I Can't Believe I'm Standing Up for Obama... But I Am
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.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I've thought this would be a great idea, but if she keeps going the way she is, I don't think she'll be suitable even for that position.
Very well reasoned. And an honest admission of a decision you now view as a mistake.
Thank you for sharing with us, Evan.
Ruth Alice, I think the issue with Sen. Clinton's current expression of that ambition is that, since it is now almost impossible for her to win, she has chosen to smear obama in a typically republican way, in the process hurting the very causes she claims to live for (and ironically her own chances of fulfiling her ambitions and potential in the senate). Please, STOP playing the victim. It helps nobody, especially the cause of feminism to insult the integrity of people who choose to support Obama. If Sen. Obama had lost 11 states in a row and was mathematically eliminated, you better believe he would be getting MUCH worse treatment from 'the media' and the citizenry of the US. Stop blaming others, stop biting off your nose to spite your face.
Excellent post! I've been saying this for years -- the candidate who shows the most promise of getting citizens back into the democratic process, instead of promising to grant wishes like some kind of genie in a bottle, is the one who will always get my vote. In the past, candidates as disparate as Ross Perot and Ralph Nader have earned my votes for that reason. Absent John Edwards, who would have been this election cycle's best advocate for reinvigorating democracy from within what has become the undemocratic "Democratic" party, Obama holds the most promise for involving the people in their own governance again. I can't risk another vote for Nader this election cycle, even though he has certainly earned it, and with the Clintons, we would only get more top-down "management." So Obama it is.
Where are you, fellow Perot voters? Do you remember what it felt like to belong to a real democratic movement? Do you agree with me about Obama or not?
I completely support Senator H. Rodham Clinton........................for Vice President of the United States of America.
I also felt this would make for a good ticket, but if she keeps going on the way she is now, she may not be suitable even for that position. And in eight years, would she be suitable for a presidential campaign, or will she be like Cheney at that point?
And with Obama you get one bold falced lie after another. Remember when he denied knowing Rezko a couple of debates ago, claiming he'd only done 5 hours of work for a legal firm he worked for that was 'indirectly' involved with Rezko... and that he did not know "that individual"...?
Then yesterday in the Chicago Tribune .. he says Rezko has been a friend for many years!!!
Another lie.. more to come folks... trust me.
This is so true. Obama has always been a unifying voice!
Please read how his classmates at Harvard Law remember Obama:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/01/28/at_harvard_law_a_unifying_voice/
To YcCoSQ:
Here's the full quote (courtesy of TalkingPointsMemo):
"You know, I am reminded every day, if not by events then by my wife, that I am not a perfect man. And I will not be a perfect President. But I promise you this – I will always tell you what I think and where I stand. I will be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, even when we disagree. And I will wake up every day in that White House thinking and working and fighting to make your lives a little bit better. That’s real change, and that’s the change we’ll have when I am President."
It's just brilliant, not just because no one's perfect, but because he recognizes it and is willing to say so about himself. Just brilliant, bold, and brave. When's the last time you heard a candidate for president come out and actually say he or she wouldn't be a perfect president? I'm still waiting to hear Hillary admit something like that. Hell, I'm still waiting for her to admit she was wrong about something!
neoprimordial:
He says he will always tell you where he stands... LOL. Well so far he's lied about NAFTA , about knowing Rezko... read yesterday's Chicago Tribune.. where he says Rezko's a good friend of many years; when at the debate he said he didn't know 'that individual' and had only indirectly done 5 hours of work for a law firm that indirectly represented him???
I'm still waiting to hear some truth come out of this guys mouth, that's not contradicted at a later date. Real good judgment he has.
Good grief, and he hasn't even been scrutinized yet!
If you're for another candidate, why don't you just work on building that candidate up, rather than tearing Obama down. What did he ever do to you?
Great post!
