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
Good blog! And you are forgiven for maqking a mistake. Evedryone does that Some have to be forced to admit it!
And the most important thing Obama -- or any candidate -- has said in this race is that we must have openness and accountability. He can arrange the openness but we must supply the accountability.
grendl, as for superdelegates, they are a problem. Wi8thout them, Obama woulod have a much bigger lead. He has one of those votes, but so does Hillary. And you suggest that our of some kind of modesty he should not vote? Why not ask him to vote for her?
Bill Richardson hit the nail on the head this morning on Meet the Press. He said that there are edntirely too ,many superdelegates. They pervert the democracy of the primaries..
But as of now, Hillary isn't complaining. Why should she? She has more of them than he.
Plowboy, in my humble opinion, one is too many superdelegates.
They are an intrinsically undemocratic construct, a looking glass creature with five arms to pull five voting levers to our one.
I'm suggesting Mr. Obama not vote, unless its counted exactly as much as every other American citizens. He doesn't have to abolish the system right now. But he should make his intent regarding the future of superdelegates clear now. Moreover, the cowards in the media should ask him if he has any such intentions, and Hillary as well.
Who knows, the one who does might gain an advantage in the polls with the American People. Because that gesture alone, one of sacrifice and good will, honoring the democratic spirit on which this nation was founded might not go unrewarded.
Perhaps the first to do it might win the nomination, despite the superdelegate vote in Colorado. Risky, yes. Stupid? Well then democracy is stupid. And it isn't.
"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."
If it were not for early-voting in California, the contest might be over by now? I believe early voting for Hillary was rather strong and have seen claims that she did not carry the state based on the votes that were cast on the day of the primary (I don't know if that is true or not). Mail-in ballots were sent out four weeks before the primary and many Californians chose the inevitable candidate before they had a fully formed notion of Obama. And how many voted for Edwards prior to his withdrawal? Those Edwards voters have broken heavily for Obama. It makes me wonder if the outcome would have been different if folks were not allowed to vote as early as they did.
I do not agree with many of Obama's positions, but I support him because he may have the unique (to this field) ability to use the pressure of the citizenry to *shame* Washington into some constructive changes. I worked for a congressman that is now a senator. Having been inside the belly of the beast, I have first-hand experience of the the ugly and gigantic mess that Washington has become. Because I have first-hand experience, I do not and will not support Senator Clinton. I understand her style well, and I oppose it strongly. Partly on some of the principals you have outlined, but also because of the needless damage that her style of politics injects into an already strained process.
Thanks for the well considered and well written piece.
Excellent article!
So, the main reason you're going to vote for him is so that he'll bring about transparency in the government. How does he or does he propose new means for the people to affect the government's actions in the future? A referendum every time? Are you sure it's not just that he knows what button to push in you? Have you seen a documentary called "The Century of The Self"?
You see "increasing consistency", but I see increasing inconsistency in his behavior and message about new politics. Have you been keeping your "eyes peeled"?
Yes. I've been keeping my eyes peeled. What they see are the frenetic inconsistencies, off-the-shelf tactics, changing arguments, throw-everything-and-see-what-sticks practice of the Clinton campaign, and the contrasting consistency of Obama's message. Of course Clinton's tactics require an occasional detour from staying on message by Obama to confront Clinton's malodorous attacks before these solidify into noisome excrescence around his campaign.
Clinton does deserve recognition for the practiced manner with which she lobs manure at her opponent. Clearly she's had lots of practice and has perfected her technique over a number of years.
Amen!
Honest, and well thought out post. My mother voted for Hillary in CA also and now regrets it.
Excellent, compelling contribution. Thanks so much for taking the time to write and post this. Blog on, Evan!
Excellent article!
I also wavered between the two candidates for months and months, feeling each had so much to offer. It wasn't until Hillary (with Bill's help) began her negative spouting that I began to lean more and more towards Obama. That was the one thing I had prayed the Democratic Party would not succum kicking each other instead of working together. It seems the Clintons have fallen completely into that pit, threatening to take the whole party with them. You make a very good example with your point about her "It's 3 am..." ad.
The more I listen to Obama and the more I see him interact with others, the more I believe he has the humility, the integrity and the courage to lead the rest of us to take back our future. One of the most powerful moments for me was when he took the podium after winning an early primary and led his supporters in chanting "USA! USA!" He had me right there.
