance in any way whatsover to anything they're telling you now.
if i could only say that if you believe in reaching out and helping people you should vote for obama. but i can't do that because obama wants to expand the war. but anyway you're supposed to vote for republicans because you believe in total capitalism, illegal abortion, military expansion, single malt scotch, and so on. you're supposed to vote democrat because they aren't as bad as republicans. the tried and true generalities are always safe. despite the decline of this election into backbiting from two hysterical personality cults, reality will eventually overtake the hallucenogenic election process. then, if the democrats won- the academics will make policy. if the republicans won- the businessmen will make policy.

[Freesia2]

It's very simple really. If you like George Bush, or more importantly if you like the men who surround George Bush, and what they've done with the country and what they would continue to do if left in office - then plop on your McCain 2008 hat and get aboard the Straight Talk Express. You'll enjoy the view. You can eat nabs and join them in sing alongs of "Bomb Bomb Iran". Play car games - like Count the Foreclosure Signs.

But if you can't wait to see the back of Bush and everything he stands for - then welcome. Vote Obama.

It's not a hard choice Mr. Schonfeld. You either like Bush and want more, or you don't.

[ignrnthllblly]

There's an old proverb which advises that you should, when presented with only two alternatives, always choose the third. It's a pocket reminder to reject false dichotomies and, God knows, one most people would benefit from keeping in their pockets. Yet it amazes me how many people never attempt to benefit from that proverb until dealing with a two-party election, when they start attempting to construct tertium quid out of their inability to evaluate A or B, or worse, out of their fears of defeat or error.

A or B, folks--simplest proposition their is. If you can't, or won't, decide--fine!--then abstain. But let's dispense with drama that the fault lies with the candidates. There's nothing the candidates could say, or refrain from saying, that changes the nature of the proposition or the fact that you are charged with deciding. The insufficiency you project is your own.

[ignrnthllblly]

Why should you care?

Do you have any questions for us that aren't superfluous? The onus isn't on the candidates to make you care, nor does it fall on the madding crowd. If your concern does not precede both, what either candidates or their partisans "make" you feel sure ain't gonna qualify. Your complaint isn't with either candidate. It's with yourself.

[standard]

"Our choice this year seems to be between the over-ripe and the under-cooked -- someone about whom too much is known, and someone about whom we know too little."

Refocus. Presidential elections are chiefly about the candidates' policies and the teams they will lead, not the candidates, personally. Bush 43 has done severe damage to our economy, world standing and civil liberties while taking lengthy vacations. His policies, and the team he assembled to effect them, have produced this result--not him, personally.

Do we really know McCain's policies and his likely team all that well? Are Obama's policies and likely team really all that mysterious? They both have web sites. A little effort reveals a great deal to choose between and care about: war, health insurance, civil liberties and the dollar. That sort of thing.

[Phil123]

Actually, these are the two weakest candidates I've ever seen.

Politics in this country are broken if this is the best we can do.

Not a bad year to stay home. I think that most of those who will vote will be voting AGAINST one of the candidates instead of FOR the other.

[JimR]

You are the poster child for the lazy American.

[quincyscott]

"I invite all Huffingtonians to tell me why I should care."

Are you kidding me? Didn't the election of 2000 convince you, convince all of us, that apathy can get us all into serious trouble? Not voting is not an option.

Look, you have already answered your own question. Lose the McCain hat. He is not the man he was eight years ago, and he never will be. McCain is the past. Obama is the future. Is he an unknown commodity? Perhaps. But are you willing to gamble a little bit that he matures faster than 2016, say by 2010? After all, Kennedy had some pretty big gaffes in the first year of his presidency, but by year three he was doing some pretty impressive things. All new presidents are rookies. But I am willing to bet that Obama, like Kennedy, is a quick study. Like Kennedy, he's smart, thoughtful, eloquent, cares deeply, and will surround himself with capable people, who he will listen to. John McCain cares deeply about America, but he has none of these other assets. John McCain might have been a timely leader eight years ago. But his time has passed. He has compromised so many of the values that made him such an attractive candidate then. Ironically, he's become George Bush's third term. He's yesterday.

Come on, Reese. Vote, and vote for the future.

[HeevenSteven]

I'm amazed that you expect that Obama should have had canned ready made stump speeches for every one of Warren's questions. What's wrong with some genuine thoughtfulness moments?

[Phil123]

I love the new spin. It used to be that when Kerry flip-flopped, we were told that he was being "nuanced." Now, whenever Obama is dumbfounded and has NO answer, we are being told that he is being "thoughtful." I guess if you give no answer to two contradictory questions, then you're being "thoughtfully nuanced."

While I don't doubt that Obama is bright, I think he lacks core values, and this sometimes makes him unsure how to answer questions. He views some questions as being "above his pay grade." I agree.

