what's on my mind grapes?

Concessions: They’re all pretty spineless. I have no strong affinity for Edwards, Obama, or Clinton. This election is not about selecting someone who I really want to see in the Oval Office, but the best of a very flawed field.

On Iraq, none of them have provided consistent leadership. Edwards and Clinton went along with the PATRIOT Act and the rush to war, while Obama timidly voted against the supplemental funding bill without any attempt to rally others to his cause.

None stepped up with a real, rational immigration plan – the only such plan I can see would be working with Mexico to stop people from wanting to leave; this seemingly common sense approach is lost in the extremist border-surveillance-vs.-amnesty-and-benefits-for-all dichotomy in D.C.

Without this devolving into an outright rant about everything that is wrong with the Democratic Party and modern “liberalism,” it suffices to say that on many issues, Ralph Nader was dead right that the Democrats fail to lead. On some issues, I find no logical platform but Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul’s Libertarian conservatism. There is no perfect candidate, and even if Al Gore were to join the race, I couldn’t endorse 100% of his policies. But once we’ve accepted that the system is irrational, hypocritical, and ineffective, we must find the best solution within that system.

My stance for the past few months has been “I’m backing Edwards unless Gore or Clark get in.” But with Edwards slipping in the polls, I am starting to feel that Clinton and Obama will be the only viable options when the primary comes. Of course, the fact that I’m already naming my “final two candidates” for a primary that won’t happen till next year just demonstrates how ridiculous this election cycle has become. Nonetheless, I am now starting to make my decisions regarding that far-off primary for the grim contingency that no one else joins the race.

Racism vs. Sexism: I will preface this all by saying that America is not where it needs to be on equality. I have no illusion that everyone is treated equally regardless of skin color, ethnicity, sex, or gender. Intolerance is very real, and I will not for a moment say that racism is dead or that women are considered equal to men.

That said, I believe Barack Obama has a comparatively easy job compared to Hillary Clinton. Personal insults about Senator Clinton are everywhere, many based in the fact that she’s a woman. While there’s certainly a political correctness backlash against our country’s open sexism, “bitch” and “ho” are used fairly often. I’m not going to flat-out condemn language as a foolproof expression of character; I’m as guilty as many people in using these terms, albeit mostly in a parodying-ghetto-culture manner. Even so, in 2007, I would hope that as a culture, we would be ashamed to question someone’s ability to lead simply because she is a woman – much less use derogatory terms about her for no apparent reason.

Yet it’s not the same for Senator Obama. I will again emphasize that yes, racism is alive in the United States – but our society has at least driven it underground. If a public figure were to use the “n” word – and the mere fact that I’m not comfortable writing it on a blog underscores the different standards of political correctness – he would be mercilessly picketed by the NAACP, Al Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson. Don Imus needed only to say “nappy” and there was an uproar. I am not saying that the protests were entirely unmerited – there is a distinction between wanting an apology and wanting a single mistake to end a career – but why don’t sexist slurs receive the same vehement protest?

This isn’t to say that my support of Hillary over Obama is a sympathy vote. To the contrary, it is Clinton’s strength that shines through – in a country that goes dead silent when anti-black sentiments are expressed, she faces a battle against a male-dominated system that doesn’t even hide its contempt. Obama joined with Sharpton and Jackson in protesting the words of one shock jock, wanting more than an apology. Simply intimidating and silencing your enemies is no way to lead; where Obama made race an issue for his campaign, Clinton hasn’t played the victim card or courted the white male guilt/sympathy vote. She has instead led by example and transcended the simple divisions society wants to make.

Idealism vs. Pragmatism: At first, Obama had a strong lead on the center-pandering Clinton in my primary self-polling. Then there was the Imus scandal, after which I vowed never to vote for an advocate of race-driven censorship. I actually expected my stance to soften over time and, faced with an opponent who wouldn’t denounce the war, Obama would get my grudging vote. Plus, there was the belief that Hillary Clinton had no chance whatsoever of actually winning a general election. In supporting the candidate who better represented my political values, I was also sacrificing my strongly-held convictions about the problems with race relations in America.

But increasingly, I have started to question Obama’s ability to lead. Granted, he wasn’t in the Senate for crucial post-9/11-era votes, and opposed the Iraq war from the start. But… why does that really matter? Obama was right before most of the country came around to that viewpoint. Fine. Foresight is good, but does it automatically make him a better candidate than anyone else? For the record, I opposed the war from the beginning as well – but I don’t see how that automatically makes me one of America’s best judges of foreign policy. What matters isn’t who anyone has been, but who we believe they will be in the future.

And once we toss out the anti-war heart of Obama’s progressive credibility, what’s left? Obama looks and sounds like a leader… but increasingly, it seems there is no substance to back up his style. He speaks mostly with empty rhetoric of “unity,” and I am absolutely sick of it. One man cannot suddenly stop intolerance and polarization – especially when he has aligned himself with those who would do so by simply silencing dissent. And this is where I have realized that my ideological problems with Obama don’t have to be sacrificed to the practical argument for supporting him.

Everyone already knows Hillary Clinton is a polarizing figure. The right hates her for being a strong woman married to a Democratic demigod, and the left hates her for being tentative and centrist on many issues. I certainly don’t like the idea of 24 years of exclusively Bush and Clinton presidents, but again, it’s unfair to fault any individual for the money-dominated system we’re stuck with. Hillary has overcome this progressive’s ideological dislike – she speaks with wisdom and experience, and with the power of president, wouldn’t be a risk to go along with another ill-advised war. She compromised where she felt she needed to in the Senate, and ultimately, could spin that cooperative centrist spirit as a strength. And her vocal support for the idea of “shared prosperity,” rather than “every man for himself,” is the sort of societal compassion we need. I know she has her opponents, but everyone recognizes the problems she faces, and the campaign can plan to combat them.

If Barack Obama gets the nomination, I believe Democrats are in for a rude awakening. He will be hit as hard as Clinton on proposing something as extreme as almost-socialized medicine, but the race issue will also be brought back into play. “How far will you go to support affirmative action?” they will ask. “How racist can someone be and still keep a job?” In short, the white-terrorizing concept of black empowerment will arise – and Obama will be forced to either waffle on the issue or again bring up the silencing of Don Imus. In itself, that event does not trouble me. But because of the system and beliefs it revealed, I believe it will alienate millions of white voters.

The Democrats must heed Howard Dean’s advice to court Confederate-flag-flying southern voters, and they cannot do that with Obama. These same voters may very well hate Hillary Clinton, but in the end, I believe she still stands a better chance than a man who Republicans will make out to be the next Al Sharpton.