My Blink: We Need Barack Obama

My "blink" is that we need Barack Obama. We're lucky to have a transformational candidate, and we damn well better take advantage of that luck.

When I look at the biggest problems facing us, I think of

1.) Global Warming/Climate Change
2.) the need for alternative, non-oil-coal energy sources (related clearly)
3.) dealing with Islamic Extremism

When you look at those three issues, imagine how hard it is going to be to a) figure out solutions and b) bring the American public along.

And that's where Obama comes along. He is inspiring. He has a gift for moving people when he speaks. Maybe not everyone in the country, but more than just Democrats.

I don't have children or grandchildren, and I'm hoping to be gone before the out-of-whack weather really whacks us. (Though it's sure happening way faster that anyone expected.)

There's no question we have to decrease our use of oil and replace it, somehow, with something else. And cooperate with the world about it, and try to force China and India to decrease their oil use and switch to some alternative as well. How we do that and changed to what I don't know -- that's why I long for national leadership.

Now imagine the next president dealing with any of this.

If you've watched any of Obama's speeches (I've watched his winning in Iowa speech, and his even better one after winning in South Carolina), you know he can inspire. I have not felt that in a national leader in a very, very long time.

And that ability to inspire and conjure up the bigger picture is what caused Caroline Kennedy's poignant and powerful endorsement.

Senator Hillary Clinton is not inspiring, and never will be. Even those who adore her must realize that. She is good at specifics, she keeps lots of specifics in her brain, and I think she (like Bill, who's turned into her second head lately, or her albatross or something) knows the game of give and take and how to manipulate or massage the senators around you to get some stuff done.

But that's not going to be enough for those problems I mentioned. We need bold action, and an inspiring leader to get us to take the action, make the sacrifice.

And about the third issue -- what to do with the Islamic radicals who kill for religious beliefs, an issue that is crying out for creative solutions, not namby-pamby ones but, Lord God, not more of this sabre-rattling and invading countries that GW Bush and all the Republican candidates except Ron Paul seem so enamored of -- well on that issue, I'm very troubled by Clinton.

She voted to give Bush the blank check to go to war -- and she can try to talk her way out of it, claiming it was only a vote for him to send inspectors back. And yet she also voted against the Levin bill that would have required the President to return to the Congress for another vote before actually going to war.

Here's Tim Russert and Hillary on that issue on Meet the Press on January 13, 2008. (And they had a nearly identical exchange on Meet the Press several months ago.)

MR. RUSSERT: I want to stay with your vote because that same day, Senator Levin offered an amendment, the Levin amendment, and this is how the New York Times reported it. "The [Levin] amendment called ... for the U.N. to pass a new resolution explicitly approving the use of force against Iraq. It also required the president to return to Congress if his U.N. efforts failed." ... Senator Levin said, "Allow Congress to vote only after exhausting all options with the United States." You did not participate in that vote. You voted against Carl Levin, who was saying give diplomacy a chance and yet you said no. You voted to authorize war. The resolution you voted for, Robert Byrd said was a blank check for George Bush. Ted Kennedy says it was a vote for war. James Carville and Paul Begala said anyone who says that vote wasn't a vote for war is bunk.

SEN. CLINTON: Well, Tim, if I had a lot of paper in front of me, I could quote people who say something very differently, so I know you're very good at this and I respect it, but let's look at the context here. Number one, the Levin amendment, in my view, gave the Security Council of the United Nations a veto over American presidential power. I don't believe that is an appropriate policy for the United States, no matter who is our president.
[phrase put in bold by me]

Now I object to that argument. The "we can't let the U.N. dictate to us" is a Bush-Republican talking point. And it's a misreading of the Levin amendment, I think; and Hillary shouldn't be parroting it. And if she is, then I judge her for it.

The Levin amendment sounds to me that it was saying that once the president has gone to the U.N. (as he agreed), if the U.N. didn't agree with his position that the danger from Iraq was imminent and required preemptive attack, that the president then must RETURN TO THE CONGRESS so that they then can reassess, and either say "yes go to war" or "no, don't go to war." That thing that supposedly the Congress has the right to do -- to declare war.

I understood this as a private citizen back at the time, and I don't buy that Hillary didn't.

