The Road to Obama

Recently, when I publicly declared (on Facebook) that I was supporting Barack Obama for President, a friend of mine wrote and said to me, “Louise! Your endorsement of Obama is bigger than Hillary’s endorsement of Obama!” I laughed, but on some level he understood that my commitment to Hillary Clinton’s campaign had been unwavering. I had been a staunch critic of Obama and of that portion of America that seemed infatuated with him. I wrote essays about it. I argued against him. I pouted with his every win. When Hillary finally lost her bid for the Democratic nomination, I wrote an essay cautioning others to cease and desist their Obama campaign in my direction. My emotional attachment to Hillary’s campaign had been stronger than any other political hope I’d ever had. I can only compare my experience to grief and I needed time. I went through all the responses of grief that anyone experiences. I experienced disbelief and denial. I experienced anger and finally, acceptance.

My disappointment and resentment were so palatable I flirted with the idea of actually voting for John McCain or not voting at all. I began to watch Barack Obama very carefully and tried to be open-minded. And then…John McCain named Sarah Palin as his running mate. And as I (and America) became familiar with her and her policies and positions on issues, I found myself utilizing Aristotle’s Principle of Proportionality, the process by which, when faced with a moral dilemma of conflicting values, one chooses the option that would bring about the greater good or the lesser evil. My first move towards Obama was less a move towards him than it was a move away from McCain/Palin. When the McCain campaign became the McCain/Palin campaign my walk away from John McCain created a fissure; a crevasse. I abhorred the dirty tactics, the subtle racist innuendo and the desperate (and false) character assassinations.

Once that move (more of a leap) occurred, I argued from that position. I attempted to persuade uncommitted voters towards Obama using the “lesser evil” argument. I think it was convincing. But then, the Presidential debates were held and I saw in Barack Obama an intelligent, genuine, classy guy. He is brilliantly articulate (a characteristic I long for in a President following eight years of numb-skullness). I sensed in him a commitment to ALL Americans; a concern for our concerns and a sincere desire to act upon the best motives for seeking public service, to serve the public. And I no longer wanted Obama as my President merely by default. I wanted Obama as my President, period. During the course of those Presidential debates there were two moments in particular in which Obama won, if not my heart, my political sensibilities and my resolve.

John McCain was defending his position on the war with Iraq. In a moment that was obviously scripted, he pointed to the bracelet that he wears in memory of a fallen American soldier. He invoked the words of that dead soldier’s mother who said to him that he (McCain) must ensure that her son not have died “in vain.” The implication seems that the only way her son will not have died in vain is for America to continue the war until some kind of “victory” or other nebulous goal has been reached. In a stunning moment that took my breath away, Obama turned the narrative on its head. He too brought attention to the bracelet that HE wears in memory of a dead American soldier. He too recalled the words of this dead soldier’s mother. The contrast was poignant. THIS mother told Barack Obama to make sure that no other mother experiences the loss that she has endured. I make no claim of interpretation or of understanding the grief of these mothers. I would not pretend to know their grief and how they deal with it. I will say something about what each of the candidate’s rhetorical narratives illustrated to me about them. I suspect that John McCain’s use of those mother’s words intended to evoke an emotional response imbedded in a desperate search for meaning in the midst of a cultural mythology of war that would attach to certain kinds of deaths the virtues of nobility and goodness. The conclusion he drew is that to make valorous that death, one must continue the conflict. The assumption he makes is that the sacrifice of the one is not meaningful unless the ultimate goal is reached. Barack Obama’s response represented the empathetic response of compassion and the realization that every death of a young American soldier is a grievous event and an appeal to a cause does not make it any less so. One cannot script a response like that. Either it is genuine, or it doesn’t happen.

The second moment occurred when Tom Brokaw asked the candidates if they thought health care was a right, a responsibility or a privilege. John McCain responded first with “responsibility.” Trying to glean through his incoherence, I never really heard him say WHOSE responsibility it is. Would it be his, as President? Is it the responsibility of government? Is it the responsibility of business owners and corporations, who would be expected to supply health care out of the goodness of their hearts and the motivation to “do the right thing?” Is it the responsibility of all Americans to get it for themselves? I held my breath. Then Obama responded to the question, definitively and without pause, he said it is a right.

With tentative steps I had been walking the road to Obama for a while now.
But these two debate moments steadied my steps.
The campaigns have solidified my resolve.
Obama is no longer my default candidate.
And after what seems a long and resistant journey, I took the road I had not yet travelled. In the end, Barack Obama finally, has become my hope too.

