Why Obama? An Answer
contributed by: Jim Lloyd
Guest contributer Brad Kelley asked Why Obama?, and stipulated he wanted good reasons for supporting Obama, without resorting to criticisms of Clinton. My answer ended up a bit long. Norm has kindly agreed to allow me to make this guest contribution.
We are a country divided. There is a divide along the progressive-conservative political spectrum. Conservatives have succeeded in exploiting this divide to weaken the progressive movement, but the result has weakened the entire country. Obama asserts that "We are not as divided as our politics suggest." I believe he is correct. I live in San Francisco, and my politics are very progressive, yet I know several Republicans that I get along with very well. I've had discussions on various issues with them, and our commonalities are greater than our differences. The striking differences between us are not in our positions on issues, but in our opinions of various leaders on both sides. I have a visceral dislike of several Republican leaders that my conservative friends accept or even like. Likewise they have a visceral dislike of several Democratic leaders that I accept or like. Interestingly, my conservative friends seem to like Obama -- well enough that they will vote for him.
But it is not the progressive-conservative divide that I think is our greatest divide. It is the divide between the people and the government. Our form of government only works well when it is "of the people, by the people, for the people". We the people have been divided from our government for too long. Many of us complain about our government, but we don't take the necessary action to organize into large enough groups to have influence.
In the last 30 years, one group that has organized enough to have significant influence is evangelical christians. I believe that group has had a disproportionate and severely negative impact on this country. I want a leader that can neutralize that group. I believe Obama, and man of both faith and reason, can be that leader, and give one reason below.
Groups of citizens rarely if ever organize without an inspirational leader. I believe that our system of government only reaches an optimal form when the President is a strong inspirational leader who inspires us to unite for common good, to preserve our constitution and especially all of the freedoms guaranteed by the constitution. It is especially important to have an inspirational President at difficult times when we must each be willing to make sacrifices to solve a difficult problem. If the President inspires the people and thereby gains a strong popular mandate then the people and the President can force the legislative branch to make constructive legislation.
Obama is clearly a great inspirational leader. He has repeatedly said that real change only comes from the bottom up. He is absolutely right. This may seem like a contradiction, since he is "at the top". But he has built his movement from the bottom up. And he is reminding us that if the legislative branch is not doing their job, we can't expect it to be fixed from the top (the President), it must be fixed from the bottom (the people).
Obama unites us in the middle. For many of us on the progressive left, we might wish for a return to power in the progressive left, and a total defeat of the conservative right. I strongly believe that wish is not only unrealistic under the circumstances, it is dangerous and damages our ability to restore respect for our progressive ideals. The pendulum has started to swing our way again. We need a leader who can keep it swinging our way and give it more momentum. I believe Obama is that leader.
Let me give a very concrete example by returning to the topic of the role of religious faith in politics. I am, like Norm and many onegoodmove readers, a freethinker and an atheist. I would prefer that the U.S. was 90% freethinkers, instead of the current reality that the U.S. is only 10% freethinkers. I support the efforts of all of the New Atheists in their call for the end of faith. But it would be folly at this moment in history to expect the President to take that position. So as a freethinker, what is the best we can hope for from the President? We want a President that does not alienate the 90% of religious people, but is clear in his/her defense of the 1st amendment separation of church and state. Even more importantly, he/she must assert that Faith can never trump Reason. Look at Obama's position statement and especially his speech on Faith. I think he nails it. And more importantly, the Christian Republicans that I know and get along with also respect his position.
It has been suggested here by others that Obama's ability to inspire should not be trusted, citing other charismatic leaders who have inspired their people to do great harm. I am not arguing that we should support Obama for his charisma and inspirational ability alone. Take a close look at the specifics of what he says. Does he ever attempt to manipulate through fear? Does he ever attempt to circumvent any of the principles from our Constitution? I want a leader who appeals to our better nature. People criticize Obama for appealing to hope. I would much rather take a leader who appeals to unity and hope than one who appeals to distrust and fear. When I look beyond the inspirational veneer, I find a wise person of reason & integrity.
Before I end, I must comment on two issues that I know are prominent, or at least should be prominent, in the minds of people reading this. The first is Health Care. Norm has championed Health Care and stated that is the most important issue to him. Obama has been criticized for not providing enough details, or for not speaking strongly enough for Universal Health Care. But if you look at what he says, his goal is to make sure that everyone who wants quality health care afford it. From my point of view, as long as he remains committed to that goal, and can build a mandate and the political will to achieve it, then he has done his job. The rest of the job is up to the legislative branch, and to us, to force the legislative branch to do its job.
The other issue is War, or more appropriately, Peace. I want a leader who can guide the world back towards peace. Such a leader cannot be against all wars, since some wars are absolutely necessary. But a leader must recognize when war is the wrong answer. Read Obama's 2002 speech against going to war in Iraq. In my view, he nailed it. I also encourage everyone to watch the excellent presentation by Stanford Law Professor Lawrence Lessig titled 20 minutes or so on why I am 4Barack, in particular the segment starting around 18:45 discussing why Obama is uniquely positioned to put us on the path back to peace.