I really like Hillary Clinton’s universal healthcare proposal. Healthcare is a basic necessity for all of us, and not an elective, and I truly believe everyone should be covered. And I also believe her when she says she will get it done. She is very smart and tough, and having failed once, I believe she has learnt from her mistakes and knows how to get this through. I also like Obama. He seems like a very thoughtful and intelligent man who will listen and think though the issues. But I do not think his approach will change anything much for healthcare, and I do not think he will drive it through as aggressively as Hillary Clinton. Both Hillary and Obama generally seem to have the same positions, but because of healthcare alone, I think I will be voting for Hillary Clinton here in Texas.
Bac,
I do hope you will reconsider. I am a nurse and believe me, I am all for universal health care. I don't really know why her health care didn't work 15 years ago. I know she had some of the best people working on it. One thing I did not like about it was the secrecy - everything was behind closed doors.
Why I do not like her health care this time around is the fact that she did say she would garnish wages of those that would not sign up for it. What of the 20-something-year old who is healthy (kids always think they will live forever don't they) who is trying to pay for college and can't pay for health care and college? What of the family who doesn't meet federal poverty guidelines which we know are not realistic but with mortgage, heating bills thru the roof, the increased cost of groceries, gas,etc - will she garnish part of their wages if they don't buy health insurance?
I like Obama's plan better because it is voluntary. Also, if you check their legislative records, many, many of the bills by Obama have been co-sponsored by others. Hillary's have not been as widely supported. (also, Obama has produced more legislative work than she has, but that is not my point). I think Obama works much better with other members of Congress which is key to getting any work done as President.
I ask you to please reconsider and vote and caucus for Obama.
As a nurse, you suprise me. Both candidates are going to push the same healthcare plan down our throats, like it or not, whether it works, or forces others to pay. The problem with this plan from either side? In order to make either plan work, you need to raise the wages of Americans to a LIVING wage. Living as in at least 20-25 per hour. By doing so, those who would have to pay for healthcare would also have a shot at getting thier other bills paid. Not raising the wages to a LIVING wage, and forcing this plan down our throats is evil. Millions will still go uninsured. More will still be denyed covereage due to pre exsisting condition. Its not better. Single payer would cover all, and with the living wages, would be the least burdonsome to the public. What is peace of mind worth to the public anyway? To me, who has gone without coverage for the last 10 years, it means a hell of a lot. It wasn't about the money, it was about pre exsisting condition. Universal health coverage won't improve that problem folks, its a con job. Didn't anyone see Sicko here? Geez. i
in the interest of more seats in the Senate, which will make UHC more of a possibility, Obama is better for down-ticket candidates...she failed to get her healthcare solutions through congress because her fundamental belief system is one of top down change...i'm not sure "consensus" is in her vocabulary...she's all over the place with her message, her campaign and her dimeanor...she chooses loyalty over competence, which explains the circus that her campaign has become...
she has a penchant for deflection, secrecy and a phobic fear of humiliation, not to mention a propensity for disregarding states and rules that don't suit her situation...her and Bill are perfect, shameless partners...to them, the end justifies the means.
her two war votes disqualify her in my eyes because if we don't start holding these politicians accountable then we will never have the government we deserve...some mistakes you can walk away from in life...others you can't...when she tells her supporters to hold her accountable, they absolutely should on the issues of foreign policy, healthcare, clusterbombs, NAFTA, the Levin Amendment, tax returns, FISA, and the bankruptcy bill...
if her war votes were'nt a mistake, then why does she now wish she could take it back?...Clinton supporters and surrogates continually try to mitigate her failed judgement by projecting that failure on Obama...the denial is deep and the repurcussions that her vote helped bring about, in regards to the current economy and war situation is rationalized away...this rationalization is a chief reason why we have the current government that we have.
she wants to end a war that she was complicit in helping start...she has compassion after the fact, when she had the opportunity to show the necessary judgement that would've prevented the death of ~4,000 or so soldiers...twenty some-odd other senators had the time to read the NIE...these other senators, NOT JUST OBAMA, had the courage, insight and backbone to vote against the Bush administration...
her 3 AM add is laughable and disingenious at best...i'm watching her rally in Austin right now and it was hard not to notice her new music, that borrows on the yes we can message of Obamas' campaign...i don't believe i've ever heard a politician use the word "I" more times than she has...
