Voting for McBama

— Editor's note: Tanya Amador-Daigle is reporting for Florida Weekly on the presidential election. She has a unique perspective on the primaries and the process for choosing a candidate, having traveled the country reporting on pr imaries and cau cuses for the Purple States project. To learn more about Purple States go, to www.purplest ates.tv.

With only a week left until the presidential election, the last year has been a political whirlwind of smears and recycled campaign speeches. This election has given us two tickets for the history books; an African American man and a Republican woman, on two opposing tickets, at the same time, both jockeying for the same spotlight. It's a political pundit's dream.

As the deadline grows near, I'm asking myself this: Other than making history, does either of these teams bring us anything worthwhile? With the economy in the tank, two ongoing wars, and the Constitution being discarded like an old shoe, I find myself wishing for something miraculous. Perhaps I'm looking in the wrong place, or maybe, toward the wrong people.

As early voting polls open, each American has to ask himself: Who will be the best leader for my needs, the needs of my family and in the best interest of this nation?

I'm of the school that our economy is our national security. Without funds, we cannot secure our borders or arm our troops to protect ourselves. This is the issue that is most important to me, and when I see both Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain fail so miserably with regards to the bailout, I want to run and hide under my bed.

The global economy is experiencing an unparalleled crisis of which no expert can know the outcome. And what does McBama do? These guys scurry about, or dramatically suspend their campaign and run to Washington, as McCain did, virtually making it a race to see who can claim they saw it coming first. Suddenly, these two men, who eagerly took money from Wall Street for their campaigns, declared that they had been "warning" us that this would happen for years.

Initially, McBama was unsure about the $700 billion "bailout." They couldn't approve of anything that the taxpayers would have to pay for. But then, in an incredible twist of fate, McBama valiantly championed the "rescue plan," again, for the sake of the taxpayers. Only, of course, AFTER all of the experts had weighed in and stated that the economy was in a state of emergency.

So, which one of the two men showed leadership and courage in the face of economic collapse? My answer: neither.

The most important foreign policy issue at this moment is the war in Iraq. Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain claim that their positions on Iraq are extremely, or fundamentally, as Sen. Obama puts it, different from each other. But are they? I mean, how can they be? Both candidates have no choice at this time but to keep troops in Iraq, at least for the time being. The situation on the ground will dictate that, not McBama.

And what about Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran? McBama agrees that more boots are needed on the ground in Afghanistan. Which leads us to Pakistan. What exactly is McBama's policy there? No one really knows. The only thing I've been hearing is how they are going to go after the Taliban and Al- Qaeda. We've heard that song before.

And Iran? McBama swears eternal loyalty to Iran's archenemy, Israel, calling Ahmedinejad everything from an evil dictator to a Holocaust denier. Gee, ya think? Tell me something I didn't know! When are they going to address the root of the problem? Could it be Palestine, perhaps? The assertion from McBama is that they back a two-state solution for Palestine, but they offer no real plan to do so.

I'm sorry to be repetitive because I know I've said this before, but Sen. Obama seems unable to decide what kind of public stand to make on his own. He proved that during the primaries with Sen. Hillary Clinton. If you pay close attention, you will see that Sen. Obama waits for Sen. McCain to come forth on an issue, and then he follows suit. The only difference is that he dresses it up with pretty speeches.

Even when Sen. Obama has an independent or original idea, he quickly changes it when his adversary speaks bluntly, or if it's politically expedient for him. This was the case in the Georgia/ Russia conflict in South Ossetia. First, Sen. Obama spoke out against the violence and played the diplomat, not really taking sides. Then after Sen. McCain condemned Russia, giving us flashbacks to the Cold War days, Sen. Obama changed his stride and jumped on the Sen. McCain bandwagon.

I could go on and on about taxes and health care, but I think I've made my point. I could just say, "Well, that's just how politics works. No one would ever get elected if they spoke the truth." But for me, that's like condoning bad behavior. I liken it to being the enabler of a drug addict. And, you know what? It's our own fault. If we keep giving the politicians their crack, they'll never quit.