I'd like to ask all readers here to think carefully about the relative importance of these two issues. Which is more important: Health Care in the U.S., or World Peace? If a leader got one right and the other partially wrong, and another leader did the reverse, which leader would you prefer to have?
Let me end by reiterating that We The People must take an active role in our government. If Obama is elected because he inspires a new popular movement of people willing to be active, then we must remain active after he is elected to hold him accountable. It is possible, perhaps likely that he will make some mistakes. I do not think we should reject him because we expect he might make mistakes. What we should reject is our belief that we would be powerless to hold him accountable to acknowledge and rectify his mistakes.
Comments
Couldn't have said it better. Thanks.
Bloody hell - That Lawrence Lessig video is stunning! Thank you for linking to it.
And a most excellent article.
I'm curious about the deep suspicion that has been aroused by Obama standing up and spreading a positive message. It's sorta like how an abused dog will growl and snap at a strange hand offering food. Perhaps we are in worse shape than we realize.
WHY Obama? I voted in the democrats abroad primary ( online, so progressive) for Obama. I have several reasons for my choice but realistically I voted for Obama as i feel he has a real potential for changing the world view towards americans and our government. The symbolic nature of electing a mixed race man, with an african muslim father, who grew up in indonesia, who spoke out strongly against the invasion of Iraq has tremendous potential and promise. Having incredibly charisma and amazing speechmaking skills will help us to no end internationally. Even if all Obama would be is a symbolic leader that electrifies the world, this seems worth it. I personally think we have enough evidence and data to support that Obama has a lot more potential than just being a symbol.
Look everyone knows Obama is an incredibly talented politician, he has skills we have not seen in my lifetime. Use him to make the nation proud, use him to make the world believe in us, and make sure he chooses good advisors to make good policy. Try reading that Andrew Sullivan piece in the Atlantic, who makes a similar arguement.
"Overseas american wanting to show her passport proudly."
WHY Obama? I voted in the democrats abroad primary ( online, so progressive) for Obama. I have several reasons for my choice but realistically I voted for Obama as i feel he has a real potential for changing the world view towards americans and our government. The symbolic nature of electing a mixed race man, with an african muslim father, who grew up in indonesia, who spoke out strongly against the invasion of Iraq has tremendous potential and promise. Having incredibly charisma and amazing speechmaking skills will help us to no end internationally. Even if all Obama would be is a symbolic leader that electrifies the world, this seems worth it. I personally think we have enough evidence and data to support that Obama has a lot more potential than just being a symbol.
Look everyone knows Obama is an incredibly talented politician, he has skills we have not seen in my lifetime. Use him to make the nation proud, use him to make the world believe in us, and make sure he chooses good advisors to make good policy. Try reading that Andrew Sullivan piece in the Atlantic, who makes a similar arguement.
"Overseas american wanting to show her passport proudly."
Can I get any substance here? Are we (progressives) being blinded by some form of turdblossom romancing? I can't figure out the logic behind Democrats putting Obama in front of Clinton. Or have I missed something of late? Is the issue now (finally) about democracy? I'm an expat, my view is only from the outside, including mail-in voting. Yet... When was the last time that we had a presidential candidate that could practically prove s/he could make a difference? I mean, instead of just talking about it. Fine. If Obama wins I can live with that. At this point in life and history I don't care really as long as all conservatism is fought head on. I want conservatism made impotent. I want it on the brink of annihilation. I want it to dangle there with its extremities ripped off and kept artificially alive so that every thinker can place a speck of tar and one feather on it. I will re-invent the thinking man's time of fun. Am I the only one to remember the prosperity and (directly compared to Bush) success of government while the Clintons were there? Why wouldn't anyone jump at a chance to have that again? Where does the distrust and spite come from regarding Hillary? How can anyone put so much obvious superficiality above her? Oh wait. She voted for the war... Yeah, right. When was the last time any politician has stood so tall in the wake of so much scrutiny? At times, listening to Obama speak, I can feel the ghost of Karl Rove (turdblossom) romancing us all. Yeah, superficiality is blinding, eh!
I'm gonna go have another schnapps now all by my lonesome and say this expatriate toast: here's to being ruled by the best of the worst. -tgs-
"unite for common good, to preserve our constitution and especially all of the freedoms guaranteed by the constitution."
This is like honey in my ear. This is exactly what I want for America.
Tommi:
I will agree with you that Obama lacks substance on several issues. Truth be told, I don't think anyone knows what to expect from an Obama Presidency.
However, if you want the white house, if you want to keep the tide turning in favor of the progressives, listen to the Obama supporters.
In all likelihood, by November, my candidate (Ron Paul) will be out of the race. If Hillary is your nominee, I'm not voting this year. If Obama is your nominee, I'll support him.
There are many more like me. Disenfranchise, and the zealots (both left and right) will decide this election. No one wants that.
"unite for common good, to preserve our constitution and especially all of the freedoms guaranteed by the constitution."
This is like honey in my ear. This is exactly what I want for America.
Tommi:
I will agree with you that Obama lacks substance on several issues. Truth be told, I don't think anyone knows what to expect from an Obama Presidency.
