Why Not Barack?

I will be the first person to say that presidential hopeful Barack Obama has poise, charisma, charm, and intelligence (which can't be under appreciated considering the assumed single digit I.Q. of our current Cammander-in-Chief.) To many he represents a radical change in American politics. He is not a Washington insider and he is not what just about all save one president have been: a Christian Southern white man. Of course, he is Christian nevertheless, one who supports gay civil unions, but, does not support gay marriage, which, as far as I am concerned, is sill a way of creating "separate but equal" legislation. We can see from history how good that separate but equal policy turned out. For me, a straight black man, a candidate who does not recognize that gays should have all the rights that straight people have, is simply not good enough. That is one of the many reason why I did not vote for Obama yesterday.

Lest you think I was swayed to support Clinton or any of the Republicans (I'm not going to lie, I was closer to supporting Ron Paul than Clinton, Edwards, or Obama), I instead opted to vote non-partisan and thus, only voted on California initiatives.

I lost my love for Hillary after I heard how she threatened to boycott a debate in New York when she was running for Senate if the Green Party candidate was allowed in. That's when I realized she was part of the power that wanted to simultaneously project this image of radical change while doing everything possible to maintain the status quo. When I heard her speak about the Iraq war, she reminded me of Kerry in '04, when I surmised that his ultimate message to the American public was, " I am going to do uphold our standing as the world's major Imperial force like the Republicans want to do, only I think I can do it much better." I was suckered then into voting for this man, considered the "lesser of two evils." It was only after he "lost" seemingly overnight and oh so quickly delivered his concession speech to Bush that I realized that I did not vote my conscience, nor my ideals. I voted out of fear; fear of another Bush term. And that is exactly what I got. Never again will I vote for someone who does not believe what I believe.

Which now brings me to Obama. Now I do not disagree with everything that Obama stands for. For example he believes in stiffer penalties than voter fraud. However, he does believe in paper ballots replacing electronic voting machines made by companies that overtly support one candidate over another. What about giving every American a receipt for their vote as proof? As the late, great comedian Mitch Hedberg would state in his standup routine, we get a receipt when we buy a donut, which in itself seems unnecessary.

Obama believes in securing borders with more personnel, helping Mexico to develop an economic infrastructure to deter Mexicans from coming here in the first place, and fix NAFTA. Will he help stop the flooding of Mexico with cheap goods from China? Or will he only seem on the surface to be the supporter of a more radical vision of U.S. international commerce policy that unfortunately yet perpetually leaves the impoverished communities of less developed nations without the promised infrastructure and out in the cold to starve or be forced to come here illegally? And does he really think that by simply telling illegals that they will be fined and made to go through the long, arduous process of legalization, that this will bring them out into the open? Is he really that naïve?

Obama promises to have 25% of the country's electricity come from renewable energy by 2025. Why so far away? Why play the "I want to appear revolutionary by setting a goal that may or may not be attained years after I am out of office" game? He says he wants to conduct more research into solar and wind energy. Isn't "conducting research" the politicians' code for not doing a damn thing? I was using a solar calculator in the 80's. Haven't we progressed beyond that point by now? What's more, he wants to auction polluter credits and use that money for the research. So the polluters get to still pollute (???) while he promises that by 2050, the U.S will be below the 1990 carbon emissions levels. Someone please tell me how that's supposed to work in a world where our biggest trade partner, China, is poised to rival if not surpass our carbon emissions with the introduction of millions of automobiles replacing bicycles among other things? Shouldn't our zero carbon emissions goal be more, well... radical? And by radical, I mean, sooner rather than later. I dare to think that it is not that we as a nation are incapable of cutting down our carbon emissions substantially in far less time, but that we lack the will to simply do so, that will being subverted to the greedy interests of those who benefit from the current way of doing things.

As for the Iraq war, I know he was against it from the beginning. I've been told a million times already. He says he does not want any permanent U.S. military bases there. Will he dismantle the ones already being built? He says he wants to keep some U.S. soldiers there to guard the U.S. embassy. Has he perhaps considered that the humongous embassy will stand as an eyesore to those who object to the U.S. Imperial presence? Maybe scaling that down a bit would be a smart thing to do as well.

