Fresh from Vanity Fair:

So spurn me, I voted for Hillary.

I have many faults and quirks, but one thing I’m not is a narcissist. My vote isn’t about Me. Who I am, how I conceive myself, how my vote positions me in the pulse of the moment. The tab I flip in the voting booth isn’t intended as a dramatic gesture to pin in my lapel like a carnation and sniff during intermission, like some Clifton Webb character. I don’t accept being lectured or morally browbeaten into voting for one candidate over another in order to prove my virtuous intent and appease Kurt Andersen’s peculiar, posturing racial anxieties. Perhaps it’s my atheism at work but I found myself increasingly wary of and resistant to the salvational fervor of the Obama campaign, the idealistic zeal divorced from any particular policy or cause and chariot-driven by pure euphoria. I can picture President Hillary in the White House dealing with a recalcitrant Republican faction; I can’t picture President Obama in the same role because his summons to history and call to hope seems to transcend legislative maneuvers and horse-trading; his charisma is on a more ethereal plane, and I don’t look to politics for transcendence and self-certification. I agree with NYCweboy: “Win or lose, Barack Obama has changed the landscape of American culture and politics - bringing the perspective of mixed race to the table, and finding validity in both white communities and communities of colors. That’s huge. It’s just not, in itself, a reason to make him President. Voting for Obama, for me would be about picking an idea, not a person, or a set of specific plans… I need more than that. And Hillary Clinton is the person, with the specifics, who offers more.” Though I didn’t read NYCweboy’s post until after voting today (I must have mistimed my visit to the polling station because I missed running into Katrina van den Heuvel, one of the anticipated highlights of election day), that’s pretty much the direction my thoughts and sentiments took.

And I may have been spurred somewhat by the sexist pile-on of the last few days on Hillary, such as the Chris Matthews panel that kicked off with a discussion of how genuine Hillary’s near-tears were genuine, with Margaret Carlson manufacturing smarm with her own half-baked mix of snide faux-sympathy and bogus mind-reading.

Read on. It’s hilarious. His take on Romney’s speech is priceless:

He’s like an actor auditioning for a part that’s already been filled and nobody has the heart to tell him.

Oh, and who will tell him?

To see where a candidate stands on an issue, visit Issue 2008