Mary Shelley Revisited

Someone needs to give John McCain and Sarah Palin a copy of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. They need to somehow understand that once they have created a monster, it is very difficult to control. On second thought, maybe Palin should see the movie. But certainly, before the violence accelerates into an expression other than mere words, McCain needs to reign in his Alaskan pit bull. She is more dangerous than I imagined.

I have been watching with dreaded fascination the execution and escalation of a dynamic in this Presidential campaign that can only be characterized as “enemy-making.” In the West this dynamic is as old as the Old Testament. When the Israelites identified all the other “ites” as the “Other,” and hence as their enemies, they set into motion a process that continues into the 21st century. Every child who has heard the stories of the warrior conquest for the Land of Milk and Honey knows who they are and how they were perceived, “Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you, (Deuteronomy 20:17), in other words, anyone who was NOT an Israelite.

The dynamic has been employed by human beings since ancient times and exploited by every military organization since history was first recorded. The strategy has been observed and researched and analyzed. The construction of the idea of an enemy begins first with fear; fear that life and livelihoods are in danger; fear that everything that is held as “sacred” is threatened. When the fear has been sufficiently mounted the next step is to dehumanize the other, to strip the other of their humanity. They are so different from us they cannot even be called human. They don’t have families. They don’t love. They don’t experience loss, or fear or pain. The next step is demonization. They become vermin, animals, not worthy even to live. Look at any military propaganda from the 20th century and you will see the pattern. The enemy is portrayed as rats, monkeys, insects and monsters.

The history is a long one. When Neolithic tribal societies shifted from a hunter-gatherer economy to an agricultural one, the rise of the cities engendered a confrontation with “the stranger,” a crisis of identity, an encounter with those who were not of the tribe, those who were not “like us.” Some of the greatest stories of human history narrate this encounter and suggest how it should go. In the Epic of Gilgamesh, the oldest recorded story in human history, Gilgamesh meets Enkidu the one like him but not like him. Enkidu is the one from the wilderness not of the cities, created by the gods to teach Gilgamesh how to be a kind ruler. They wrestle to exhaustion and in the wrestling they come to recognize each other as brothers. In the Old Testament, the lessons of Abraham and Jacob are eventually ignored, but the ideal is clear. Abraham encounters the strangers in the desert and offers them shelter, hospitality so unique among the nomadic tribes that the result is Isaac, the gift from God. In the story of Jacob’s wrestling with the angel of God we see a virtual re-enactment of Gilgamesh’s encounter with Enkidu. Jacob is so transformed by the encounter that his name is changed to Israel, the one who “wrestles with God.” When Jesus was asked, “Who is my neighbor?” he told the story of the Good Samaritan that I understood when I was eight. And when the disciples asked him, “When did we see you hungry, or thirsty, or naked or the stranger?” He told them that as they welcomed the stranger, they welcomed him. We are still telling stories like these because we have not yet learned the ethical response. Who are Han Solo and Luke Skywalker if not Gilgamesh and Enkidu? All too often we do not follow these stories’ lead and instead of embracing the stranger, we kill him.

At a recent rally in Florida, Palin said, “"I'm afraid this [Obama] is someone who sees America as imperfect enough to work with a former domestic terrorist who had targeted his own country." Enter the rhetoric of fear. The implication was that Obama is an enemy and if she is afraid, everyone else should be. The most effective propagandist ploy however, is to create the illusion that the targeted one is the “other.” Perhaps the single most effective strategy is to create the illusion that the opposition is so different from the subjective “us” as to be anathema and the effect is anger and hatred.

In the last century, except for two decades (in which it experienced The Great Depression), America has been at war with someone. We have lived within a mythology of war. In a narrative of war ethics become inverted. Killing, which would normally be considered bad becomes good. Not killing, normally considered good becomes bad, indeed it becomes unpatriotic. In every case in war the enemy is depicted as something other than ourselves, indeed, as less than human. The enemy has been portrayed as vermin, “Japs,” slant-eyes, towel-heads. Xenophobia, fear of the stranger, has been the guiding undercurrent of the violence of war. It is the quintessential propaganda of a dualistic view that cannot imagine a sophisticated appreciation of difference. But rather, pits difference within a dualistic paradigm and worldview of hate. At a recent rally in Florida, Palin said the following, “This [Obama] is not a man who sees America the way you and I see America.” The language couldn’t be clearer. She was creating not an electoral opponent, but an “other,” an enemy. And her America responded.

