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
This must be the "buyer's remorse" that Hillary is talking about these days.
Thank you for your honesty. I don't think you are alone in this.
Not every person has the ability to say they were wrong, and furthermore discuss it in detail. So with that in mind, I say good for you!
The irony of Hillary's 3 AM ad is that it was a ploy used by the Mondale campaign in 1984, and in fact was created by the same person who created the Mondale ad. A young person reading this may well ask, "Mondale? Who the heck is that?"
So, more than anything else, Hillary's ad proved two things: (1) she is stuck in the past, and (2) the past doesn't work any more.
Dear Mr. Handler,
For those who think that if a lot of people love somebody he should be made a President then they should also find him an island where he does not have to work with anyone, simply rule, and "change" as he wants, please spare us.
He is lucky if he was a Portugeese we would be calling him Mr. Hussain and not Barrack and in that case Micheele should thought have about it before saying "I do" and that is really save by the bell.
Following is what I found at the website of the Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR);
"Rep. Keith Ellison said Wednesday that attempts to insinuate that Barack Obama is Muslim won't have any effect on the presidential candidate, arguing that Americans won't fall for such a "bigoted" appeal.
Ellison, a Minnesota Democrat and the first Muslim member of Congress, also said he has no doubt a Muslim could be elected president.
"It's a deliberate attempt to associate him with things Islamic," Ellison said of the use of Obama's middle name.
Obama's father and stepfather were Muslim, and he spent part of his childhood in Indonesia, a largely Muslim country — but Obama was not raised Muslim.
"Assuming that the American public is bigoted, and infused with religious bigotry against Muslims, is incorrect," Ellison said.
And he insisted that a Muslim could become president.
"Look, we elected a Catholic," Ellison said. "Mitt Romney was a viable candidate in this race. I don't think that his decline had to do with him being Mormon." Romney, a GOP candidate, dropped out of the race earlier this year.
"So I think that certainly America could elect a Muslim president," he said. "America could elect a woman president. I think we probably are going to elect a black president. And we'll all be better for it."
Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which fights anti-Muslim bigotry, said he agreed with Ellison.
"There clearly is a level of anti-Muslim attitude in our society, but I think it's still a minority," he said. "It's a vocal minority, but it's still a minority. The majority of Americans respect people of all faiths, and I think while taking faith into consideration, it would not be the main factor in their voting." (End Quote)
There is nothing wrong with being a Muslim, but lying, decetion, concealing and getting irrated about the truth is a major sin in Islam.
Whether he was raised as a Muslim or not, makes no difference, according to Islam if your seed comes from a Muslim father, you are a Muslim. That is the case with all religions.
Anytime I see Mrs. Angry Obama I run in the other direction, why to put a spin and call wolves? Accept what you are and move-on.
On one hand he says that the Super delegates must not over-rule the writ of the people and on the other does not want Florida and Michigan delegates be allowed to vote at the convention. What a flip-flop, what happened to the writ of millions of Folrida and Michigan voters? Oh' I forget Mr. Obama did not win those states.
Be happy, his friendly Republican Governor of Florida is already reaching across the isle and suggesting to accept a "new Democratic Florida primary", what a noble idea! Why not turn the turn back a little further say to 2000?
We are not a Kingdom, Sheikhdom or an Empire where one man drives the whole country. Very recently it was tried by Pervaiz Musharraf of Pakistan and by the Kenyan President, it did not work there and out of question here in USA. Our President even President-Elect works with the Congress. Mr. Obama's rhetoric of change is so vague and far away from the 2+2.
He also talks about absorbing Republicans in his cabinet, how about taking Lieberman as your running mate, Mr. Obama? Did you consider McCain, yet? Wouldn't that be nice if after the conventions McCain and Obama become each others side-kick and save us a lot of money by sparing tax payers's money in the general elections? Wouldn't that be a real change? May be then we will have some money to at least fulfill one of the "promises" of Mr. Obama as the rest of the promises would require money that China may not want to give us. Why risk! Resolve!
Oh' yes, he is against the Iraq war resolution because he was not in senate when it was passed. But willing to attack Pakistan on "credible intelligence" did not his Republican friend Bush and Cousin Cheney got involved in Iraq on the same "credible intelligence", I am shocked Mr. Obama's Incredible Intelligence" and majority of the supporters' "incredible arrogance".
The millions of dollars he spends on TV adds and calling everybody a divisive but himself, how many families could have been helped, why you need so much money to prove your worth, if you are already loved by the whole world????
By the way, you are a real comedian, "relax ! it is compliment".
Regards.
Najam, NJ
People: This is why you don't post drunk!
Najam, all candidates spend millions on their campaign, not just Obama. Why not ask Hill about all of her money? or Romney? or any other candidate, even one running at the local level?
The rest of your post about whether Obama is Muslim or not is not even worth the time you took to type it. This is a tired attack, one that no one even gives credence to at this point.
Careful - your prejuidice is showing.
A muslim cannot, in modern America, be elected president. I know this because I live in Missouri and many of the people I speak to about Obama told me that they'd decided not to vote for him because he is muslim. I think it'd be a better world we live in if Representative Ellison was correct, but he's not. Certainly, many enlightened and progressive people have no qualms with a muslim president. Sadly, America is not made up of enlightened, progressive people.
