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
Self-doubt is a liberal curse.
Wait until Obama is "creamed" by the Republican Machine. Then you'll figure out why
your first vote was cast for Hillary Clinton.
You're delusional!
Don't you get it. We, hopefully most of us, do want to see anyone creamed by a machine. We have had enough of it. If just for the first time we can as a nation of people reject the attempts to diminish the man/woman and stay on principle we will have accomplished the first step to controlling our government and making them accountable.
I've heard a few Hillary Clinton supporters make that same argument. However, it would appear that your logic is rather flawed. If Hillary Clinton is incapable of dealing with Obama, what makes you think that she would be better than he in responding to the "Republican Machine" (as you put it)?
Further, if you truly are a Clinton supporter, and identify with her based on real policy issues, it doesn't make sense for you to be rooting for Obama's failure. No matter which candidate wins, you win. Again, that's only if your position is based solely on policy.
And HRC won't get "creamed" by the Republican machine? Any candidate the Dems put up is in for trail by fire by the Republicans. That is just how the Repubs campaign and unfortunately it is very successful. So far I've liked how Obama has handled himself against attacks from the Clinton campaign and now McCain and the conservatives. So far his campaign has been brilliant, hopefully if he gets the nomination that will continue. Dems will need all the help they can get to win in November. The Obama campaign has been able to move mountains based upon grassroots support and volunteer mobilization. To have that going into the general election would be a big advantage against the Republican machine.
Thank you, Evan Handler!
I think what is being overlooked here is the underbelly of Obama's truth that good government can only be when the people demand it. We take the first step by taking a hugh gamble on him. But as President, he will not be able to change a damn thing in Washington DC without the continued backing of the American people.
So the underbelly of the message is that he will use the "bully pulpit" of the President to rally us to help him get it done. He knows his voice will not be enough. He will need voices by the millions to demand of their congressperson and senators that they manifest the changes he promotes.
We all know the mess the next President will face. We must pick up our mops and buckets and help him clean this grime away__and keep it clean.
We know what it's like to clean house. We also know how much tougher it is to clean a house that's been ignored too long.
Stay skeptical, and follow the NAFTA Canadian Consulate General story and follow the Rezko trial and read Joseph C. Wilson's blog, "Obama's Hollow 'Judgment' and Empty Record" on http://www.taylormarsh.com/ , because HuffingtonPost only ran it for a few minutes, or read, Sean Wilentz's "How Barack Obama played the race card and blamed Hillary Clinton." on http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304 (also not on HuffingtonPost).
Stay skeptical about Obama, because he's not the real deal.
The canadian NAFTA thing has been debunked, by the canadain government no less, nice try though.
Right after you finish visiting those links above, visit this one: http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/January-1993/Vote-of-Confidence/
It's an article about a young Barrack Obama breaking fundraising and voting numbers records in Illinois for the Democratic party. He persuaded people who hadn't voted IN YEARS to register to vote and participate in the political process. And helped Bill Clinton secure Illinois and move on to win the presidential election of '92.
Pay close attention to his last quote of the article:
"Obama shrugs off the possibility of running for office. "Who knows?" he says. "But probably not immediately." He smiles. "Was that a sufficiently politic 'maybe'? My sincere answer is, I'll run if I feel I can accomplish more that way than agitating from the outside. I don't know if that's true right now. Let's wait and see what happens in 1993. If the politicians in place now at city and state levels respond to African-American voters' needs, we'll gladly work with and support them. If they don't, we'll work to replace them. That's the message I want Project Vote! to have sent."
LDW, what have you done lately to help others?
There are a lot of Clinton propagandists posting on HP in the last week.. they make stuff up, outright lie, link to other propaganda, attempt to make one feel afraid of choosing reason and through over unfounded claims manufactured because truths won't work for Clinton.
It is a dirty business... particularly dirty when the Clintons are involved...
Let me suggest to voters that they insist Clinton release her tax returns and the donor lists before they consider voting for her... I think we feel frightened and abused is we know what is there and where they have been making their money and how they have sold out the interest of the American people ...
they are withholding them because they have a lot to hide from you, from us.
