Go Free Yourself

In the group I run with, Obama isn’t exactly getting glowing endorsements. There are the oh-so-witty quips—”Now that’s a change we can believe in,” referring to anything (and therefore nothing of substance)—and the disparaging comments and the snorts of disapproval. Fundamentalist libertarians and conservatives seem to have trouble understanding why one might consider a “tax-and-spend Democrat”…as if that’s any better than a spend-and-spend-and-spend Republican.

Anyway, I read an interesting post today by Andrew Sullivan, narrating why he (a conservative) wants Obama to win. Here’s an excerpt:

I haven’t sat through a single Obama speech without ideologically wincing at something. I fear that in the general election, his recourse to liberal tropes will begin to wear thin.

So why do I find myself still longing for him to win?

Because, I can’t see how domestic policy could become more statist and less responsible than the past eight years. Because I want to see such a record punished with electoral defeat for fear they still don’t know what they did wrong. Because I think Obama’s diplomatic skills and public relations brilliance could serve this country very well. And because of what Obama represents in our collective consciousness.

His candidacy is about renewing what America means to the world and to itself. It is about a collective cultural healing—especially on race. It is about representing the next generation and America’s less domineering but more inspiring place among nations. It is about transparency in government. It is about getting past this brutal cultural polarization for a while. It is about putting reason back into our discourse after the emotional manipulation of the Morris-Rove era. It is about ending torture, restoring Constitutional balance, and adding the power of words, of great words, to restore hope again.

Read Sullivan’s whole piece here. And, as always, I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Now you don’t have to choose just one candidate. I mean, seriously, what a hassle that has been. Simply vote the McCain/Clinton/Obama ticket this November and watch all your nightmares come true.

“This nightmare ticket presents the American people with an unprecedented lack of opportunity in 2008,” Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen wrote Tuesday. “For just one vote, citizens will get four years of McCain’s brilliant temper, the incredible inexperience of Barack Obama, and the powerful two-headed monster of Hillary and Bill Clinton.”

“It will be very exciting to see what they’re capable of destroying, ” Cohen added.

Read more here.

Last night, John McCain appeared on the Daily Show and joked that he would like Dwight Schrute of The Office to be his running mate.

This is good news, mostly because it gives me an excuse to post another Office clip here.

Behold, America, your Republican Vice Presidential candidate:

(H/T: Richard Lorenc)

This presidential race is intense. Hillary’s dodging sniper fire. Obama’s trying to shush his crazy pastor. McCain is…well, what is McCain doing?

Anyway, maybe it’s time for a fresh new candidate to shake things up. Someone like General Zod, perhaps.

When I first came to your planet and demanded your homes, property and very lives, I didn’t know you were already doing so, willingly, with your own government. I can win no tribute from a bankrupted nation populated by feeble flag-waving plebians. In 2008 I shall restore your dignity and make you servants worthy of my rule. This new government shall become a tool of my oppression. Instead of hidden agendas and waffling policies, I offer you direct candor and brutal certainty. I only ask for your tribute, your lives, and your vote.

—General Zod
Your Future President and Eternal Ruler

Enjoy.

That’s what Obama told a crowd in Pennsylvania yesterday after bowling a 37. I certainly hope he’s right.

Well, at least there’s dancing!

Oh, and the important presidential stuff that actually matters, of course.

According to a report from the AP, researchers at the New England Historic Genealogical Society have discovered some intriguing family ties among this year’s presidential candidates:

Barack Obama is a distant cousin of Brad Pitt, and Hillary Rodham Clinton is related to Pitt’s girlfriend, Angelina Jolie.

Also on Clinton’s family tree? Madonna, Alanis Morissette, and Celine Dion.

Obama has a much more politically-charged lineage, including distant cousins like George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush, Gerald Ford, Lyndon Johnson, Harry Truman, James Madison, Dick Cheney, Winston Churchill, and Robert E. Lee.

Oh, and lest we forget McCain, he’s distantly related to Laura Bush.

Pass the potato salad; family reunions at the White House just got a lot more interesting.

(Hat Tip: Fark.com. You may have noticed I go there a lot. That’s because it’s awesome.)

