Have you found the last weeks puzzling too? I mean, Obama's meteoric rise to exciting prominence was in large account because of his expressed and new approach to political discourse as much as his views. As a bright young Democrat, his points of view seemed clear even if they weren't a matter of record since his record is thin. But his post-anger, post-negative, post-antagonistic attitude thrilled me and others. I felt hopeful, thought maybe there was a fresh breeze in American politics, a new way to solve and prevent problems. It felt calming and rational and renewing.

The first warning shot was the revelation about Jeremiah Wright's fiendishly angry diatribes. Even if they were somewhat misinterpreted, they were dreadful. And when Obama said he'd never heard Wright speak like that before, my stomach lurched because either he'd lied about being there or he was ridiculously inattentive or he he was lying about not hearing the previous rants. Evidently I'd succumbed to the mania, I realized, because I suddenly felt off balance.

Then there were incidents and a changed tone of voice over following weeks, all documented elsewhere and not worth rehashing right now. Even meanness and nastiness, weirdness, anger. But each seemingly minor moment was greeted by Obama with a back-track or an explanation an excuse. But in the end it came down to the pedestal crumbling and Obama no longer being the fair-haired child, no longer being the post-anger, post-negative, post-antagonistic figure he claimed and seemed to be. I'm afraid it's back to politics as disgusting and as usual.

So who on earth do I vote for? I am between a fairly hard rock that I know somewhat and a hard place that might be all right or might be dreadful but who the heck knows. Do I vote for a man who's been part of the government for decades and who has a moderately good record but is most likely to be a caretaker? Or do I vote for a man who's less seasoned than almost any have been and who also has the infamous Chicago machine behind him? They both dissemble and exaggerate and make promises they'll never be able to keep. It's all too familiar a choice between people I don't feel great about. But the times are worse than usual, or so it seems, so the president might matter more than usual.

A friend suggested a political science-y way to choose. Ask myself whether I want a president who (A) is the same party and "flavor" as Congress and therefore can (presumably) get anything done he wants, or (B) is the other party from Congress and therefore must persuade and cajole to get things done. Keeping in mind our revered and generally successful three-part government structure, would it be preferable if two of the parts can operate as one, or would it be better if they are in dynamic opposition?

Labels: 2008 election, questions