I can not vote for him for a new day
I cannot vote for him for he’s no Hillary
I can not vote for him in a pillory
I can not vote for him as a Democrat
I can not vote for him. the rat
I can not vote for him for he’s dark
I can not vote for him on a lark
I can not vote for him, the commie
I can not vote for him, he’s no mommy
I can not vote for him for he’s a man
I can not vote for him with his Koran
I can not vote for him for he’s slick
I can not vote for him for he makes me sick
I can not vote for him any way
I can not vote for him on election day
I can not vote for him for anyone Black
I can not vote for him, that Barack
Apology: To the late Theodor (Dr.) Seuss Geisel for the down-and-dirty use of his theme.
So, just who would sacrifice a Democratic Presidency in November to make a point?
Americans have a long, emotional history of voting against their interests. Poor southern whites would keep corrupt politicians in office to spite their Black neighbors. It did not make the difference that the underclass of both races had much more to gain by installing populist or progressive governors, legislators and Presidents. Likewise, here in Massachusetts, we'll vote for any ineffective schlemiel who promises never to raise taxes.
This time around, we see and hear from many with reasons or excuses not to vote for Barack Obama. Many more have voted for him in primaries and caucuses than any other candidate of either party. He has attracted and inspired unprecedented number of young and first-time voters. Also, an amazing number of independent voters have chosen him in state races.
Yet, there is a surprising reluctance to concentrate on throwing out the failed bums. Obama is about to get the nomination and there should be euphoria in the surge to rid the nation of the GOP leadership and policies that have produced thousands of American deaths (far more than from 9/11), a world that is less safe, a stunned and staggered economy, and no end in sight for the myriad horrors visited on us.
Instead, many report they are not ready to smear the oval or click the switch for Obama. I figured to muse on it after Saturday dinner we had for nine. Over the noshes and meal, it became clear that the eight who spoke were for Obama. That included the recently retired heart surgeon, who lamented that Americans were likely not ready for real change and would elect John McCain.
As people were getting ready to leave, the middle-aged minister, a Black woman, who had been silent, announced that she hoped Hillary Clinton held on until the bitter end. She said gender was far more important to her than the politics or Obama's race.
So just who is it who might sit out, write in Clinton or even vote for McCain? I surmise:
- Disappointed Hillary supporters. Particularly those embittered and convinced that she got a raw deal, not through her flaws, but for her gender.
- Disappointed John Edwards supporters. Those who cannot believe that the relative populist in a tepidly leftist candidate pool didn't run away with the nomination.
- Fringe lefties and libertarians. The group who would make a statement by not voting or doing the same by going for Ron Paul.
- Self-defined fundamentalists. Who look for any excuse, including the baseless claims that Obama was and remains a Koran toting radical Islam/terrorism follower.
- Kraft bag watchers. Like the infamous West Virginia voters interviewed by TV reporters, some people can't get beyond Black, or light brown in this case. We know some Americans just can't vote for non-white candidates.
- Machine Democrats. Those who are willing to believe that the privileged Clinton, who grew up wealthy with management/owner dad, represents working-class interests.
Interestingly enough, among the many I know who share my deep disappointment that neither Obama nor Clinton nor Edwards supports marriage equality, none said they'd do anything but work for Obama and a Democratic victory.
Amusingly, I somehow got on a McCain mailing list for campaign contribution requests. I received the unappealing appeal dated April 28. It is full of disingenuous howlers like:
It is no secret that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have raised enormous, historic sums of money in their battle for the nomination. And national liberal Democratic groups like MoveOn.org, the Democratic National Committee, and others are plotting to spend and do whatever it takes to bring my campaign down.We can ignore the grammar and syntax errors. However, their admitting that, for the first time in many decades, the Dems are getting a lot more campaign money, and from individuals not from Republican-style business and other interest groups, that does say a lot. American want change, enough to pay for it, enough to reverse the traditional Republican advantage.
As we're already witnessed, when the Democrats' and their liberal special interest allies turn their sights on us with vicious attacks — we must be ready.
Then, who is it who slings the mud, who lies shamelessly, who is associated with Willie Horton ads and Swift Boat Veterans? Which is the party of dirty tricks and outright dishonor and dishonesty? Whose candidate is the one saying his campaign is fighting to win and speak the truth, while the Dems doing the same are "plotting to spend and do whatever it takes to bring my campaign down" ?
At least I got to take a pile of paper out of my office recycling bin, fold it so it fit in the return envelope with the first-class permit. It's a small statement, but one easy to make.
The November call has been settled for me for a long time. I endorsed Obama in early February after the marriage-equality candidates quit. I was disappointed, but not about to take my ball and hide in my basement.
Tags: massmarrier, Massachusetts, McCain, racism, Obama, Clinton, Democrats, voters, sexism