Well, I had a good long post ready on Friday, and then Blogger crapped out on me; not expecting Blogger to do that, I didn't copy my text, and I lost the post. I haven't been in the mood to re-post it; needless to say, it's basically more of the same stuff that I have written previously and in the comments to everyone else's posts. On the subject of Obama, I think he certainly can win. This question of "electability" is one that seems strange to me: "can he/she win" seems to be something the media comes up with; they asked the same thing about Bill Clinton. Any of the three top tier candidates in the Democratic field could most certainly win. Even Hillary Clinton.
As for me personally, Obama is my favorite candidate right now (of those that are running). I'd count the top tier candidates as Obama, Edwards and Clinton, and I prefer them in that order. I'm not the biggest fan of Clinton; I'd maybe even prefer a couple of the second tiered candidates to her (Richardson, Dodd, possibly Vilsack). I feel that way about Hillary for a few reasons. First, she represents a part of the Democratic party that I think should be purged: the more "Republican-lite, DLC wing." I remember, I think in 2003 or 2004, when Howard Dean said he represented "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party"; that's what he meant. There are two parts of the party, and as much as I like Bill Clinton, and as much as I do actually like Hillary Clinton, I don't think she would be the best President. The second thing is her calculating and triangulating: it seriously troubles me. She seems to take no strong, principled stands on things, until, of course, her stand has been fully tested and when her handlers think it is politically sound to say. I've been much more impressed with Obama's ideas, which seem to be actually saying something, and with his quick and effective replies to attacks. (There's an anecdote about seeing Hillary speak in one of these comments threads that details her sort of hollow rhetoric; contrast that with Obama's speeches, which are truly inspiring and linger long after they are over). Hillary's stance on the war is particularly troubling; she is obviously against it now, and she speaks out against it, but she also adopts some of the Right's bullshit rhetoric (such as equating 9/11 with Iraq), and she will just not say that she was wrong to vote for the war. This seems to clearly be to not completely alienate those who might still be for the war. This is a huge mistake; those people are not likely to vote for Hillary in the first place; and as she tries unsuccessfully to pander to them, she is turning off those who would actually vote for her, as they move to one of the other two candidates. The Iraq War, which is one of the biggest policy blunders probably in history, was a mistake; for some reason, in DC, we seem to allow people to fail upwards; do we really want to PROMOTE someone who was so wrong? Edwards, of course, squeaks by because he has consistently said he was wrong and it was a mistake; Obama was not in the US Senate at the time, but has the virtue of having come out strongly against the war from his podium as a state senator. (I can somewhat excuse Democrats who voted for the war; it was somewhat close to 9/11, the country wanted something to be done and had fallen for the president's bullshit intelligence and was seeming to somewhat rally around Bush, etc.- it was a political decision, and very few seemed to see what a blunder this would be; Howard Dean was someone who seemed to see exactly what was going to happen, as did Obama.) So I am not for Hillary; but, if she is the nominee, I will vote for her with no problem.
One way or another, I think Obama will be on the ticket. Edwards has made it clear he isn't running for Vice President and didn't care for it the first time; he could change his mind. But I think, if Obama doesn't get the presidential nod, he'll be on the ticket as VP, and then in four or eight years, he will be the prohibitive favorite. I would, personally, love to see Gore come in, and have a Gore/Obama ticket. Out of those already in the game, I'd be into an Edwards/Obama ticket, or possibly an Obama/Clinton ticket as a second choice. I will also predict something now: barring a catastrophic mistake on the part of the congressional Democrats, if a Democrat wins the White House in 2008, I predict Democratic leadership for quite a while- I might even say a generation (again, barring any real big fuckups). The GOP ran Washington and this country into the ground for the past 12 years, and the country is trending Democratic; with the Dem field this exciting (and the GOP field decidedly not exciting), if a Dem wins, I predict a Democratic era for a while.
