Lately, if you are a longtime follower of this website, you’ll notice that something in the sidebar has changed. Namely that the Obama widget is gone and has been replaced with a Nader/Gonzalez widget. There have been a few people that have questioned, “Why the change of heart?” and I thought I would take a little time out of my morning to answer that question.

Politics is a funny thing. If you ask many Americans what they care about in a politician, they’ll usually answer with things like “their stance on abortion rights” or “their stance on gay marriage rights” or any other throwaway political stance. It’s not that I don’t think these views are not important, it’s just that they usually never come up while in office. Case in point: I remember when I was a freshman in high school and a friend of mine and I were arguing about who would be a better president: Gore or Bush. I, as many of you know, actually like Gore and I was defending him. Then, she basically said the equivalent to me: “Gore believes it’s okay to save a tree and kill a baby.” This was, of course, referring to Gore’s pro-choice, pro-environment stance. Not to say Bush wanted to kill the environment (he’s been too busy killing everything else), but I highly doubt Gore wants to “kill babies” either. The point of the story is this: back in 2000, abortions were legal in some states and illegal in others. Fast forward to 2008: abortion is legal in some states and illegal in others. Absolutely nothing has changed. Bush’s platform clearly stated he was against abortions and yet he hasn’t made them illegal yet and he has had eight years to do so. Once you think about it, you start noticing that issues like these are basically calls to get people and trick people into voting for them. I’m not trying to belittle the importance of abortion laws and I’m not saying I agree with one side or the other, but the point is people are voting for issues that never come up and never change and are ignoring the elephant in the room: issues that have importance.

This year, it’s actually been nice for all the issue-candy to be disregarded for once and take a backseat. More people than ever are actually paying attention to issues that could play a major role in our life. More and more people are worried about the economy, concerned about the war in Iraq, and calling for a new plan on our “energy crisis.” When I started looking at Obama and McCain this year, the differences in their platforms were so vast at first. Now, I notice fewer and fewer similarities. Although their plans may be “different,” they definitely share many, many features. Here are some comparisons on the three issues listed above:

Energy Stance
Obama: Wants to accelerate commercialization of plug-in hybrids, has allocated tax credits for nuclear energy, wants to lessen our dependence on foreign oil.
McCain: Proposed increasing ethanol imports and moving exploration to production of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, wants to lessen our dependence on foreign oil, and also supports the increased use of nuclear energy.

War in Iraq
Obama: Has opposed the war in Iraq; Initially called for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq but has since reneged and instead calls for a “responsible, phased withdrawal.” Instead, wants to focus the “war on terror” towards Afghanistan and Pakistan.
McCain: Has supported the war in Iraq and will continue to do so for as long as it takes to succeed.

Economy
Obama: Wants to renegotiate NAFTA to help America and create a more “level playing field”; Wants to implement a guaranteed eligibility for affordable health care for all Americans; Supported the bailout bill.
McCain: Thinks NAFTA is fine the way it is and needs no changes; Favors tax credits of up to $5,000 for families that purchase health insurance; Supported the bailout bill.

Other than a few points, they share many similarities in their stances (or at least in my eyes they do). I found all of this information here at Wikipedia. Yeah, I know, Wikipedia isn’t the best source but it does act as a pretty good aggregate for this kind of information.

So, why have I had a change of heart on who I intend to vote for? I thought Obama was going to stand apart, but instead of standing apart, it seems like his views are starting to slowly align more with McCain except for a few differences. I especially have a sour taste in my mouth when Obama voted for the bailout bill. But why Nader? Because he has spent all of his adult life fighting for people. Will he be the best president ever if elected? I don’t know. But I do know that he’ll be making decisions with what’s best for the people in mind. He won’t bend to the wills of corporations the way Democrats and Republicans have in the past (although if the House and Senate do, it will be hard for Nader to stop them). Something interesting to think about: Obama has accepted $9.9 million from investment firms thus far; McCain has accepted $6.9 million. Could this be why they were so eager to bend over for Wall Street when the bailout came up for vote?

But Nader won’t win and you’re just wasting your vote!
I fully do not expect Nader to win. As a matter of fact, he will not even win one state (more than likely). I would venture a guess and say that only 35% of the population even knows he’s running (or is even aware that more than two people are running). The point of voting for him is to get his name out there for the future, to let future voters know that there are more than two candidates. To hopefully get third party candidates on the debates in the future, which could drastically help their chances. Look at this example: Jessie Ventura, when running for governor of Minnesota, was way down in the polls at first. He was running under the Reform party and was polling in single digit points. After being included in televised debates with the two major party candidates, he narrowly won the election. I’m not saying that if Nader was debating he would win, but I am saying it was definitely help his chances and actually get his name out there where the American people can start to think outside the box so to speak.

With the electoral college, the state of Kentucky doesn’t matter come election day. The reason I say this, is because McCain is dominating the polls in Kentucky. If I vote for Obama on election day, McCain wins Kentucky. If I vote for Nader on election day, McCain wins Kentucky. At least if I vote for Nader or another third party candidate, I am voting for democracy and my vote my actually change something (the taking of third parties more seriously perhaps?). So who are you voting for? Unsure? Don’t want to vote for neither of these guys? Then why do it? I’m so tired of people voting for “the lesser evil.” You’re still getting evil. If you don’t like either of the candidates then step onto a limb: read up on third party candidates and find a candidate you do agree with. Did you know, besides Nader, there are at least three other candidates running? There are choices. And remember, if you vote for a third party candidate, you are not wasting your vote; as a matter of fact, your vote is actually worth much more when you vote third party: it’s a vote for democracy.