The Hillary Hating creed continues. Now, since every nook and cranny of Hillary Clinton's past has been examined and there's no evidence of malfeasance on her part, the Hillary Haters have pounced on whatever bit they can find that hasn’t been made public, and they just KNOW that therein lies the evil of the universe, waiting to be unmasked. What utter nonsense!
A frank and moral perspective. Beautifully written.
Get ready for a huge Democratic crossover for McCain if Obama is the nominee. I've spoken to scores of Democrats, and I haven't found one who would vote for Obama, myself included.
Every Saturday for the last several weeks I have voluntarily made scores of calls to voters most of whom are Democrats and most of those who I reach say they are voting for Obama. These amount in the hundreds. He's beaten her in eleven straight contests for godsake.
No true democrat will vote for McCain - period.
Hinny, take the blinders off.
That's okay.
Hinnis, you are patently wrong on this. Once Obama is the nominee (and there is little chance he won't be), the election will be framed in terms of: John McCain embraces (show image of McCain hugging Bush) the policies of George W. Bush. Do you want another 4 years of Bush's policies? Do you want a man that admits to knowing little about the economy in the WH? Do you want a man who believes you have no problem having your son, grandson and great-grandsons fighting in Iraq?
McCain appeals to a unenergized segment of the Republican party. On election day, energized democrats who loath where this country is will step up and vote for a man who is calling us to make change. Much like the "new Covenant" of Bill Clinton in 1992, and Kennedy's "Ask not what your country can do for you", Obama is challenging us to stand up and make the change.
The U.S. will overwhelmingly respond to that call.
Brian
Hinnis - if, in fact, you choose to vote for McCain instead of Obama, then all of you "Democrats" will be responsible for the end of our country as we know it. What will basically be another term for the Bushies will result in more war, more deficit, more secrecy, more invasion of our civil liberties.
I hope you are willing to accept this responsibility with some class. It'll be a long four years for you.
Right. I think everyone who voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004 should automatically be drafted into the Iraq war. Put your body where your vote is. That goes for all of the congresspeople who voted "yes" for the war authorization bill to help Bush send our troops in.
Great article. I admire you as an actor, and I very much appreciate you standing up for the Democratic Party. I agree with Richardson's remarks today that whoever has the most delegates after Tuesday is the presumed-nominee. Let's hope the Clintons will not turn this into a blood bath.
Hillary still won California even if you had voted for Obama the first time, but I appreciate that you went with your gut instinct the first time and voted for her. Perhaps after the Rezko trial starts tomorrow, you might change your mind on Obama. The Democratic party needs to let this Rezko trial happen before deciding who the candidate is going to be - if we decide it is Obama and he is more involved in Rezko than we believe he is - we will definitely lose in November.
Politics are dirty and Hillary is only skimming the surface of what the Republicans will be throwing at "precious Obama." if he gets the nomination. She is doing the Democratic party a favor - better to see how he handles things now than later. My feeling so far, he doesn't handle the pressure very well. By the way, it really annoys me to think I could possibly be paying for his smoking breaks when he is president.
Ummm what about that trial in California that is going to start soon regarding the $1million fundraiser for Clinton? What about her taxes? What about the White House Papers that have not been released? Hmmmm yeah I thought so...no comments
Your last comment is pretty obnoxious and factually inaccurate. Obama QUIT smoking right before he announced his candidacy. That was one of Michelle's preconditions to him running..."get his mind clear and his body right". I get really tired of reading people's lies on blogs such as these. Do you people even bother to read...at all?
JOey, interesting that you don't think Democrats need to wait to see what's in Hillary Clinton's tax return.
Why do you think she wants to wait until after Ohio to release it? Could it be because she and Bill have made bags of money in a company that actively works to ship American jobs to India?
Why aren't we talking about the trial happening in California right now, where the Clintons are accused of fraud?
Why aren't we talking about all the crooks Bill pardoned?