However, if you want the white house, if you want to keep the tide turning in favor of the progressives, listen to the Obama supporters.
In all likelihood, by November, my candidate (Ron Paul) will be out of the race. If Hillary is your nominee, I'm not voting this year. If Obama is your nominee, I'll support him.
There are many more like me. Disenfranchise us, and the zealots (both left and right) will decide this election. No one wants that.
Tommi,
I hear you. To be honest, I don't quite get it why this blog, a haven of progressivism and objectiveness, is suddenly gripped with lofty feelings of hope and whatelse towards one candidate and mostly resentment towards another.
Let me be clear here: I like Barack Obama, wish him well and would be happy to have him as President. But the same is true with Hillary Clinton. Are they the best we could get? No effing way, of course. They're just the last two standing. They BOTH are career politicians. And Obama is just as capable of, say, strategic rhetoric. His speeches are not mere nobility of ideas but also thinly veiled attacks on Hillary. He's just very good at it.
So to me it's the quite sober question of: who will deliver? And, sorry guys, I think Obama is the bigger gamble. True, Hillary has committed some awful misjudgments during her time as senator. But they are all entirely within what can be expected of future presidential candidates. They watch able candidates like Mondale or Dukakis or Gore or Kerry go down because of one or two votes during their career - and they live in mortal fear of casting that one vote their Republican adversary will pull out of his sleeves come election time.
Is that a shame? You bet it is. Would Obama change it fundamentally? I don't believe it. He's just younger. And his short record as a senator is fine but not perfect.
To me Hillary seems more calculable. She knows that the times have changed. Rovian Republicanism is dead, progressivism is on the rise. And she once was a progressive, too. So I'm fairly confident that she will take this opportunity to bring some important changes until the likely right wing backlash of 2010 (which is in store for President Obama and Clinton).
And in his need to distance himself from "politics as usual" Obama has blurred the issues. She has pledged herself to universal health care - he has not (only sort of). She has pledged to repeal the Bush tax cuts and go back to the rates before Bush - he has only sort of. And so on. True, in case of Iraq she was waffling in the past but has seen the light (and read the mood of the country).
Again, she's not perfect. But Obama isn't, either. So please stop this idolizing. I for my part can't yet fathom how a President Obama would work. I have the impression that he considers it sufficient to provide some general direction. But that's not enough. I want someone to go down into the minute details. To make late night phone calls to senators unwilling to fall in line. I don't want President Obama to hold speeches in summer 2009 deploring his stalled initiatives in congress. Because, let's face it, stubborn senators don't give a damn.
Maybe I'm unfair and Obama will live up to the dire realities of Washington. But as of now I'm not sure.
"I am not arguing that we should support Obama for his charisma and inspirational ability alone."
I don't think you should be supporting him for his charisma and inspirational ability at all. It is a valuable trait to have in terms of elect-ability, but I do not agree that is a quality that would make him any more of a qualified leader for our country. If you prefer him because you think his charisma will help inspire people to vote for him over the Republican Candidate in the General Election, then fine! I totally agree with that as well, but I fail to agree that it will make him any more qualified for the job as President. It will tickle the Media and the average emotionally driven(yet uninformed) voter...but that's about all I see it doing.
Don't do what Bush did with Putin and "look into his eyes, and see his soul.", Judge the man on his record! Bush claimed to be a uniter as well remember? Talk is cheep!
Did anyone ever come up with an answer as to why he voted for the Patriot Act?...I would love to hear it.
Amen.
I think America would be significantly better off taking a risk with Obama instead of putting up with Hillary.
And really, it's not like Obama would, as President, do something horrible like deceive his country into to starting an illegal and disastrous war. And, unlike Hillary, Obama didn't go along with it when the previous president did just that.
Some people talk about Obama like he might go thermonuclear the minute he sets foot in the Oval Office, when really, Obama is far from a "risk" or an "unknown" compared to a fringer like Ron Paul, whose policies are anomalous on an international level.
Sheesh. No wonder Congress has a 90% encumbency rate, people are deathly afraid of anyone who isn't either obviously eccentric or 100% full of certified mainstream bullshit.
I love his stance on gay marriage as well, it's quite amusing...he will give gay couples ALL of the same rights that married straight couples have in this country, but he will NOT call it marriage? Seriously, why do we always have to be talked down to in this country like we're retarded?
Wait. I'm having one of them hetero-frenzy-attacks right now because the Schnapps I'm drinking is causing yet another dream of luscious white-male-dikes from the land of the two A’s: Arkansas and Alabama.
Zaphod for President... I hear you man. But... I got two issues with you. (All in fun!)
1) So... If Hillary gets the nomination you won't vote? Come on dude. Did you pout and moan on the floor (just like me) in the toy section of WalMart when mommy wouldn't buy you...? (Actually I pouted on the floor of a 5&Dime.) You know, I used to act (say things) like that but then I took jumping-ship to a levels. If only I could stand humble before my compatriots.
