Josh has called out those voters who say that they will vote for McCain if their preferred candidate for the Democratic nomination loses. Ok, it's his blog, he can say whatever he wants, but he is wrong. Josh goes on to label those of us who would do this, "emotional infantilism." I suggest that instead of calling names, Josh should make an effort to see things from a different perspective.

Josh's analysis, briefly is this, on the issues there isn't any significant difference between Obama and Clinton. Both candidates have similar policies on health care, taxes, social security and the environment. Both have similar policies on Iraq.

Their policies are quite different from McCain, and this is the crux of why Josh thinks that anyone who would vote for McCain instead of Clinton or Obama would just be shooting themselves in the foot, or in his words, "shows as clearly as anything that one's ego-investment in one's candidate far outstrips one's interest in public policy and governance."

Ignoring the dime store psychology, and as a purely logical argument, if I accept Josh's presuppositions, then his conclusions follow. Of course, I don't accept his presuppositions.


Obama and Clinton have no similarities at all on the issues that I care about. Sure, both have a stack of policy papers on health care, global warming, the environment and Iraq that most of their supporters would be unable to tell apart. But, for me, the issue isn't the policy papers, it is what is actually going to happen after the candidates become the President. If policy papers mattered, the we would have had 7 years of compassionate conservatism and a humble foreign policy under the Bush administration.

Here's how I see the issues.

Iraq


In my opinion, Clinton will be hobbled in her ability to extricate us from Iraq. In voting to authorize the war, Clinton gave up whatever moral and political authority she would have had to begin a prompt and speedy withdrawal. Obama has not. Clinton's statements will be doubted, and her actions second guessed in a way that Obama's won't be. McCain will have a Nixon-to-China advantage to be able to act freely and will be much better able to either 1) declare victory or 2) admit defeat than Clinton. McCain will be able to begin to withdraw our troops soon just because he has stated that it is ok if we are in Iraq for 100 years. So on this issue, ignoring the policy papers and concentrating only on outcomes that I want, I rank the candidates Obama - McCain - Clinton.

US Moral and Political Standing


This is as an important issue as Iraq to me, perhaps more important. Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, torture, illegal surveillance, and violation of international laws and standards have tarnished the our standing in the world and more importantly are a danger to our national security and stability. If European intelligence agencies cannot cooperate with us because we practice torture or Canada refuses to extradite criminal suspects to the US, these are significant dangers to our long term security and stability.

Again, I think that Clinton is compromised in her ability to deal with these issues. Her experience, such as it is, is in becoming a member of and a representative of, the status quo. McCain is a maverick, Obama an outsider.

Both McCain and Obama will be able to strongly repudiate torture, Clinton will have to waffle on some "I was a New Yorker on 9/11" pretext. I don't believe Clinton stand up for our 4th amendment protections. So on this issue I rank the candidates Obama - McCain - Clinton.

Decison Making and the National Dialogue

But the most important issue isn't covered anywhere in any policy paper, it is presidential decision making style. We have had 7 years of the Bush style of decison making. Briefly, I would describe this style as make shit up, lie repeatedly, and question your opponents patriotism so that you can do whatever you want. In response to this decison making style, there has really been no room for a national dialogue and there is very little broadly shared understanding of the issues facing the nation. We don't need another decider, we need a leader.

Fortunately any of the three candidates will be an improvement over Bush, but I believe that McCain's shoot from the hip style of decsion making will not be as bad for the nation as Clinton's polarizing personality and divisiveness. I am also unimpressed by Clinton's actions in voting for the AUMF and in her later refusal to engage in any dialogue about that decision. I believe that she voted as she did with an eye on the 2008 electoral calculus, and not on the basis of logic or evidence. McCain is almost as bad in refusing to engage in dialogue or to explain himself, but not quite as bad in my estimation.

Obama is by far the superior candidate on this measure; just imagine how far a series of speeches like last Wednesday's Philadelphia speech would advance our national dialogue. On this issue, I rank my candidates Obama (by far) - McCain - Clinton.


I could go on: Health Care - Clinton can have any policy that she wants, but she isn't going to accomplish it, etc. but, long story short, I reject Josh's implicit definition of what "the issues" are.

I care about the issues, but I care more about the outcomes on those issues than the candidate's policy position papers.

Furthermore, Josh should really keep his name calling to himself until he becomes more competent at reading other's minds.