Speaking of the GOP field, it's very interesting; the Democratic field is extremely exciting and is seriously getting people pumped up, while the GOP field is problematic to Republicans and conservatives. The situation seems to be that an extremely socially conservative candidate couldn't win the general election, but a more moderate Republican can't get through the GOP primary. Their top tiered candidates are not seeming to move people- I have read many blogs and articles that seem to have conservatives not very happy with their choices, and I've seen this on television as well. Who've they got? Mccain, who the conservative base does not seem to trust- no matter how much he runs to the HARD right, and no matter how much he completely lies and flip-flops through this campaign season. Giuliani, who absolutely doesn't have the experience to be president; he is really a candidate who is even out there because of one day- and as soon as this thing gets rolling, we're going to see all of the real dirt on him, and the incompetence of much of his mayorship that got brushed under the rug when 9/11 happened. Besides that, I also think that his positions on things will scare away much of the GOP base. And then we have Romney, who is a Mormon; I'm sorry, but that's going to kill him in this race. I'm not saying that's right, but I don't think a Mormon will get through the GOP primary. And then the other candidates, such as Duncan Hunter, or Mike Huckabee, are just not well known enough that even if they do have more conservative credentials that might get them through the GOP primary, I don't see them breaking the wave that is Obama, or any of the other nationally well-known Dem candidates. So it's really unfortunate for the Republic party, and really fortunate for those who would like to see the Dems take back the WH and solidify their hold on Congress in '08 (the GOP has many more Senate seats up for grabs in 08 than the Dems do, so it seems likely that the Dems will strengthen their razor-thin hold on the Senate).
And lastly, for someone who said they thought they could see themselves voting Mccain, here's a couple of links that you (and everyone) should take a look at. Yes, it's from a left-wing website, but the content speaks for itself. Mccain is a liar and, in my opinion, a dangerous candidate. This image of him from the 2000 primaries as a "maverick" and a moderate is increasingly false. His Iraq War bullshit is also troubling.
That's pretty much what I said the first time in the post that Blogger ate; except the first time it was probably not as riddled with mistakes and was less stream-of-consciousness, but hey, it's late.
Showing posts with label Hilary Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hilary Clinton. Show all posts
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Thursday, February 15, 2007
My.President.Com
the lefty side of Washington has recently become one big Obama love-in. As my neighbor put it last week, "it's all Barack, all the time here." In fact, I haven't heard a negative thing about him in weeks, which is saying a lot in a city like this.
That said, I confess I haven't been too eager to follow all the hype and the plethora of other contestants. For one thing, I've been AWFULLY pre-occupied with the Anna Nicole Smith stories (this alone could make for a very long blog series from me), and for another, the full election is still a full 21 months off. I can't make a decision right now, knowing I'll have nearly 2 years to gather more information and to change my mind. Even the DC primary is a full year away.
One of my best friends recently signed up on My.BarackObama.com to support his campaign, so I decided to check out the site. I highly recommend this, as it made it abundantly clear that Obama is running the better campaign. The Web site is packed full of information and easy to use, and it even has a password-protected MySpace-style personalize-able section to encourage participation from people who normally wouldn't bother. He offers tons of professional information about himself-- past speeches, press releases, bills, etc.-- and a (obviously highly flattering) bio. I read his recent Springfield speech, since I had neglected to actually listen to the whole thing when he gave it, and, I have to admit, I got a little misty-eyed! I think he's certainly the first politician who knows how to talk to our generation-- who knows what we really want, why we've become cynical, what we want to believe is possible, and how to reassure us that despite whatever we've seen so far it really IS possible. He comes across as intelligent and straight-forward. His Web site also included a list of important issues, what he thought was wrong with them, and how he would fix them. Right there! In print! "here's how I would fix the county and the world" Hillary couldn't even answer a question in a recent interview about whether she thought Obama had enough experience for office. She couldn't even offer her own opinion, and for that, she lost major points in my book. To quote a recent headline in reference to Obama, "somebody stop him before he gets more experience!"