Obama wants to expand the military with about 7,000 new troops. The majority of our national budget is already earmarked for the military, so this will be just more of the same as far as continuing the U.S. global domination with military might and more military bases on the globe than any other country, indeed more bases than all other countries combined.

On the other hand, Obama does talk of global nuclear non-proliferation, where everyone, including the U.S. will be given incentives to stop creating new nuclear weapons. Does that mean he will sign the Kyoto Treaty? I would hope so, as I and those of many other nations see the blatant hypocrisy of the U.S. demanding and punishing other countries for wanting the same things it has at it's disposal. As if we were not the only nation on earth that has actually used these powerful weapons of mass destruction on a country that had already shown signs of giving up in WW II.

Obama believes in making medical care affordable for all Americans, offering them the same plan that Congresspeople have (the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program). Although he supports abolishing the pre-existing conditions criteria, does he not realize that not all Americans make what Congresspeople may and may still not be able to afford his idea of "affordable" premiums, co-pays, and deductibles? Can Obama please tell me why he thinks it's a good idea to maintain the U.S. status as being the only first world country that does not offer it's citizens free health care?

Under Obama, tax breaks for corporations will be made public on the internet. How about making tax breaks for corporations non existent? And for anyone who thinks that will hurt the economy and in the trickle down theory, hurt U.S. citizens, I say you are talking about the economy with a capital "E", the one that we are told rises and falls with the supposed prosperity of our nation. The economy with the lower case "e" pertains to the personal financial situations of the average American. What hurts our pocket books is the continual removal of U.S. manufacturing infrastructure by U.S. corporations to other countries where oversight and business regulations are non-existent and the man power is practically slave labor. These companies continue to receive tax breaks and subsidies while actually draining the U.S. economy. Will Obama end corporate welfare or will he simply make their welfare public information, as he has promised?

As you can see, there are too many areas where Obama does not stand for what I believe in. Although I would agree that his presidency would be a radical shift in the cosmetic appearance of U.S. politics and may even be a bit more radical when compared to the policies of the current administration, I do not believe that he will radically shift away from how things are done in Washington, which is with a lot of promises passionately delivered during the campaign season, with goals conveniently projected to be reached far off in the murky future. He may be the best Democrat, but he is still a Democrat, which means he represents the impossibility of candidates from other parties, no matter the color or sex, actually attaining the highest public offices. In the larger context, Obama simply is not radical enough for me and many others. So we will vote our ideals and our conscience. If that means not voting for a seemingly popular candidate who just may be the first black person to reside in the Oval Office, than so be it.

Comments

[donnswaby]

(Continued from previous post)

Obama comes from a coal producing state and I would agree with him that it would be unwise to declare that we all stop using coal immediately, triggering massive unemployment for those being employed in that industry among othe things. But if Obama were to demand that within five to ten years time, his administration would assist coal mining companies and the people they employ in the transition to working with alternative fuels, that would a be a plan I would support. I would not mind government subsidies being given to companies already willing to invest their own time and money to transform their infrastructure to one that is environmentally safe. But I do not think companies should be allowed to pay for the right to continue polluting while knowing they do not have to change their infrastructure for literally decades.

If Obama can demand better of the auto industries, why can't he demand better of other industries? Why are polluting companies given until 2050 to do their part to bring carbon emissions down to 1990 levels? What sense does it make to allow them to pay the fines for polluting via auctions, and then put that money into more alternative energy research? Do we really need more research to know that solar and wind power are substantially cleaner energy sources than gasoline, coal, bio-diesel or ethanol? So why waste the money on research? Why can't we just put that money into actually building solar panels and wind mills that will benefit us now?

All of this is not to say the door is completely closed on Obama for me. As the reader who provided us the link to the interview suggested, I will continue to keep thinking about my vote and who I am going to give that vote to in November. At the end of the day, it is I who have to be alright with my decision regardless of what anyone else says, thinks, or feels.

[donnswaby]

One responder provided a link to a video interview of Obama by the San Francisco Chronicle's editorial board: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?o=0&f=/c/a/2008/01/18/MNSNUH8DR.DTL.

As I watched the interview I was reminded that this man's greatest assets are his sincerity, his straightfo­rwardness, and his compassion. He comes across as a genuine human being.

