My Last Column: Vote Obama

Despite our years of political activism, from taking over buildings to sitting in tents, Columbians don’t usually matter in presidential elections. Everyone knows that campus is going to vote for the Democrat; campaigning here is less preaching to the choir than preaching to Martin Luther and the Apostle Paul. But this election, when the Democrats are likely to win, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama offer us a real choice. We finally have a chance to use our status as political pariahs for good.

After spending almost our entire political lives under a president who arguably has not achieved a single good thing, and almost certainly not as many as five good things, it’s nice for most of us at Columbia to have some political options. Assuming that at least 51 percent of the country had noticed how ludicrous the Republicans have become, the Democratic primary should be the real battleground. And this is why it’s an interesting time to be at Columbia. For the first time since most of us could vote, we’re not just dutifully filling out a ballot and throwing it in the trash while Ohioans make a terrible mistake. Our choice of Democrat may actually help determine who becomes president. What’s more, we at Columbia have a secret weapon that makes our endorsement all the more potent: most of the country thinks we’re raving lunatics.

Obviously, we can use this to our advantage by choosing to support whichever candidate we like less. Let’s say we decide we like Obama. We could then formally invite Clinton to speak here, announcing her as “the most prominent speaker on our campus since Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.” Then we could get someone to sit in a tent and drink Gatorade until she gets elected, and start rushing the stage anytime Obama speaks in New York. Moderate, poorly informed Democrats, who generally support Clinton, will begin to associate her name with our school, and their favor will turn to Obama. He’ll win the primary, and Columbia will have changed the world for the better.

The obvious question is, which candidate should we choose? The obvious answer is “not the one I slandered in the last paragraph.” Although neither Clinton nor Obama would make a bad candidate, Obama is ultimately the more progressive choice. Clinton has spent two decades entrenched in the political system, so her changing it is about as likely as Ahmadinejad suddenly announcing that he’s “been acting ridiculous.”

The difference between the two is especially clear when it comes to foreign policy. The simple fact of the matter is that we need to get the hell out of Iraq. It’s tough to form an analogy for the current policy of fighting perpetual unwinnable war for cynical political selfishness, but maybe it’s like a football game where we started out strong, except then the other team started breaking our players’ kneecaps. Then the referees left and the clock stopped and now we’re just sending in more guys to get their kneecaps broken on the slim chance that the other team will decide we’ve won, all so the coach can write down a W for himself.

The only thing stupider than staying in that game would be starting another one just like it. Yet, while Obama has been consistently clear about exiting Iraq, and about a general policy of not going to war with people, Clinton keeps using weird, disturbingly vague language. She has been less clear about how many soldiers she will leave in Iraq, and her Web site still features a speech entitled “No Military Action On Iran Without Congressional Authority,” even though it should be “No Military Action in Iran Ever at All: Let’s Stop Attacking Places.” It’s like she’s taken a look at the Iraq game and decided that the real problem is we need to switch fields.

In order for our endorsement of Hillary to work, of course, we’ll need the media to keep reporting on us with their usual “What shenanigans are those crazy rich kids up to this time?” spin. Fortunately, they always do. I was at the Minutemen speech, for instance, and what I saw was a lot of rowdy civil disobedience that climaxed in a few sign-waving kids sneaking past a border patrol club. Then the Minutemen supporters in the crowd went nuts, or, more accurately, continued to be nuts, and rushed the stage. The media, even Spectator, pretty much uniformly reported this as an example of Columbians shutting down free speech, but that’s the opposite of what I wrote down from my vantage point in the third row.

It may seem troubling that things like “factual information” and “events that actually happen” have so little sway over Columbia’s media image, but luckily we can respond by callously manipulating journalistic failure to suit our political aims. What better way to renounce Clinton’s hawkishness than by announcing that we’re holding a “Clinton and Gay Marriage” candlelit vigil at the sundial, with Arabic translation?

I’m graduating early, so this is my last column. I’ve written about Obama before, but I really like that guy, and I really do feel like he could do great things as president. If he or anyone else wants to offer me a job, that would be nice, but I’m satisfied devoting my final wordy sarcasm to his cause. Thanks to all who read this thing, and please, vote for Obama. Seriously.

J.D. Porter is a Columbia College senior majoring in English and Jazz Studies.
The Lion’s Roar runs alternate Fridays.
Specopinion@columbia.edu