BlogHer - Why I Voted for Barack Obama - Comments

I think that's exactly right

Maria Niles — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 10:45:09 -0600

I think the distinction that Tubbs Jones is both an individual voter and a super delegate and faces pressure in the latter situation that she should not face in the former is not only accurate but fair.

If the tables were turned and a super delegate voted for Obama (particularly if, like Clinton he had won fewer states and fewer votes) and the delegate's district voted overwhelmingly for Clinton they would rightly experience the exact same pressure.

And I don't think it's an issue of race or gender even though it gets spun that way. If super delegates choose a nominee who is not the leader in the overall popular vote, super delegates will then come under fire from lots of voters. And if that nominee is different from who voters chose overwhelmingly in a district then a super delegate who is one by virtue of being an elected official will then face extra pressure from their voters. Tubbs Jones would have the same pressure applied if she voted in congress against the preferences of a majority of voters in her district on key issues. And if the Democratic nominee loses the general election under that scenario, the pressure will be even greater. And that would be true even if we were talking about two white men as potential nominees. If you're an elected official who defies the will of the people who elected you and especially if you then end up on the losing side, you should expect to be challenged for reelection no matter the circumstance.

And here's yet another one ALSO from the PD on same subject

Jill Miller Zimon — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 10:16:15 -0600

See - this kind of harping bothers me - here's today's story on the same thing re: Tubbs Jones and the pressure she'll face to change to Obama

I completely understand the issue about the political pressure. But at what point does she get to be a voter? DOES she get to be a voter?

What are we really saying about democracy and free will to decide if people feel that she should give in to what her district is doing, as far as who she supports?

Here's what I think - and maybe it's just naive - but I believe that she should be left alone to support Clinton if that's what she believes in, she should be left alone to vote for Clinton if that's who she wants to vote for. BUT - as for her superdelegate status, THAT is something she may need to reconsider. She will have to decide what the value and meaning of that status is and then decide if she must cast THAT vote for Obama because of her constituents.

How's that for splitting hairs!?

Jill
Writes Like She Talks

First, I have to say that

Dana J. Tuszke — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 06:59:38 -0600

First, I have to say that you are not hi-jacking, any discussion is a good discussion. It all correlates, really. :)

Secondly, I have never been able to completely align myself with the Republican party, even though I'm a registered Republican. I confess, there have been SEVERAL issues over the last eight years that I haven't agreed with -- and the lines of BS that the GOP have tried to force feed me over the course of this election process are enough to drive me crazy.

If anything, I've learned to be the sore thumb of Republican party -- and to stand for what's important to me.

And that's really the bottom line, I think. After all, "Republican" is just a label designed to keep me "in my place" and I'm tired of it.

And when it comes down to a woman as President -- I'm all for it, and I can't wait for the day it happens, but I cannot force myself to support a candidate that makes me feel uncomfortable and skeptical.

And believe me, I know that Hillary isn't getting a fair shake. Maybe, if she wasn't connected to Bill Clinton, I would feel better about her. Maybe if she hadn't played a part in so many cover-ups (Lewinsky scandal, Whitewater) I would feel like I could trust her. (Everyone tells me to separate Hillary from Bill, and I'd love to, but she won't even separate herself from Bill.)

I know it's not her fault that her husband is a lying, cheating, SOB, but it is what it is and I can't just "get over it" and pretend it doesn't bother me.

On the contrary, Obama isn't the perfect candidate by any means. There are a few things I dislike about him, mainly his stance on abortion, and I'm not overlooking that issue, it's going to bother me for a long time. But right now, I have to focus on more than that. It's painful to say that, but it's true. And if anything, I want to be authentic and true to myself.

I know that Obama and Clinton have similar stances on important issues and I had to single out what I liked best about each candidate's plans (I included John McCain into this mess, too) -- then I had to decide which candidate I could trust, and feel good about voting for. Every time, Obama came out ahead. So I went with my instincts and voted for him.

I think that every Republican could benefit from doing the same. I can name many Republicans who still think they have to agree with every single thing the GOP agrees with and it's rather naive. Like my mother would say to me, "If Katie jumped off a bridge, would you jump, too?" It works the same way with politics.

And the ones sending the negative, anti-Democrat e-mails aren't helping the cause. It just makes them look scared. Open and honest communication is the way to get someone to at least hear your side, but it doesn't guarantee they'll agree with you.

