Obama: America's Best Hope

I moved to the United States from Iran on my own when I was sixteen. Despite enormous difficulties, I traded the limited comfort of present for the promise of a brighter future because I truly believed in the core principles of the Democratic Republic and freedoms and opportunities it promised. My memories from Iran included the images of my all-boys elementary school officials rounding up kids whose hair was longer than an inch and shaving a "+" sign on their head as punishment for having been influenced by western culture before sending them to classroom. Other images include the religious police banging a young man's head against the wall for wearing clothes with a pro-western message, boys and girls getting arrested in the streets of Tehran every weekend for the crime of being on a date out of marriage, the religious enforcement police telling women to wipe off their make-up or cover their hair and rounding up those who did not comply, and my parents regularly reminding me not to criticize the Islamic regime in school to avoid arrest.

I didn't know much about the American political system; neither did I know about the Democratic or Republican parties or their philosophical differences. I simply looked at everyone as an American, bound by certain common values, at the core of which lied the ideas of democracy, liberty and opportunity. I had thought that I would get an education and pursue a quiet career in the private sector.

I was very upset when the Supreme Court intervened to make George Bush the president in 2000 despite losing the popular vote because it fundamentally shook my unconditional trust in the American democracy. I tried to make my peace with it and try to believe the flawed election was an exception and democracy would be preserved. But following 9/11, this country began to radically depart from the ideals for which I had undertaken this turbulent journey. Bush significantly rolled back citizens' civil liberties, ignored UN's efforts to investigate Iraqi WMD allegations, outed Valerie Plame because of her husband's efforts to stop the administration, took the country into a preemptive war on false pretenses and authored the Patriot Act, all of which significantly damaged America's image on the world stage. Bush also pursued economic policies that lacked compassion and greatly limited the capacity of the other two branches of government to maintain checks and balances. For these reasons, I was drawn to American politics and joined the College Democrats as a member and subsequently its president because I saw the Democratic Party as the party that better defended the principles for which I had moved here.

Until about one year ago, I believed the best candidate to bring change to Washington DC following Bush's second term was Hillary Clinton. I also believed she was a candidate with the highest chance to win. I didn't know her well, but I think I looked at her favorably because I liked Bill Clinton. But after a few years of closely listening to her ideas, reading her thoughts and observing her votes in the Senate, I have concluded that Senator Clinton is the wrong choice for this country. While Hillary Clinton has contributed to the Democratic Party in many ways, there are several elements that make her a part of the problem in American politics. Despite her claims of having experience, she has served in public office shorter than anyone else on the Democratic side, along with John Edwards. Her inability to fulfill her task of implementing universal healthcare during President Clinton's first half of first term when Democrats were in control of the White House and both the House and the Senate is not only a proof of her inability to reach compromise but also an indication of the kind of melodramatic politics that America is likely to go through again if she is elected to the Oval Office because of her baggage from the 90s.

Throughout the presidential debates, she has repeatedly refused to give straight answers to straight questions (and has blamed her failure on "the boys" and moderator Tim Russert for "piling on.") She has run a dishonest campaign as the news media recently reported that her staff planted people in the audience in Iowa events at least twice to throw softball questions. This fact, combined with the way in which she staged a highly scripted back-and-forth "turn up the heat" shouting exchange during her speech at the Jefferson-Jackson dinner demonstrates what she considers a presidential campaign to be: theatre.

On policy matters, she takes significant amounts of money from lobbyists, to whom she can be nothing but loyal if elected. She voted for the war and then said it was a vote for diplomacy instead of taking responsibility. The true vote for diplomacy was the Levin Amendment, which she rejected around the same time. And she recently voted for the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment with other Senate hawks on Iran. This decision guaranteed that she will never have any credibility in garnering good will and doing diplomacy with Iran. Her decision is also likely to cut the legs from under the pro-western pro-democracy activists and help save the hardliners in Tehran the way George Bush's labeling Iran part of an "Axis of Evil" did.