What I wanna ask people who have/had a hard time choosing between the Democratic candidates is have you done any research into their voting records and bill sponsorship? What is the criteria you use to make your final decision? Are you basing your choice on "gut instinct" as one commenter above suggested? Or do you actually dig deeper? Throughout this entire campaign, I haven't viewed more than 1 political ad (I don't get to watch much TV). However, I do stay glued to my laptop and I have researched and researched both candidates' backgrounds, including pouring through their resumes and reading testimonies from friends, family members, and co-workers. I have combed through webpage after webpage of their voting records and bills and committee membership and speeches to add to my knowledge of who they are. I even went out of my way to look up any related scandals. I did all of this before choosing my candidate. And let me tell you, in my research, there was a very clear difference between Clinton and Obama. So I don't understand people who had to see the dirty tactics of Hillary's campaigning to FINALLY open their eyes to how she operates. The Clintons have been doing this type of stuff for YEARS. Unfortunately, they're very skilled at diverting attention from their own wrongdoings and playing victim when someone outs their mafia-like shenanigans. But no more. Shining a spotlight on who they really are as humans is the best thing Obama has contributed to America...so far.
Thank you. Finally someone who actually does their homework. No offense to media, but anyone that bases their decision to vote for any candidate because of data obtained from media (whether print or other) shouldn't be allowed to vote Same for those who take the opinions or jabber of friends, relatives, et al. (Democracy - it's a privilege and responsibility - I do not believe GWB would have been elected if obtaining truth was a mandate prior to voting). We have the ability to research and obtain factual records and documentation that provides a truthful foundation about candidates.
For backers of Clinton or Obama or McCain or Huckabee or Nader or others - have you done your homework or are you basing your vote on something less than reality?
I'm secure that my vote is based on fact and know that I cared enough to vote for the very best.
I think if you could see the incredible ground game Obama is running that some of your skepticism might fade away. In many areas of the country his volunteers have done incredible work and re-energized progressives who were in a holding pattern. They haven't left in their wake offices full of messy papers and empty staplers, they have left an infrastructure and base to build upon. His campaign has proven Howard dean correct and shown that a 50 state strategy and the building of a grassroots network can work. There may be some starry eyed disciples but there are far more dedicated, hardworking, and thoughtful individuals who truly believe they can make a difference.
Thank you for such a well written commentary.
I too hope you have the chance to vote for Sen. Obama in the future.
The Real Mac 'Hussein' Daddy McNatt
Very well thought out and stated.
I just happen to agree with absolutely none of it.
Hillary Clinton regrets her war vote but at the time it seemed the right path to take.
Now you regret your vote but at the time it probably seemed right to you.
Hillary's ad does not state that Obama couldn't handle a national security problem. It suggests that she can, and asks the question, "who do you want?...."
If people want to take their government back, all they have to do is stop voting for jerks like the Bushes and the Reagans and the Nixons. Hillary's just as qualified to restore power to the middle class and the poor as Obama.
Everybody here keeps forgetting that this is a republic and that George Bush was re-elected by the majority of voters in this country in 2004. They accepted him, his vice president, his war, his dishonesty, his power mongering, his phony religious right, his supreme court judges, his horrible cabinet choices and all the other things we on the left complain about. They chose Bush!
They voted Bush in and you can't change that with a wave of the wand.
Then they voted in a dem congress in 2006 which does include Obama and Hillary and how far has that gotten us?
I'm sorry you missed your chance to vote for Obama, but lots of democrats feel quite safe voting for Hillary Clinton and still hope she wins the nomination, and we finally get this over with.
I hope the good people of Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island make the same choice you did and get the right person nominated so we can get on with the general election without all the smoke and mirrors.
I'm frankly getting more than a little bored with the puny war vote argument.
Democrab - "I'm frankly getting more than a little bored with the puny war vote argument."
I'm frankly getting more than a little pissed at people who suggest that the war vote argument is "puny". Take a quick hike to Iraq and see what a "puny" difference our illegal, unfounded invasion has had on the lives of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Iraqis. And I don't mean the ones cozily ensconced in the Green Zone, either.
