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

[Politicalpuck]

We need Obama now like we needed George W. Bush in 2000.

Bush had zero foreign policy experience and promised to "unite" the country because he was a "Uniter."

Same dog, different party eight years later. If Obama wins the nomination, I'm voting for John McCain and will do everything in my power to elect him.

[lawguy]

Islamic extremism? Sorry, but what we need to deal with is religious extremism of all types (e.g. Israel, the U.S., Pakistan, et al.).

[raker]

I agree with the appraisal of Hillary, but the search for an inspirational symbolic figure is what produced this list of rotten choices. It was cast by the networks like a cheesy TV movie about a presidential election.

The War Hero (and warmongering old conservative who may be nuts.)

The Handsome Mormon (and scarily artificial congenital liar.)

The Woman (and ironically, the entrenched, cynical old pol.)

The Charming Black Man (and...who knows? Does he have political courage? Integrity? We have no way of knowing. The inspirational guy is also the new guy.)

[paixa3]

Mr. Durang: I must disagree with you. A kind poster listed the contributions from most to least for Obama and Hillary. There is virtually no significant difference.

They are OWNED by the establishment. If you think that the ESTABLISHMENT is going to change anything positive for America, then you are a much better dreamer than I.

[BeyondKen]

Chris, I forgive you this one time. But only cuz you wrote "Kitty The Waitress".

[vsign]

Yes - this could be the most exciting election in a long time. But I'm really worried, not excited, about the possible outcome. I used to think that I could not trust anyone over 30, because they must have sold out. Now I don't trust anyone under 30 to vote, because they must have sold out. Sold out? - sold out their ability to think and giving in to the media messages they carry around in their pockets like little red books.

[vsign]

Young people unite and do away with the old people! Tear down the bridge to the past and follow me! I will deliver the power to you, you so deserve.

Who said this?

[Serfie]

There really is no point in discussing Obama with a true believer. The true believing Obama supporter is part of the same market who is brainwashed by the ads on TV, ready and willing to buy the pharmaceuticals, the fast food and the get rich quick schemes. The same market that has bought into and internalized 16 years of relentless right-wing hate and MSM propaganda about the Clintons.

Typically, the Obama supporters are so enthralled with the emotions Obama gives them--just like TV commercials-- they don't bother to look at an actual agenda. What really stands behind the marketing and rhetoric? The Obamanista doesn't care, as long as he or she feels good. Give me the candidate who says we need to work hard to overcome our problems over the "Morning in America" "Mr. Sunshine" candidate any day. Maybe I come from an America days gone by, where hard work, integrity and substance were notable traits of the American character.

RE: Islamic Extremism

I have lived and worked in the Middle East.

The problems between the US and the Muslim world have little to do with US policy.

Wars have been occurring the Muslim world and the infidel world for 1300 years, long before the US was ever a country.

If the US and Israel disappeared from the face of the planet tomorrow, there will always be Muslims trying to kill infidels.

It is happening now in Thailand, for example. Thailand is a tolerant Buddhist country and the Muslims are killing harmless Buddhist monks and school teachers with impunity.

This notion that we should hold hands and sing Kumbaya with terrorists who seek to destroy western civilization is naive.

[plutorage]

Chris, how can you talk of inspirational leadership of Obama while, as the president of NOW puts it, Hilary is being "gang banged"?

[GrandmaSue]

So many against Obama write as though he is saying he will make everything better. I keep hearing him saying that what is in front of us is going to be very difficult and require a change of method (yes that word change). Changing how we do things is difficult enough in our personl lives and will be ever so much more difficult on a national level. I hear him say we are going to need to do this together, that WE will need to do the WORK with him. No candidate has to tell me there is sacrifice in front of us to clean up the mess of the past. I interpret from what he says to mean that we can't have these 48%/52% (narrow)splits any longer and acheive the change we need. I never hear him imply that he is perfect or knows everything. I believe my work to implement my Democratic beliefs will have more effect with an Obama presidency.

[vale409]

"Inspiring" is all fine and dandy.....­......but can he do it?

