Randomize

Here are some great thoughts from Mr. Lessig on why he supports Obama over Clinton.

But I think we’re missing the point about “change.”

We’ve seen the “change” that one President can bring when he does not respect the balance of powers. A few “changes” come to mind:

• $400 billion deficits,
• trashed civil liberties,
• undeclared wars,
• recession,
• poorly-considered appointments,
• distracted mismanagement of basic services such as emergency response, and
• promotion of torture for political expediency.

This is why I’m supporting Ron Paul in the Republican primary.

He won’t win, and I don’t agree with him on several important issues, but I feel it is very important for the winner to understand their place: they are the CEO, not a dictator.

The best thing a President could do over the next four years is to restore, respect, and protect the balance of powers (both federal/state and among the branches). We don’t just need another dictator with his own definition of “change.”

Every vote for Paul supports that basic idea that liberty is more important than safety, that the White House is not a king’s castle, and that our foreign policy should be humble and non-interventionist. Those numbers will inform whoever does win that some Americans feel that the “wrong path” we’re on isn’t just the one leading to Bagdhad.

In the final election, I will vote for Obama if he wins the nomination. If Clinton wins, I cannot bring myself to vote for her or for another warmonger like McCain, Romney, or Huckabee, so I will vote Libertarian.

I don’t think I’m alone here–Obama will be the “lesser of evils” against any Republican other than Paul, but Clinton will drive many independents to the Republicans, to a third party. I’m not choosing a football team, I’m choosing a President, so the “viability” of a candidate will not impact my decision.