So, yeah, that was a long-winded comment and I probably just re-hi-jacked!

Thanks, Jill

Maria Niles — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 23:53:19 -0600

Interesting piece, thanks for linking.

My sense was that Morris was suggesting two things:

1. Some in the community have suggested that she should be supporting Obama rather than Clinton based on race.

2. That if her district votes overwhelmingly for Obama and she, as a super delegate, continues to cast her vote for Clinton, she will likely face some pressure.

My reaction is that all African Americans should be free to vote for Clinton if they feel she is the best candidate and arguments that they are race-traitors is just as annoying as the gender-traitor claims. And, while super delegates are not only free to vote their conscious as to who they think is ultimately the best candidate, and arguably they should, voting against the overwhelming choice of those who elected you is politically risky and rightly so. If Stephanie Tubbs Jones finds herself in the position of having to explain her vote for Clinton to voters in her district she should be prepared to defend that choice well, prepare for a possible challenge next time she is up for re-election or really, really hope Clinton makes it to the White House and gives Jones a role in her administration. ;-)

Yes, mostly rhetorical

Maria Niles — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 23:42:16 -0600

Apologies for the continued hijack, Dana and Laurie, this is a broader rant not directed at you but rather at the reasoning of others you cite and to further clarify my initial comment.

Race has also been a consistent factor, not just gender - every president has been a white man. And yes there are lots of sexist people out there who would never vote for a woman just as there are racists who would never vote for a black man and too many idiots who wouldn't vote for either simply because of their race or gender.

And I'm not arguing that it is not a good thing to be happy to vote for the first viable female candidate and to proudly do so as a woman. And yes, there has been too much sexist treatment of her and she has to work that much harder than would a man in her position. But the same is true for Obama because of his race.

Nor am I suggesting that electing Clinton would not be a profound act of courage and change in the United States. However, racism and sexism come from the same place. If voting for Hillary is perceived as striking a blow against sexism then voting for Barack should be perceived as striking a blow against racism and both should be celebrated.

And to argue that only black women are free to vote for Obama without getting their feminist pass revoked is just a really tiresome argument - I feel really sorry for white women who seem to be bearing the brunt of feminist ire for betraying the tribe. Nobody owes any candidate their vote, they all have to earn it and possession of a vagina is not sufficient in my book.

As Dana has so beautifully pointed out, let's make it about issues first, identity second and in any case stop chastising women for having enough of a brain to make up their mind on the former rather than the latter.

Hey Maria -

lauriewrites — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 22:37:28 -0600

That might have been rhetorical but here I go thinking out loud again. ;) From what I read, there are some people (mostly women) who believe that having a woman as commander-in-chief would be more notable than a man of any race/culture, given that gender has been the one consistent factor of all 44. Not saying I'm one of them (at all). This obviously comes from a personal lens that's different for all of us, and I think it's why it's so dangerous to boil anything down to one identifying factor.

My cousin's sister-in-law told her that God didn't intend for there to be a female president. This cousin is a lifelong Republican who inundated me with anti-Democratic e-mails during the last election, and told me last weekend that she's voting for Obama. Huh? No offense, Dana, but this was the shocker of this primary season for me, and one of the main ones of my whole life (no hyperbole, I swear.) A female co-worker of mine told me - completely serious - that she didn't feel any woman was capable of leading a nation in wartime. Any. Ever. If nothing else the conversations I'm engaging in and things I'm reading this year are letting me know that I took a lot for granted in terms of the heads and hearts around me. It's kind of freaking me out, sometimes in a good way, sometimes not so much. It depends on the day.

Laurie

Maria - to that question!

Jill Miller Zimon — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 22:33:54 -0600

I apologize if this goes off just a bit, but Plain Dealer columnist Phillip Morris wrote this piece that was published today and he very much seems to be implying that a black woman voting for Clinton is a traitor to race - now, no one is calling Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones a traitor - not that I've heard of. And Morris isn't either - but he is saying that the pressure, the burden, the out of sync-ness that will be apparent could be overwhelming for STJ - because she supports Clinton but her district is rumored to go 3:1 for Obama. I don't know - I'm not sure.

But I hope you'll take a minute to read the column. It probably deserves more of a post in BlogHer - because I remember maybe two weeks ago? There was a big thread on the topic of African American women being doubly challenged/blessed - with Clinton and Obama.