I think Obama's big problem will not be that he's black (or not black enough) or inexperienced, but that he is doing such a great job at courting the young, newly influential idealists that make up so much of our generation. Unfortunately, most of us don't vote. This makes me want to rail and kick and scream, but it is the truth. For many of us, our first presidential election was Bush-Gore 2000, where it became abundantly clear that our single votes didn't matter so much. On the other hand, maybe the lesson was that they DID matter and all those people who would have voted Democratic if they had ever bothered to register were actually the ones who made the vote too close to call in a timely manner and therefore dependant on a panel of judges. Or maybe it was all Katherine Harris's fault, who does well in fulfilling her role as the perfect Snidely-Whiplash-or-Cruella-DeVil-style villain.
My conclusion, then, is two-fold. First, Hillary, you have to get off your duff and start running a creative and innovative campaign. We've been fooled enough times now to not fall for the same bullshit anymore. Stop "playing it safe" and actually put some real opinions out there so you don't force us to vote for a person rather than for issues (because you'll loose). and Second, my friends, my generation, you must register to vote, and you must exercise that right whenever you can. I was always big on voting in Florida, and, since I've moved and had to forfeit most of my representation and voting rights, it's become even more important to me. Look... it takes just a few minutes, and you can do it here: http://www.declareyourself.org/index.php (just try to get past the graphics obviously meant to encourage “young, hip, urban voters”). Thank you and god speed.
That said, I confess I haven't been too eager to follow all the hype and the plethora of other contestants. For one thing, I've been AWFULLY pre-occupied with the Anna Nicole Smith stories (this alone could make for a very long blog series from me), and for another, the full election is still a full 21 months off. I can't make a decision right now, knowing I'll have nearly 2 years to gather more information and to change my mind. Even the DC primary is a full year away.
One of my best friends recently signed up on My.BarackObama.com to support his campaign, so I decided to check out the site. I highly recommend this, as it made it abundantly clear that Obama is running the better campaign. The Web site is packed full of information and easy to use, and it even has a password-protected MySpace-style personalize-able section to encourage participation from people who normally wouldn't bother. He offers tons of professional information about himself-- past speeches, press releases, bills, etc.-- and a (obviously highly flattering) bio. I read his recent Springfield speech, since I had neglected to actually listen to the whole thing when he gave it, and, I have to admit, I got a little misty-eyed! I think he's certainly the first politician who knows how to talk to our generation-- who knows what we really want, why we've become cynical, what we want to believe is possible, and how to reassure us that despite whatever we've seen so far it really IS possible. He comes across as intelligent and straight-forward. His Web site also included a list of important issues, what he thought was wrong with them, and how he would fix them. Right there! In print! "here's how I would fix the county and the world" Hillary couldn't even answer a question in a recent interview about whether she thought Obama had enough experience for office. She couldn't even offer her own opinion, and for that, she lost major points in my book. To quote a recent headline in reference to Obama, "somebody stop him before he gets more experience!"
I think Obama's big problem will not be that he's black (or not black enough) or inexperienced, but that he is doing such a great job at courting the young, newly influential idealists that make up so much of our generation. Unfortunately, most of us don't vote. This makes me want to rail and kick and scream, but it is the truth. For many of us, our first presidential election was Bush-Gore 2000, where it became abundantly clear that our single votes didn't matter so much. On the other hand, maybe the lesson was that they DID matter and all those people who would have voted Democratic if they had ever bothered to register were actually the ones who made the vote too close to call in a timely manner and therefore dependant on a panel of judges. Or maybe it was all Katherine Harris's fault, who does well in fulfilling her role as the perfect Snidely-Whiplash-or-Cruella-DeVil-style villain.
My conclusion, then, is two-fold. First, Hillary, you have to get off your duff and start running a creative and innovative campaign. We've been fooled enough times now to not fall for the same bullshit anymore. Stop "playing it safe" and actually put some real opinions out there so you don't force us to vote for a person rather than for issues (because you'll loose). and Second, my friends, my generation, you must register to vote, and you must exercise that right whenever you can. I was always big on voting in Florida, and, since I've moved and had to forfeit most of my representation and voting rights, it's become even more important to me. Look... it takes just a few minutes, and you can do it here: http://www.declareyourself.org/index.php (just try to get past the graphics obviously meant to encourage “young, hip, urban voters”). Thank you and god speed.
