February 5th, 2008
|12:37 pm - How I'm voting.|
President: Barack Obama.
Hillary projects a very strong feeling of a "nanny state". She's on record as having been horrified by the "Hot Coffee" mod of GTA: San Andreas. She's been on record supporting an awful lot of RIAA issues. Obama doesn't have that history.
I like Clinton's plan for universal health care, but Obama is at least for universal access to health care. That's a good start.
I've heard some people point out that Obama's against gay marriage. He's on record bringing his religious beliefs into it as well. However, Obama is also for repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", supports equal rights for alphabet soup folk (read: GLBT + whatever other letters you think need to get tacked on there) in adoption and employment, civil unions, expanding hate crime legislation, and voted against the Defense of Marriage Act and a Federal Marriage amendment which would have prevented gay marriage.
Obama is *not* anti-gay.
91: No. The only argument submitted for this is a "PLEASE VOTE NO ON THIS" from the authors of the prop.
92: No. I like the idea of lowering Community College tuition, but I don't like that the funding to make up the difference has to come from somewhere.
93: No. It brings about a reduction of 2 years in term limits, nonspecific to whether they were spent in the state senate or state assembly, while resetting the limits for some 42 members of the state legislature who would term out.
94-97: Yes. The stuff about this being a sweet deal for the four tribes mentioned is true. The stuff about this working against the other ones is false. There's nothing in this that stops any tribe from developing a similar agreement. Additionally, it brings in extra revenue from the state from the pockets of the people who are separating themselves from their money. I'm all for that.
Unfortunately I didn't register to vote soon enough, so I didn't get to vote in the primary. Just as well, since I think I would probably be happy with whoever wins the democratic primary, Obama or Clinton.
I like the idea of Clinton winning and striking a blow against sexism, which would certainly make up for whatever draconian laws she might want to impose. But even though I believe strongly in civil liberties, can I be totally selfish for a minute? I can't deny that I would definitely benefit individually living under a so-called "nanny state", which many people have suggested is precisely what Clinton would try to impose. Such systems are known to provide many more benefits to women and students, and that would certainly give me a lot more freedom than I would have under any "small government" that would probably uphold the "freedom" of others to exploit me.
If Roe v. Wade were overturned, I would storm the supreme court myself. But abortion is only half the issue. I don't understand why more attention isn't given to the fact that millions of women are being faced every day with the fear of unwanted pregnancy and all the emotional strain that brings no matter what choice they make. We always seem to forget about one of the most important freedoms, freedom from fear.
Oh, and civil marriage should be abolished.