In Stark contrast, Senator Obama is the agent of competence and change, and he should be our party's candidate. His commitment to bring change goes beyond words in his speeches. Throughout his public and private life, he has showed an impressive level of understanding and sound judgment. Following his graduation from Columbia University, he could have pursued a lucrative career. But instead, he chose to spend five years doing community organizing in the struggling neighborhoods in Southside Chicago. As a state senator, he united democrats and republicans to pass the biggest lobbying reform for the first time in twenty-five years. On foreign policy, he has consistently opposed the disastrous war in Iraq since the beginning, even when it was not the popular thing to do.

But perhaps the most important reason why I support him is that he is the only candidate whose philosophy rejects the false choices that are often given to us by mainstream politicians, such as having to choose between economic growth and protecting the American worker, national security and civil liberties or idealism (supporting democracies abroad) and realism (protecting America's interest) as if these concepts are opposing values. Obama's policy of diplomacy with Iran, in my judgment, is the soundest policy option offered by any candidate on either side. And his charisma, progressive message, candor and rejection of old politics not only makes him the best candidate to bring the country together, but he is also the only candidate who can bring a whole new generation of young people into the Democratic Party with his unmatched appeal to the youth.

As Obama's message reaches more people, more voters join his movement for change. According to the newest Washington Post/ABC News poll in Iowa, 30% of likely caucus voters intend to vote for Obama while that number is 26% for Clinton, and according to a new SurveyUSA Election Poll of Iowans, Barack Obama will fare significantly better than Hillary Clinton in the general election. Both surveys indicate that he is the most electable candidate in the Democratic Party.

Obama's message is attractive because he gets past the politics of loyalties to parties and special interests and appeals to the American people's faith in the core of the American identity. That is why I consider Barack Obama the best candidate who will lead this country to live up to its promise and once again earn the respect of the world.

Comments

[cyberhawk]

Thank you for your honesty I agree that Senator Obama is the right choice for President in 2008.

[poopdeck]

No president has ever succeeded running our country on hope. Several presidents have succeeded in deceiving our country with false hope. What our country needs now is down-to-earth realism cleansed of all religious bias. That will be the basis on which I shall vote in November 2008.

[lafrance]

Your article is really thoughtful and well argued.
I had come to the same conclusion about Hillary before the race began. I feel her love of partisan fighting would make her an effective senate leader but, not president.
Her accomplishments are tied to family name and her record of bad judgment and playing calculating politics with her votes makes me wonder if she even conciders what is best for America and the people or for the glory of Hillary.
Senator Obama has a lifelong record of thinking about the people and his country. His love of the constitution is exhibited in his 10 years as a lecturer and teacher at the U of C.
Everything he has done in his life has pointed to a man who is totally different from what has been seen in our politicians (and this is why so many of the press consistently misunderstand the man).
I feel our best hope to save this country lies with the electing of Barack Obama

[kasa5400]

Obama couldn't even be bothereed puting together an ORIGINAL coprehensive plan for healthcare to cover everyone. He did a cut 'n paste from CLinton's plargarized cut 'n paste of what Edwards ahd proposed.

Save the rhetoric. Obama is down to pandering for any vote. His $4000 tax credit to promote community college? He thinks that will help people economically? Like the useless degrees handed out in my state community college system such as 'early childhood education' (translated change diapers at daycare), 'sign language' (and no jobs within 600 miles), 'social work' (when the jobs in the field all require a Master's), 'design engineering' (jobs gone - outsourced offshore), and the list continues. COmmunity college associates degrees are very much a fraud on the students - they spend the money and do not get any credential that is marketable or useful.

[Dap]

Dear Mr. Sedaei,

Thank you for your eloquent essays/posts, I am glad you chose to become an American, and your voice is welcome.

What you have said about Senator Obama is well taken (he is my junior Senator, I supported him in the Illinois primary and general election for the Senate) that said, Senator Obama is not yet ready to lead our beloved Country and truth be told he will have a hard time winning the general election.

You speak to John Edwards experience, well you are quite mistaken, John Edwards is a self made American, he is "Grass Roots" all the wonderful things you have expressed about American is exactly the place from which John Edwards came. John Edwards is the Man, make *NO* mistake about it.

John Edwards understands what Grace is, he's the real deal, a true American icon if you will.

Having expressed that, I wish you and yours a Happy Thanksgiving. Agape.

[djarvis]

Great post, Sam!! The ONLY real choice for America in '08 is Obama!

