Open Letter to Barack Obama
Dear Senator Obama,
Congratulations on your big win in Iowa. I was thrilled and recently posted an article about your campaign putting a lot of effort into young people and women, who used to be the least likely to vote. Then, as we all know, a large number of women cast their votes for Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire. The primaries in my state haven't happened yet, but I'm part of the under-thirty, female demographic that is now considered yours out of hand. But I am undecided.
There's no doubt you are inspirational. Among some of my progressive friends and loved ones, questioning you in what would normally be common sense when choosing the next leader of the free world, seems to have become sacrilege. Indeed, like New Hampshire voters, the mainstream media and others waving palm branches and all but naming you the messiah, have tried making up my mind for me. The same as they did to voters not so long ago when declaring Hillary the expected nominee. But I've heard you talk about the dangers of anointing you the inevitable winner, so perhaps you'll read on.
My generation grew up witnessing the ineffectiveness and downright corruptness of US politicians. We've also witnessed you in all your inspirational glory motivating unlikely groups to get out and vote. You're indeed a breath of fresh air. So far, we've heard your ideas, but before I personally can drink the kool-aid, I need plans.
I care deeply and have written on my concern about healthcare and caregiving, since two of my young children are disabled. One is in a wheelchair with spinal cord cancer, and one has Autism (and with 1 in 150 children having Autism, this is surely not an issue unique to me). So of course, the first place I looked was into your healthcare plan. Luckily, that's one full-scale plan I can download from your website. From your speeches, I fully expected to find something creative and new to help support us and others dealing with Autism and all other disabilities, something concrete. Unfortunately all I found was that you express support for things already in place in this area when you took office as Senator (while other candidates do more).
Yet my reason for writing you is definitely not only Autism or healthcare. In fact, I like your foreign policy ideas. You and Hillary both want to cut taxes for the middle class, and I like both of your stances on international and domestic poverty issues. Your immigration ideas are nearly the same as well. Your civil rights and women's issues platforms are stellar. You and Hillary also both say you won't pander to corporate interests -- well, this one I'll have to see to believe from any politician.
Change. Alright, we get it. The change message is just starting to seem "Kerryesque" -- only with more charisma. At this point anyone on a democratic ticket will bring dramatic change. And I hear many saying they like Hillary, but can't vote for her because she's polarizing, or pro-establishment. Beyond over-scrutiny this can't be the case, since both of you have progressive and very similar platforms. In fact, I think it's an outright myth, spoon-fed to us by the same people who said her tears would end the Clinton campaign.
Alright, I know at this point you think I'm against you. But I'm not. I'm trying to figure out how to support you. The glitzy media coverage and superb speaking ability just isn't really doing it for me anymore. I need to feel confident of other leadership traits; broad platitudes, or wanting to have a beer with you don't cut it. I'll leave falling for a personality cult to the mega-church-attending religious community. Lack of critical thinking is what got The Decider elected.
But I have a hunch you're more than just an enchanting speaker. So show us specifics. The "yes we can" changes you propose sound exciting -- how will you do it? Not just, within the first 100 days I'll require this or that...Where will you get the money and how much will it cost? How long will it take? What makes your plan realistic in getting the wealthy to actually pay taxes instead of sending money off-shore? When your website says things like: "Obama will secure all loose nuclear materials in the world within four years." Tell us HOW.
While Senator Clinton has had plenty of time to show us some of her plans, she only just started showing us her personality. We definitely need more plans from her too of course, but she has more federal-level experience on her side. It would be encouraging to see that vivid personality you've shown us take a turn to start including some concrete plans. This is the only way we can make a well-rounded choice between you.
Like many, I'm enthusiastic about this election. I've set up voter registration links on my blog and taken voter registration forms to my daughter's pre-school. I've written about the presidential race, but not decided on a candidate. I'd like to take the next step and start volunteering for a campaign: give me and other undecided voters some concrete reasons it should be yours. Show us you're ready not only to brainstorm, but to lead.
Sincerely waiting to see more,
Kim Mance
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
Ms. Mance:
On its face, your desire for policy details is reasonable. However, it seems more prudent, during the primaries and caucuses, for the candidates to provide just enough of their plans to reveal what issues they consider to be important and the direction they will follow. The reason is that, then, they may use the primary season and the feedback from the electorate to develop, vet and refine their policies, so as to avoid 'flip-flopping', miscalculating or over-commiting. Of course, any such ertwhile indiscretions would be fodder for their adversaries. ['Vetting' and 'refining' - for example, of implementing healthcare mandates - would include making sure there is enough financing].
In effect, the candidates must deal with the trade-off between presenting their policies, as they currently are doing, and possibly lose some votes (such as yours), or doing it as you would wish, and suffer more severe consequences.
Meanwhile, there are other markers by which one may choose a candidate, such as having good judgment, consistency, speaking the truth, regarless of the consequences, obeying the law, and honoring the sacred trust of public service.
WintonyMay.
You say you won't be lured in by a personality cult...
