I am not a devotee or disciple. I am a skeptic, and remain somewhat skeptical. Still, over the past few weeks I have become convinced that Barack Obama is the better choice for the Democratic Party's presidential nominee. And, well... God help us all if that's not enough to make him president.
My conclusion is based on several components, but coheres around one theme. Besides what I have experienced as his superior demonstrations of strength, composure, restraint, and reasoning during their last two one-on-one debates, Senator Obama has structured his campaign around what I feel is an irrefutable truth: the United States government will never again function efficiently unless United States citizens force it to do so. His insistence that the U.S. government must serve its citizenry, and his acknowledgment that it will do so only if the citizenry once again holds its government accountable is a statement so simplistic that it is, for some, dismissible. It also happens to be a truism so profound that it might, I have come to hope, be unstoppable.
I don't agree with everything he says, and even find some of Senator Clinton's policy positions to be superior. (I'm sorry, but "If you make healthcare affordable enough, no one will choose not to buy it" doesn't hold water in my world. That's like saying if you made auto insurance cheap enough, no one would drive without it. They would. They do.) Still, I find his positions, and his explanations of those positions, to be equal to or superior to hers on nearly all other counts.
Furthermore -- and it's an important furthermore, since I defy anyone to be able to accurately decipher and predict whose "plans" are actually going to prove more effective in the real time of the real world -- I find him to be a more sincere proponent of his positions. I do not doubt Senator Clinton's heartfelt desire to do well for the American people. The crucial difference is she continues to insist she knows what's best for those people even as they reject her insistence, while Senator Obama states over and over that what he wants is to assist the American people in doing well for themselves. The most crucial way they can help themselves, he stresses, is to create a government that works for them in the ways they want it to, and to exercise oversight to ensure it achieves its missions. There must be accountability in order to have success, he says. To have accountability, there must be transparency. He encourages us to insist upon both, and once the view has been cleared, to keep our eyes peeled.
Some insist that's all he's saying, though I don't see that to be the case. What he is doing that might make it appear that way is repeatedly relating every idea and policy position back to that central theme. But he doesn't seem to be doing that solely out of a desire to stay "on message." He seems to be doing it as a result of his understanding that without those conditions of transparency and accountability being met, nothing else is possible. At least nothing other than what we've seen for the past seven, fifteen, twenty-three, or forty-odd years.
A government of the people, by the people, and for the people. It's not a revolutionary thought -- at least not like it was when the notion was first conceived. It is, however, a stunningly unusual platform for a contemporary presidential candidate. With increasing consistency, each of our more recent candidates has stressed what he is going to provide to the populace, either as an entitlement program, or as a tax break. Concurrently, we've recently endured a nearly decade-long period of previously unthinkable power grabbing and consolidation by the executive branch of our government. Of even greater concern than the power grabbing has been the purposeful erosion of the divisions between the executive, the judicial, and the legislative braches. Attorneys General refusing not only to indict, but even to testify truthfully; Justice Department employees enforcing executive branch vendettas, then refusing to appear in answer to subpoenas; Supreme Court justices ordering an end to the counting of votes. Senator Obama is not raising his flagship position out of the ether, or, as far as I can see, out of excessive opportunism or ambition. He's speaking out about a very real crisis -- one of existential proportions -- in the history, health, and wellbeing of our republic. And he's doing so without histrionics, with tremendous grace and understatement. He seems increasingly to me to be a man of vast insight, both in terms of what he's trying to accomplish, and in terms of his methods of attempting to accomplish it.
Contrast that with Senator Clinton's more recent methods. I took a great deal from the moment during their last debate when Senator Obama questioned Senator Clinton's belief that the best way to accomplish things was to be willing to fight for them. A combative stance, he suggested, is not necessarily the strongest position from which to maneuver. His point is absolutely correct. And the increasing emergence recently of her anger toward him, toward the press, and toward those who've voted against her -- and the ways it has backfired on her -- seems to bear Senator Obama's truth out.
But those are my more minor qualms with her recent behavior. We've now come to the most cynical stage of this particular campaign, with Senator Clinton participating in an advertisement that calls into question the safety of children sleeping in their homes in the Unites States. The ad suggests that of the two candidates, one can provide protection from unnamed threats in superior fashion to the other. It's an absurd argument. Not because, as her campaign suggests, anyone who questions it is questioning the legitimacy of a debate about national security. It's an absurd and ugly advertisement because it says nothing whatsoever about national security. It discusses no policy, and makes no comparisons other than one: I am to be trusted, he is not.
I'd suggest the ad indicates just the opposite. Not merely because it is repulsive, but because it is destructive -- knowingly so and purposefully so -- in pursuit of personal ambition. I make the charge because I do not believe Senator Clinton herself believes that children, or any other U.S. citizens, will actually be safer under an administration headed by herself, as opposed to Senator Obama. That's why I find the defense of the ads, and the pretense that they illustrate any kind of personally held belief, to be terribly sad. Because the choice Senator Clinton has now made with her advertising campaign has the potential, should she succeed in damaging Senator Obama's standing, to prove tragic for the nation come November.