At a recent Republican rally in Minnesota, John McCain was confronted by a woman in the audience who expressed her fear of Obama. In a moment that took my breath away she said, “I am afraid of him. He is…an Arab.” And in that moment, I saw in John McCain’s eyes the recognition of a face he knows all too well. It is the face of hatred and fear. It is the face of terror and anger. And in that moment, John McCain himself became afraid, of what he himself had helped create; an atmosphere of venomous rhetoric that brought with it the potential of violence. And John McCain began to defend his opponent. I suspect that he is at the core a decent man and the last thing he would want is a volatile campaign that carries with it a potential for violence. In that moment, I believe whatever decency he has left took precedent over his desire for victory at any cost and he made a weak and inadequate attempt to turn the focus back to difference in policy and not a difference of humanity. He told her, "No ma'am, he is a decent man...a decent family man, citizen, that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues." And although he did not address the issue of anti-Arab AND anti-Arab-American sentiment at least he didn’t allow the comment to stand without objection.

I sense no such decency in Sarah Palin. In fact, she seems to revel in her audience’s frenzy. Recently she said, "One of his earliest supporters is a man named Bill Ayers.” ("Boooo!" said the crowd.) "And, according to the New York Times, he was a domestic terrorist and part of a group that, quote, 'launched a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and our U.S. Capitol,' " she continued. ("Boooo!" the crowd repeated.) "Kill him!" proposed one man in the audience. And she said nothing in response; nothing to deter or discourage the violence.

The reality of course is that Barack Obama is not “the other.” He is not “that one.” He is not the stranger. But that is irrelevant to those who would find their political arguments wanting and instead exploit the heightened xenophobia in this country that has characterized the Bush administration’s response to 9/11. They resort to an ancient dynamic that constructs the illusion of the stranger; that emphasizes difference instead of sameness. They have had a lot of practice and they do it well. Those sent out to “warm-up” the crowds make a point of repeating Barack’s middle name, one not often found in America’s heartland.