And you cannot bring Florida into the picture when Obama wasn't even on the ballot. Of course he didn't win- he heeded the DNC's wishes and withdrew from the primary. Clinton's win there was an empty one.
Why not take McCain? Because men like him have been running the country too long. Because many Americans are sick of pro-war torture happy conservatives. If Americans are dying to get Republicans out of the White House, why put another back in?
BUT, Obama is not a Muslim. You have a responsibility to correct those around you who believe this lie. Otherwise, you are obfuscating the privilege of living in America. In your post, you go on as if the truth doesn't matter.
Your statements about Senator Obama and the seating of Florida and Mich delegates is wrong. You must know they are wrong and are just falsely stating. It was not Senator Obama's idea to not seat these delegates, it was the decision of the Democratic National Commitee and Party. These states were punished for trying to move up their primaries. Senator Obama just agreed with Senator Clinton to not campaign there. Senator Obama and John Edwards were not even on the ballot in Michigan, so how could Hillary have actually won? If I was the only name on the ballot and someone voted next to my name I could win too. It was irrellivant because the delegates were already stripped by the DNC. This has nothing to do with Senator Obama he is just obeying the rules set by his party. Hillary is the one trying to change the rules after the fact.
You've got to be joking!!!
BTY, for Judaism, it passes though the mother not the father.
Hi Evan,
Thank you for that post. One thing with the health vs. car insurance. It is not easy to be home with chest pain(maybe die, abdominal pain, an abscess in you mouth, a chronic cough and not have a place to turn, need a new medication prescription and afraid to go to the doctor's because you do not have health insurance. You have a choice whether to lose hours at work because you are too sick to go, tolerate pain or pay a tax free premium(they both say it should be affordable with the gov. subsidies) every paycheck and not have the constant worry. What about going to the E.R. and we hit you and your credit report with a bill of $2000 off the bat? No insurance.
Car insurance is a smart thing to do and mandatory. It is a risk you take when you're healthy and guess what, if you or the other driver should mess up, you still need the health insurance or the same E.R. will come at you again like a ton of bricks. You and your credit report for $10,000 for the 23hour admission for observation because of the bump on your head.
That is why it comes back to Universal healthcare. It will make sense to get it if is affordable.
We can ask people in the top 1 or 2% tax bracket to contribute but do you think they are going to wait to get an MRI when they can pay to buy their own machine? That is where Milady is not expanding on in her plan.
One more thing, if you are there in the hospital for more than 23 hours ,it could mean you lose your house.
I am sorry if I am engaging in the politics of fear.
excellent article. Obama says he will not be a perfect President. He is the better choice because of that.
only proves that this is a high school popularity contest...
why would you say it that way? wow.
Bottom line; Republicans are decidedly NOT EXCITED about voting for John McCain. Republicans ARE EXCITED about voting against Mrs. Clinton. Democrats, Independents and even some republicans are excited about voting for Mr. Obama. It's Obama, duh!
Sir,
Thank you for your candid admission of error. If you are against the Iraq War and Bush's war on our liberties, you should be against Senator Clinton because she voted for the Iraq War resolution and the Patriot Act.
Interesting.
A scant few weeks ago after what I'm going to presume careful deliberation and consideration benefiting a hard nosed skeptic, you cast your vote for Hillary.
Now you have had a change of heart. A sudden insight into reality which causes you to regret that mistake. But I don't see a fundamental development in the campaign. Nor do I see a fundamental change in Sister Hillary. She has not suddenly revealed a new side, has she?
All I can see is that the other guy has run the tables.
My problem: why should I trust your judgment today, absent a really compelling reason for your change of heart?
Maybe if the Rezko slime sticks, you'll be regretting this column next week.
Because the more you know about both candidates, the more intelligent people will go for OBAMA...
It's all about educating yourself, this is why IT IS a good thing that the process is taking so long...the voters would'nt get to REALLY know the CANDIDATES OTHERWISE....
OBAMA 08
'The more intelligent people will go for Obama" and so, it appears, will the more obnoxious.
A lot of people who write off Obama as "an empty suit" (etc) simply haven't investigated him very deeply.
But there's another important factor to consider. Because Barack's long-term greater political strategy/philosophy involves rallying the people, his success at the polls is a significant measure of vindication.
Some of us have loved his big ideas for years, but knew that that's all they would ever be -- big ideas -- unless he could provide evidence that he actually could inspire people with them. This campaign has provided such evidence in abundance. I do believe he takes the notion of his campaign (and his presidency) as a partnership quite seriously. And I do believe the American people are finally ready for a president who asks them to stand up and do more than complain.
And those that favor another candidate are therefore deemed stupid?
As a former member of the Republican "sect", this is how we used to deal with those who held contrary views - though to be fair we had another explanation which was moral turpitude.
It is good to see that liberals are more open minded.
At this point I am agnostic about picking Obama over Hillary or vice versa.
My major concern is that a Republican not be elected. There is just too much at stake for our nation.
He's consistently won the primaries, so no tables have been turned.