As I've said, I have had no doubts as to the sincerity of Senator Clinton's wish to do well for the American people and their interests. I just no longer believe she has the wisdom or good judgment to know when her own private wishes have come into conflict with the interests of the rest of us. One doesn't have to look far or remember hard to know we've seen too much of that syndrome over the past seven years already.
Senators Clinton and Obama were asked during their most recent debate whether they'd come to regret any votes they've cast while holding public office. I have a regret to confess to. When I voted in the California primary less than four weeks ago, I pulled the lever for Senator Clinton. I now believe I was wrong. If Senator Obama had carried California the contest might be over by now. I hope the people of Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Vermont will make better choices than I did last month, and settle the race decisively -- before Senator Clinton has the chance to do more damage in her quest to protect us while we sleep. I've come to trust the candidate who's encouraging us to wake up, and to protect ourselves - even, if need be, from our own government.
I hope I get the chance to vote for Senator Obama again. I am not a devotee or disciple. I am a skeptic, and remain somewhat skeptical. Still, over the past few weeks I have become convinced that Barack Obama is the better choice for the Democratic Party's presidential nominee. And, well...God help us all if that's not enough to make him president.
If, after the first 2 years in the White House, he isn't laying face down on the floor with his ass kicked (figuratively speaking)..... then he hasn't been trying hard enough.
The thesis I get from him is that we need the government working efficiently for the citizens. He sees the route to that built on transparency and accountability within the government.
Congress, lobbyists, corporations, WallStreet, and the Washington press will fight like hell against him. Opacity and obfuscation of responsibility is the gas that powers Washington. And they will get him. There's just too many with common interests which will work against him.
I don't think he will, but he will have to figure out early-on to speak frequently and consistently over the heads of Washington, directly to the People. It would be a whole new process with a bunch of new dynamics. And, if he's lucky, he will learn asap that 'hands-across-the-aisle" is bullshit.
Besides staying on theme, he has to hold to his policy on Iraq. this is the only campaign issue he would have virtually complete control of. The economy, healthcare, etc would have to go through the sausage processor.
So if he gets the nomination and wins, I'm holdin' him accountable for Iraq, and consistency with his thesis when dealing with the other issues.
I don't believe that Hillary dislikes or lacks respect for Barack. I think she is a seasoned pol who has to split her moral bearing between two worlds: the real one and the one where negative campaigning wouldn't be necessary. I appreciate that she is a fighter. I wish Gore had fought a little harder ... we might be living in a better world. No offense to Mr. Gore ... he did what most believed to be the "right" thing.
I think Women, Dems, Gays, etc. are figuring out what the civil rights mavens who remain ardent HRC supporters have learned (also the hard way). That you have to fight!
HRC is a fighter. And she is fighting for the right things. Barack seems like a great man -- but he is lacking in battle scars.
Help me understand, because I'm having a hard time grasping the notion of how fighting for the right things requires disparaging a 'great man'. IF in fact she was fighting for the right things, there would be no need for such negative campaigning. She could stand on principle & a track record of doing the right thing...and inspire just as Barack does. I would welcome that...but because she decided a long time ago that wasn't the way to go about achieving her goals, we're now all likely to pay the price with weakened Dem candidates.
I also think it's crazy to suggest that Obama - son of an African immigrant, civil rights attorney with the backing of John Lewis - hasn't learned the lessons of the civil rights movement.
Obama is not Al Gore... He's not maintaining his 'nice guy' image at the expense of the election. He's maintaining it and WINNING.
http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2008/02/obama-social-phenomenon.html
Hillary may pull it out yet. She is a known quantity and not likely to give up easily. We know that because of past evidence.
Worse, did she not just sit there and smile pleasantly as her husband's trade policies forced America's corporations to compete with vastly lower wage and environmentally virtually unregulated nations?
Did she not smile for the cameras, even knowing that our corporations would have to cut costs to compete with the benficiary nations of her husband's free trade policies - and that health care was the single biggest rising cost our corporations faced and face?
So, she not only "gave up easily", she stood aside as her husband made her supposed primary concern even worse...and America's people slid ever faster into a health care and economic crisis.
With friends like Hillary, who needs the Bush family?
He has more years in elected office than HRC does. He spent his years as a lawyer fighting civil rights cases - she spent hers fighting for corporate banks.
Obama has made transparency in government a central part of his platform... Hillary refuses to release a tax return. No one knows what either of them will or will not do once in office. I'm going with the candidate who is committed tomaking sure I can SEE what he's doing.
