Aside from his FISA faux pa, Obama has really not made a substantial mistake. Most all of his positions are exactly where they should be for a progressive Democratic candidate. He started out with most of those positions, and they have remained constant throughout his candidacy.
In this case, it's not really even about choosing the lesser evil because Obama has such a stellar record. It's more about not getting your first choice. If you were a Hillary supporter, or if you wish Dennis Kucinich could win, or Ron Paul, or Cynthia McKinney, or Bob Barr - there's not much to complain about in Obama. People are upset that their preferred candidate cannot win, and yet they would waste their vote because they can't have their first choice. They would risk everything that could happen in a Bush third term because they can't have their way, exactly the way they want it. Like a child throwing a tantrum because Mommy said he couldn't get the big bag of Cheetos and has to settle for the small bag. Instead of being reasonable and accepting the small bag, he ends up getting nothing for acting like a spoiled brat.
But unlike that child's tantrum, the ones who are throwing a fit now are not just jeopardizing their own self-interests. They are jeopardizing the interests of millions of other people. If you throw your vote away, your children will have to suffer the consequences of a McCain presidency. My children will suffer because of your vote. A McCain presidency will be an utter disaster. Nobody that allows that to happen, even if they mean well, should be able to sleep at night. There simply is no comparison between Barack Obama and John McCain. It's not even close.
A lot of people want to vote for a candidate everyone knows will not get elected. I understand the urge to do so, but actually doing it is crazy. Just like John McCain, those folks like thinking of themselves as "mavericks" and revolutionaries, and radicals. They think it's cool. Not that they don't have good reasons to want their first-choice candidate to win, but that there is no way to rationalize voting for someone who simply cannot win when the stakes are as enormous as they are in this election. It's madness. Because you decide it's your way or the highway, it will become far more likely that my family will have to face the horrors of nuclear war, an expanded fascist police state, and a government that is more controlled by huge corporations and special interest lobbyists than ever before.
By not voting or voting for someone who cannot win, you are not "making a statement" or "sticking it to the man." You are not drawing attention to your cause, and your vote cannot be called a "protest vote." Nobody will even know about your vote, nobody will care, and nobody will be changed or persuaded of anything by your vote. It will receive no attention whatsoever, other than the fact that it cost Obama the election and gave John McCain the keys to the White House and nuclear launch codes.
It's a little like surgery. You have a doctor you trust and admire, but he is out of the country and can't make it back before you die. You have a choice between a young surgeon with a good reputation but moderate experience, who has never made a serious error, and an 82 year old family practice doctor with shaking hands and four malpractice suits over the past five years. It's one or the other. If you don't choose the younger promising doctor, the older doctor will do the operation, no matter what. Would you throw a tantrum and insist on your preferred doctor when you know he will never make it back in time? You'd rather croak than not get your first choice? You'd rather your family struggle along without you because you have to have everything your way instead of being pragmatic and realistic?
I bet you'd make up your mind about which of the two doctors in front of you was the lesser evil.
By JC Garrett
1 | 2