And yet you obviously bought into the "Benazir Bhutto = #1 Mother Theresa/Popess of Democracy OK!!!" religion propagated by the Bush Administration. That's funny.
But anyhow, if you choose a candidate based on how many minutely micro-targeted proposed programs affect you personally, you are going to pick the Clinton in the race every time.
I recall HRC putting out one of those minutely detailed programs before...
It's hard to see Obama as the "Change" candidate, when he is a Lieberman DLC dem.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/17/520896.aspx
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn04242006.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/1/12052/83146/461/428731
http://pieceofmind.wordpress.com/2007/01/18/obama-lieberman-and-the-dlc/
How? Look at his history.
In the Illinois State Senate he managed to take an issue that everyone saw as a loser and get it passed in the senate unanimously. He did this with little political influence and almost no support. I'm speaking, of course, about the required videotaping of interrogations.
The dems were afraid it would make them look soft on crime. The cops hated it, and the repubs had their knee-jerk tough-on-crime response to the idea. Even the governor was against him. He could've picked something easier to tackle, and many of his supporters in the senate advised him to do just that. At the start, he had maybe five votes to pass the measure.
Obama went to work. He convinced the cops that this was in their best interest, and listened to their concerns. He was willing to compromise on some aspects, but not others. He did the same with the dems and the repubs. There was no arm-twisting, no influence-peddling, just straightforward work. By listening to his opponents and acknowledging their points of view, he calmed their fears and was able to convince them that this was a good idea. Not just for the public, but for them. He was able to talk to them where they live.
In the end, the measure passed the senate unanimously, 35-0.
He makes the case for progressive ideas, but can do it in a conservative voice.
Cont...
I support Obama because he makes me less cynical and I like that. We need that now after Bush. Because I agree with Senator Durbin (who I think is awesome): Spending more time in the Senate is not going to make you a better president. Because I want to vote for someone and not just against the GOP.
Finally, I too would like to hear more specifics from him on things that interest me: CAFTA for instance. But I understand that what's important to know and understand is the vision. When you mention your quest for a speech about autism it reminded me of part of his speech in 2004: "For alongside our famous individualism, there's another ingredient in the American saga. A belief that we are connected as one people. If there's a child on the south side of Chicago who can't read, that matters to me, even if it's not my child..."
I'm sure there are more than one way to address the problems we face. The "how" i think, is not the issue. The issue is who has the right vision and more important, who has that "thing" that will make people follow your vision.
I can appreciate this post Ms. Mance. I hear you. But I think it is interesting that your take is "There's no doubt you are inspirational but..." and then you go ahead and complain about the supposed lack of super detailed plans that somehow would help you to predict the future and therefore make you feel more confident.
I say it's interesting 'cause my take is quite the opposite: "Sen Clinton, there is no doubt you are intelligent, capable and have been around but..." and this is where I complain about how Hillary doesn't move me one inch and I find no inspiration in her.
While it is desirable to have a president who knows lots about policy, I think in the end it is about who is a true leader. It is about who has a vision and who is honest.
Senator Clinton is the best known of all candidates. She has the support of the democratic party establishment and more money than any other candidate and yet she won by only 2 points in New Hampshire which was long considered her stronghold. Why? -I think it is because Senator Clinton lacks something that Obama has plenty of: That thing that makes people want to follow someone because they trust that person and like that person. You can't get it by spending all your life in government or marring someone who has it. Can't buy it, won't find it in NH. You are just born with it or not. There has been many leaders in the history of the world but the ones who really stand out had that thing.
When almost 30% of HC's supporters say the main reason for their support is Bill Clinton, something is wrong. Asked if given the chance they would prefer voting for Bill Clinton over Hillary, about half of the people who voted for Hillary in NH, said they would vote for Bill instead. What's up with that? Cont...
Ms Mance,
when you write, "You and Hillary also both say you won't pander to corporate interests -- well, this one I'll have to see to believe from any politician," you illustrate you are possibly capable of getting this vital point: Without re-aligning the balance between corporate interests and the people, nearly none of a progressive agenda can actually be implemented. The reason Obama doesn't have a lot of specifics is that if he did address your points, he'd get in trouble with either his corporate bosses who are funding his campaign, or with the people when it becomes clear his supposed populist agenda is nothing of the kind. If you look at Clinton, she's even more aligned with corporate interests.
Change - true, progressive change - cannot happen when the question of corporate power is left to a back-burner issue. It is the single most fundamental that must be tackled.
Here's hoping you don't drink ANY of the KoolAid and instead vote for good policy and for your own best interests and reject both Clinton AND Obama. Edwards is a pretty good choice; he'll fight corporate interests, provide better health care than either Clinton or Obama, and will enable a truly progressive agenda. With Obama and Clinton, unfortunately the best we can hope for is better sounding rhetoric.
RTIII
If you want a real health care president, address your request to John Edwards.
