[election] Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...

So, Edwards and NARAL both threw in the towel and endorsed Obama. No surprise there; both candidates were pro-choice, so NARAL literally could have tossed a coin. I suspect they want this over.

I posted about it elsewhere. My hands hurt like whoa, and it was a very comprehensive post that perfectly summed up my stance, so what the hell, will just repost. Anyone wants to argue or debate or discuss, that's cool - but if you offer me a bright shiny glass of hope and tell me I'm all wrong, the discussion is at an end, period. I have a lot of unanswered questions. If this is your guy - and he is not and almost certainly never will be mine - you should have some actual answers ready, because I'm not the only one asking them; the press certainly will. I am supremely uninterested in anyone's definition of hope, not when it comes to someone asking me to make them the most powerful human being on earth.

So. Questions.

Obama voted for the Dodd amendment. I saw a lot of "WOW, guess who's getting MY vote because he did that!" posts, but there's a small problem, you see, and question number one: he didn't bother showing up to vote for the bill the amendment was attached to, thereby making it a "look see I did the Right Thing!" for-show-only vote. From where I'm sitting, that looks like a cold-blooded political move whose only driving ethic is the desire to look good and a desire for power, while avoiding changing anything or committing to anything. So. Why is that a point in his favour? Anyone? Clinton didn't vote for the bill or the amendment, a fact that a lot of undecideds held against her. Um - question? Why is voting to amend a bill you don't actually vote on preferable?

Obama didn't bother signing the bipartisan-coauthored Reading is Fundamental request to the funding committee (the request letter, from Elizabeth Dole and Debbie Stabenow, was to the committee chairpeople; it was a request that funds be kept in place for one of America's most valuable early education programs, gutted by our so-called president, known around here as El Commandante Fuckwit). He didn't do it when it first circulated through the Senate - ok, middle of an election campaign, maybe he missed it. I could totally see that happening.

Six weeks later, though? Not so much; the excuse wears pretty threadbare by then. The final letter - with the signatures of 48 senators - went to the committee chairs, without Obama's signature. I've yet to receive so much as the glimmer of an answer as to his motivations. I find it inexcusable. The nearest thing to a reply I've had from his supporters is that the Wright thing (which, as it happens, I don't give a damn about and don't hold against him at all) broke, and he had to deal with that. Excuse me?

He ran a thunderous, really excellent oratory on why NAFTA must! be! radically! altered! Which is fine, except for that whole "pssst, ignore that, we won't really, it's just campaign rhetoric" to the Canadian government who, not unnaturally, were a skosh concerned. When called on it in the media, the Obama campaign denied it. The Canadian PM held up the memo. Again, a cold-blooded political ploy whose only driving motivation was power lust.

He apparently has no compunction saying one thing out the side of his mouth to unemployed garment workers, and something else entirely to the government next door, not if it makes him look good. So, tell me: why should I believe him on choice? On healthcare? On the economy? On education? On anything at all?

Here's the thing. None of that would bother me half so much if he were running as what he is: a politician who wants my vote to make him the most powerful man in the world. But he isn't. He's running as Saint Barack, the Great Hope of the Future. And the problem is, he hasn't done anything to make me buy it, and not all the subtle Martin Luther King voice-cadencing tricks on earth change that. My ears have had forty years to train for that one; I was around for the original, you know? And MLK was not asking for me to mandate him as the most powerful man on earth. Him, I'd have voted for.

Those are a few of the reasons I can't give Barack Obama my support. But hell, holding my nose and voting against Someone Even Worse is nothing new. With the exception of Bill Clinton, it's pretty much busines as usual. I'll just be holding my nose a lot harder this time, and hoping it's obvious that he's won early enough so that California, all the way west, won't matter. That way, I can vote for my state and local issues, and not try to make my hand fill in the two ends of the arrow next to Senator Obama's name.

I really hoped I'd have a president who, you know, actually represented me this time around, especially since I doubt I'll get another shot in this lifetime. The Old Boy Network, whatever colour you like, will certainly not be willing to relinquish its hold on the party's short and curlies anytime soon.

If he beats McCain - and I'm not even close to thinking he can, or will - one of two things will happen. He'll do a great job, which would, of course, be nice in the short term but would have the longterm effect of the Boyz using that as an excuse to make sure another woman never comes near the job. Or he'll do a crap job, and we go down in complete flames.

Either way, I lose. But again, not being represented in US government is nothing new. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

And yeah, same testosterone count. I could care less about his skin colour.