What's a good liberal to do?

Four weeks ago, the Democrats had a great field of candidates for the presidency. Now we're effectively down to two--and neither one is all that terrific an option, in my estimation. And that's depressing the shit out of me.

When this election season got started, I was leaning toward Richardson. He dropped out. Then I was looking at Dodd. And he dropped out. So I was leaning toward Edwards. And he's now dropped out. It isn't even fucking Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious Tuesday yet, and we're down to the triangulating DLC candidate and the guy who wants to start from a position of compromise with Republicans--as if we hadn't been doing that for the last seven years, with self-evidently disastrous results.

Something clearly has to be done to reinvigorate the primary election process. I suggest getting rid of it altogether, and replacing it with something along more European lines. In France, for example, anyone can file for the presidential election, as long as s/he's secured signed statements of support from at least 500 elected officials (of which there are literally thousands) in at least 30 of the departments and/or the overseas territories. Once there's a slate of candidates, the country votes--on a weekend. There's a short campaign period, strict spending limits, limits on airtime (which is, however, provided free of charge, I believe). Best of all, no opinion polling or campaigning within two days of the actual election. If nobody gets a clear majority of at least 50 percent of the total votes cast, there's a follow-up election two weeks later, subject to the same rules (though a slightly higher spending limit).

Maybe then we'd have a chance to vote for someone who really represented the interests of what has jokingly been called the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party." You know, those of us that have been derided and marginalized as "those liberals," the "ultra-left-wingers," the "moonbats." The ones who believe in crazy-ass socialistic ideas like having a living wage so nobody has to work four jobs just to make ends sorta-kinda-almost-maybe meet--as long as nothing ever goes wrong, like needing to have the car repaired, or get a tooth filled, or having a ruptured appendix removed. Or the idea that maybe, just maybe, it should be the responsibility of our government to obey all of the laws--instead of just the ones that it likes. Or how about the ridiculous notion that what's good for bidness isn't automatically good for the country?

That's the fantasy world I'd like to live in. Here in the depressingly real world, I've got five days to decide how I'm going to vote--or whether I'm going to vote in the presidential primary at all. Right now, I'm leaning toward voting for Edwards anyway. He'll still be on the ballot, and it might be read for what it is--an indication that voters like me are sick to bloody death of having to settle for the lesser of who cares, to paraphrase a wonderful line from the second-season opener of The West Wing.

It has been argued (not, I must admit, terribly persuasively) that doing so would constitute a "waste" of my vote. I don't see how voting for Edwards is any more of a wasted vote than voting for any of the candidates that are still on the Democratic ballot, by the grace of the dead-tree and traditional recycled-electron media, however. And given that voting for either Clinton or Obama is likely to induce massive nausea, grinding of teeth to a degree that would make TMJ disorder look like a mild sprain by comparison, and prolonged bouts of muttering and/or cursing under my breath, I can't say that either of those options looks all that great to me. I'll do it in the general if I have to (and if I can get a prescription for something to make it a little easier to bottle up all the frustrations), but the primary is supposed to be, or so I always thought, the one opportunity I get every few years to vote for my hopes and dreams, instead of settling for "that candidate that isn't the Republican."

If I decide not to cast a protest vote for Edwards, the most likely scenario is that I'll just leave the presidential box blank next Tuesday. Skipping voting altogether isn't an option: there are plenty of other races I want to vote in, especially the special election to replace Fat Denny Hastert. I just wish I could get as excited about the top-of-the-ticket candidates as I am about the guy I'm voting for to take Hastert's seat in Congress. Would that we had more like him--and would that he didn't also have a long, arduous road to travel to get to Washington, since the very people that are swarming around Clinton and Obama and trying to paint either or both of them as the newest and best liberal things to come along since FDR are also the same people trying to discourage John Laesch and people like him from "interfering" in their nice, polite races with nice, polite candidates who hew strictly to the middle of the road.The funny thing about being in the middle of the road is that, as another character from The West Wing had it, is that there's nothing there. Except a long line, painted yellow. Not exactly what I want from my candidates.

Comments

[Bryan]

The thing about the middle of the road is you can be hit by traffic from either direction.

The only thing in the middle of local roads are possums that had too close encounters with Firestone - they were left with a lasting impression.

[hipparchia]

as someone who lives and votes in florida, and who voted for john edwards in my [non?]primary the day before he dropped out of the race, i say vote for edwards in your primary, if he's your choice and his name appears on the ballot.

the 2008 primary season looks to be a wild ride and is probably as good a time as any for protest votes and conscience votes. time enough between now and november to decide what we'll do if we're stuck with voting, yet again, for anybody-who-is-not-a-republican.

[Scott]

Oh Boo-Hoo. You just cannot be objective about Barack Obama, can you? He is the Senate's most liberal member, according to the National Journal. And at the same time he is the most liberal candidate to come along in decades who ALSO has appeal to independents and Republicans.

I'm not sure what you are looking for in a candidate. If you wanted the most liberal you should have considered Kucinich.

[Michael]

Really, Scott, you slay me. You'll have a right to lecture me about objectivity the day you can utter the name "Clinton" without gagging. Barack Obama is far from being the most liberal candidate to come along in decades, as you yourself admitted when you suggested I should've supported Kucinich instead. I'm aware of the National Journal's ranking. I just don't happen to agree with it--as is my God-given right (not to mention my civil right as guaranteed under the First Amendment).

[Scott]

What slays me is how you dismiss out of hand both Clinton and Obama. True enough, I detest what Clinton stands for. However, I recognize the historical "first" represented by her candidacy. If she wins the nomination and election it will be because of her skill, her fluency with the issues, her tirelessness and commitment. You know my reasons, though for not supporting her. I haven't seen yours. (btw, I think that qualify for saying "Clinton" without gagging.)

And your opposition to Obama stems from what, that he had someone you don't approve of at a fundraiser that he wasn't even at or that he supported gay rights bill A instead of gay rights bill B in the Illinois legislature? It just doesn't add up.

Oh, and by the way, I heard this morning that moveon.org endorsed Obama. Aren't they part of the "Democratic wing" of the Democratic party?