2) Dude. Leave the constitution out of this. This is an election year and we need a bit more creativity then the constitution can give us. I mean, come on, does the constitution actually need to be protected? Seriously? But if you must, come on, let’s have a look at it. Let’s feel it. Let’s smell it... This pretty-boy document that establishes nothing but the freedom of the corporation over individualism. The happy-go-luck paper that causes the privacy of women (in either her heartbreak or the high of her dream wedding) to be legally infringed upon just like the man-boys bent over a gurney in Guantanamo. And let's not forget the aesthetic value of our governing rules of engagement that so cautiously sanction the rape of what could be good from the God of Abraham. Oh, yeah, I'm impressed every time someone invokes the constitution. Anyone want to join me at a gun show in Reno? We can load up to protect our houses at the same time...
Gulp.
Time for a short play:
Tommi (at bar w/ one shot glass and a bottle of Ramazotti): Gulp. (Fill.) Gulp. (Ditto.) Gulp.
(Pause. Tommi attempts to internalize burp. As usual he fails. Turns to his left.)
Tommi: Hey baby. What's shaken? Come here often? What's your name?
Carl: Carl Bernstein.
Tommi: Oh yeah...
Carl: “We are in the process of creating what deserves to be called the idiot culture. Not an idiot sub-culture, which every society has bubbling beneath the surface and which can provide harmless fun; but the culture itself. For the first time, the weird and the stupid and the coarse are becoming our cultural norm, even our cultural ideal.”
Fade out.
The comfort-blanket of my expatriation is ever more soothing as I continue to miss my land and what it should have become.
Gulp.
-tgs-
That's all totally beside the point. Hillary wouldn't start a war and wouldn't go thermonuclear, either. Are you trying to convince me that Obama is better than Bush or McCain...? For the record: yes, of course he is. Don't take me for a fool, please.
In many ways this is a luxurious debate, premising that the Democrat will win in November, regardless of who he/she is. If Obama was significantly better suited to beat McCain, I wouldn't doubt a second to vote for him. I know that Obama supporters are making this case right now. But I think general election polls at this moment are deceiving. It is certainly not the best reason to back Obama - who may get swift boated like another "electability" champion not so long ago.
I'm talking pure domestic politics here. On this turf I'm leaning to Clinton. When it comes to foreign policy I give Obama the edge. But I don't think Hillary is that evil dangerous Bush clone some people on the left claim.
"For many of us on the progressive left, we might wish for a return to power in the progressive left, and a total defeat of the conservative right. I strongly believe that wish is not only unrealistic under the circumstances, it is dangerous and damages our ability to restore respect for our progressive ideals."
Exactly. This is spot on, I think: there is something un-progressive about the Bush-style of doing politics, and adopting it in the service of leftist ideals is a travesty of their real content (This remark seems deeply related, I think, to your other insight about holding leaders accountable and calling them on their mistakes: progressivism is not about the kind of Great Leader Worship that Bush inspires among our more deranged fellow citizens, where the slightest criticism is taken as somehow indicative of betrayal. It is the ability to inspire profound commitment to a great ideal that makes a leader great, and not the leader the ideal.
Tommi said: "At this point in life and history I don't care really as long as all conservatism is fought head on. I want conservatism made impotent. I want it on the brink of annihilation. I want it to dangle there with its extremities ripped off and kept artificially alive so that every thinker can place a speck of tar and one feather on it."
As I remarked yesterday, this is an understandable attitude, esp. after the Bush years, and a good reason to support Clinton. As I also tried to argue, I think it is a bit of fantasy which is ultimately self-defeating.
"His speeches are not mere nobility of ideas but also thinly veiled attacks on Hillary. He's just very good at it."
There is nothing "thin" about it: it is a direct, and, I think, legitimate, criticism of her. The kind of politics she favors just is what makes leaders like Bush possible when the pendulum swings the other way. It is the politics of shamelessness: lies, deliberate misstatement, smear-campaigns, forcing through your own agenda rather than working for it, passing legislation in secret, etc. Enough, I say: let us get off this absurd see-saw.
Oh please. I think Bill Clinton (1992) called it: "an end to the politics of character assassination". And George W. Bush (2000) called it: "the restoration of honor and dignity in the White House".
Catch phrases. Slogans. Rhetoric. Spare me.
I want policy. And then I decide who's most likely to provide it. Case closed. If Obama is the nominee, I'll back him. As long as I can still muse over him or her, I'm backing her. Slogans be damned.
"Catch phrases. Slogans. Rhetoric. Spare me."
It is not what a politician says but what they do. Obama has a reputation and a history of coalition building, and he has claimed, at any rate, to broadcast healthcare policy negotiations. As I have already explained, Hillary does not want this, and failed to learn from her previous healthcare efforts that transparency and negotiation are crucial here: it's as though she thinks she just wasn't good enough at playing dirty politics and needs to push harder next time.
Is Obama perfect? No, he's certainly not, but in worshipping policy, you've only substituted one putative slogan for another: so please, "spare me," provide an argument for a serious policy difference between Obama and Hillary other than healthcare, and tell me about how Hilary is going to mobilize the political will to get it done. So far as I can see, she sees it has her responsibility to do for leftist ideals what Bush did for the right: just force it through by whatever means, and don't discuss it with your "enemies," that is, anyone who disagrees, which is a "betrayal". When this fails, the result will be characteristically Clintonian: blame the Republicans for our own failures of leadership. It accomplishes nothing but self-pity and a moralistic tone of impotent resentment which I find unbearable. Perhaps fine material for a tragedy about how noble and beautiful our leftist sentiments really were but a travesty of political life.
