My advice to lefties is give both Democrat candidates a wide berth.

“A pleasant man who, without any important qualifications for the office, would very much like to be President.” — Walter Lippmann, on FDR, 28 April 1932

Samantha Power is teh HOT, and she can hang with me anytime she wants. I don’t think HC is a “monster,” but I sure as hell don’t think it is out of bounds to say she’s behaving like one.

The primary difference between my Obama vote and my Clinton vote is that I’ll be holding my nose much tighter for the Clinton checkmark.

I don’t think I’m alone.

As it is, so it has been, and will always be.

Now, on more serious matters. I vote third party in virtually every election I can when I see no difference in the outcome, or no substantive difference in the candidates. The system IS broken; I learned the hard way by trying to become a candidate in 2000 for my 10th Congressional district in IL. I needed roughly 12,000 signatures, my opponents on either side needed less than 700. That among other fun systematic things amounted to quite an eye-opener.

But I just don’t understand the Democratic cannibalism on any level that resembles practical reality. In macro terms, comparing it to working in Corporate America, where I often say to virtual unanimous agreement, “this is Dilbert shit.” And everyone says, “Yeah,” and I say, “But it doesn’t have to be! If we know it is Dilbert shit, why don’t we avoid it?” Because we can’t, I’m starting to think.

This campaign is the same, just in a different world. I HATED Power’s resignation; I think Obama should have, in his own eloquent way, said, “Fuck you.” The substance of it doesn’t matter, since they can still talk on the phone all the time just like Bush and Rove. It’s the optics that matter, and if Obama (whom I lean towards) wants to get elected, he’s going to have to fight in the trenches, not because that is the way it should be, but because that is the way it IS. Particulary against a great infighter like Hillary.

I just don’t get the insane partisanship. It’s like a sports team willing to lose so one guy gets to set the records. It’s like a band willing to toss away their fame over a dispute about who gets writing credit.

THE OBJECT OF THE GAME IS TO WIN IN THE FALL. Hillary, IMHO, believes with all her heart and soul she can and will do a better job, and in some respects I agree that is true, but she’s behaving abhorently to win. And she’s dragging Obama down into traditional political mud to do it. I’m tired of it.

I don’t understand the Cult of Personality that surrounds either candidate. All I want is a Democrat in the WH next January. And larger majorities in both houses.

I find Taylor Marsh brilliant about a whole bunch of stuff, but her obsessive Obama bashing and ignoring the Clinton baggage has become insufferable to me. It makes me sad. There ARE Obama cultists, and they make me weirded-out.

It’s all very interesting when one detaches. HC is, IMO, much better suited to flip the tiny levers of the giant black hole that is government bureaucracy much quicker than Obama. Obama, OTOH, has brought one big serious shitload of new voters into the process, and I think the down-ticket would be better under him. I WANT to be inspired, despite rationally knowing that inspiration goes just about as far as the votes you have in Congress as far as policy implementation goes. I don’t want to hear about shit that happened in the ’90′s over and over and over again, which I sincerely believe will get in the way of any “change.”

At this exact moment, I’d like to see Obama do a speech in African-American FU idiom, while managing to make it funny and “kidding on the square” and polite and all the stuff Obama is good at, simultaneously. A tough speech to write, and deliver, no question, but I think it would show a lot of America he has the goods.

Blah, blah, blah. We’ll see how it plays out. The only thing I can say for sure is that it will play out in macro terms without anyone being able to do anything about it.

The Human Experience is wild.

Well, our system of government is adversarial, so it’s always going to be dissatisfying to you.

Good government comes from rational people acting in enlightened self-interest.

One of the most important realizations you can make about our two-party system is that self-interests of two opposing parties frequently collide. Sometimes there is a “win-win” situation that can be agreed upon, but in lots of cases, political policies are zero-sum for the two interest groups: one group wins and comes away with more, and one group loses and comes away with less.

Not every solution comes through a blue-ribbon commission made up of elders statesmen and Brookings Institute scholars. To even appoint that blue-ribbon commission, you have defeat a lot of politicians who are going to be standing in the way.

So why should I ever vote for any other sell-out and betrayal of conscience like Clinton, Obama, Nader, or anyone else, instead of writing myself in as the true candidate of my progressive change?

Sure, I won’t get elected, and sure, the country will even get sh*ttier, but, hey, at least I voted my views — because there is nothing in the universe at all which is more important than my views.

“Also, you have said nothing about my point re: other democratic systems that seem to work better because they allow for a larger range of opinions. The whole damn system is broken, and the only way we’ll ever do anything about is by not giving in until it changes.”

I’m all for electoral change. Sorry I didn’t see your comments about this earlier. Yes, the system is broken. I just don’t see what that has to do with election day itself.

By all means, crusade for electoral change. Fight for better candidates. Use carrots and sticks. Agitate. Threaten to withold votes.

I’m for all those things. But on election day itself the time for those things has passed. At that point switching to another electoral system or a new set of candidates is not an option.

You don’t have to like it, you can hate it and you can try to change it. But on election day, if it hasn’t changed, the rational thing is to vote for the best candidate. Voting is not “giving in.” Not voting doesn’t hurt the man or the system and it doesn’t affect change. In fact not voting retards change because the fewer voters there are the more the political landscape can be dominated by an insane vocal minority.

I’m not a dyed-in-the-wool democrat. Our political process and our media is broken and both parties suck. Tis true. But until it changes I’ll vote for the better candidate because nothing else makes sense. Not voting doesn’t *accomplish* anything.

Republican victory
Democratic victory

If you prefer a Democratic victory then not voting Democratic is irrational. Period. And you say yourself you prefer Democratic victory.

“Are they both better than the Resident? Yes, obviously. Would they be better than McCain? Almost 100% positive they would. Are they the best that America’s got? I don’t think anyone here would argue that.”

What is your alternative? Not voting accomplishes what exactly?

What you are espousing is irrational and easily demonstrated so with simple game theory.

If you have a preferred outcome and you choose to act in a way that does not advance that preferred outcome you are behaving irrationally.

I will happily let you call me a cunt for not voting for Obama or Clinton if McCain wins and is as awful as many people fear. But only if McCain actually wins fairly. Which is probably impossible, so he’s most likely working his connections over at Diebold right now. I repeat, the system is broken.

And to top it off, you ended with “She Sells Sanctuary.”

Well done.