Why I'm Voting for Barack Obama

Marcus Tullius Cicero, the great Roman politician and fearless opponent of dictatorship, warned us against leaders who, in "their admiration for shrewd and clever men, take craftiness for wisdom." In his ultimate how-to manual for governing, called On Duties, Cicero told us what we should already know: That morality and judgment are not an impediment to success, but a key to it. That is why I am supporting Barack Obama for president.

In the last seven years, we have seen our constitution torn to shreds before our eyes. The writ of habeas corpus, once the cornerstone of our legal system, has been suspended on behalf of a war effort with no focus or end in sight. We have reached the limits of Orwellian speech, with a president speaking of a "war on terror," "victory in Iraq," and "your are either with us or you are with the terrorists."

Noticeably, Democratic politicians have failed to provide a contrast to President Bush's destructive record. In 2004, John Kerry's experience and self-proclaimed electability did nothing to allay fears that he was a flip-flopper -- a supporter of the Iraq War who co-opted an anti-war message to get the Democratic nomination. Then in August of 2004, as if reading from the wrong script, Kerry claimed that he would vote for the war again if he had the chance. The American people were perplexed.

To say the least, consistency has not been a trait of the Democratic establishment. Embracing a polls-driven approach pioneered by former President Clinton, Democratic politicians have a tendency to sound like Casablanca's Capt. Louis Renault who, rather than join the resistance, was happy to merely "blow with the wind." While the electorate might change its mind on a whim, voters expect their leaders to hold some personal convictions. With Democrats failing to understand the premium that Americans place on consistency, President Bush won reelection in 2004 despite a weak economy and a war that had already turned sour.

Today, despite controlling both houses of Congress, Democrats have little to show for their newfound mandate. Not only is the leadership's political expediency a recipe for eventual failure, it is an affront to our country and the system of checks and balances established by our constitution. It is an utter waste of political power to sit by and wait for President Bush to blunder his way into further Democratic victories, as if elections were an end in itself. Sadly, this is the course the Democratic establishment has chosen to take.

Barack Obama is not a typical Democratic politician. Consistently, he has stood his ground in opposing war with Iraq and Iran, and in focusing on weakening al-Qaeda and stabilizing Afghanistan. Despite what polls-driven politicians might think, Obama's convictions have made him a formidable leader, poised to comfortably win a general election.

A recent USA TODAY/Gallup poll found Clinton's unfavorable rating above 50%, while Obama's was only in the mid 30s. Beyond likeability, Obama fares better than Clinton in head-to-head match-ups with every one of the five leading Republican contenders, according to a recent Rasmussen poll. His appearance at an AIDS conference with Pastor Rick Warren in conservative Orange County, as one example, underscores Obama's commitment not to divide the country into red and blue states, but to lead a United States of America. Obama is not only interested in winning, he is interested in governing.

The leading Democratic insiders have strong credentials, but what they offer is no departure from the beaten path. Senator Clinton did not learn her lesson from Iraq, supporting a dangerous Senate resolution that can give the president cover should he decide to attack Iran. Unlike former vice-presidential candidate John Edwards, who also does great matched up against likely Republican contenders, Obama doesn't pit rich against poor while taking a paycheck from a hedge fund. Obama didn't support the war in early 2003 only to start denouncing it months later, once election season was underway. He didn't sit to debate Vice President Cheney, as Edwards did in 2004, only to go easy on the war's architect, saving his only memorable swipe for Cheney's daughter. Obama, with more legislative experience than both Edwards and Clinton, and with sound judgment to go along with it, is an agent of true change and a force to be reckoned with next November.

When choosing the most powerful political office in the world, we are reflecting our values as a people, and communicating our vision to the next generation and the rest of the world. Do we want to continue nominating John Kerry-like figures because in the spirit of "anybody but the Republicans" we forget what we actually believe? Do we not hold the constitution and the American way of life to be more precious than the daydream of an election victory by the shrewdest and most divisive among us?

Cicero told us that morals need not be separated from expediency and success. In Barack Obama, we have a candidate who will not only bring about a needed change of course, but in the process will show respect toward the vast and diverse political fabric of America. He will take on the task of governing with the kind of dignity we should expect of our elected leaders. Obama can win next November, and as Cicero would say, he can do so with honor. That is why I'm voting for Barack Obama.

Follow Nathan Gonzalez on Twitter: www.twitter.com/engagingiran

Comments

[faith]

Mr. Obama cheats. He votes "present". Not a real vote. He is routinely afraid to vote his conscience in congress. We don't need a president who is afraid someone may actually know what he thinks. Currently, he is the golden boy of the hollywood set. Who cares. Obama is not worthy of the mantle president of the United States. I urge everyone to vote for Edwards. He's smart, unafraid, a populist, and he has a courageous wife. Vote for Edwards.

[secondedition]

Senator John Kerry never voted for the war- He vote for the Iraq War Resolution giving our President the power he might need in order to protect this country.
And, just like Senator Kerry didn't vote for war with Iraq, Senator Obama did not vote against the war or the resolution it self. You see, he wasn't even in the US Senate at the time and was just a Ill. State Representative.
Your vote is your choice, but don't distort another person's record in order to justify your vote for another.

[swift goat pet for truth]

A well reasoned essay as to why Obama is a less desirable candiate than other Dems:

http://www.correntewire.com/obama_stump_speech_strategy_of_conciliation_considered_harmful

[longislandlol]

Bravo!

[JamesA1102]

I just loved it when one of these self-proclaimed progressives parrots GOP and MSM talking points and tries to make it sound like original thought.