So she either agreed with Bush, which worries me; or she was busy concocting her "I must seem strong on national defense for when I run for president" stance.

During the build-up to the war, it was clear to me (again as a citizen) that Bush, Cheney, Condoleeza, Rumsfeld were trying to convince us, indeed sell us, on this war.

I mean, the inspectors were in there. I didn't believe for a second that Saddam was going to suddenly attack the United States while the inspectors were there, while the whole world was watching.

So I was very bothered by the "blank check" authorization that was passed.

And it was clear to me that a lot of Democrats voted for that because they were afraid not to -- Bush still had strong popularity, and his administration's television assault of going "Danger! Danger! Danger!" worked with much of the public.

So many Democrats were afraid to seem weak on defense -- an issue that keeps dogging them, and they should move on from to more creative ways to respond to the Islamic threat.

[Hostile language or action that humiliates Muslims is innately self-destructive, it makes them furious. It doesn't make them go: "Oh, I'm scared of the United States." It makes them go: "Oh yeah? Now I want to kill you even more."]

But what was Hillary's motivation for voting for the authorization? Mostly she keeps saying her vote was to encourage Bush to use diplomacy. But listen to how Russert rebutted that argument, after she insisted she didn't vote for going to war:

MR. RUSSERT: The title of the act was The Authorization For Use of Military Force Against Iraq resolution.

Pretty good rebuttal, huh?

Listen to what Obama said about the decision to invade Iraq the same week as the authorization (quoted from the same Meet the Press link as above):

Obama: "I know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors. ... I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that ... invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale... without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than the best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars."

That statement is pretty damn smart, and seems to see what was ahead for us, and what we're now mired in.

I'm getting bogged down talking about Hillary. I will vote for her over McCain or Romney.

(McCain has authenticity, but he is also authentically in favor of our continued use of warfare in the Middle East, and I think that's dangerous and hopeless. And if people find Hillary calculating, I find Romney nightmarishly a Stepford candidate. Not a thing he says sounds real (especially when he chatters on about The Family), and he has indeed changed positions in an unconvincing manner.)

But though I will vote for Hillary if she's the nominee, I so hope my fellow citizens will choose Obama who offers real change, and who can inspire.

Obama does only okay in sound bytes, so if you haven't seen a full speech by him, please seek one out online. (Here are links to the Iowa speech and the South Carolina speech.) I especially liked the South Carolina win speech, which I saw live.

I know I've left out "what are the solutions to our problems" because that would make this posting endless, and the solutions are hard to pin down.

But I know what we're doing now isn't working. We need creative thoughts about energy and oil and climate change (and we have to work with people in the world, unlike the Decider who's wasted 7 years).

And we need cleverness in dealing with the Islamic threat -- we can't just threaten all the time. We have to work with (and strengthen?) the moderates. And the moderate Islamists must help to counter the ideology of the extremists -- they need our support in that task. Young Muslims growing up must hear other interpretations of Islam. Just attacking and humiliating the Muslim world does not create the space for alternative religious interpretation.

But, again if you have children or grandchildren, think seriously how these problems can be addressed and made better.

I urge you to think about Barack Obama's ability to lead by the clarity and stirring nature of his communication.

We haven't had a leader who can lead by inspiration since I was 12 (when John F. Kennedy was killed).

Don't lose this opportunity.

Comments

[sky2evan]

Mr. Durang:

Agree with most of what you said, except for your introduction:

1.) Global Warming/Climate Change
2.) the need for alternative, non-oil-coal energy sources (related clearly)
3.) dealing with Islamic Extremism

We have problem #3 precisely because of problem #2, which in turn originally created problem #1.

All serious problems in the world today are interconnected... as we all are.

The only reason why we are in oil-rich Iraq and threatening oil-rich Iran is because of oil (there is no other rational reason why we are in Iraq, when the so-called terrorists are in Afghanista­n-Pakistan­).

Another reason is because of our unquestioning & unconditional support of Israel, #1 receipient of US financial & military foreign aid. We are the enemy in the Middle East because they see their Palestinian neighbors being killed by US-supplied F-15s, F-16s, Apache helicopters, "smart bombs", and other high-tech weapons... used against poverty-level people armed with AK-47s, homemade bombs, and RPGs.

