Primary Season is Finally Over

With the official end of the primary season I can finally end my self-imposed ban on posting about the primaries. Of course Maureen Dowd has already said everything that needs to be said about the current situation. So there are three options for my vote in November (in order of my preference):

  1. Obama keeps his promise to work out a deal with the republican nominee to stick with public financing for the general election and I vote for Obama.
  2. Obama breaks his promise on public financing but does not put Clinton on the ticket and I am free to vote for someone else.
  3. Obama takes Clinton on as his running-mate (which would almost certainly include opting out of public financing) and I vote for McCain (even McCain would have a better chance at uniting the country that Obama with Clinton on the ticket).

I did not start out in the Anyone But Clinton (ABC) camp but these last two months of the primary campaign have convinced me that ABC is the best course for this country.

I admit that it’s very easy for me to announce how I would vote my conscience far in advance because no matter what I do my vote in the Electoral College is 5 votes for McCain – like it or not.

About David

David is the father of 8 extremely organized children (4 girls / 4 boys) who is constantly seeking answers to tough questions related to parenting, education and politics while moonlighting for 40 hours each week as a technology professional. He also enjoys cooking, gardening, and sports.
This entry was posted in National, politics and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


4 Responses to Primary Season is Finally Over

  1. Josh says:


    I found your site recently and I really enjoy the level of dialog. Your posts are thoughtful, as are many of the comments.

    I have a question about your support for Obama, but I wouldn’t be surprised if you’ve already discussed it in an earlier post. My question is, what do you mean by “unite the country.” In your post you said “even McCain would have a better chance at uniting the country than Obama with Clinton on the ticket.”

    How might a president unite the country? What kind of unity are you talking about? Would it be ideological unity? Do you think the two major parties should come closer together and compromise more? Would it be political unity? What do you think the government should be doing that it could do if the government were more united?

    If you’ve already addressed those questions, could you please direct me to the appropriate posts? Again, thank you for posting so thoughtfully.

  2. David says:


    That’s a good question. When I talk about the possibility of Obama being able to unite the country (or anyone else for that matter) I am talking largely about rhetoric and tone.

    I don’t think that the two parties should come closer together – there is very little functional difference between them. One talks about lower taxes, but they really mean taxing out children rather than us. The other, in a nod to fiscal responsibility, talks about taxing the rich, but they just means taxing today instead of tomorrow.

    The unity that I would hope for would be less characterization of those in the other party as enemies, or as unpatriotic to the nation. I believe that Obama would attempt to do that. I also think that McCain would attempt to cross the aisle to get things done rather than emphasizing a largely-imaginary red/blue split in the country. On the other hand, Clinton has shown that she is happy to exploit divisions for her own political gain.

    One reason why I favor Obama over McCain is that he has already shown more willingness to reject politics as usual as he has refused to accept donations from lobbyists. If he keeps his promise to accept public financing and the attendant restrictions in the face of the obvious fact that he would have a fund-raising advantage without it then I would vote for him to support that decision and to help shake things up in Utah with our static Republican-controlled political environment.

    I admit that there are those in each party who will fight to maintain the divisive rhetoric no matter who the president is or how he operates but my preference will always be to favor a candidate who can disagree without being disrespectful.

  3. Josh says:

    My follow-up question might sound a little bit simple-minded, but why do you think tone is so important? What advantage does a president have who respectfully disagrees with Congress on everything over a president who is mean and nasty, but gets things done? What is wrong with divisive rhetoric?

  4. David says:

    The more we support divisive rhetoric from the head of our federal government with the excuse that it’s effective the more excuse we give to other elected officials to do the same. Others may disagree, but I would contend that someone cannot talk mean and nasty consistently without becoming mean and nasty. Not only that but we cannot support a mean and nasty political environment without becoming meaner and more nasty in our more immediate interactions. What we accept in those who represent us we are bound to begin to accept in ourselves.

    Mean and nasty might be effective in the short term, but I believe that it is destructive over the long run.

Comments are closed.

Loading Facebook Comments ...