Would it help to recall Frankenstein’s monster to the McCain camp?
Could they see beyond the “doctor” to themselves?
Or when we send the book to them (or the movie), shall we also send a teacher?
One who can explain to them that Mary Shelley’s horror story is also an allegory?
It is a message for the ages; the construction of the enemy unleashes a hideous and ugly human face. Beware this monster you create.

~~~ with gratitude to Darrell Fasching- scholar, teacher, friend.

What DOES a Feminist Look Like Anyway?

As I took my hot pink “This is what a feminist looks like,” t-shirt out of my drawer this morning, I had an impulse to alter it. I wanted to stick a picture of Sarah Palin on the back of it and add a caption in BIG, BLACK indelible ink, “NOT THIS.” But then I asked myself, “By what privilege or right do I make that assertion? How does one indeed decide or define what or who a feminist is? And who can lay claim to it? Does it take one to know one?”

 

I live and work in an environment in which simply saying something doesn’t make it so. One must mount an argument based on points of reason and evidential support. I knew that my intuitive t-shirt alteration must be backed up by more than simple assertion. ONE thing Palin’s nomination has done (among others) is that it has engendered yet another collective conversation about feminism and sexism and just what the heck these terms mean. These discussions are taking place everywhere. The following are just two examples of conversations experienced by two of my friends:

 

I have been bombarded by my friends here about the whole Sarah Palin thing.  They keep asking me if I'm voting for her, and I look at them like they've lost their minds.  "F*** NO!" is my response most of the time.  The conversation usually continues with...
 
Them: "But I thought you were all about women's rights and stuff."   
Me:  "Exactly.  That's why I'm not voting for Sarah Palin."
Them:  "But, she's a woman."
Me:  "Yes, a woman that reinforces the most oppressive patriarchal ideals and a woman who, if elected into office, would be detrimental to the rights and values that women in the past and present have worked so hard to achieve."
Them: "Oh, really?  I guess I don't know that much about her, other than she's a woman."

 

And this from a friend who received this from a friend:

I just had to tell you about a conversation that I overheard table side tonight. I was making a Caesar at one of my tables and my other table to their left were talking about politics (there were two couples). The two women were talking about Palin. One of them in a loud voice said, "She is a real feminist. Not like Betty Freidan and Gloria Steinem, who made us feel bad for staying home and taking care of our children." They then went on to say that they cannot wait for the debates because she is going to make mince meat out of Obama because she is so much more intelligent than he is and a much better public speaker.

 

Obviously, a woman who thinks that Palin and Obama are going to engage in a debate cannot be taken seriously on any political commentary. And a woman who judges Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan not to be “real feminists” cannot be taken seriously on the issue of feminism. What is really disturbing about this conversation is the authority with which this woman made a judgment about what a “real feminist” is and that a real feminist is one who makes one feel good about oneself. Someone needs to tell this woman that saying something doesn’t make it so.

 

But then, a friend emailed an article written by Richard Baehr from a web site that supposedly has its finger on the pulse of American politics (realclearpolitics.com). This writer made the following statement:

 

“…(Palin) who offers a different version of feminism than the only one allowed to be respected in its pages.”

 

Riiiiight. And a vegetarian who eats calves’ livers offers a “new version” of vegetarianism. To see this claim about Palin actually in print by a supposedly respected political commentator offended me even more. It is additionally frustrating to hear people speak of Palin’s nomination as some kind of progressive feminist moment because she is a woman aspiring to high political office. This perception reflects a view that is in fact contradictory to a feminist history that argued against the notion that all women are alike, i.e., essentialism that sees one woman as just the same as another. No two women are the same, just as no two men are the same. And to assess an act as feminist simply because it is performed by a woman is as erroneous as assessing an act as patriarchal simply because it is performed by a man. Feminism does not have as its primary principle the ascendence of women (over men or otherwise). Rather, it is engaged in a confrontation with a system that would extend unequal protection, privilege, and rights under the law. Feminism is characterized by a struggle with unjust systems of domination and exploitation. Its progress is NOT measured primarily by the elevation of women within that system who agree to work for those systems of domination. In fact, this move is antithetical to its goals.

 

Ultimately, feminism HAS a history and a tradition. And although there is certainly room for variations on this tradition (and there have been many in its development as theory and movement) there are some fundamental elements of feminism that cannot be compromised and still be called feminism. When has the idea of a thing been so bastardized that the claim of identity ceases to be valid? Case in point: Christianity has undergone many changes and reformations and developments in its long history but some things remain constant. There ARE some fundamental criteria required in order for one to declare, “I am a Christian,” and maintain the validity of that statement. One cannot make this statement and follow up by stating, “But I don’t believe Jesus rose from the dead.” The speaker of such a statement would have fallen so outside the foundations of the claim that the claim itself ceases to be relevant and valid. The claimant has in fact become something else, but the thing that she is, is not a Christian. One could not claim, “I am a Marxist, but I believe that capitalism is good for people.” Or, “I am a vegetarian but..(already cited).” “I am a Muslim but I do not believe that Muhammad was the Prophet of God.” These statements are contradictions in terms. And the second qualifier of each statement invalidates the assertion of the first. “Sarah Palin is a feminist,” is one such statement.

 