Thanks - sorry - didn't mean to hijack. :)

Jill
Writes Like She Talks

If ...

Maria Niles — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 20:18:00 -0600

If white women who for Obama are traitors to their gender as you posit, ajm7, then are black women who vote for Clinton traitors to their race?

And, if "having a woman president after 44 male presidents would be an act of profound justice and fairness, and because a woman president would fundamentally change our culture in ways that are almost difficult to comprehend now" as you state are you saying that having an African-American as president not be as much an act of justice and fairness after 44 white presidents and as much as a fundamental change to our culture? Or are you suggesting that racism in not as much a problem as sexism and the symbolic redress is not as important?

PopConsumer
Beyond Help

You say that I said you

Dana J. Tuszke — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 19:48:28 -0600

You say that I said you should vote for Hillary just because she is a woman.

That is not what I said. I reiterated that I, personally, only wanted to vote for Hillary because she is a woman. Wouldn't that also be sexist, you know, if we got down to the brass tacks of the matter?

You say that you decided against Hillary because you felt you can't fully trust her but you don't back up your reason for it.

I have backed it up. I've given several reasons. I encourage you to go back and read my post again.

In regards to your question about race and gender -- I don't think it is wrong for anyone to be excited, elated even, about having a black or female President. I think it would be wonderful, but I made my decision without taking race or gender into consideration. I weighed the importance of the issues and then determined which candidate was better for the job.

May I ask if you've researched where Hillary stands on the issues? Or are you voting for her simply based on gender?

I assumed that anyone who

ajm7 — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 18:35:38 -0600

I assumed that anyone who votes for a socialist has got to be at least somewhat liberal. If you are not a liberal, I think it somewhat incomprehensible that you are voting for someone who is to the left of the Left. This is a man who thinks abortion in the very last day of a pregnancy should be absolutely legal and freely available to any woman.

You say that I said you should vote for Hillary just because she is a woman. I never said that. I said that your seeing Hillary as "entitled" seems to me to be very sexist. It seems like a mild form of what people who hate Hillary believe - that she's dictatorial and calculating (most often summed up with the b word). I understand this coming from traditional minded people who can't abide to see women in positions of authority, but I don't understand it from people who claim to be more enlightened.

Furthermore, do you think it is wrong of black Americans to be excited that Obama is black.. and that they are finally going to perhaps see someone like themselves in the White House? Do you think it is wrong of them to take Obama's race into consideration? Do you think it is wrong of them to make a decision between Obama and Hillary based on the fact that Obama is black? Does not the very fact that Obama is black and that a black man may be President, given the history of black people in this country, is this not very fact of historical and profound importance? Why should this be discounted? And .. why is the same not true of women? Is not choosing a woman or a black man in itself a factor at least as important as any party affiiiation/policy/worldview?

You say that you decided against Hillary because you felt you can't fully trust her but you don't back up your reason for it. I decided for Hillary not because I'm liberal but because having a woman president after 44 male presidents would be an act of profound justice and fairness, and because a woman president would fundamentally change our culture in ways that are almost difficult to comprehend now. Young girls in our country are plagued by self hatred because they have no heroes. They hate themselves and their bodies because all they see are unrealisting images of what they should be. Yes, there is a war in Iraq that should be ended. But there is war at home too.. and too many times women and girls are the victims.

As a liberal woman...

Suzanne Reisman — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 13:46:44 -0600

I often vigorously disagree with Dana. However, I wish that everyone took the time and did their research the way she did before she came to her decision. I have tremendous respect for Dana for standing up for her beliefs, and I take umbrage at anyone who berates her in the name of liberal women.

Suzanne Reisman, Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS)& Other Rants

I just had this thought: If

Dana J. Tuszke — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 13:34:14 -0600

I just had this thought: If Coulter and Malkin became mothers, would they still be embraced on the news channels like they are now?

Well, thanks, Jim! I'm

Dana J. Tuszke — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 13:32:05 -0600

Well, thanks, Jim!

I'm certain there are several people who don't agree with my politics, but that's what makes this country great, right? (And it's probably why the left and right fight so much. But hopefully that will end once we all learn to speak to each other calmly.)

One Democratic vote, and I'm a liberal?

Dana J. Tuszke — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 13:29:03 -0600

My, my, my...ajm7!