Anybody pushed to the extreme - becomes extreme.

So we must accept responsibility for being the pushers in this case.

Unfortunately, Ms. Clinton is a pro-AIPAC warhawk, which is why nothing improved in the Middle East during the First Clinton Presidency.

[DazedandConfused]

I'd like to think Hillary is the best candidate. After all, I'm a woman so I guess I should feel some kinship w/ her. But I don't. If Hillary had taken her loss in Iowa in stride and continued to forge on -- under the assumption that the American people would eventually come around and recognize her experience -- I'd probably be a Hillary supporter. But what did she do? She got her former President husband to go play dirty poltics for her. As a woman, I find that pathetic. She needs to fight her own battles. If she's not up to that, she doesn't deserve to be President. (And Hillary's attempt at equating Bill Clinton and Michelle Obama as "passionate spouses" is completely ridiculous. Bill was the former President (and he may want to try to remember that as he trashes Obama). That's like equating a weekend golfer and Tiger Woods.)

[OhgReaTone]

You are correct - the biggest challenge is bringing everyone in this country on board. Obama is the right person at the right time.
Ohg
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/01/29/a-sense-of-hope-a-sense-of-destiny-kennedy/

[RMHK]

I hope Obama doesn't end up like JFK, but I have worried about it.

[DazedandConfused]

Let's face it, folks. Hillary and Obama are offering pretty much the same domestic policies. Some differences, but quite similar. If you haven't heard Obama talk in specifics, go to his web site. It's there.
In terms of foreign policy as well as the overall "process," I think there will be pretty big differences. I'd like to think that Hillary would be appropriate / rational in her foreign policy, but her vote for the Bush resolution was a vote for war. She can try and "spin" her decision or characterize it as something other than a vote for war, but EVERYONE in the news media was labeling it as a vote for war. Did she not bother to read a newspaper or turn on the TV? She acts like she was in a bubble making the decision w/o any context/pe­rspective. (Plus, if you want to check this out... Saddam agreed to the inspectors going in days BEFORE the vote was taken so her inspector rationale is total BS.) She didn't want to be perceived as weak on foreign policy (because she was planning to run for President and didn't want that held against her in case the war was a "success"). Well, I'd like someone with a little more personal integrity who is willing to do what is right -- not what is perhaps politically expedient to her own career. There is absolutely NO justification for her vote. Sorry. It's not a matter of the war being planned/fought badly and irresponsibly. The war was a bad foreign policy move. There was no direct provocation, and invading Iraq would throw off the balance of power in the Middle East. If she was unable to see that, then she shouldn't be elected President.

[RationalDem]

Thank you for articulating so clearly what needs to be said, before Feb. 5 primary voting. I hope everyone considers carefully their vote and gives it to Obama.

[cormudgeon]

I am amazed as I watch this campaign. I see the Obama campaign engaging in numerous "dirty tricks" and then see Hillary being blamed.

Obama is indeed an inspiring speaker when delivering a prepared speech. However, his solutions to the problems confronting our nation, on those few occasions when he actually presents something, are very weak.

The bottom line is if I wanted Tony Robbins to be president, I would write him in. Tony is also a very inspiring speaker but would make a terrible president.

Obama does not say much other then try to inspire people to do something. The something is never really defined other than as returning power to the people. This would be nice if the people were sitting in congress voting, unfortunately they are not. Perhaps he means that the people would write and call their representatives to influence their vote? Great, but not workable for most issues, that is why we have elections and elect politicans to represent us, the people.

We may need inspiration, but more than that we need a president who can deal with the issues confronting our nation directly without waiting for a vote from the people who are largely uninformed and incapable of understanding the issues apart from what demogagic message is presented to them.

[Star123]

I haven't seen or heard enough to decide if Obama is a sort of snippy backbencher with a good speechwriter or can really govern. Hillary is wonky enough to govern, anyhow. She seems to want to, though heaven knows why. We just had a transformational president--he transformed our country and to some degree, our precious Constitution, into a mess. I am not comparing Obama to Bush--no comparison--but transformation is not good per se. As for Carolyn Kennedy Schlossberg suddenly popping up. She is not a political figure. She was a little child when her father died. I don't mean to dismiss her sorrow, but many of us went through more with her father than she did. Now--we are supposed to listen to what she says? How does she know if Obama is like her father? I worked for Kennedy--I am not working for Obama, though if he is the nominee, I will happily vote for him over Grampy McCain.