Why aren't we talking about all the shady associations Hillary had in her real estate career?
How about that corporate bundler of hers - over 170000 dollars~ - who has been indicted on charges of ongling sexual harassment? She won't give the money back? Whoah! Feminist? Hardly.
The list goes on. Obama's campaign doesn't peddle it to the media every morning in their conference call the way Hillary's campaign peddles any smut they can dig up on Obama, true or not. But it's out there.
Excellent comments Evan, thank you.
You write that "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".
The nearly psychotic mood swings in the Clinton campaign over the past two weeks in pursuit of her ego driven and outsized ambition may indeed have very negative consequences for Democratic unity and momentum into November. It is time to put our nations future ahead of personal goals and work to regain our national honor and the rule of law so demeaned and ignored by the Bush cabal of treasonous bastards. It is time to end the Clinton campaign and work for victory and working majorities in both houses.
I was an unabashed Kucinich supporter, and I offer no apologies for it. Since I am a Florida resident the point is moot. In the general election I'm going to vote for the Democratic nominee whoever that is, however, Senator Obama seems to me to be the better candidate of the two for exactly the reasons you've stated. I would expect my president to have judgement enough to implement the right policies and select the right people to handle all of these situations so that he doesn't ever have to worry about answering the National Security phone at three AM or any other time. Our safety is in proper planning and execution-not in reaction time.
Oprah will certainly reward you with a part in her next "made for TV" movie!!!
Events of the last week have shown just how caustic Hilary can be. She is ready to tear her opponent by lying on the content of his character, while hoping the electorate will be under some kind of amnesia not to fault her record and her incompetent strategists. She states Obama has based his whole campaign on a speech, well I wish she had one great one, a truthful one that she could have based hers on. Hilary has to lie about her career not to reflect her time as a Walmart corporate lawyer (Oh, those union backers might find out), pretend she was fully engaged in running the country while not holding a security clearance, and to this day still remain hawkishly naive about war and peace in Iraq, Iran and Pakistan. She is ready to loose all credibility if that means bringing Obama down. Unfortunately more Americans than ever are fully plugged in, and they are not being fooled, not now, not this time.
people will often choose certainty over the unknown even if it means that they'll certainly be unhappy or disappointed. i keep thinking of this when i hear people say they'll take clinton because they know what they're getting even if they feel like she isn't necessarily the best candidate (and yes this can be said of other candidates as well). i find it disheartening when people feel that they have to settle for the dysfunctional style of governing they're used to, rather than having faith in what it'd be like to have a government that would be accountable to those that elected it. casting a vote every few years is not the extent to which people should be involved in their government, it's time tot take responsibility and start doing the work that the democratic process requires of us in order to succeed.
I agree withmany of your points here about the need for greater accountability and transparence in our government. I agree that the government should be by, for, and of the people.
However, it was my understanding that it was precisely those things that America asked for in 2006. And didn't get.
What Obama says is true. What's missing is the HOW. I have yet to see an Obama supporter whose contribution to greater accountability, transparence, and exercise of oversight extends beyond getting Obama elected.
Nobody - at least no one that I have read or talked to - seems to have the slightest idea how "we" will be accomplishing any of this. They seem to think Obama has a plan. If he does, past "Yes we can", I haven't heard it yet.
Without a plan, a dream remains just that: a dream. And the price we will collectively pay for Obama's unrealized dream may be steep indeed, whether we pay that price in Nov or in 4 years.
The "HOW" is evidenced in his campaign. Bottom up not top down. As excellently portrayed in this article, it's We The People who must become the HOW that changes Washington.
Obama has run a meticulous campaign based on organization at the grass roots level. This is HOW change will be effected in Washington. That, and the removal of the power of GREEDY LOBBYISTS for corporations who gain access thru buying off senators and representatives.
Just those two changes represent more than all the changes proposed by Senator Clinton, whose campaign failures are a stark example of what's wrong with the status quo.
Very good and thought out article.
(Mr Handler)
THank you,
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