I mean no disrespect, but your comment makes me laugh. I think it's more sexist that I wanted to vote for Hillary ONLY because she is a woman.

I've never been liberal (or progressive). I had never voted Democrat before February 19th. I was almost insulted that you claim I'm a "liberal woman", instead it just makes me laugh. But I think the term liberal relates to the word "liberty" for me, and I had the liberty to choose the candidate that I felt was best.

I'm sure Barack Obama appears arrogant to some voters, and perhaps there is an air of entitlement that he portrays. I don't see it. I see a "real" candidate. I feel that I can trust him.

I don't get that feeling from Hillary and it's a shame. I see her and I think she's hiding something and it makes me feel uneasy, and I refuse to apologize for my feelings. I don't want to spend another four years feeling skeptical about another presidential administration.

YEAH!

PunditMom — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 13:24:20 -0600

But those news outlets buy such an idea? They probably think we "gals" would just claw at each other. Probably what they want and why we'd never get a shot at discussing things civilly on-air.

That's why they like Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin.

Why I Voted for Barack Obama

Dana J. Tuszke — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 17:47:01 -0600

Last week I wrote about my excitement over the Wisconsin primary this past Tuesday. What I didn't confess was how much I agonized about which candidate I would vote for.

I was raised Republican by devout Catholic parents, who were originally Democrats in the late 60's through 1979, when I was born. My father, a Reagan Conservative, instilled his political values in me at the ripe age of five years old. I could barely read or write, but I knew the difference between a Democrat and a Republican. One of my earliest memories is when my father quoted Ronald Reagan, saying, "I didn't leave the Democratic Party. The party left me."

My father admitted he disliked Ronald Reagan when he ran for President in 1976 against incumbent, Gerald Ford. His dismay over Ford's alleged involvement in the Watergate scandal, and his disgust with the pardoning of Richard Nixon by Ford, led my father to vote for Jimmy Carter.

But it was during Carter's administration that the economy suffered double-digit inflation, oil shortages, high unemployment and slow economic growth; which prompted my father to give Ronald Reagan a second chance in 1980. Out went the party of JFK, in came the Reagan Revolution.

Through the years since 1980, my parents discussed important conservative values with me and my siblings. One of those values was upholding the sanctity of human life. As Catholics, we believe that life begins at conception. While my father discussed the economy and the Cold War at the dinner table, it was my mother who taught us the importance of waiting until marriage before bringing children into this world. I think it was the fear of God, and what my mother (and father) would do to me (and a boyfriend) if I became pregnant out of wedlock, that kept me virtuous.

Knowing my upbringing I'm certain you can understand my loyalty to my party. I've been a Republican all my life. It's what I know.

It's fair to say that my parents sheltered me from things they felt I couldn't handle. I was in junior high when the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal broke out and my mother turned the channel each time "the stained dress" was discussed on the news. Later in high school, my father demanded to know what I was learning in civics and history classes. If the lessons seemed biased, he sent me back to class with a list of counter arguments and questions for my teachers to explain and answer. He wanted to be certain I was hearing both sides of the story.

If I didn't understand a political issue, my father would pass the newspaper and tell me to read every article on the subject. We watched the news every evening. I read every Rush Limbaugh book my father recommended. We subscribed to conservative magazines and newspapers. I read the biographies of past presidents starting with the current office holder and working my way backwards, because of my father's influence. (I got to Franklin Roosevelt and then I needed a break.)

But the most valuable lesson my father taught me was to think for myself. "Gather the facts," he'd say. "Do your research. Then, make your decision, and stand by your choice." And more importantly, "You better be able to back it up."

What does this have to do with voting, you ask? Everything.

In order for me to choose which candidate I thought was best, I had to reflect on who I was. I had to make a list of which issues were important to me. I had to think of my future, my husband's future, my son's future.

Three weeks ago I wrote the following here at BlogHer:

"The first election I was legally able to vote in was 2000. I voted for George W. Bush because I let my disgust for Bill Clinton taint my image of Al Gore. In 2004, I re-elected Bush because I had given birth to my son two months prior and couldn't elect John Kerry. He didn't seem concerned with ending abortion. But in the past four years, the Republican party has failed me, and I feel pulled toward the Democratic party instead."

Little did I know then, that I would vote for Barack Obama on February 19th, but I did. And I've got plenty of reasons to back it up.