[AnnoyedCanuck]

"Transformational leadership"?

Transform to what, exactly? What does this man stand for?

Audacity, Change and Hope are very nice words. But they aren't attached to anything specific.

As Paul Krugman has stated (quoted by warpspeed above), Obama's economic and health-care policies are NOT transfomative. They are cautious, conventional, even conservative.

Where's the beef?

[SouthpawSass]

Okay, last nights debate: I thought Obama did well, Clinton did well also. The "Bill" factor is playing in and I don't think she answered the question on whether or not she would reel him in very well. I also didn't like how she explained her vote against the Levin bill. Obama is a nice guy plus he's left handed. I'm left handed. We lefties are discriminated against because everything is made for right handed people. Obama could see the world from my angle, therefore, I'm slightly moving towards Obama... ever so slightly...

[KaAp]

The Clinton's were not transformational they were corrupt, cynical and corporately owned wonks, they alienated the more progressive portions of the Democratic party, it was their ethical lapses (eg Monica Lewinsky etc) that may have helped put Bush in the white house. Her health care plan failed. The Gingrich Revolution happened because of Clinton.
I support Obama not because he is an empty suit as one person wrote here but because he has nuanced sophisticated and sensible policy plans.
He does not pander, and he is not divisive ... on the contrary he can and will act as a transformational agent to heal the nation since as divided and divisive as we are now and may certainly even be more with a Clinton presidency again ... we cannot move forward, prosper as a nation, we can only bicker and in-fight.

[Geovan]

There is nothing transformational in Obama.

Kucinich laid out action plans to tackle real problems, and Edwards shunned lobbyist money while propounding anti-corporate influence in government. Obama has campaign writers, who are paid with lobbyist money, develop poll driven talking point plans. Things will not change despite the opiate rhetoric.

[GiggidyGeshmoygen]

EARMARKS - CLINTON VS. OBAMA (Part1of2)

Earmarks have a real impact on expanding the budget deficit by billions of dollars every year. And as part of the earmarks industry, lobbyists are hired to obtain the billions of dollars at stake. Washington now has almost 35,000 registered lobbyists, more than double the number in 2000 when George Bush became President.

Hillary Clinton's position is that lobbyists are an integral part of the democratic process and should remain so. Meanwhile, Ryan Alexander, President of Taxpayers for Common Sense, noted on Bill Moyers' website: "the earmarking process is a breakdown in democratic decision-making in the Congress."

John McCain, who has a strong record of attacking earmarks and government waste, declared during a Republican presidential debate on October 21, 2007, "I have fought against out-of- control and disgraceful spending that's been going on and I have saved the American people as much as $2 billion at one stroke... I will have this debate and win because she is a liberal Democrat and I am a proud, reliable, consistent conservative Republican."

In the fiscal 2008 omnibus appropriations bill, Hillary Clinton received 261 earmarks, more than five times the number of any other presidential candidate. Keith Ashdown, research director for the Taxpayers for Common Sense, told the Los Angeles Times that "Clinton has made aggressive use of the pay-to-play earmark game" and received 360 earmarks worth $2.2 billion from 2002 to 2006. This record establishes her as by far the worst abuser of earmarks among all presidential candidates in both parties.

In the fiscal 2008 defense authorization bill, Clinton pushed for more war-related earmarks than any other senator except the chair of the Armed Services Committee. Clinton received 26 earmarks worth about $148.4 million... Clinton has been particularly active in obtaining earmarks for defense companies in New York, helping them sidestep the normal competitive system for contractors. She's also raised more than $270,000 for her campaigns from these defense contractors. By contrast, Obama had only one earmark, requested with several other senators, to help children with severe disabilities.

[ResidentChimp]

Liberals always think talking is more powerful than actions. No matter what labels you want to annoint Obama with he doesn't compare to the truly great men and women of history.

[filmunas]

Among Chris Durang's three "biggest problems" facing our country is "dealing with Islamic Extremism." I find this way of thinking about other people and cultures quite abhorrent. Humans respond to other humans, and the way some muslim people respond to us could be a reaction to American Extremism.