But to answer your question, he cites two things: she has gone increasingly negative, and more deceptively so. And his performance in last two debates have convinced him.
"Run the tables" is a gambling expression to mean a streak of winning.
I guess three weeks is an eternity in politics.
Rog49...
Not to mention the NAFTA slime, the non-for profit hospital slime, the misrepresentation slime, the absent slime.... etc...etc...
I believe what Mr. Handler is saying is that as this campaign has continued, and we've seen more of Obama and Clinton in action, he likes Obama more and Clinton less. Obama held himself well in the debates. Clinton on the other hand is clearly not comfortable in the underdog position.
I hear what he is saying. I don't buy it.
Perhaps, three weeks is an eternity in politics. But I can't help feeling that Brother Evan may be reacting to Brother Obama "running the tables".
Presidential elections should be conducted at a higher level of intellectual engagement that picking prom king and queen.
Decisions should be coldly rational designed to achieve concrete goals.
It's nice to feel good, I suppose. It's more important to make sure one achieves the good.
Please don't read this as an attack on this or that candidate or support for another. It's the way all candidates should be evaluated.
So much to agree with here, it's hard to know where to start, though I'd have to say your contention that Senator Clinton no longer "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" pretty much covers it all. I used to think Hillary was terrific, and I hoped she would one day run for President. But tracking her performance as a Senator from my state, seeing her gradually shift to the right in an effort to broaden her base for that run, I began to see a lot of things I really didn't like. And now, with her win-at-all-costs mentality in full view, her concern for the good of the country seems hopelessly mired in the kind of quest for power we've seen all too much of these past years.
thank you for posting . . .you will get the chance to vote for Obama in November . . . . particularly liked this: "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."
hillary is more about ruthless ambition . . . and so kind of mantra that she and bill believe that she is owed the WH . . . she is the wrong candidate for the times . . . this is more than just about hillary and Obama it is about rescuing the Democratic party from the DLC element the fact that Senators Kennedy, Kerry and Dodd are for Obama speaks volumes about getting things down in the Senate . . .
I totally agree with you about the government crisis that we are in. But it is because of that, that we need a real fighter to change things. Hopying and dreaming of real change won't work. Besides, we all know that a President cannot do that kind of change alone, the other 3 branches of gov., the powerful lobbyists and the special interests will fight him.
I believe it would be a lot better if we have Hillary as the fighting President and have Obama as an inspirational figure who is a very eloquent speaker and is very capable of motivating and heading a grassroots movement to help the President achieve the changes we all need.
If you and all Obama supporters don't think we will need to fight hard to raise our country again from the brink of disastor that the current government put us in, then you are living in a dream world and no one can take your report seriously!!!!
And finally, your report has a lot of "seems" such as
"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 ..." I don't believe that "seems" is a very convincing argument!!!!
Nice post in this Obama territory. May I note that Sen. Clinton has PROVEN her ability to actually bring two opposing sides together, in the senate, (and the primary parties in the Irish peace talks note of her importance). Sen. Obama (who's accomplishments are hard to note even by his fans) has managed to actually push many democrats farther away with his continual film compilation of all the best one liners. Take a look. Hillaryspeaksforme.com and find the "Plagerism" video. I'm old enough to remember the moments, but for the younger group it's rather a wake up. He looks good, he knows what to say, but can he actually get the job done? (Ladies, how may time have you been on this date?) This is HUGELY important folks! If you really want change, replace the testosterone of leadership with a bit of estrogen!!!!!!!! That would be change.
Obama's accomplishments are actually quite impressive for a freshman senator. See this http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/21/164117/783?new=true
Any fantasy that Obama is not a fighter is instantly refuted when you remember that he took on the Clinton machine with an ex-president as chief cheerleader and beat them back to where she is hanging on the ropes. If you want to criticize Obama, you need to find other grounds. Not being a fighter is not one of them.
By contrast, Hillary could not stand the heat so she had to bring Bill in, with disastrous results. So who is the real fighter here?
So completely heartfelt, smart and articulate. Thanks for that.
Loved your sweaty lawyer too!
Evan Handler,
This is THE perfect article about Barack Obama.
You have just articulated what all of us who are voting for and supporting Barack Obama think.
Would you please re-post this on other blog sites such as Daily Kos.
In case you don't, I have written a diary on Daily Kos called The PERFECT article about Barack Obama. It is late on a Sunday night, so, there's not a lot of traffic on Daily Kos, but everyone who has posted a comment so far has agreed that you nailed it perfectly.
Not all of the people who support Obama are able to articulate why. Not in short sound bite form at least. Most have not made a simple decision to vote for Barack. So, it's difficult to summarize very complex reasoning. Since it's not about what Barack promises that is so much better than Hillary... it is harder to explain it. So, you get told you have no reason and you must just be drinking the kool-aid. which is absurd. All of the people I know who voted in Washington state for Barack are very intelliegent. It's just not an easy short conversation to explain all of this stuff. Which is why I am excited that you did such a great job making the most important point in such a compelling summary.
thank you.
I'm spreading the word about this article.
Welcome aboard! Hopefully all of the Dems will hop on the train!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