[dmc2]

Criticizing Barack because he's not antiwar enough is just silly. OK, if you want to waste your vote on D. Kucinich, that's fine, but we all know that he has no chance in the primary, much less in the general election.

Meanwhile, of the three Democratic frontrunners, Barack is by far the best antiwar candidate. He is the only one to have come out publicly against the Iraq War from Day One, when it wasn't the popular thing to do. Clinton's lying when she said she didn't intend to vote for war -- just read the speech she gave on the Senate floor during the debate. While, I'm glad that Edwards has apologized for his vote, sorry buddy, on the most important issue of our time you had a chance and you got it wrong.

Yes, Barack was not able to be there for the Kyl-Lieberman vote on Iran, but he made his position clear -- he opposed it. Clinton voted for it. He has put his neck out in favor of negotiating with all of our enemies, and was roundly criticized for doing so, even though that's the only route to peace.

As far as getting out of Iraq now, everybody wants to get out of there as soon as possible -- but the fact is that we're in that mess pretty deep and if we try to pull out the wrong way, we could literally have the blood of millions on our hands. At least Obama has the spine not to make promises that he can't keep about how fast he can get the troops out.

[swift_goat_pet_for_truth]

Obama has not shown leadership in the Senate, nor has he even showed up on many votes. Showing leadership would be like organizing the Dems to stop the Mukasey confirmation by filibustering it. Or stopping the FISA. Or doing ANYTHING that requires intelligence and/or courage.

That said, he still is better than anything the GOP has. Heck, Gavel was better than anything, with the possible exception of Ron Paul.

PS: I realize the use of the word "anything" in reference to people is (normally) inappropriate.

[ss1834]

agreed on this blog post. Obama is the most ELECTABLE of all the candidates on the Democratic side.

For you Hillary fans -- if you vote her in to the Democratic nomination, be prepared to have Giuliani as your next president in '09.

[bookerone]

There was a time when I thought the Obama was the savior...that was before I got to know him. He may be a Republican in Democrat"s clothing. Witness rush to embrace the Robert slime ball Novak's coup of pulling him into the gutter and his embracing of the "20 year plot" lie shows me that he is immature and lacks intelligence. The more I see the less I like. It is getting to the point that if he is the candidate, I simply will not vote in 2008.

[StephenCassidy]

Have you watched any of the Presidential debates? Obama is a closet hawk that favors military and national security interests. He refuses to even commit to bringing US troops home from Iraq by 2013.

[azteacher]

After watching "No End in Sight" last night, I refuse to vote in the primary for ANY candidate who gave George Bush the go-ahead for war in Iraq, whether they later apologized or not. Hillary Clinton, of all people, should have had the forsight against giving this republican administration the ability to wage preemptive war. Once again, apparently she didn't learn from her past experiences in dealing with these liars and crooks. Obama had the wisdom to speak out against this war from the beginning. Some people claim that this was an easy decision, being as that he didn't have to place a vote in the Senate, but don't forget the Dixie Chicks were sent death threats for their patriotism in speaking out against the war! Obama in '08!

[VernonHuffman]

Perhaps you missed the interview where Obama refused to rule out bombing Iran. For all its flaws, Iran has not threatened the USA and you know the people there don't deserve to be bombed. The only Democratic candidate who has consistently voted against funding the war is Dennis Kucinich.

[RAMHaiti]

1) Competence?? When Obama talks foreign policy he becomes "Bumbling Barack Obama"

2) Unity? When BB (and Edwards for that matter) feels he's not gaining on the leaders, he attacks other Democrats rather than Republicans.

3) I live in Port-au-Prince. A dreadlocked friend of mine had his face dunked into a puddle by the side of the street by police and then his locks were cut off with a knife. He died the next day. Does that mean you should vote for my candidate?

4) The Iranian government is helping those that kill American troops. The Iranian government should expect nothing but a hard line. Barack may not understand these things.

5) Clinton represents positive change AND experience. Thats why the Republicans hate her so much.

6) The Clintons are winners, unlike; Gore, Kerry, Dukakis, Mondale and McGovern.

7) I trust our economy AND our National Security with a Clinton White House

[Average]

That means WE HAVE NO HOPE!