I've matured a lot in eight years. I became employed full-time. I married the love of my life. I purchased a house and wept the first time I paid property taxes. I had a child. I have lost a job. When I look back on the choices I've made, I discovered that politics played a part in every step I've taken to get where I am today. In the last eight years, I've become angry at the Republican party and I'm not going to take what they give me any longer.

I'm tired of the same politicians, both Democrat and Republican, making the same promises they can't keep.

I'm sick of reading about another member of our military dying in Iraq. These men and women have given their lives, but for whom? For me? Or for the people of Iraq? It isn't about fighting terrorism anymore. It's about feeding the ego of the Big Guy in the White House on Pennsylvania Avenue.

I tired of turning on the evening news to see college students crying and grieving, because another maniac with a gun has opened fired in a lecture hall. I'm angry at this government and the lobbyists and all the broken promises to pass stricter laws on gun control, while still allowing for the right to bear arms, which doesn't even seem plausible -- only to read that a crazy person in Missouri tried to assassinate his town's mayor and members of the local government. When will these tragedies end? When I have to wear a bullet-proof vest to leave the house each day? When I have to accompany my child to college because I'm afraid someone will steal his life?

I'm tired of paying overpriced health care premiums, only to find out the insurance doesn't cover this or that, or the deductible is astronomical, or that prescription is too expensive so I'll just have to go without it, because the same Big Guy in the White House won't allow me to mail order from Canada.

I'm infuriated at how this country treats women and mothers. Women are paid less than men even if they perform the same jobs. New mothers have very little support after childbirth. Government paid maternity leave and support for postpartum depression rank lowest on our government's list of priorities. This government claims to care about our children, but they do nothing to prevent toxic toys from popping up on store shelves across the nation.

Then there's Education. American students rank lower than several other countries on standardized testing. Teachers are underpaid, and the good ones leave the profession because they can't make ends meet.

Our environment is dying a slow and painful death with every icecap that melts or animal species that becomes extinct. And this government expects us to smile politely, bat our eyelashes and say, "Why, yes sir, you can certainly drill for oil in Alaska! We don't mind at all. We, the fat and lazy Americans suffering an obesity epidemic, would rather destroy the elk and moose populations than give up our beloved gas guzzling SUV's! Bicycle? What is this bicycle you speak of?"

It all drives me mad. I'm fed up. I want Change.

The Republican that I was in the years 2000 and 2004 would never support a candidate that supports abortion. I wanted so badly to vote for a pro-life candidate, but I dislike John McCain and I knew that Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul stood no chance against him.

The leadership of the national, state and local Republican Party has said that true conservatives will "hold their noses" and support John McCain for president. But McCain is not a true conservative. He's given the Republicans a record of limited speech and open borders. He voted against the Bush tax cuts twice. Only when he decided to run for President did he stress the importance of secure borders and lower taxes for middle class Americans. I've learned that a foul smell often leads to rotten, decaying matter.

The feminist within me wanted to vote for Hillary Clinton, but only because she is a woman. Aside from disliking her health care policy and the "Bill Baggage" she would bring to the White House, I didn't believe she deserved my vote.

With each loss to Barack Obama, Hillary's true colors appeared. When listening to her speak, her tone and demeanor gave me the feeling that she felt she deserved to win just because she had more experience. The negative campaign ads she ran in Wisconsin attacking Obama made me feel like she would participate in the same dirty politics of the first Clinton Administration and I wanted nothing to do with that.

The night before I voted, I stayed up for hours reading and re-reading everything on Senator Obama's website. I brought out every newspaper and magazine article and made a list of pros and cons. His plans for health care and education appealed to me. But it was his ability to inspire Americans, both Democrat and Republican, that sealed the deal.

When Obama won the Wisconsin primary, I listened to his victory speech and I knew I made the right decision for me. At first I thought I would feel guilty, but instead I felt relieved.

Even though I voted for a candidate that supports abortion rights, I will not give up the fight to end needless abortions. I had to make the most difficult political decision of my life, but I made my choice based on more than one issue. I'm proud of that, and I believe that Barack Obama can bridge the gap between the Left and Right.

While some of my Republican counterparts are shaking their heads and uttering words like "betrayal", or labeling me as "just another angry mommyblogger", I take pride in knowing that I followed my head and my heart.

Thankfully, I'm not the only (traitorous?) Republican to cross the party lines. I encourage everyone to read the full posts of the links below. It is definitely worth your time.

