Barack Obama for President (?)

Let me preface this post with this: Ron Paul is still my guy by a mile. Secondly, I'm not suddenly sympathetic to modern liberal philosophy. But unfortunately Ron Paul is not going to win the nomination and the choice is going to be between Clinton and Obama or Romney and McCain. In 2004, I just voted for the Constitution Party candidate rather than vote for Bush (as I reluctantly did in 2000) or Kerry. And certainly, I have little in common with Obama's positions. On economics, it's more of the same left-wing ideas of higher taxes, nudges towards class warfare and other expensive policy proposals along with typical panderings to this or that victim group.

Right now the smart money is on McCain for the Republican ticket. I agree with McCain on more issues than I do Obama. And McCain is hardly as liberal as his conservative critics make him out to be, though on several key issues he is to the left of the base. But McCain is certainly not a libertarian nor is he a staunch conservative in the traditional sense. All of today's "mainstream conservatives" are in lockstep with inflationary policies and fiscal irresponsibility. McCain, at least, talks about cutting spending as a prerequisite to the right kind of tax cuts. And he's right, tax cuts without spending cuts just lead to larger deficits.But McCain and the rest of the GOP have no problem racking up huge spending overseas and around the world with out of control spending for the Warfare State. And this is McCain's major claim to fame right now. He says he has no problem having an American presence in Iraq for "100 years." He shows no desire to bring troops home from bases around the world where they've been for decades. He is generally belligerent towards any nation not on the USA's preferred list of nations. He makes a huge fuss about supporting the "surge" even though Republicans in general supported the surge. McCain, like the rest of the party, has sided with the President rather than the majority of the country on the desired direction to take with Iraq. If it was possible, and it looks to be like it is, McCain could be even much worse than President Bush in terms of foreign policy.

Clinton would be little better. She will prove that she's "tough" by dealing harshly with other nations. I have little doubt she'd keep troops in Iraq indefinitely, despite her friendly gesture to the liberal base about scaling down troop masses. Romney basically holds to McCain's positions without the military veteran credentials behind it.Obama at least shows a desire to engage with other nations. Whereas Clinton mocks him for wanting to talk to America's "enemies," this seems to be more about pride than productivity. Obama is sincere when he says he's always opposed the war. Clinton's vote in 2002 was the popular thing to do at the time when most the country was behind the concept of an invasion. Her position changed when it no longer became politically popular. The Clinton's have always been opportunists and the way they've campaigned, and how former Presisent Bill Clinton-- "America's First Black President"-- has tried to racially polarize the electorate has been shameful.

In terms of likeability, Obama wins by a longshot. I think he's sincere about wanting to bring both sides together. George Bush campaigned in 2000 as a "uniter, not a divider" and has been one of the most divisive Presidents in recent history. But Clinton II is just as, if more, divisive than her husband and the current President. After 16 years of this, and as America grows more divided, Obama has the best shot at reversing the mutual disdain of Red and Blue states, though I don't have many illusions that we will all be singing Kumbaye together anytime shortly.To be sure, Clinton and McCain are both more "qualified" than Obama. Clinton has slightly more experience as a legislator and McCain has been in elected office for many years. But what kind of experience are they bringing to the table? For the above mentioned reasons, not the right kind in my opinion. Also, and perhaps one of the most important reasons to vote for Obama is it would be a slap in the face to the Old Guard establishment on both sides. Polls show the same thing generally: Clinton wins the older vote, Obama wins the younger vote. McCain's rallies are full of elderly men in VFW caps. Even if it is mostly rhetoric, Obama at least inspires people and taps into youthful energy in the electorate.It's for these reasons, and several others, I'll be very reluctantly cheering on Obama for the rest of the 2008 election.

Prediction: Prediction: If Obama is the nominee, you won't see the Christian Right march in lockstep with the Republican Party for once in decades. For one thing, even though McCain really is a social conservative, and much more socially conservative politically than Obama, the Christian Right still by and large treats him as a pariah. If McCain makes Huckabee his running mate, that would stem the tide a bit, but then you irritate an equal or larger segment of Republicans who don't think either of them are real economic conservatives. If Hillary is the nominee, all the conservative complainers will vote for McCain despite their assertions now that they will stay home. But if it's Obama vs. McCain, all bets are off. The Old Guard Christian Right will endorse McCain. But many younger Evangelicals, who already have shown some independence philosophically in recent years, will break rank. Obama is, after all, much more vocal about his faith than McCain. And he seems much more "relevant."