I am sick of Obama being accused of "lacking substance," being "just rhetoric", and then hearing no argument on which issue. He has a different rhetoric than Hillary, but hers is still rhetoric, and none the more contentful, if not more coded: 'I am tough-minded' 'I'm a realist' 'I know how to get stuff done'. There simply is no evidence, and no reason, especially based on the "experience" she so loves to trumpet, to believe any of these assertions. Her vote for Iraq is what her "political realism" amounts to, which is to say, whatever happens to be convenient, and gives her the veneer of being "tough."
So fine: she talks a good game, which I've never denied, and she has superb policy ideas.
Call me mean or whatever but I have no desire to make nice with republicans. When Obama speaks of how he wants to bring people together it just sound awfully naive to me. I want many republican politicians in jail.
Isn't anyone still angry?
Anyway I will support the democratic nominee.
that Lawrence Lessig video link is the best I've ever seen on the question of Barack v. Hillary
wow. 'nuf said.
Interesting how we were asked why Obama and not make it about Hillary but the posts are basically either slagging Obama and Hillary? So if i am allowed to join in, if we are allowed to look at both Clintons records, If we are allowed to compare, Hilary does not have a history of uniting the country, in fact the Clinton administration i believe caused much of this right left schism and frankly have a documented history of openly lying to the american people. Sure the american people didn't need to know about Jennifer Flowers and Monica, who bloody well cares, but the Clintons (both of them) lied about them, attacked them personally, likely ruined their lives and just denied everything. Blamed "the right wing conspiracy" on all these things. The attack ads on Hilary will be so painful, and they won't have to even distort the truth. So if we are going on record of accomplishment, we have to look at the scandals and the embarrassments of Hillary in the past. By the way, I am curious what other folk think of the Sullivan article from the atlantic http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/obama, it kind of convinced me to vote Obama when I read it. By the way i will happily vote for Clinton, she is a great candidate, I just think that Obama can beat McCain, I also think a Clinton/Obama ticket might beat McCain, but i am not convinced a Clinton alone ticket has any hope.
"Call me mean or whatever but I have no desire to make nice with republicans. When Obama speaks of how he wants to bring people together it just sound awfully naive to me." from debaser71
Thank you! I don't want to make nice either. I'm outside the country looking in, deciding where I want to spend my life. I'm a progressive, super lefty, from the bay area, tree-hugger hippy, you get the picture. And when I look (from a country where, yes, there is universal health care) and I see that my countrymen still aren't demanding things like that, that, once again, we're going to settle for the moderate candidate, the "coalition builder", I get annoyed. (For the record, I'm not a Hillary fan either - out of the front runners, I was for Edwards)
I don't want to embrace the other side of the aisle so we can compromise on principles in making policy. I want them to know I'm pissed off. I want them to know I hold them (and quite a few Dems as well, let's be honest) responsible for screwing up my country so much that I don't know that i want to go back anymore.
I'm sitting in a country where the socialists are in power, and hearing Obama talk about giving someone a "choice" in Health Care (ie, the choice to go without, which means poor folks will choose to go without, not rich folks) I can't believe how far right our country is slanted in the world-wide political spectrum. Over here, even conservative politicians know they can't get away with attacking something that makes as much sense as universal health care.
Grrrr.....angry expat, considering other options...
Okay, now for what I see as a negative for Obama. This article discusses Obama's lead economic adviser, Austin Goolsbee, whose views are right of center or "left-libertarianism". And the fact that George Will approves of Goolsbee is of concern! lol
Well, sir, it's because some in this country are retarded. Right now in Utah, the new Mayor of SLC gave a certificate to same sex couples so they could apply for benefits. IN the state legislature, Chris Buttars wants to get rid of such a certificate, by law.
This is the same legislator who said this wasn't about rights, but about the "protection of marriage". Bull. This is about gay rights, and you MUST talk down to these religious freakozoids, because according to them, rights are only given to heterosexual church going christians.
Substantively, they are damn similar. That's why there isn't as much talk about that side of it. They have some policy differences, sure... but their policies and voting records are so similar you just can't make a decision based on that.
That's something to be grateful for, by the way. Whoever wins the nomination, we can expect to be represented by someone who shares our policy ideals at least as well - probably better - than anyone we have had running for our party in our lifetime.
So, policy-wise (and I think this is what most are saying when they say "substance"), if Hillary is good, so is Barack. Flip a coin. Or pick one of the minutae where they differ, and vote the tiny difference.
But there is more to "substance" for me than just policy. Clinton has shown poor judgment repeatedly in the area of international relations, where Obama has demonstrated remarkably sound judgment. That means a lot to me.
There are qualifications - I think those are "substantive". Who understands the issues intimately? Who can get the right things done? Who can cultivate a political landscape more conducive to future advances and less to having whatever progress we make now chipped away?
