| | 
One Carter is Too Much
The question is simple. Does the satisfaction of saying "I didn't vote for McCain" merit the burden of Obama and a filibusterproof Democratic Congress? To say that there is no difference is to say that a promise to raise taxes is no different from a promise to cut taxes, having already withdrawn from Iraq before the surge is no different from withdrawing after, that standing up for our own self defense is no different from being seen negotiating the unnegotiable. McCain is just about the worst possible candidate I could vote for. He's a politician. But he's able to switch to the proper position when the wind begins to blow.
Obama is too "principled" even to waffle. Of course, by principled, I mean altruistic on our behalf. McCain will waffle for the good of the country. McCain knows that too much altruism kills. (Lord knows I would rather not have to depend on the pragmatic principles of an opportunistic waffler.) I could even see Hillary Clinton doing the right thing, if only to get re-elected. But Obama's purity is frightening. Imagine where he would be now if he had stood up in congress before the recess and said, "you know, I don't like it, but we have to start drilling." Talk about a Sista Souljah moment!
The Democrats would have gladly betrayed the greens to gain power. He would be getting better numbers than Clinton did versus Dole. But he is too principled to do the right thing. He is Carter with all the smarm, and none of Jimmy's sex repel. Carter with the holier than thou altruist elitism, with an undertaker's good looks, and he means it.
If you live in Maine or California or New York, and you want to vote your fantasy vote, it can't hurt any more than staying home. But Hillary had it right when she asked who would you rather have answering the red phone at three in the morning. One Carter in one lifetime is too much.
|
|