There are a lot of reasons to vote for Senator Obama but Mr. Gonzalez does the good Senator a disservice with his simplistic, trite and fact-challenged analysis.

[Nutcase]

I am beginning to lose count of these paid political ads for the corporatist candidates. They are beginning to blend into an undiferentiated mush.

Take a very superficial analysis of our international mess, misconstrue and misrepresent the positions of the qualified candidates, rehash the dishonest characterizations of their opponents from the MSM and then, presto, the Golden Age will be upon us. All we must do is vote for the 'most experienced' person without pertinent experience or 'The Unifer,' who unified the Pakistanis so they would riot against his outrageously undiplomatic attempt to win a debating point.

Obama takes major donations from very questionable sources, then sanctimoniously attacks others for supposed indiscretions. Obama tells Iowans whose jobs have been exported that he is with them while taking money from those who moved those jobs.

He refuses to tell us where he has traveled after boasting that he has traveled extensively. Why?

He is portrayed as a new kind of politician. His kind were familiar to Cicero.

The Uniter. He is a symbol. Reminds us of another symbol, one of Compassionate Conservatism, The Decider. Two incompetents whose goals are the same - to play at being President.

[Liberal2]

You start from a false premise: "...morality and judgment are not an impediment to success, but a key to it." Bull! Whether morality is a key or not depends on your definition of success.

[esl]

No, Obama is not a typical democrat. He is a Joe Liebermann democrat.

[OtayPanky]

Nathan writes: Cicero warned us against leaders who, in "their admiration for shrewd and clever men, take craftiness for wisdom."

===

This is exactly why we don't want another round of the Clintons.

[research]

Kucinich!

[slc20]

Obama taught constitutional law for 10 years.

I LOVE the idea of having a president who's that familiar with the constitution.

[research]

Obama's eager choice for a "mentor" in the senate was Joe Lieberman, How can I possibly trust Obama, knowing that?

Kucinich is the only candidate consistently working for the 98% of the American people. He has proven as mayor that he is not for sale.

Kucinich is so feared by the MSM that his impeachment of Cheney got zero headlines. Russert was tasked with "Moon beaming" Kucinich, and finally Kucinich was just excluded from the debates, since he was getting huge applause for impeaching Cheney.

Google Kucinich Wins

We can hope HRC will be different then the face she presents to win, but it rarely turns out that way.

Strength Through Peace!

Kucinich!

Studs Terkel writes a great article about Kucinich:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020506/terkel

[solarenergy]

I appreciate your logic, passion and commitment to your candidate. I will not be upset if Obama wins, I will support him.

However, Edwards' progressive ideas are clear cut. You said:

"Obama doesn't pit rich against poor while taking a paycheck from a hedge fund,"

Parsing this, it is an accusation that Edwards "pits rich against poor," which is a Republican talking point. The rich have pit the poor against the poor and the middle class against the poor, and vice versa, while grabbing every dollar in sight.

He took a paycheck from a hedge fund, well, you have a point there.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/10/AR2007051002277.html

So he is not perfect, but he did quit them and has condemned the practices of the financial industry.

Obama, though, continues to claim he can persuade the medical and pharmaceutical industries to give away their power and money.

That's either hopelessly naive, or he's trying to pull the wool over your eyes.

[realitytrumpsbull]

Um, bad news, if he's talking about all that
stuff, he DOES support the war. Why? Why,
indeed. Because the military is the biggest
blanking jobs program/budget thing you ever
saw in your entire life. Read the news, count
the money, it's a HUGE racket. Like, as in,
$$$$$$$$$$­$$$$$$$$$$­$$$$$$$$$$­$$$$$$$$.$­$
Megabuxx. So, Barack's not going to chop down
the money tree, and he can tell a lie, and
he's in the running with the rest of the
professional liars.

This administration has about bet the farm
on the middle east. Do you honestly think
that ANY candidate, save maybe Paul or Kucinich
would really push to do anything radically
different? I've got my doubts, based on
what I've read. For that matter, Paul seems
to be fleshing out as a bible-thumper, and
get enough of that going, and they'll play
the Jesus card and be right back over there.
Meanwhile, the debt keeps rolling up at a
million bucks a minute...

[demockracy]

Obama has been lobbying for an even larger military than even Bush proposes (for reals, see www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/06/15/war_budget/)

A relevant excerpt: "Among presidential candidates, only Rep. Dennis Kucinich and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson even mention the possibility of cutting the defense budget. Indeed, presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are now competing with each other in their calls for expansion of the armed forces. Both are supporting manpower increases in the range of 80,000 to 100,000 troops, mostly for the Army and the Marines. (The current, Bush-backed authorization for fiscal year 2008 calls for the addition of 65,000 Army recruits and 27,000 Marines by 2012.)"

FYI, the U.S. already spends more than the rest of the world combined on its military, and uses military "solutions" when they are completely inappropriate (e.g. Iraq).

Obama is also out to lunch when it comes to health care. See www.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html?

Jonathan Alter argues that Obama is really proposing sophisticated legislation rather than confrontation, saying changes like real single-payer health care "were achieved with legislative skill, not brute force and a populist message." (from www.newsweek.com/id/80882)

The unfortunate bit in this interpretation is that we have to (nudge, nudge, wink wink) trust that Obama's heart is in the right place.

But he still wants to increase the size of an already bloated military.

Not exactly inspiring my trust.

Kucinich is the only candidate who has to make no apologies for his behavior.