I am greatly impressed by Obama's qualifications as a Constitutional scholar, and by his chosen life's work organizing inner-city communities for positive and lasting change. I'm impressed by his accomplishments in the IL legislature on filming police interrogations and bringing in a better system of health-care. I'm impressed by his legislation bringing some transparency to the ear-mark process in Washington. He's demonstrated a commitment to rebuilding our society's funtional social element: the community. he's demonstrated an ability to get tough legislation passed in unfriendly waters.
So has Hillary. Despite her early failures, she helped get SCHIP passed. I'm sure that others could site other accomplishments she has to her credit. So, both are good on that score, even if I think Obama's record is somewhat stronger.
Finally, there is the unspeakable blot on his candidacy: his charisma and leadership. He is able to bring people into the process, coaxing them to make an personal investment. Everyone knows that having invested in the process, people are less likely to quit before the job is done, or to go along with a successor who wants to stop the progress or roll it back. This is bad, or at least that's what I hear. And what of his ability to engage leaders around the world, to renew cooperation between us and our erstwhile allies, and to forge new alliances around international policies that benefit both our own people and the people of foreign nations? Can we tolerate the possibility that his "charm" will be helpful in that area?
Sorry for the sarcasm, but I just want to point out that it can be short-sighted to ignore a person's personal abilities when considering their qualifications. I know if I am a businessperson selling a product, I'm more likely to hire someone who can connect to my customers and communicate his enthusiasm for the product than someone who cannot - even if the person who cannot has a small advantage in terms of product knowledge and experience in the industry. I think we should consider all aspects of the candidates' qualifications.
I hate to be the cynic here. But if you think that Obama will somehow be spared the same scorched-earth campaign that almost destroyed Bill Clinton and derailed John Kerry you are just delusional. The right, the Republicans will NEVER, that's N-E-V-E-R, cooperate with someone they're already smearing as "muslim extremist". I'm just stunned that after all these years of Gingrich-Bush terror, after impeachment, Enron, Iraq, FISA, Valerie Plame and Katrina there's s t i l l talk of bipartisanship.
What we need is no "talking" to the other side. We need 1 president, 218 representatives and 60 senators. Maybe 57 or 58 are enough, if we convince, say, Arlen Specter or, of all people, John McCain. Furthermore we need 5 supreme court judges. If you denounce this as "same old, same old" I don't know what you call politics.
If Obama can deliver these numbers I'm all for him. But please, Senator, skip the "talking to the other side" part. By "other side" I mean the Republican party, not "the other" electorate. President Obama should always try to reach out to them, of course. As should President Hillary Clinton.
But if Obama really believes his own talking points about somehow convincing Republicans we're in for a disaster. I sincerely hope that this is just rethoric, I really do.
My logic for choosing Obama is simple:
Do we really need another Bush or Clinton in the White House? Shouldn't we, America, be fearful and skeptical of political dynasties? After twenty years of two families in charge of our Executive Branch, shouldn't we AT LEAST consider it is time for a change?
Senators Clinton and Obama are, ideologically, not that far apart in my opinion to matter much who wins; I just want the Republicans out of our Executive Branch. However, I do not think this country needs another 4-8 years of a Clinton or Bush holding our highest office. We're not a Rome-like empire or a nation-state governed by hereditary monarchs, and we shouldn't reward dynastic governance in a citizen-based system. I think Obama will make a fine President and lead this country in the right direction. He won’t carry the massive baggage train that follows the Clinton dynasty either, and personally I think that’s a healthy alternative.
Republicans don’t have a chance of winning, so the choice is clearly between Senators Clinton and Obama. I choose Obama. I urge everyone to at least consider what I am saying here. You don’t have to agree, but you should at least recognize that a TRUE change means casting aside the two families who have been running our Executive Branch since 1989.
And that's my 2 cents today.
In a post Edwards world I'm still very torn, but after a few weeks leaning Clinton, I nudged over to Obama. This analysis from Lawrence Lessig helps sum up the main reasons I'm now supporting Obama: http://blip.tv/file/647623
smijer,
Thank you for some soberness. That's the sort of argument that gives me pause. And hope, in case Hillary doesn't get the nomination.
mat_scheck1,
Sorry, but this dynasty thing is getting old. It only sticks if you think Hillary is the same as GWB. Which is just plain nonsense. Policywise even the difference between Hillary and Bill Clinton is probably bigger than the difference between Hillary and Obama.
re: dynasties... Yes, we should be skeptical of them, but not especially so on the grounds of candidates' last names or familial relations. We have an aristocratic power structure here that institutionalizes big money and political "connections". We can't end dynastic rule here if we focus on the familial relationships between the dynastic rulers, rather than the economic and political relationships between them. That's why this Obama supporter doesn't play the dynasty card.
"but in worshiping policy, you've only substituted one putative slogan for another: so please, "spare me," provide an argument for a serious policy difference between Obama and Hillary other than health care, and tell me about how Hilary is going to mobilize the political will to get it done."
First of all, Bush was elected, and re-elected, because people liked/feared his rhetoric and paid no attention to his policies.