I found myself again agreeing with him on several issues such as the pursuit of diplomacy over war, an economy that helps middle class and working class people get out of debt, actual government tranparency, and accountability, where everyone, including the American people, are sitting at the table helping to figure it all out.

When asked if Bush's legislation package setting a goal of requiring U.S. auto companies to reach 35 mpg by the year 2020, Obama said, "we can do better." Considering that Honda and Toyota already have cars on the market that can get from 40 to 60 mpg, I think he realized like I have that setting a goal 12 years into the future, a goal the major foreign competitors have already presently surpassed, is just plain ridiculous.

Yet when Obama was asked why he was such a supporter of using coal, which is scientifically proven to release more carbon emissions than gasoline, Obama stated that he believed we should invest time and money into researching ways to make coal cleaner. But we already know solar and wind is cleaner so...

(continued in following post)

[KSH]

I am an Obama supporter and I found your article and your responses to readers very insightful. And I think you have every right to believe and vote however you want to. That is why we are a nation of non monolithic people, we all have different upbringings, life experiences and educational matters that make us a culture of liberals, conservatives, progressives and ideologically schizophrenic people like me that are a little of all of those wrapped or warped into one. The way I see my life compared to world is very different and I vote for who is closest to the things that I believe b/c if I were to have someone in the White House that believed exactly like me, then I would have to run for the office myself...lol

And I too feel that the last elecetion I voted "the lesser of two evils" and this time I feel a whole lot better about my choice this time around!

Your insight is very compelling! Thanks for the viewpoint!

[BitJam]

donnswaby,

It's funny, I see our country in a state of crisis caused in large part by an almost total lack of progressive leadership. It's like we are all in a car and homicidal maniacs have grabbed the wheel and are driving us towards several abysses at 80 MPH.

Along comes Obama who seems to be ready, willing, and able (with our help) to wrest control of the car from the homicidal maniacs and turn the wheel enough so we don't go flying off of the cliffs to our doom. Yet you reject his offer to help because it is hard to make the car change direction and it is impossible for him (or anyone) to cause the car to instantly pull a 180.

Changing the trajectory of America requires changing the hearts and minds of a very large number of Americans, and to be honest it will require changing the hearts and minds of a large number of Republican Americans. Of all the people I know or know of, I think Barack Obama is the best qualified to create this change. Even though I personally prefer Kucinich's positions, I think Obama will be better at moving us in a progressive direction because of his talent for listening and his skills at getting diverse people to work together for their common good.

One of the most important lessons I've learned about getting other people to change is that it is usually impossible to get anyone to pull a 180. The harder you push them to go in the complete opposite direction, the more they will resist you. So if they are headed North and you want them to head South instead, then you are much better off nudging them either East or West instead of trying to counter their momentum directly by pushing them South.

[tbone99]

Thank you for expressing so many of my thoughts.But whats a progressive to do? All I can think of is how McCain wants war for hundreds of years-

[Nutcase]

O ye of much faith.

Obama has received more in donations from the drug companies than Clinton. The same is true for finanacial institutions. He is in the same ballpark for defense contractors, health insurance companies and many others. Does this equate to change? Only whatever change the corporations would give permission for.

He gets a free pass on Rezko. Supporters ignore the fact that he took money from health insurance companies while helping them re-write a bill more to their liking in the state senate.

The unthinking sycophants will not argue against this with facts. To do so would be impossible. To try to do so would put them in unfamiliar territory, dealing with facts, that is. The change is merely claimed. The hope is hollow.

cognito ergo populistae

[SpecialK67]

Mr. Swaby,
I loved your post because I too had the same feelings concerning Obama not going far enough. I'm so mad at the current chimp in chief I want to feel some relief, NOW. That's my emotions talking. Here are some rational thoughts.
On an individual level have you ever witnessed radical, profound, trasformative change in a friend or loved one? Someone who was perhaps and addict or depressed or recovering from disease-whatever. It is not a rapid change to be witnessed. Radical change at the individual level takes time and involvement of all friends, family etc.
Our country is made up of individuals who must change radically. And they have begun to do so! This takes time. Obama has the same goals as you, maybe a different route.
The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. And there are no shortcuts. I don't think Obama will trip on that crucial first step.
In my experience lasting,radical change does not happen rapidly. Ever. Please keep thinking about your vote.