From the blog, A Time and Place:

I’ve worked in politics professionally for over a decade, much of that in the House of Representatives in D.C. where I saw the animosity between parties build up day after day after day. Between that and becoming less and less enamored of the policies of Bush (who I voted for twice), I started looking for someone else — and I didn’t see that the GOP was offering anyone who could get the job done. A year ago, I would have wholeheartedly supported Giuliani or Thompson, but they handled their campaigns so badly that even they fell off. I go to visit friends on the Hill now, and I can feel “it” hanging in the air — I don’t know what it is, but it’s just there, and I think working in it for so long insulated me from the feeling until after I had left.

And then came Obama. The older of my two sisters told my father that she was shocked to hear me say that I was considering supporting a Democrat for president — to which he (also a lifelong Democrat) responded, “Well, I voted for a Democrat once - Jack Kennedy. You have to consider that perhaps your brother feels that this is his generation’s Jack Kennedy.”

From Ground Report:

It’s kinda hard to put my finger on what made me switch from Hillary to Obama. Color was not it and that’s evident of my initial support of Hillary. I didn’t change because it’s Black History Month or the fact that Obama and I have names that start with an O. Peer and family pressure didn’t move me, and it diffidently was not my good friend and debate buddy who is a Professor at Morehouse College. I didn’t have a fallout with Hillary’s policies or get (too) offended with Bill’s borderline racial comments. I changed for change. I changed my support to Obama because I can’t vote twice and still want real change. I want to start replacing our weak Democrat leadership from the top down. I want Obama’s candidacy to inspire newcomers and let them know that if the represent real change, we will support them. I want my party back and I think Barack Obama can get it back for me. That’s the reason I changed my support to Obama.

Chris Reich writes:

Today, [my friend] Sam sent me an email urging me to support Barrack Obama for President. I responded politely with the same words many conservative Republicans are using these days. I like the man but he's too liberal for me. Of course, McCain is too liberal for me as well. Romney? Like most of the Republican establishment, I just don't like him. To be honest, Mitt Romney gives me the creeps. I don't trust him. And that brings me to the point. After composing a long list of policy objections I have with Obama, I concluded by telling Sam that my choice will be based on the integrity of the candidate because, as a true conservative, I cannot find policy agreement with any of the contenders. And when it comes to integrity, John McCain has it. And so does Barrack Obama. So it really comes down to integrity and trust. McCain is a liberal running as a conservative. Obama is a liberal running as such. He's not changing stripes to attract votes. His message hasn't changed since he started his campaign. Integrity? Well, that's the characteristic real Reagan Republicans admire above all others. That's what the press never understood about why we Reaganites loved Ronnie. We didn't always agree with him but we trusted him. So as I finished my note to Sam I decided that I like the man more than I like some of his policies. But I trust him more than I disagree with him.

From BrooWaha (I encourage you to read his entire post. It's right on the money):

My secret shame as a Navy Republican…

It is with a heavy heart and great and crushing sorrow that I admit to you, dear reader, that I am, in fact, going to vote for Barack Obama for President of the United States. And before you go on shouting at me that the race hasn’t even yet been decided because the primaries and caucuses are still going… let’s be real for a moment.

...as if being a registered Republican since I was eighteen isn’t enough grounds for betrayal, I’m also a graduate of the United States Naval Academy, which makes me a Benedict Arnold two times over. The idea that we would have had two Presidents from our little “boat school” in Maryland, fills me with pride for my alma mater. But I can’t. I can’t vote for John McCain… not for President. He can run for anything else and I’ll vote for him; early and often. But not this, not now. There is too much to fix, too much change needed, too many things to overlook.

I’m mostly just tired; tired of trying to defend a war that we’ve been bungling for years, tired of failed global policy, tired of the shamelessness of an administration. I’m the kind of Republican that would reanimate Ronald Reagan and put him in office tomorrow if we had the technology – there will never be another president as great as him (I bet that will stir up some comments, woo hoo!).

Naturally, my father is upset that I voted for Barack Obama, but I think he's secretly proud that he raised me to think for myself. As I blog this, I can hear him grumbling, "It took a Carter to get us Reagan, and a Clinton to get us back the House. Ford and Nixon brought shame and liberalism, and a Bush gave us another useless war."

Yes, but an Obama gives us hope, and that's just what this country needs.