So when anyone says "worshiping policy" is a bad thing I only have to ask them to look around to see what happens when you vote style over substance.
As for Obama uniting Congress to get things done, well what does that really mean? Right now policy has been very conservative, very right wing. If Obama "unites" with these people what kind of compromise do you think you are going to get?
What about Clinton, will she be very partisan, will she be able to "get things done"? Well I hope she is, because we have a lot of clawing back from this hole the right had dug in our liberties and the mess they've created abroad in our name. As for getting it done, Congress is likely to be strongly Democratic after Nov., so both Obama and Clinton would not be fighting Congress but setting the policy that a Democratic congress would be choosing. I'd rather have Clinton setting that policy.
Further, health care is enough of a policy difference, because it is the single most important thing that will effect us as a nation. Clintion will fight the good fight tooth and nail against the insurance lobby, because she has herd the Edward's message and knows that thats what people want. And she'll fight to get everyone covered. Obama, he will compromise, and there is no room for compromise on this issue anymore. Those that think the war is more important need to look beyond it, because it is over already and just a matter of time before the troop start coming home, the people have spoken and whoever gets in office they will have to bring them home.
Now I like Obama, and I will vote for him in the general if he is the nominee, but I like the details in Clinton's policies more and will vote for her.
I'd really like to see a Clinton/Obama ticket and see how Obama does as VP. Then, if he lives up to his hype vote him in as the Presedent in 2016.
"This article discusses Obama's lead economic adviser, Austin Goolsbee, whose views are right of center or "left-libertarianism"."
Some forms of left-libertarianism are pretty compelling. There is a left-wing critique of some aspects of the welfare state just as ther is a (very different) right-wing critique. It's not just veiled plutocracy or "popular capitalism". Obama is clearly left; but I like the fact that he is considering solutions beyond the standard solution of piling program upon program. His ideas should be judged on their merits, but I think he is very different from Bill Clinton, who was content (or had no other choise than) to meet the right at some midway point.
Sorry, but this dynasty thing is getting old.
To whom? You? The mouse in your pocket? I think it's on the minds of millions of voters and isn't "old" to them either. So for you to wave it off flippantly is your opinion, fine, but it certainly doesn't mean millions of others are not concerned.
We have an aristocratic power structure here ....
No we don't. We have MERITOCRATIC power structure. People rise to the top based on merit, both in government and private industry; look at Bill & Hillary, whose credentials reek of the meritocracy: great colleges, Yale Law, etc. Neither came from Old Money or the aristocracy. You should know the difference because it is obvious you don't. And it is a big difference. The net result is a sort of aristocracy of the meritocracy in the case of the Clintons, and hence my concern of dynasties.
We can't end dynastic rule here if we focus on the familial relationships between the dynastic rulers, rather than the economic and political relationships between them.
Huh? Hillary has risen to where she is SOLELY because of her familial relationship to Bill. So I think what I am saying makes sense. I DO focus on the familial relationships as much as the economic and political. And in this case the familial ties to a previous administration are a cause of alarm for me with Senator Clinton, and it's why I choose Obama. Whether you agree or not is fine, but please do not castigate me for thinking this way with what are fairly weak counter-arguments.
Hey, thanks everyone for the great discussion. I will try to respond to as many as I can, but it may take a few days. Between my day job and doing my share of caring for two young children, I don't have time to respond to all as soon as I would like.
On civil-unions vs. "marriage". I have a very good friend who is a Republican & Christian who will vote for Obama. He is very smart, pro-science, and in nearly all ways a rational & clear thinker. But in his mind, the term "marriage" is a sacred, religious term. I pointed out to him that the 1st amendment requires that the government use the term "marriage" in only a secular way. His response was that he'd prefer that the government stop using the term, and only officially recognize civil unions, leaving churches to perform marriages.
Hey, that works for me! Of course, I'd love to see how the myriad religious sects figure out how they will recognize with other sects perform valid marriages, and which ones don't. No doubt there would be quite a few liberal churches going into the business of allowing gay couples to add "marriage" to their civil union.
Note that I recognize that my friend is not representative of most Christians in the U.S. today. One of the reasons I support Obama is that merely by setting an example, he can shift the pendulum of religious ideology in the U.S. back towards a more liberal Christianity.
"Sorry, but this dynasty thing is getting old."
Sure it is, lets give up the two party system and have a two royal family system.
I find it curious that so many are critical of Obama for getting some of his vote from those that are inspired by his speeches yet I don't hear similar distaste for all the votes Hillary gets from having a familiar last name. Name recognition is the vestige of the most uninformed voters of all.
That's what I call a mouthful.
So, which is it, meritocracy or aristocracy? "A sort of aristocracy of the meritocracy"..? Please. In their true form, the two are mutually exclusive, by definition. What you are saying is that Bill and Hillary got to where they are because they were clever, got the right scholarships (or in the case of Hillary: had fairly wealthy parents) and were hard-working students and politicians. Where exactly is the problem with that?
Wife and husband are not a dynasty, you know. Of course, she is where she is because of her relationship to Bill. But I think he once said, that actually it's more the other way round: He is where he is because of her.