Feminism does have foundations. They are theoretical. They are political. And they are ethical. Firstly, central to feminist theory is “the radical idea that women are human beings,” and (secondly) as such, are entitled to the same rights, protections, privileges and opportunities that are extended to other human beings. The feminist movement is a political revolution, which seeks to bring that equality to realization under the law; socially, politically and institutionally. Ethically, the feminist movement seeks justice, not only for women but for  all living beings and creatures that would be exploited and abused by unjust systems of power. The feminist movement has a tradition of engagement in efforts to end violence against women and all other beings; to respect the earth; to protect the weak and the vulnerable.

 

Sarah Palin? A “new version of feminism?” This statement is a contradiction in terms so contradictory it is internally invalidated.

What kind of “feminist?” One that prohibits abortion even when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest? One that would place the defense of a Book above the defense of human beings? Above justice? One that would perceive the earth and its animals as mere pawns for human exploitation? One that calls upon the name of God to justify war, which historically offers up innocent women and children as unwilling sacrifices? One that re-victimizes women who are victims of rape by making them pay for the State’s evidence against the rapist? One that would create those very circumstances in which abortions may be necessary because she opposes contraception and sex education? Shoot. That's not a new feminism. It's the old patriarchy. Sarah Palin is no feminist and saying that she is doesn’t make it so.

 

 

 

The Older I Get...

…the more a conspiracy theorist I become.

 

But I am not alone. Read:

 

 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-mckay/were-gonna-frickin-lose-t_b_124772.html 

 

I wrote THIS in February:

 

This morning on a national network, there was a political statistic that made me realize how naïve I have been. It seems that in the most recent primaries there has been a “trend” among Republican voters that has not emerged until the Republican candidate had all but been signed, sealed and delivered. The trend consists of Republican voters eschewing their Republican primary booths and (in the states that allow it) voting in the Democratic ones. Republicans are deciding not to “waste” their vote in their own primaries. Why? Because they KNOW who their candidate will be in November. So instead, they are entering their polling booths and are casting their votes in their state’s Democratic primaries. And for whom are they voting? Barack Obama. But they are voting for him not because they have abandoned their Party. They are voting for him not because they want him to be President. They are voting for him because they believe him to be the Democratic candidate most “beatable” against John McCain.

 

And TODAY:

Again, pardon my conspiracy theory but I also believe that the media conglomerates mentioned in the article above have employed the same tactics. Barack was the media's darling until he beat Hillary. Then, like a psychotic lover it turned on him. I noticed it almost immediately (so did Elisabeth Schussler-Fiorenza with whom I had a conversation about this very thing in June). Barack was judged by these media moguls to be the beatable candidate making way for another four years of Republican tax breaks and "friendship." If you owned a multi-billion $$$ company, who would YOU want in the White House?

 

I want to scream.

 

 

How Sexist IS America? Really?

I'm still trying to decide if John McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin as his Vice-Presidential running mate is impossibly stupid or brilliant. It seems a neat trick and the media fell for it. And now everyone else has. The American media (and many Americans) are focusing the discussion about women and politics in terms of wombs, babies and breasts that give milk. The message from the GOP is "It's OK for women to do all those OTHER things, as long as they continue to do what God intended for them to do." Get married. Have babies. Or...have babies; get married, whatever the order might be. Republicans have moved the political discussion back 40 years. And that's the point. Sarah Palin’s nomination represents a backlash--and you know what? They are also feeding on the misogyny displayed against Hillary. They had the fuel ready and waiting. All they had to do was light the flame.

 

Interestingly (and ironically) enough, the measure of America’s sexism will not be determined by Americans’ opposition to Sarah Palin, but by their embrace of her. Ultimately, sexism is not about sex, it is about gender roles. If America embraces Sarah Palin it would be an example of reversed feminism and covert sexism, exemplified not by whether or not they vote for a woman but by what KIND of woman they will vote for. And that determination just may be related to wombs, babies and breasts that give milk.

 

It has not escaped me that they have also managed to deflect the discussion away from the ISSUES; the war, economy, oil, Iraq. Everyone is talking about the freaking pregnancies and no one is asking questions about issues. Ultimately, John McCain's risk will prove to be an utter failure or a stroke of genius. And in the mix, we just might find out how sexist America really is.

"Take your sandals from your feet..."

Now Moses was pasturing the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian; and he led the flock to the west side of the wilderness and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. 2 The angel of the LORD appeared to him in a blazing fire from the midst of a bush; and he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire yet the bush was not consumed. 3 So Moses said, “I must turn aside now and see this marvelous sight, why the bush is not burned up.” 4 When the LORD saw that he turned aside to look, God called to him from the midst of the bush and said, “Moses, Moses!” And he said, “Here I am.” 5 Then He said, “Do not come near here; take your sandals from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground.” Exodus 3: 1-5

 

I bet Moses would not have been so quick to remove his sandals if previously they had been taken from Station 20, at the end of the pathway that leads to the beach at Sullivan’s Island, SC.

 