I too am a skeptic when it comes to politics, and especially to candidates for the presidency. I was skeptical of Obama to begin with simply because he hasn't been around very long, relative to the other candidates, but when you hear his story and what he's promoting, it's convincing, and inspiring. I'm still concerned about drinking the Kool-Aid, but I'll vote for him, for all the reasons Mr. Handler has so beautifully stated. And it is all the more amazing his position now because he had voted for Hillary in the CA primary. I had already thought Obama was the better candidate by then. Let's see if Texas and Ohio also have his change of heart. Something tells me they have.
neo..... I'd do a bit more homework if I were you.. Not a bad thing to do when voting for the President of the United States. Obama's wonderful words are coming back as nothing but a pile of mistruths and empty promises... faster than he can hide them..
Take a closer look my friend and don't follow someone blindly because he reads a good speech.
Read these two articles on Obama and you won't be so skeptical. They help you understand that his rhetoric is actually a reflection of his true personality and beliefs:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/01/28/at_harvard_law_a_unifying_voice/
Welcome to the winning side, Mr. Handler, and thank you for rejecting the worst type of politics that encourage fear and appeal to voters' lowest instincts. We can do better, and we are.
The content of your post would indicate that you are either a fan of irony or really don't understand that if you want to talk the talk, you should really try to walk the walk. Enjoy the soapbox but it's imaginary...
I am tired of reading how ambitious Clinton is. No one without ambition runs for President. People who know Obama from his years in the Illinois Senate attest that his one central characteristic has been ambition - hence his absence on close votes and so on. However, ambition in a man is admired; ambition in a woman is criticized, such a double standard.
Having researched both candidates it seems that Obama has proposed more significant legislation than Senator Clinton -- and Senator Clinton did not support a bill proposed by Senator Obama to set a date to withdraw the troops - which is the opposite of what she is campaining for now. And Senator Clinton has missed key votes while campaining as well (the recent FISA vote for one) I don't think anyone doubts that Obama is ambitious. And I don't think Mr. Handler is criticizing Senator Clinton for that -- more for what she's willing to do to fulfill her ambitions. If Obama wins it will be because of the take no prisoners tactics of Senator Clinton. Mr. Handler's comments on Senator Clinton's 3:00 a.m ad mirror my thoughts - and why as an undecided in Texas I've decided to vote for Obama. Not only is the ad insulting but it reinforces the fear tactics we've been so anxious to escape under the Republicans. National Security is a viable and important issue - but Senator Clinton has no more experience or background in that area than Senator Obama. Not only has she probably reinforced the Republicans, but raised some issues better left dormant from the previous Clinton administration (i.e. where would Bill be at 3:00 a.m.).
Fred Thompson ran for president and exhibited all the ambition of a dead man.
Perhaps, since he was channeling Ronnie Reagan, he took the role a bit too literally.
For more on Hillary's style of governing and what we might expect from a HRC presidency, read Sally Bedell Smith's, For Love of Politics. It's a very through and enlightening examination of Bill and Hillary's time in the WH.
Interestingly enough, Hillary's way of doing things is much more top down than Bill's. His is the more lateral collegial style while hers is more vertical. That's not to say that Hillary doesn't have good executive capabilities, but she has a tendency to believe in what she's doing so strongly, that she was less open than Bill was.
Going by the way she has tun her campaign, on some levels, not much has changed, in terms of her issues that get in the way of ideal governance.
Where as Obama has made far fewer mistakes and seems to be the more adult of the two, even though he's relatively young and inexperienced.