I’ve said it before: Hillary Clinton is an unstoppable monster.

Except now, it’s not so much that she keeps surviving the race against all odds—it’s that she won’t pull out of the race even though her odds of winning are very slim. David Brooks of the New York Times wrote a great op-ed yesterday about her “Long Defeat”; you can read it here.

Oh, and the Obama Girl has some stuff to say about this, too:

I posted yesterday some thoughts about voting as a libertarian in this year’s presidential campaign (feel free to keep commenting! I love hearing from readers and I’m interested to know your thoughts on this year’s “War for the White House”) and today I found a post at the Chicago Tribune blog that illuminates another kind of voting breakdown.

So, if you haven’t decided who to vote for yet, this study may help you decide. According to a CNN/Opinion Research poll, the “drinking votes” break down as follows (a surprise to no one): beer drinkers lean Republican, winos tip toward Democrat. (Apparently they don’t care about the votes of shot-takers, margarita sippers, martini lovers, and so on.)

Well, there you have it.

I remember once when I was younger, during Bill Clinton’s re-election campaign, my parents came home from voting and I asked who they voted for. My mom replied that voting was a very private matter and I wasn’t supposed to ask questions like that. I felt quite chastised until I realized a few years later that she only said that because she was embarrassed, as a Republican, about voting for He Clinton.

Today, most people (particularly young people) don’t have this same kind of allegiance to a party. However, allegiance to principles still exists; I was reminded of this today during a discussion about the presidential campaign.

You see, my husband, the devoted libertarian and Ron Paul supporter, has a bit of a man crush on Obama. While he doesn’t agree with a lot of his policies (Obama’s no libertarian, that’s for sure), he admires that Obama represents a new kind of politics. Between the Same Old Failed Republicans (McCain) and the Same Old Failed Democrats (Clinton), he represents—for lack of better word—that change everyone is so crazy about. He calls for working together across the aisle to solve America’s problems, he’s a good listener, and he’s a true leader. So, for these reasons (and more, summed up by Cass R. Sunstein’s Chicago Sun Times commentary), my hubby has given up the dream of a Ron Paul ticket and switched sides. His vote is for Obama.

We have several friends, however, who would not vote for Obama if they were paid to do so. They agree he’s a good man with the ability to move people. They might even agree that he is, more or less, the lesser of three evils. But on principle, they’ll vote their liberty-oriented conscience, writing in Ron Paul or maybe even themselves—anyone who is dedicated to limited government and freedom.

As for me, I haven’t decided yet. I dragged my feet supporting Ron Paul because I knew that as soon as I did, I’d be too invested in hoping he could actually win, could actually make a difference—when I knew the reality was he didn’t have a chance. Ron Paul is the only candidate I really believe in, but writing him in seems like a pointless exercise. (Although it would be interesting to see how much of his tremendous grassroots support would write him in.) Obama is undoubtedly the best option of the three, but voting for a big government guy (no matter how charming or pragmatic) still feels wrong.

So what do we do? As libertarians, do we vote our conscience, come hell or high water? Or do we “make our vote count” by ignoring policy differences and picking the candidate we think can win and do the least amount of damage?

I’d love to hear your thoughts…who are YOU voting for?

I have so far resisted commenting on the madness that surrounds this year’s presidential campaign (or, as the Onion puts it, “War for the White House”). Partly because I don’t really think I have anything to say about it that hasn’t already been said 10 gazillion other times—but mostly because I’m just…weary. Coverage has been going for over a year now, with eight months to go. Eight long months.

I have, however, kept up with the basic updates in the campaign. And after last week’s primaries, there seemed to be one consistent theme to the stories and blog posts I perused that covered election news: Hillary Clinton is an unstoppable monster.

Here are two examples I had to share: Andrew Sullivan called Hillary & Bill the “horror film that never ends,” and The Cagle Post (Cartoons & Commentary) compared her to “one of those zombies you shoot and stab and knock upside the head with a nail-studded two-by-four dipped in some rare, poisonous South American giant-toad secretion. And she just keeps coming at you.”

I’m not sure if this is better or worse than my husband’s comparison of Hillary to Ben Linus of LOST.

Either way, we’re in trouble.