The faulty logic in relying on detailed plans to make a hiring decision is a president doesn't have the control of a, let's say, football coach. WHo can detail specifically how he's going to beef up the secondary, or improve the running game, etc. Even at that, he's somewhat restricted by the team's draft status; the owner's willingness to spend money; unforseen injuries...A president's plan will have to clear both houses; depending on cost, the plan may have to be seriously watered-down; and just too many other factors outside the president's control to mention. That's why leadership skills are more important than admin skills. The ability to select a strong cabinet or experts in every arena is far more vital to effecting change. Otherwise, we should find a prototypical analistic engineer. We need a common-sense, inspiratrional leader, not a planning expert.
Obama-Richardson '08
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
Political Career
In the Illinois State Senate, he worked with both Democrats and Republicans to help working families get ahead by creating programs like the state Earned Income Tax Credit, which in three years provided over $100 million in tax cuts to families across the state. He also pushed through an expansion of early childhood education, and after a number of inmates on death row were found innocent, Senator Obama worked with law enforcement officials to require the videotaping of interrogations and confessions in all capital cases.
In the U.S. Senate, he has focused on tackling the challenges of a globalized, 21st century world with fresh thinking and a politics that no longer settles for the lowest common denominator. His first law was passed with Republican Tom Coburn, a measure to rebuild trust in government by allowing every American to go online and see how and where every dime of their tax dollars is spent. He has also been the lead voice in championing ethics reform that would root out Jack Abramoff-style corruption in Congress.
As a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Senator Obama has fought to help Illinois veterans get the disability pay they were promised, while working to prepare the VA for the return of the thousands of veterans who will need care after Iraq and Afghanistan. Recognizing the terrorist threat posed by weapons of mass destruction, he traveled to Russia with Republican Dick Lugar to begin a new generation of non-proliferation efforts designed to find and secure deadly weapons around the world. And knowing the threat we face to our economy and our security from America's addiction to oil, he's working to bring auto companies, unions, farmers, businesses and politicians of both parties together to promote the greater use of alternative fuels and higher fuel standards in our cars.
I continue to be stunned by those who demand more "homework" from the candidates, but somehow aren't willing to do it themselves.
Other postings here are replete with sources of answers to many of your questions, but many of them are completely unanswerable by ANY candidate at this point in the process.
First, despite G.W. Bush's self-reference, the President is not, in fact "The Decider" on most of these issues. I know that you know that the Congress is a co-equal branch of government with its own ideas and - more to this point - power. Why have you forgotten it as you wrote this post?
Second, there is not remotely sufficient resource in a campaign organization, no matter how massive or far-flung, to work out all the details that you seem to require.
Third, even if the resources were available to address the issues on which you are very understandably focused, to the detail that you specify, multiply this resource requirement by the myriad of other issues on which so many others are also reasonably focused.
There are others like you who feel that the candidates are also insufficiently concrete on health care, and the deficit, and HIVAIDS, and cancer, and our crumbling infrastructure, and the economy, and immigration, and the environment, and our energy future, and governmental gridlock, and executive branch high crimes and misdemeanors, and the scandal of electronic voting, and the threat of terror, and Darfur, and Kenya, and Russia, and China, and the sub-prime mortgage mess, and our declining education system, and the steady rise of corporatism, and the military-industrial complex, and the threats to our food supply, our water supply, our information systems, and our Way of Life.
This is why apparent intelligence, personality, character, the ability to influence others, and general attitude about the broad issues that are important to you are the only real bases that you or anyone else will ever have for picking a President.
That's YOUR homework.
How come people don't do a little research? Ms. Mance, check out this link:
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf
It's 64 pages chock full of policy goodness. Hillary doesn't have anything like it.
Let's see...yesterday, Clinton provided a stimulus package to help fix the ailing economy....TODAY, Obama tells his supporters he will fight for tax cuts to the middle class.
Specifics vs. generalizations!
I think that is why my vote in the primary is with Clinton.
Good post - Action speaks louder than words.
I personally am willing to wait as many voters are for Obama to have the time in the Senate to produce some concrete legistlation that reflects his ideals and oratory dreams. Let's be fair to this person who started the campaign with hopes of becoming someone's Vice Presidential choice, similiar to Edwards/Kerry match-up and not take him too serious as a candidate for President. Let's allow him 10 to 20 more years to gain the experience he needs to consider running for President.
If he can prove to us he can put his words into action - fantastic - I am willing to wait the 10 to 20 years to see this happen. In the meantime, I will look at the candidates who have a record of action to back up the words they speak.
Kim, why aren't you asking Hillary to be more specific? Please tell me one way in which she's more specific than Obama? Seriously, I can't think of one. He has a specific answer on social security, she refuses to acknowledge a problem. In fact, I don't think you can give me one specific way in which Hillary is more qualified. Barack Obama is 46 years old and has devoted his life to community service. He truly wants a greater America, the inspiration and bringing people into the fold is just the icing on the cake. Hillary is just in it for her own ego.
Loading comments…
Posted January 11, 2008 | 02:47 PM (EST)