Read my latest story, "The All-Nighter", at 52|250.

I caught a snippet of a speech by Obama this morning on NPR; it included the wonderful line, “Hope got women the vote.”  Excuse me, Senator?  What history books have you been reading?  Hope did not get women the vote.  Sitting around and hoping never got anyone anything.  It was legions of women standing up to power and demanding their rights, and you know something else?  It was divisive.  Real change usually is, especially when it involves giving a marginalized group equal rights.  And if a Republican served up this kind of nonsense, you know that he would be called on it.

What Obama has to say sounds great until you really dig in and ask what he stands for.  Hope, unity, and change: who can object to any of that?  On the surface of it, no one can.  The trouble isn’t so much that they’re just words but that they are vague words.  I hate to stereotype younger voters as naive or unwilling/unable to perform the sort of basic analysis required to see the problem, but right now that description seems to fit at least a fair amount of them.

As for me, idealistic curmudgeon that I am, I will still be supporting Kucinich in the Washington State caucus, even though it’s late enough that it doesn’t really count.  Think of it as sending a message in a bottle that some of us still want to elect a president with a real record of standing up for progressive causes and against corporate interests.  And then, if Kucinich doesn’t win the nomination, I’ll be voting Green once again like I always have.

If the Democrats want my vote, they will have to earn it.

Related posts:

1. Hope, Change, and Disillusionment: Seven Years of War

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.