[jeg]

"He lacks core values"-- can you do anything besides repeat the Republican Talking Point of the week? Sen. Obama has shown consistency in his beliefs and values, as opposed to Sen. McCain who will apparently say anything, and do anything, on the off chance he might get into the White House.

I mean, we certainly don't want a President who will actually stop and think, and possibly wonder about the implications of his actions. No, we want someone who will damn the torpedos, full speed ahead, and by the way, let's start a shooting war with Russia. Or Iran. Or Iraq. Or... oh, who cares, we've got wars to win!!!

[JimR]

I think you lack a clue.

[HeevenSteven]

McCain has flopped on every single "core value" he ran on in 2000, except for his make war meme. Seems his values have nothing to do with any core.

[Pdubya]

you should care. but not for these two globalist puppets. they have the same bosses, the same agenda....to reign in the new world order at the calling of the international bankers and council on foreign relations uppity ups. tin hat? have you seen the price of tin lately?

there will be no change in foreign policy with either of these two....just troop movement. we will not change from imperialism back to non-interv­entionism.­..our constitutional hallmark and true conservative roots.

we will not change monetary policy. we will give the federal reserve even more power, as if a private cartel running our economy isn't enough. look for global taxes and less economic sovereignty.

we will not have a repeal of the patriot act, military commissions act, abolishment of DHS, etc. the police state will grow, no matter who is elected amongst the front runners.

tell me i'm wrong and show me why. i doubt you can substantiate a different point of view. that is not meant in disrespect, but a matter of utter factual and historical precedence. we have not had a representative republic in some 80 years.

perhaps we will get another one when the next great depression is knocking on our doors for our home, gold and guns. tin hat? again, have you seen the price of tin lately?

www.campaignforliberty.com

[gelfling545]

http://www.crooksandliars.com/
Scroll to Mid-Day open thread for one way to decide.

[toomuchtolose]

If all 50 states held their primaries on the same day, does anyone believe that either Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama would have been selected as the Democratic candidates? That's the first step to fixing the problem of holding your nose and voting. Don't let two little states pick the candidates that the other 48 states would not have chosen. It's a stupid way to put someone in the White House. It probaly does take 23 months to try to convince the voters to once again enter the voting booth, hold one's nose, and then make a selection. Too much time, too much money. Senators not in the senate. When do we put a stop to this?

[JimR]

"If all 50 states held their primaries on the same day, does anyone believe that either Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama would have been selected as the Democratic candidates?"

I think Hillary would have won, simple because she was the most well-known. That's a flaw with you solution. Early wins build momentum that a candidate can try to build on.

But it is crazy the way it works now. I think it makes more sense to divide the country by region, and hold several regional primaries, with all states in that region voting or participating in a caucus on that same day.

[CindyV]

You shouldn't care. I don't. I can survive another 4 years of whatever and hope that someone better comes along in 2012. I won't vote for McCain and I can't bring myself to vote for Obama. The lyrics to that song: "clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am stuck in the middle with you." That's exactly how I feel.

[calluna]

Nice to know I'm not alone in the world on this one. Wake me in 2012. Or 2016. Whatever.

[JimR]

Both Cindy V and calluna are part of the problem. Lazy Americans. You want change, but you don't want to lift a finger to make it happen. Well as long you and others remain completely removed from the process, we will continue to get crappy government after crappy government.

[larry278]

In politics, one is faced with 2 bad choices &, unless one chooses to damn all politicians & what they bring, one is stuck with the choice of the lesser of 2 evils. Note, I was careful to avoid crediting politicians with creating anything. Politicians sometimes modify or combine what already exists but usually wouldn't see anything new till it kicked in the shins & beat them into a bloody pulp. That may be why politicians are frightened of the new & novel. In this race, Obama is the lesser of the 2 evils.
Since you've been the media business, you know how to hold your nose so that you can use your free hand to do the work. Hold your nose as you vote.
Remember that the politicians who said that the 24 hour news cycle & CNN would never work now beg for air time on CNN & other cable news outlets. Politicians have a problem with the vision thing.

[Pupadup4oBama]

I'd rather have the under-cooked one who can simmer and add more flavor.
mmmmm....dinner's ready!

[pigsatthetrough]

You just hit the nail on the head. Now the real question so aptly put, "who should I vote for?" Certainly as you describe, neither of these two. Would the Dems and the GOP come to this conclusion at the conventions and surprise us with new candidates we could or would want to vote for? Not likely, except we can't truly rule out Hillary yet, and well, we need to wait and see. The polls seem to back up your points. Four points one way or the other tell us these two are not going to sway us into fervent action. It is a shame to see both of them deteriorate to what they are today, Obama, in the short run and McCain since 2000.