The children are our future, I'm told
Well, as you all may know, I can't vote. Therefore, I don't watch or care about politics. Just kidding. I care. I'm a pretty left-wing person. Probably more left wing than most of my cobloggers here, even. (Sorry, Nick, but it's true). So I would definitely vote for whatever Democrat they put up against the republicans. Probably I would want that to be Barack Obama, because every time he speaks he sounds so intelligent and eloquent, unlike our president who sounds like a garbage truck crunching up a half ton of dirty diapers. Also, I agree with what he says that sounds so intelligent, too.
Anyway, this wasn't a make out with Barack topic, it was a race/sex matter in election topic. Which is strange, because I actually posed this question to my college freshmen students a couple of weeks ago as our daily debate topic. So here's some of what they said. (PS - I believe the issues are way more important than the race or sex of the candidate, for what that's worth. Which is approximately zero (0) votes)
- It would be nice if Obama were nominated, since "colored people" (student's term) have been through so much over the years, and it would be like an apology.
- Nobody will vote for Obama or Clinton because only old people vote, and they are racist and sexist. (I basically think this one might be true. Maybe I'm cynical.)
- Obama wouldn't make a good president because he would just want to help black people. Or conversely, he would make a good president because he would be able to help black people.
- Clinton would make a bad president because women are more emotional, and in a time of war she might not be able to send troops to their deaths because she would feel bad for them.
- Clinton would make a bad president because women get PMS and if she's really angry she might invade some country.
- Clinton would make a bad president because the rest of the world would view America as weak if there were a woman in charge (I had to point out that many world powers have had female leaders. Including Canada, by the way)
- Obama would make a good president because it would show the world that a black man would make a good leader (Again, I had to point out that numerous countries have black leaders, and in fact the secretary general of the United Nations is black)
- Clinton won't be elected because people will worry that she'll have a scandal to get back at her husband
Anyway, those are the highlights of the discussion. Had I known we'd have such a similar topic in here so soon, I would have taken notes.
Anyway, this wasn't a make out with Barack topic, it was a race/sex matter in election topic. Which is strange, because I actually posed this question to my college freshmen students a couple of weeks ago as our daily debate topic. So here's some of what they said. (PS - I believe the issues are way more important than the race or sex of the candidate, for what that's worth. Which is approximately zero (0) votes)
- It would be nice if Obama were nominated, since "colored people" (student's term) have been through so much over the years, and it would be like an apology.
- Nobody will vote for Obama or Clinton because only old people vote, and they are racist and sexist. (I basically think this one might be true. Maybe I'm cynical.)
- Obama wouldn't make a good president because he would just want to help black people. Or conversely, he would make a good president because he would be able to help black people.
- Clinton would make a bad president because women are more emotional, and in a time of war she might not be able to send troops to their deaths because she would feel bad for them.
- Clinton would make a bad president because women get PMS and if she's really angry she might invade some country.
- Clinton would make a bad president because the rest of the world would view America as weak if there were a woman in charge (I had to point out that many world powers have had female leaders. Including Canada, by the way)
- Obama would make a good president because it would show the world that a black man would make a good leader (Again, I had to point out that numerous countries have black leaders, and in fact the secretary general of the United Nations is black)
- Clinton won't be elected because people will worry that she'll have a scandal to get back at her husband
Anyway, those are the highlights of the discussion. Had I known we'd have such a similar topic in here so soon, I would have taken notes.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Weighing The Options
I hate to admit it, but I haven't been keeping up with the candidates lately, and I had to do a bit of research before writing this (As it's Mon afternoon, and I have to post this on Tues, it hasn't given me much time). However, after watching a few videos and reading a few articles, I think I've cobbled enough info together to write a reasonable enough post.