[GhostOfSchlesinger]

Well, then . . .

WHAT SAY we all write in "NADER" this fall?

For, with all due respect, I have to say that your blog represents everything that DESTROYED the Democratic Majority that ruled for two generations - prospering our grandparents and theirs in a manner unprecedented AND unrepeated.

DEMANDING perfect ideological stances will "conservatize" our party and force our candidate to meet America without the armor of a flexible set of stances - the sort of stances that allow for THE FACT that NO PRESIDENT goes to the White House, sets the agenda, and passes it.

Having said that, the candidate you dislike due to his failure to pass your ideological purity test is the very candidate that has the potential (HE EARNED 30%, 30 freaking percent[!] of the Independent vote in California) to command just the type of majority that Clinton cannot hope to earn.

I would urge you to ask yourself whether ideological purity is truly what is at stake this year.

[theuniversal]

"Under Obama, tax breaks for corporations will be made public on the internet. How about making tax breaks for corporations non existent?"

The difference between you and Obama is that Obama is an adult. Government transparency doesn't sound glamourous but in the long term it's the ONLY solution to all problems with government. If people can see what their government is doing, they can stand up and demand accountability of change. If they can't, they can't.

You need to think harder about how profound an agenda it is to actually make government more transparent. Obama is fully and sincerely committed to it. A more transparent government would do more for democracy and social justice and equal opportunity than any change in the tax code could ever hope to do.

[IndependentJones]

Um... I also think we should sign the Kyoto Treaty. But that's about lowering greenhouse gases not nuclear proliferation.

[JasonEverettMiller]

This seems overly cynical, given Barack's actual positions on items he is critiqued on above. This are one-dimensional snap-shots of Barack's views, at best.

I will address each point in the order it was asked:

1. He has said that ALL of our marriages are, by definition, Civil Unions and the term marriage should be left up to the church. I take that to mean that the only LEGAL definition of marriage is Civil Union, both gay and straight. That is a compromise I can live with and is hardly "separate but equal."

2. Obama sets a realistic goal given the current political make-up when it comes to green energy production in the near term. His regulatory system encourages green energy and discourages pollution through smart incentives. That is something that can actually get passed.

3. He talks about more troops since he is smart man enough to understand that we need to spend much less, overall, on defense while using the money we continue to spend more effectively. More troops isn't the same thing as more useless weapons systems and unaccountable contractors.

4. He said by using information technology and process improvement we can decrease health care costs by $150 million and subsidize those who can't afford it. His can get passed - no way are republicans & independents supporting mandates. Long-term, Obama believes in single-payer health care and is smart enough to design a strategy to get us there.

5. He has said he will end corporate welfare, starting with companies that ship American jobs overseas. This is a different argument than the transparency issue.

Obama is much more progressive than bloggers like Donn give him credit for. Here is a 52-minute uncut interview with the editorial board of the SF Chronicle that was very illuminating, even for an Obama supporter.

Barack offers in-depth analysis of critical issues facing us: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?o=0&f=/c/a/2008/01/18/MNSNUH8DR.DTL.

[Sumocat]

The irony here is that Obama is not radical enough for you because his upbringing was so radically different from the norm. He wasn't raised in a single, isolated environment, as is typical for many zealots and radicals. Rather, he grew up outside mainstream USA, a half-Kenyan, half-white boy in the Pacific Rim, with different caretakers in different stages of his life, spending his teenage years in a multi-cultural city attending an elite private school on a scholarship. All those different influences do not form a radical (well, not a successful one); they form a moderate, one who can understand multiple perspectives and compromise. However, his roots are radically different from the norm.

[itmaybetoolate]

Can you read my mind?! This is the best piece written on Obama, hands down!

[Katherine4985]

Here's the problem with gay marriage - marriage is a religious tradition, and, as we know, I can't think of many religions that support homosexuality. (I say, do what you want!). That being said, The government should do away with marriage all together. Everyone should be granted civil unions and if a church is willing to marry a couple, they can be married in that church.

[GreenVTster]

Great reality check, thanks for pointing out how far we still have to go.

How about the huge corporate tax breaks that Congress is including in its "bi-partisan" economic stimulus package?