Evan Handler is an actor, author, screenwriter, and journalist best known as one of the stars of HBO’s SEX AND THE CITY, as well as Showtime’s current hit CALIFORNICATION. Evan is the author of two books. TIME ON FIRE: MY COMEDY OF TERRORS is his critically acclaimed debut memoir detailing his unlikely recovery from acute leukemia (and his escape from the clutches of those supposedly devoted to its treatment). His upcoming book, IT’S ONLY TEMPORARY: THE GOOD NEWS AND THE BAD NEWS OF BEING ALIVE, describes the years since the illness, and his attempts to find meaning within his unlikely existence. Mostly, though, he finds absurd relationships, twenty-seven break ups (involving only ten women), a severe depression, eventual love and happiness, and fascination on the parts of Italians with American anal hygiene. The book will be published by Riverhead May 1, 2008.
So....your point is? I think he comes off more credible without clicking on his name/ link. It just make's the commenter's point: Why should we care what Evan thinks? Anymore than the rest of us?
To help you come to terms with the healthcare issues and Obama's position, though your intelligence doesn't need explaining to, I think that Obama supporters are willing to take the position that in regard to healthcare, we need to allow Obama to elaborate more on how to bring the parties together and make the compromise that we know he can (he has a record of doing things like this up against imposs. Recently in the debate, Hillary Clinton used the "force them to have healthcare" edict versus Obama's "make it more affordable" argument. Barack is speaking from the example of Mass where folks are more in trouble than they are in glory over a forced policy...kind of like "forcing poor seniors to file tax returns when they barely earn enough on social security to live"....Until there is debate surrounding the discussion on how best to bring healthcare to everyone, some of us are willing to lean on the side towards Obama Clinton's negotiation of the Healthcare plan she frequently talks about but didn't have the negotiation tools or persusiveness to pass during Bill's administration. It takes a persuasive and sophisticated individual to convince all parties and all persons, no matter what their affiliation to agree to raise taxes and pay for someone else's care. Some folks (admittedly I'm one) don't fall within the tax bracket that either is getting the rebate check but we don't earn enough to benefit from Bush's tax cuts, so many of us are independents leaning democratic. The goals and objectives are to get things done; Barack seems to be able to be persuasive enough, and to some that's enough for them. I can assure you of this however, Hillary's recent antics or those played by sources that seem to lean to have her gain from them is going to do one thing for sure...keep independent voters like me HOME ON ELECTION DAY! A vote for neither Hillary or McCain is best if Obama doesn't win the nomination....heck, I think that Nader's worked hard enough and his message hasn't altered...I think all Obama supporters should vote Nader and not Clinton if Obama does'nt get the nod!
Works for me.
Hillary doesn't have 35 years of experience. It is barely 35 years since graduating. And that time wasn't spent in public service. Whereas Barak has actually DONE the public service. Hillary's public service is like Bush's military service -- AWOL.
I salute your thoughts. Thank you.
I want someone in office who has walked the walk, not just talked the talk. If you have not walked in the shoes of Americans, you dont' know how they have suffered. We need someone who is somewhere in between Hillary and Obamma. I say that as she understands what its going to take, and he has the vision to make it happen. Republicans don't get it. We need someone who knows war is a last resort, the public should get the chance to hear the truth about 911 and this war. This election isn't about religion, its about the issues. Its about results. Mccain should see Americans are tired of war, death and the economy. The fact he is hellbent on revenge tells me he isn't the best candidate suited for office. He can deny it, but let's face it, that is what this is about. That and oil. Not a good candidate. The country needs someone who has vision, outside of the box mentality. Without it, we are screwed.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html
http://www.raisingkaine.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=12761
I think Obama's three years as a community organizer and then subsequent time as a civil rights lawyer has shown him what life is like for ordinary Americans.
I have heard both candidates speak, went to thier ralley's. I still think we need his vision and her experience to get passed what needs to change. One without the other won't cut it. She knows how the senate works, thinks, has been around the block enough to know who will vote for what. He has been the golden child, still getting his chops. People should look at her strength, what it can bring to the white house, be it as president or VP. Ideally, we need both.
Please have an open mind and READ everything about the candidates before passing judgement. The Hype over Obama is reminesant of Jimmy Carter, you know? "who in the heck is this guy?" and then poof, nothing.Please read the article by Joseph C. Wilson. on this page. And remeber NO one is perfect. These are human beings who both are passionate about there fight to bring America back to where we are the best that can be. They are not miracle workers and truely have to go through the senate and congress to get anything done. So, with that being said Obama will be no better then Hillary or Mc Cain. After 30 days we all will be saying," what did I vote for him?" oh and another thing, why is Obama promising Canada that NAFTA will remain in tack?
I agree, part of his appeal is his wish to work with us, to empower us to get our government back!!
I am so excited at the possibility of finally getting my country back!!!
Please RI, VT, OH and TX - take your government back and vote Obama tomorrow!!!!
Is it just me, or is there a train coming round the mountain?
Roll on Wednesday morning.