[ljsfolly]

I aslo remember JFK and I felt as just a kid that he cared about me, my health and well being. He had the physical ed challenges for us to work to achieve levels of health no one had cared about then. He spoke to us all when he spoke. I have lost all hope of having that again for even though Barack is running a fine race and he speaks of hope and healing the divide between us I fear Hillary will lie scheme and bully her way past him. My friends in Fla said their internet was flooded by emails from all kinds of sources including gov computers about Obama the muslim. Hillary used surrogates to campaign there and she campaigned herself before the polls closed in private parties. Then claimed victory. I lost my dinner. I will never forget as I just told moveon that she had within reach the real intel on Iraq with the truth spelled out in it and failed to read it before she handed bush the first blank check for war. She then sided with Kyle Lieberman and on and on. At least when Barack voted to fund the war he did so to help give the soldiers what he felt they needed to stay safe and come home. She is just four more years of bush and after 4 years ago when people came out brain dead and voted AGAIN for bush I don't trust Barack has a chance.

[Xrepug]

I see your a big Obama fan. I see he uses the slogan "Change we can believe in" Just what is it he's going to change or is that an empty slogan. I honestly haven't heard him say what it is he's going to change. I tend to believe he's no better than the other bought politicians. Another thing I find disturbing is his YouTube Video.
www(dot)yo­utube(dot)­com/watch?­v=sVeFVtcd­SYY
or google Obama Sex tape

[Buddhabman]

Chris, Thanks for your thoughtful appeal for people to vote for Barack Obama. I just hope all of these doubter's will just look at the website and read his policy plans. Take a closer listen to his speeches where he talks about policies.

Obama has only been in the Senate 3 years yet he has been instrumental in campaign reform, working with John McCain. What had Fred Thompson done in his years in the Senate. What legislation has Hillary been a significant part of.

He has garnered senior Senate and House of Reps support, they don't through their support behind rookies. They know his horse can run. They know he is going to bring people out to vote for Senate races, House Races and State races.

The guy is a political heavyweight already, look he is neck and neck with the biggest, baddest political machine their is in the Clinton's. That says something. That means he is not an empty suit.

Look at the policy wonks behind Obama, his health care plan, and education plan, Iraq withdrawal plan weren't whipped out of his a$$. There are plenty smart people behind Obama, who have discussed the process and probability of getting these types of plans passed. Several ex Joint Chiefs, Waren Buffet, Sen. Tom Daschle, very strong people with common sence about policy. Obama will have the same level of talent in his White house as Hillary and far better than any Republican.

Hillary is fine I will be on the bus if she wins, but Obama is electable and far more inspiring. I don't want to rehash the old, I want to work towards the new.

Move forward or look backwards. You decide.

Obama 08

[Herrington]

Lots of cynicism here about Obama, Clinton too, but Clinton is a known quantity.

Both are probably neo-liberal. As Kucinich demonstrated, that is our only viable choice for a general election.

Looking at the tone of discussions, here and elsewhere, Clinton is the cynic's candidate it appears. It is postulated that she is a pragmatic politician who can play hard ball within the framework of the gridlocked national debate. And in truth, full blown gridlock has been with us since 1994.

There seem to be claims that Clinton has more specifics than Obama. It doesn't seem that way to me. To me it seems Clinton makes unsupportable claims that she has specifics and Obama make unsupportable claims of consensus building.

Either candidate will experience massive resistance form the entrenched powers, legislative and lobbying. Moreover, Republicans WANT gridlock. Government is the enemy.

So examine, in a theoretical sense, which style of leadership is most likely to prevail over the well known enemy. Tough, LBJ style, bargaining and leveraging a proposal or moving the public to put pressure on legislators on a proposal?

I would say that the LBJ style has been the order of the day since at least 1994. It has produced hardly anything. LBJ succeeded with his style because the congresses of old were a lot less hard boiled than they are now. Compromise was possible because congress actually had objectives other than gridlock. Again, gridlock is the current objective of the Republicans.

Now, in adjunct of Durang's arguments, how do you break the gridlock? You break it with the will of the people. If a congressman's seat is threatened at home by a motivated constituency, he will have to move on their motivations or lose his job. Some of this happend in 2006.

You motivate his constituency with inspiration. The don't worry and let the professionals handle it politics of today will result in more of the same, gridlock.