Actually Obama may be younger in years, but he does not have less experience than Senator Clinton. Obama has more years of legislative and elected experience than Clinton. The media has rarely talked about his 8 years of service and achievement in the State Senate of Illinois. Below is a very enlightening article and an example of the way Senator Obama brings people together to pass legislation that has opposition from many sides:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html
And the article below on his time at Harvard Law School (when Obama was elected as the first black President in the 104 year History of the Harvard Law Review) shows that he has always had a conciliatory attitude and unifying voice:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/01/28/at_harvard_law_a_unifying_voice/
Anastasia:
Obama's mistakes are only just starting to surface. He has not only made plenty of mistakes, he's also been dishonest to the American people. Read yesterday's Chicago Tribune where he says Rezko's been a good friend for many years... but in the debate he DENIED knkowing the guy! It was 3 debates ago... where HIllary confronted him about Rezko, and he could have gotten an Academy Award for that denial.
As for judgment... well it looks like he's told so many lies, he forgot what he said in the debate... and must have assumed the public is too stupid to remember!
Then there's NAFTA.... then there's his praising Bush for Iraq once he was elected... it goes on and on.
And every word Hillary ever uttered was the truth?
Didi47- did you come on here just to tear apart each positive on Obama?
It's too bad that you can't talk about your candidate's 35 years of experience that has made her so qualified.
Why hasn't she released her tax returns or her White House records so that we can see the kind of experience she talks about - even though she did not have a security clearance?
Why is it that Clinton, who claims to have been fighting for children for 35 years, voted against a ban on cluster bombs - you know, the bombs that kids find by the road and blow off their limbs (if they are lucky?)
How does she justify the lack of class and judgment by her "Shame on you" tirade - or her mocking of Obama and his supporters with that celestial choir BS?
What is it about her integrity that she couldn't just say I know for a fact that Obama is a Christian and all those rumors about him being a Muslim are just rumors to make people afraid? Why did she just hem and haw on that question, leaving it open that just maybe he is a muslim?
And her campaign? The biggest thing she has ever managed she mismanaged! No one thought it would be going on beyone super Tuesday!! It was running out of money - her local events are managed poorly, she spends hundred of thousands of her budget on buffet food for after elections?
She agreed last year that the MI and FL votes and delegates would not be counted. Now she wants the results to be counted - because she needs the votes!!
This is an excellent response to the multitude of Hillary supporters claiming that Obama supporters are all brainless zombie fanatics. It's so much easier to demonize those with differing views than to allow that they might be equally discrening and intelligent, and simply have a different opinion. Maybe we could even - dare I say it - learn from each other.
Obama recently stated that he would appoint Republicans to his cabinet, in an effort to break down partisan divisions and improve policy by allowing for a wider variety of experience and viewpoints. I notice that has gotten very little press, and I suspect it's because we're so trained to respond only to polarizing politics that we don't know what to do in the face of sound thinking and moderation.
As cynical as I've grown about this country, it says a lot for us that Obama has gotten as far as he has. If he can go all the way - and I believe he can and will - we may really have a chance to undo some of the damage that's been done in the last few decades. The thought that such progress may happen in my lifetime is pretty exciting.
(As an actor, I'd also like to thank you for demonstrating that, in spite of TMZ-inspired stereotypes, we are often quite intelligent and articulate.)
I'm sorry, but your entire argument hinges on one important (and in this case, incorrect) factor... that the American public realizes what is best for it, and will act according.
Recent elections have shown that the public clearly does not understand how to act in its own best interests, and it is an even further stretch to expect the people of this country to "wake up and hold the government accountable."
Please, the people can't be bothered. Obama's movement is a fad, and interest will fade away soon enough. Then what? Where will his "overwhelming" will of the people be?
Realistic people who have been paying attention for the past 20 years, and see what is really going on, can understand that Hillary is clearly the best option.
Yes SHE Can...