On Monday evening, I went for a walk on the beach. And as I always do and as hundreds of people do, I left my sandals neatly placed on a dune near the station marker. I have done this dozens of times before and my sandals are always still there upon my return. It is an unwritten rule; do not take sandals from the beach. Someone is simply walking barefooted on the sand and will return to retrieve their sandals. But on Monday evening, when I returned, they were gone.

 

Now of course, the sandals themselves are not the issue. In a heartbeat I could buy another pair of tan Dr. Scholl’s exercise sandals, size 8. The issue of course, is the violation of what I considered to be “holy ground.” That the beach is holy ground may be argued, but for me it is. It is. I leave my sandals behind with a trust as solid as the childlike trust I once placed in the Church. And I am disheartened by the violation of this trust. I wonder what went through that person’s mind as they picked up my sandals and left with them. Were they ignorant of the unwritten rule? Did they think that the sandals had been lost and no one would return for them? Or did they knowingly and with intent, steal my sandals from the beach?

 

I know. It is a small thing. And yet, it is not. The thief took more from me than a pair of sandals. The loss was a loss of that childlike trust. It was a heartfelt disappointment.

 

And yet, yesterday I returned for my walk on the beach.

As I drove to Sullivan’s Island I determined to walk with my sandals in my hand.

I arrived at my station.

In absolute defiance of my own distrust, I left my sandals behind on the dune and began my walk.

Andwhen I returned…they were still there.

 

 

Reluctant Concession

It is time to write what may perhaps be a final reflection on the Democratic campaign for the party nomination for President. And ultimately I am sad and disappointed. Now, to those of you who are Obama supporters, I would issue a hearty “Congratulations.” But also I would ask that if just for a moment, you walk a mile in my cowboy boots. For you, Obama represents a beacon of hope and the challenge of change in America. Well, for (almost) as many of us, Hillary represented the same things. Imagine your own emotions if the results had been the other way around. Imagine if your hopes had been dashed and crushed. I do not exaggerate when I say that I have not been this saddened and disappointed since the Red Sox lost to the Yankees in Game 7 of the 2003 ALCS. I have never cared more deeply about a baseball team winning the World Series and I have never cared more deeply about a potential Presidential candidate. You who look upon Hillary supporters with incredulity; those of you who cannot see from where we stand; those of you who look at us and wonder aloud, “What are they thinking?” must understand that we look at you and think the same. 

 

And I am not alone. My mother was born in 1918. Those of you who know your history of women’s suffrage in this country realize that she was born before women even HAD the right to vote. I imagine that she was raised among women who championed the cause and who experienced amazement and pride as they approached their first voting booths. Months ago when I asked her who she would support in the Democratic primary (she is a lifelong Democrat), she replied, “Hillary. I love Hillary.” But she did not support Hillary simply on the basis of her sex. She supported Hillary because she trusts her, she knows who she is and she had faith that Hillary would do the right thing. My mother maintains no such trust in Obama. She doesn’t know who he is. He came “out of nowhere,” and she was not convinced by his goldentongue. And she is sad and disappointed.

 

My daughter holds a BA in political science (Magna Cum Laude, Phi Beta Kappa) and a Masters in Public Policy. Her political decisions are the result of sharp analysis and a working knowledge of political theory and history. She is a staunch supporter of Hillary Clinton. And she is sad and disappointed. Several weeks ago she said to me that she was desperate, desperate to find someone who could present to her an argument that would make her feel justified in voting for Obama in November, but she wants an argument NOT based on the rhetoric of “hope and change.” She lives in Obama territory, in a caucus state won by him and still, no one has been able to articulate to her an argument based on sound political reasoning and Obama’s proven history.

 

In this moment, I am contemplating something I never thought possible. For the first time since 1972, I am considering not casting a ballot in the election for President of the United States. Some of you may think this a product of sour grapes; the “sore loser,” or sulking and petulant stubbornness. I assure you it would be none of these. I was raised in a family that viewed the right to vote as something almost as sacred as the holy water in which we dipped our fingers. As a little girl, I remember a voting night when my parents came home and my brothers and I chirped, “Who did you vote for? Who did you vote for?” My mother said, “Ohhh. A person’s vote is a secret.” And it is a personal choice, not a collective one. It is a matter of conscience. I have never voted for a Presidential candidate on the basis of NOT wanting the “other guy.” In every Presidential election in which I have voted I have been able to cast my ballot with the conviction, “This is the person I want to be my President.” I cannot say this about either Barack Obama or John McCain. I am considering the possibility of showing up at the polls in November, presenting my voter registration card, signing my name so that I am recorded as “present and accounted for,” and then, turning on my heels and walking out. I figure, if Obama can be defended for voting “present” when he protested the choices available to him, then so can I.

Or, I may write-in Hillary’s name yet.

 

But November is many months away. Obama has time to convince me. Perhaps he will.  I will be watching and listening closely. As will millions of others. But not today. Not today. Do not try me just yet. To do so would be comparable to extolling the virtues of the Yankees to a Red Sox fan in October, 2003. But I am never without hope. There is no one in this country more capable of hope than a Red Sox fan, and no one more loyal. And like watching the ball roll through Bill Buckner’s legs in 1986 or Aaron Boone’s homer in 2003, I cannot believe it has come to this. But with undying hope and faithfulness I will put away my Hillary campaign button for now and say what millions of Sox fans have said in the past, “just wait ‘til next year,” or in this case, “just wait ‘til 2012.”

 

And in the meantime, because I love my country, I hope that Barack Obama is the man he claims to be.