PRIMARY ELECTION
California, January 29

After seven years of enduring presidential incompetence coupled with dangerous ignorance, I am happy almost to the point of giddiness with the field of Democratic Party candidates; and I will be glad to campaign actively for whichever gets the nomination. Practically, it makes most sense to vote for either Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, or John Edwards because one of them will become the next president of the United States. Dennis Kucinich often makes more sense than the other three put together, but Kucinich doesn’t stand a chance of being elected; so I don’t want to waste my vote even in the primary the way many people of conscience wasted their vote in a previous critical election by voting for Ralph Nader.

Until recently I was doggedly hanging onto the idea that Hillary Clinton is the strongest, most promising candidate. I confess to liking John Edwards, probably partly because he speaks in a dialect of English which warms my Arkansas heart. That’s definitely not a good reason for choosing among the three. Lately I have been leaning more and more toward Barack Obama. Since Bush has been president I have spent many months outside the United States. People in other countries wonder if Americans like the idea of a royal family elevated by popular election. They think a weak candidate could have been elected only because he is the son of a man who had been president. While I believe it was the shady shenanigans of operatives like Karl Rove and Dick Cheney that got Bush appointed to the office, it makes me a little uncomfortable to think about one Clinton following an earlier one even if both of them are obviously capable of doing the job, especially when we have very good alternatives. It is important that America signal to the rest of the world that gender and race are not considerations in choosing a president. Either Obama or Clinton can obviously make that important statement to the world. It is important to make that point to those in our own population who cannot shed their own bigotry.

Perhaps I will vote for Obama on Tuesday. I like his freshness combined with intelligence. He wouldn’t have to be a very good orator to be an improvement over the fellow who has been speaking to us for going-on eight years with marbles in his mouth and little in his brain; but Obama isn’t just a little better, he is an inspiring, gifted speaker. America needs his kind of eloquence now to help us get out of a period of national self-doubt and to show the world that we produce leaders who think and speak intelligently. I like the fact that Obama is the one who didn’t vote for the war. (Kucinich didn’t either.) Clinton and Edwards haven’t completely satisfied me with their responses to questions about why they didn’t object strongly to the war in the first place. I believe Obama would appoint judges who may help us recover from our eight year slide toward fundamentalist hell. Bill Clinton had a bright, competent partner when he was president. Hillary Clinton was a good “First Lady.” She worked at the job. Michelle Obama is obviously a person who can make all of us proud. I think I’m on board, but there are still a few days until I cast my vote.

The Propositions

I can’t think of a single reason for supporting Proposition 91. This proposition is an example of a reason for objecting to the referendum system. I’d like to be able to trust the general public to make good decisions on complex issues, but the majority of people who vote won’t take the time to study issues in order to make intelligent decisions. We should elect competent, intelligent, thoughtful people to office in Sacramento, officials who will at least understand the issues before they vote.

After Proposition 91 finally got the needed signatures to get on the ballot, Sacramento had moved to put Propositon 1A on the November 2006 ballot, and that proposition has satisfied the proponents of Proposition 91. They are now urging a NO vote. I agree.

Proposition 92 is another of those examples of weakness of the referendum system. The language of the proposition sounds good, but it ties the hands of legislators. Of course there should be limits to power of legislators, but those limits are assured by a good constitution. I don’t like to tie the votes of people we have elected to office. I’d rather watch carefully what they do and vote them out of office if they begin to do damage to the fabric of government and act against the public good. I will vote NO on Proposition 92.

Proposition 93 is confusing. In the first place, good career politicians can make government stronger and better than amateurs might be able to do the job. On the other hand, I obviously don’t like to keep crooked, weak incumbents in office. We must protest immediately when they make bad decisions and vote them out in the next election cycle. One of the big problems with the move in many states to term limits is that the work of government is often being done by powerful lobbyists who influence both elected officials and especially the career legislative staffers. But we have to live with 1990’s Proposition 140, which presently limits politicians to three two-year terms in the Assembly and two four-year terms in the Senate. Under this system legislators can serve a total of fourteen years, but in order to serve that long they must change jobs. Proposition 93 will reduce the total time legislators can stay in office to twelve years, but under the proposal a legislator can stay in the same office for the entire twelve years. I’ll vote yes on Proposition 93.

Propositions 94-97 are wrongheaded. The premise is that the state needs more revenue. How could I possibly feel good about turning to gambling as the source of needed money for essential services in California? In the first place, most of the money fed to slot machines stays with the house; the portion that goes to the state won’t solve the revenue problem. In the second place, it is plainly wrong to look for solutions to the states financial problem by taking further advantage of people of mostly modest means who desperately hope they may solve their financial problems by feeding slot machines. I will vote NO on these propositions.