Skip to comments.DEMOCRAT FOR A DAY (Reinhard)
Posted on 04/20/2008 9:33:32 AM PDT by jazusamo
I . . . just . . . couldn't . . . do . . . it.
The piece of paper sat on my desk, day after day. All I had to do was fill in the form from the Oregon Secretary of State's Web site and send it to the Multnomah County Elections Office. Then I could vote in Oregon's Democratic primary.
I would be relevant. I would matter. I could make history with Hillary Clinton or vote for change Barack Obama can believe in. I would join the disenfranchised Oregon Republicans who were re-registering as "Democrats for a Day" to vote in the May 20 presidential primary.
But there the form stayed. The days turned to weeks after I wrote a March 16 column on the movement, and I . . . just . . . couldn't . . . do . . . it.
Not even for a day.
Oh, I tried. I did things to steel myself to fill out the paperwork. I drank double-soy lattes crafted from fair-trade coffee while listening to National Public Radio and reading the Blue Oregon blog. I sipped white wine deep into the night and tried to chant "Children are our future" without a hint of sarcasm. I slapped a "Goddess bless" bumper sticker on my new hamster-powered Prius before I rode the MAX line from Beaverton to Hillsboro and celebrated all the diversity I encountered along the way. I even started blaming President Bush and Vice President Cheney for the late arrival of spring.
But, alas, nothing worked.
In the end, a mix of the good, the bad and the ugly kept me from becoming a One-day Democrat.
The good: I took to heart the comments of readers who wrote in to say that messing around in the other party's presidential primary -- trying to hijack their nominating process -- was unsporting. Democrats should have the chance to pick the candidate who best represents the Democratic Party's values and principles and/or the best shot at defeating the Republican standard-bearer. It was morally and ethically questionable -- actually, "reprehensible" was the word one reader used -- to vote in the other party's primary to pick the weaker candidate. It smacked of dirty tricks and insufficient seriousness about the office of the presidency. The longer I reflected on this, the more I thought my critics had a point.
The bad: The longer I reflected on the Democratic race, the more it became clear that it's not clear if Clinton or Obama would be the "weaker" candidate.
Clinton's problems have been obvious for all to see from the start -- indeed, from before the start. All those problems received a fresh summing up with Hillary's Bosnia sniper-fire saga and Bill's late-breaking bid to, ah, correct the record.
Obama's weakness in a general election was becoming apparent a month ago, and they've come into sharp relief since. An already-thin resume has proved something of a padded resume. Not only has Clinton not allowed Obama or the public to forget the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, she's put a spotlight on another Obama associate -- William Ayers, an old Weather Underground radical who remains unrepentant about bombing the Pentagon, the Capitol and a State Department building during the Vietnam War. Then there are Obama's San Francisco stylings on small-town Americans. Even Obama's dreamboat rhetoric, it seems, is wearing a bit thin.
In Real Clear Politics' average of polls (www.realclearpolitics.com), John McCain leads Clinton, 47 percent to 44 percent. Against Obama, it's a 45-45 dead heat, and this is before the GOP introduces voters to Obama. Impossible choice.
And the ugly: A lot of these Democrats just plain don't like each other. I thought the Republican presidential primary was rough, but at least it was largely about issues -- and McCain's nomination appears to be uniting the GOP. Just in the last week, however, Clinton called Obama "elitist and divisive" and "out of touch." One (since-departed) Obama aide called Sen. Clinton "a monster," and another adviser accused President Clinton of practicing McCarthyism. Eek.
In recent polls, 19 percent of Obama backers said they would vote for McCain if Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, and 28 percent of Clinton supporters said they would go with McCain if Obama's the party's standard-bearer.
Finally, if I became a "Democrat for a Day" and voted for Obama, some of my fellow Democrats would call me sexist. And if I voted for Clinton, other Democrats would call me racist. All things considered -- hey, I picked up that phrase listening to NPR -- I'd rather remain a "mean-spirited" Republican.
I couldn’t be a rat for the day, my grandfather would be rolling in his grave...
“How I wussed out.” A page-length article. Is this author sure he isn’t really a Rat?
In a fight between a gentleman and a scoundrel, the scoundrel will win every time...because the scoundrel is willing to fight in an "unsporting" way.
So we lose.
Agreed, especially with Hillary and Barry. I don’t know which would be worse either and I sure wouldn’t want to live with the thought of having voted for either one if that one should be elected president.
Off subject, hope ya don’t mind
but how much snow did you get and may I ask what part of WA state you are in?
Just use the keyword reinhard, read some of his articles and decide for yourself. :)
Not everyone is cut out to be a front-line soldier in Operation Chaos. ;-) Still lots of other ways to support the mission!
We’re in Clark County outside Vancouver across the Columbia from Portland. No snow, the area got some hail several times yesterday, the snow was only in higher elevations as far as I know.
Well, one thing he isn’t and that is an individual thinker.
“Oh, I tried. I did things to steel myself to fill out the paperwork. I drank double-soy lattes crafted from fair-trade coffee while listening to National Public Radio and reading the Blue Oregon blog. I sipped white wine deep into the night and tried to chant “Children are our future” without a hint of sarcasm. I slapped a “Goddess bless” bumper sticker on my new hamster-powered Prius”
Now that’s funny.
Hah! I think so too. I thought the whole thing was humorous and he’s got a good sense of humor.
The author misses the point (I know, I know, it's a send-up) that it's not even about picking the weaker candidate for the other party. OPCHAOS is about keeping two losers at each others throats until their party implodes.
What's there to debate about that?
So we lose.
The problem with this writer is he failed to understand operation chaos. The point is not picking the weakest Dim candidate. The point is having the contest go on as long as possible weakening both, weakening whomever they nominate.
And even two "scoundrels" can be unsporting.
Butch Cassidy: No, no, not yet. Not until me and Harvey get the rules straightened out.
Harvey Logan: Rules? In a knife fight? No rules.
[Butch immediately kicks Harvey in the groin]
Butch Cassidy: Well, if there aint' going to be any rules, let's get the fight started. Someone count. 1,2,3 go.
Sundance Kid: [quickly] 1,2,3, go.
[Butch knocks Harvey out]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.