That is just sad! If you really believe what you are saying, then why would you even bother to vote in the upcoming election? What's the point? If you are correct that Americans really have given up on governing themselves, this country is doomed and the grand experiment has already failed. So why not just get out now instead of prolonging the inevitable? What difference does it make who is president?
The truth is, you don't believe it yourself. And given that, why don't you give Obama another look? Unlike Hillary, he already is getting people up off their couches. Imagine what he can encourage people to help him accomplish once they've voted him into office!
Barvo !! Bravo !! What A Point On Read !!!
Thank You
-Sarge1
Simple exercise:
Reverse postitions. If a white woman with Barack's credentials ran against an African-Amercian male with Hillary's credentials who would win? Thats right. The white woman wouldn't even have been considered a serious contender.
a step further, if it was Hillary who was coming from behind on a wave of hope and little else how many would jump sides and vote for her? Right. Thought so.
Hillary has always been the one to beat because she has always been considered the serious contender, the one more qualified. Barack has yet to show he is more so. He has many supporters, true. But not based on ability or record. Can't be. He has none.
Wrong. Hillary has been the one to beat because she is the heir-apparent to the Clinton legacy. Everyone thinks the Clinton years were great, but it was only great if you were a member of Bush's "base." Hillary will do no better. Her voting record sucks, she has no guiding values except to gain power, and her only skill (though little of it is in evidence during her campaign) is political gamesmanship. She'll only continue our march to corporatocracy, and leave working stiffs in the dust. She's moldy bread that needs to get tossed out.
If Obama's success has proved anything, it's that hypothetical speculating is worthless. Before the primaries began, all the hypothetical preductions were that Hillary would be virtually unopposed. Nobody knows what would have happened if various conditions had been different, including you.
The rest of your post is just a rehashing of the same Hillary rhetoric we've been hearing all along. Her claim of superior qualification has always been challenged by those who don't consider her role as First Lady to be legitimate preparation for the Presidency, myself included. Obama has spent more years in elected office than Hillary has. His campaign is evidence that he's better at reading the mood of the public than she is.
Is it so hard to allow for the possibility that his supporters are seeing something in him that you've overlooked?
You've got to be kidding! A woman has a higher bar than an African-American?You must be living in another country. If a Black man ran the aggressive, nasty, whinny kind of campaign as Hillary's, he long ago would be out of the running. That sense of entitlement, self pity, "your not voting for me because I am a woman" is just so tiring. 'Qualified" she can't even run a decent campaign with double digit leads and name recognition and I'm sorry but married to a president does not equal experience.
ww: if the African-american man had lost 11 primaries in a row, was behind in popular vote, and essentially eliminated in delegateless, was trailing in every poll against mcCain, would the nation tolerate him blaming the media, blaming injustice, blaming the system for his failure? Or would the establishment have already forced him out of the race. That's right. also, I don't want to get into disparaging Sen. Clinton because I am a progressive person and believe in her ideology, but if you're going to do the GOP's dirty work on Obama, please Identify a single one of these great "accomplishments" by Clinton in the senate. Stop hating, start helping.
question - Hillary was the clear fontrunner for over a year...Were the voters under the impression HILLARY Clitnon was a man?
Don't bother with demonstrating logic to a Clinton supporter.
She was the clear front runner until the media went on a smear campaign against her. You'll find out what that's about when it happens to Obama. And trust me it will, big time.
Some people understand things viscerally without being able to quite put it into words. Your well thought out piece will surely help people like myself who have drawn the same conclusions almost instinctively, yet haven't the skill to make the argument as cogently and succinctly as you have Mr. Handler. I think though, that people should not mistake persons like myself who may not find the right words to express the whys and wherefores of our support of Mr. Obama for being dullards or dimwits or "cultists". Sometimes you just know.
Thank you so much for this, you've just expressed what I feel.
And thank you, too, Evan. :)
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