Don't compare their career to George Dubya, a lazy student, lousy "entrepreneur" and generally superficial human being who only got ahead because of his daddy. That's aristocracy, you know.
The only thing I'm saying is: To me "dynasty" is just no valid point. Period.
...yet I don't hear similar distaste for all the votes Hillary gets from having a familiar last name. Name recognition is the vestige of the most uninformed voters of all.
Damn right. It's the "branding" of politics. Americans are hooked on brand names and symbols. Ask any marketing director how effective this is in getting the masses to buy into something if a product has a simple and familiar ring to its name.
Please. In their true form, the two are mutually exclusive, by definition.
No they are not. Meritocrats come from all levels of society. Aristocrats ONLY come from wealth and power. Bill Clinton was not born with a silver spoon in his mouth, while John Kerry and George W. Bush were. Jeez. Big difference right there.
What you are saying is that Bill and Hillary got to where they are because they were clever, got the right scholarships (or in the case of Hillary: had fairly wealthy parents) and were hard-working students and politicians. Where exactly is the problem with that?
I didn't say there was a problem with that. I was merely pointing out the difference between a meritoicracy and aristocracy, and cited that the Clintons hail from the former, not the latter. I merely said there's a problem with another Clinton in the White House, not what socio-economic level from which they emereged. Once again, JEEZ.
Your reading comprehension skills seems to be blocked by your selective perception.
Come on, this would have been right in 2007. Today I'm pretty sure Barack Obama has 99-100% name recognition. But go ahead, If you think I'm backing Clinton because I'm to dumb to learn a new name, be my guest.
Frenchfries said: "But if you think that Obama will somehow be spared the same scorched-earth campaign that almost destroyed Bill Clinton and derailed John Kerry you are just delusional."
Of course that is what will happen. What is delusional is to believe that counter-smear is the appropriate or productive response to this. WE HELP the crazies like Anne Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O'Reilly by according them acknowledgement and reducing ourselves to their level. What we need to do is marginalize them (because they are, no doubt, insane). Obama is masterful at this: watch all the debates, when an evident rightist absurdity arises, he makes a joke and gets a laugh. He doesn't become resentful and lose his composure, nor does he attack back: he treats it as beneath him and worthy of ridicule. Hillary, on the other hand, wants to go on Fox and have it out with the crazies: that strikes me as naive.
And in any case, for all your hatred of "Republicans" you talk just like they do: that all of them are the same, like some Platonic form, you identify the most extreme fridge as constituting their essence, and all you can talk about is "revenge". I'm sorry but that's Coulter and Limbaugh talk. But Bush has alienated many within his own party--it is those people, not the crazies, that we can perhaps work with.
Finally, you have not addressed my argument about political will, and that, it seems to me, is the central issue.
"The only thing I'm saying is: To me "dynasty" is just no valid point. Period."
Sure it is. Hillary returning to the white house would put all the same people back in power that worked for her husband and would do that in part based on her last name and his success as president. If Bill was never Gov or Pres, then, at best, Hillary Clinton would be a 1 term senator and a corporate lawyer. Not a popular combination. Sure she was a part of his successes.
Dende,
Thanks for your response. It is views such a these which no doubt help Obama in attracting more independents to vote for him. I'll have to read up more on "left-libertarianism". I recall reading that the neo-cons were an outgrowth of the left-libertarian movement and that concerns me. However, nothing Obama has said sounds anything at all like a neo-con. One of his military advisers is Zbigniew Brzezinski, who has been an outspoken opponent of the war in Iraq. He is also speaking out against a U.S. strike on Iran. Although, there are many other aspects of Brzezinski that I don't approve of. Also, it's very disappointing that Obama didn't even vote on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment. That was inexcusable. (Although he claims that he would have voted "nay" And yet Hillary actually voted "yea". That's even more inexcusable.
However, Madeleine Albright is a top military advisor for Hillary Clinton and I'm no more impressed with her than I am with Brzezinski. In fact, she's worse than Brzezinski in that she supported the war in Iraq from the beginning.
Not you frenchie, but some people, yes. Much of her national lead came from name rec. That was at times 20-30 points and lead the press to spend less time talking about Obama and Edwards
I doubt Obama has 100% quite yet.
Oh, my bad. At the end of the article Albright qualifies what she said on page one.
Adam,
I never talked about revenge, I never said I hated Republicans. Don't put words in my mouth. And I don't talk about their "fringe" but about their representatives and senators in Washington. Maybe you've been in hibernation since 1994.
What you call "political will" for enacting President Obama's measures must come from the Democrats. It will never come from the Republicans (in Washington). That's all I'm saying.
mat,
I'm tired of this argument. Decide for yourself. Merriam-Webster definitions:
"meritocracy: 1 : a system in which the talented are chosen and moved ahead on the basis of their achievement 2 : leadership selected on the basis of intellectual criteria"
"aristocracy: 1: government by the best individuals or by a small privileged class 2 a: a government in which power is vested in a minority consisting of those believed to be best qualified b: a state with such a government 3: a governing body or upper class usually made up of a hereditary nobility 4: the aggregate of those believed to be superior"