I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 and I'm not ashamed to say it. One of Nader's phrases that resonated with me was "Vote your hopes, not your fears." Call me naive but I really respect that sentiment--especially in the primaries. One of the things that always bugged me about the Democrats post Election 2000 debacle was their insistence that people like me lost the election for Al Gore. But rather than come to folks like me (whacko liberals) and ask us what it was that we didn't like about Gore's campaign and how could they bring us into the fray--they chose to use guilt and fear. "If you don't vote for the democrat in 2004, you'll get another 4 years of Bush." Ok, so most of us did and look where it got us. Why? Because the republicans are way better at fear mongering than the democrats. Be afraid of the flip-flopper--he might actually re-think a bad decision one day.
But now, with the 2008 election approaching, fear is the dominant force again. First it was "don't vote for Hillary, she'll never win the general election." I admit, I probably had that thought--but it took a back seat to my general dislike for her. Thanks to the media--who couldn't wait to pit a woman against an African-American--we overcame that fear. Then, it was Hillary's campaign that joined in the "fearleading." Even though Joe Biden and Bill Richardson are WAY more qualified and WAY more suited to lead this country--we can't vote for them because they are second tier candidates--they don't have a chance to win the nomination--the media says so. So many people interviewed in Iowa and New Hampshire leading up to the caucus and primary said "well, I really prefer Biden, but I'll vote for Obama because he had a better chance at winning." or "Bill Richardson is obviously the most qualified, but I'm going with Hillary because she has more money." Voting their fears. I fear my chosen candidate won't have enough support--therefore I vow to make it so. I'm not going to go into the media's role in all this--that will be another day's rant.
When did our hopes take a backseat to our fears? How did this happen? Don't tell me 911--because it started way before that?
3 comments:
Mags,
I don't know if you are actually are looking for comments, or are just looking to release steam, but so far I love it.
I guess everyone is looking for something different in a candidate, and I totally agree with you that it is ridiculous that TV/mainstream news basically decides who they want to cover based on how good of a story they think it would be. But to make your blog about me- In the 2000 and 2004 general election, I placed write-in votes for McCain because I had no desire to vote for either of the nominees. So you can imagine my annoyance when the only info about McCain early last year was that his campaign was done-for, had fallen apart, etc. You get to the point of getting so ill with it, that you can take no pleasure in positive reports that are now being so hyped up.
Anyway, I find the polarizing-ness of the last few elections just a nightmare, and of course it follows from/leads to just more of the divisions that keep the gvt. from being a particularly positive/productive influence.
As such, I'm not one to get hung-up on one or two particular issues and only support those candidates who agree with me. Instead, I find myself drawn to candidates that I think have a legitimate desire to see gvt. work for the masses of this country, not just the peaks.
This has made me throw my substantial weight behind McCain and Obama. What if they both make it- I guess I will be a happy man for once.
Wow, sorry Mags. Back to you.
I love the labels assigned to this thread. 2008, election, and nadar despite the fact that you have Bill Richardson listed. This blog will come up under a nadar search but not a governor of new mexico search. Perhaps media is changing? Maybe search engines are entering the mainstream media as information control tools?
Just a thought...
ok third roommate--point taken.
Will, I have to respectfully disagree with your choice of McCain, but I understand the sentiment. I really don't see any of the candidates as representing the "change" that they all like to spout about. It would be impossible for this country to elect a true "change" candidate. John McCain would have impressed me a lot more if he had come out in support of Kerry over Bush during the last election. I predict he would toe the party line if elected. The idea of Obama impresses me more than the candidate. I was actually touched this morning to hear of his white cousins in Kansas who were coming out on his behalf. Remember Kansas where Intelligent Design gained ground in 2005? I guess I'm making stereotypes when I imagine that folks that would support ID are also more likely than not to be racist. That's probably not a fair statement to make--but its my thought nonetheless. But --here is my leftiness really coming out--while McCain's toeing the party line bugs me--Obamas message of "compromise" really irritates me. I don't want to make compromises with neoconservative, homophobic, god-fearing, war-mongering, immigrant-hating, environment-destroying assholes. Which is why, ladies and gentlemen, I will never get elected president.
Post a Comment