Or, if you don't give a hoot about some distant Iraqis who have no immediate effect on your pristine life (as you, like many, may tend to think...) or if you don't have the time or means to travel quite that far, then saunter down to the closest veterans' hospital and see what a "puny" difference same illegal, unfounded invasion has had on our well-meaning but misguided, mentally and emotionally lobotomized veterans who have returned from there physically and mentally maimed for life. Then try to reach just a little deeper and think of the ripple effect and enormously far-reaching ramifications this "puny" invasion is having on so many people, far and wide. Please do try to meditate on that in some depth for some time - as you obviously never have yet. Then come back and we'll talk again about how "puny" the war vote argument may or may not be.
So easy to make statements like that from the depths of your favorite easy chair, all safe and sound. Think it through. Please.
Peace to you and yours.
nopartygal
My son has been to Iraq twice and Afghanistan once, and is currently trying to avoid a third tour of duty in Iraq.
You have no idea how much I sweated out those years, so don't be so quick to judge me about my "easy chair" statements. I didn't say the war was "puny" I said the whining about Hillary's vote is.
Democrab
Can you please list for me HRC's list of accomplishments. I need to be convinced to vote for her. Throughout many blogs on the internet I only see Obama supporters who list actual accomplishments but I never see from the HRC side. All I hear is that she is more experienced. I need you to prove it to me.
For Obama I can list his accomplishements in the Illinois Senate I can explain to you why the vote of Present does not mean you are a coward. I can list accomplishments in the US. Senate.
So if I should vote for HRC I need a list of accomlishments. I want to know why EXACTLY is she more experienced.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/29/eveningnews/main3894687.shtml?source=mostpop_story
................Start here.
Then go here and get ready to spend a long time reading, she's been busy and you can't encapsulate this much experience in a one minute sound bite.
http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=55463
or you could even do some research of your own, it's all public record and there's lots of it.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/29/eveningnews/main3894687.shtml?source=mostpop_story
start there then go here.......
http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=55463
Be ready to spend a long time reading. You can't encapsulate this much experience in a on minute sound bite.
Democrab
Can you please list for me HR
would you describe that war vote argument as "puny" when discussing it with the thousands of families whose reservist husbands, wives, children and friends went to a war that by most objective accounts has devastated the social and economic lives of all americans (who earn under $1M annually)? how about to me? i lost friends in 9/11 AND in the iraq war, and as someone who remembers that there are still men and women fighting over there to preserve rich american interests (and high prices for oil), i can assure you that as much as health care, nafta and the environment are high on my list -- that "puny war vote" has lobbed a grenade that i and many other people don't see so flippantly. if you feel it's such an inconsequential topic for the election, perhaps you should enlist and ask for the first plane to iraq?
Nuff said.
Beautifully stated and insightful post. Thank you for helping to dispel the notion that the millions of Americans who support Obama do so merely because he is an eloquent speaker. Obama is the only politician I've ever seen that genuinely cares about America and its people; unlike Clinton, McCain and their ilk who put on a show of caring only when its time for us to vote, but then turn their back on us when they go back to Washington. The only thing they care about it amassing ever more wealth and power at the expense of the lives and livlihood of the people.
I really like your point how hillary can't quite seem to distinguish between her personal agenda v/s what is best.. she seems to be driven by the craving for the white house and a sense of entitlement, more than the good of the country.. and somehow this fact/preception is kept out of the MSM..
Ork..
I TOTALLY agree.. I e-mailed the DNC twice .. even called them on the phone about this mess..
Of course No response..
He (Mr. Dean) better figure this out real quick..cuz this party is goin down the Tubes real quick..
A year where we were never better set to win , will get BLOWN ..AGAIN...
Rush Limbaugh's now telling his flock to vote for HRC, cuz they want the "fight" to keep on going, they're having the time of their lives...
well thought out and clearly stated
thank you
Evan Handler..
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!!!
Finally, someone speaking a bit of truth for a change.. I have found her behavior and that of her surrogates so outrageous as of late I will stay home for sure if she is the nominee. Many of her supporters say they will vote for Mccain if Obama gets the nomination, but I wouldn't go that far.
Most , not all, of HRC Fans are just like their Heroine.. To HELL with the Democratic party if she can't win then NOONE can...I just wish i could go to sleep and wake up when this nightmare is over!!
Diane Feinstein on FOX News Sunday..I just caught the end of it when changing the channel..she looked like a rabid dog defending her Hillary...Good Lord
Obama. Democrats. Democracy.
A charismatic leader with an idea whose time has come.
Great post, Evan.
Hopefully you'll get another opportunity to change your mind.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