Hope. That's the main tenet in Obama's speeches, and one that will help power his campaign. I hate to say it, but I think one of the main reasons the Democratic candidates have lost over the last couple of years is that they didn't inspire a passion in people. Both Gore and Kerry came across as robots, and though Dean came off looking like a lunatic in his famous little scream speech, at least there was a passion coming through. There have been early criticisms that it's just fluff, and with the exception of his proposed bill to bring troops home, he hasn't laid out plans for his other platforms such as health care. I don't think he HAS to lay out all his plans just yet. His idealism is inspiring, and using that should help him gain a lot of support (but I agree, he'll have to eventually).
As far as electability goes, there are some issues. The biggest one is race, and it's this topic that might be a little backwards than one would initially think. I was watching the Colbert Report this morning, and there was a woman on who was saying that Obama didn't have a lot of support from the black community because he isn't their definition of black. He isn't descended from slaves (West African slaves specifically), and thus didn't have the same upbringing and challenges that most in the black community have had. He has a white mother, and was apparently raised around her parents, thus having a predominantly white upbringing. This is great for attracting white votes - he has the skin color, but the upbringing (some would say personality) of a white person. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson had the opposite problem, they had black support, but alienated the white votes. Recent polls show that Obama only has 20% of the black vote, meanwhile Clinton is in the lead in black polls, getting at least 60% I think.
Speaking of Hillary, she has a bit of an edge, mainly just with name recognition. Through her 8 years as first lady, and now her time in the senate, there's not a person in the U.S. who hasn't heard of her. Of course that can also be her pitfall. There are people out there who think she's Satan incarnate, and I highly doubt that Obama or Edwards has generated that kind of hatred against them. She also has Bill though, and there are tons of people who would vote her in just to have him back in the White House in some form. Unfortunately, I think that she doesn't have as much of a chance because she's a woman. Black men got the right to vote before women did, and I don't see the election of president being much different.
I supported Edwards in the 2004 election. Mainly it was because my roommate Lindsey was working for his campaign, and needed the help, but I also thought he had the charisma to win. Sadly, he was a bit of a one-trick pony (son of a mill worker), but he did secure the nomination for vice president. I think it was a ploy to win the southern votes, but it backfired because (if memory serves me correctly) before the nomination Kerry was farther ahead in the polls than he was. It seems he's learned a lot since then, but some of the stigma from the last campaign may still be attached. It's the same thing Al Gore will have to face - they've already lost one election, why bet on them a second time? (Gore though has the advantage of technically having won his election, and if he runs again, the people might have enough momentum this time to make sure there's no doubt if he wins).
Another hot topic is experience. While I'm sure it's nice to have, is it always necessary? Right now we have a president who already has served one term AND has a father who served - plenty of experience right? Look how fucked over we are. While I think experience can be important in making decisions, that's what advisers are for. I haven't seen it yet, but I would have to laugh if Edwards ever criticizes Obama for using the "Washington outsider" play, as it was the one he used in the last election.
As far as Obama's Christianity, it can't hurt right? OK, well actually I suppose it could. It will be a key tool in attracting the conservative religious votes, but he can't overplay it and lose the people who aren't religious. Of course, if he ends up being the Democratic nominee, then that won't be as much of a worry, because I think the non-religious would vote for him regardless, just to get a Democrat in office.
As of right now, I'm still not throwing my support towards any particular candidate - I still need to find out more.
Hope. That's the main tenet in Obama's speeches, and one that will help power his campaign. I hate to say it, but I think one of the main reasons the Democratic candidates have lost over the last couple of years is that they didn't inspire a passion in people. Both Gore and Kerry came across as robots, and though Dean came off looking like a lunatic in his famous little scream speech, at least there was a passion coming through. There have been early criticisms that it's just fluff, and with the exception of his proposed bill to bring troops home, he hasn't laid out plans for his other platforms such as health care. I don't think he HAS to lay out all his plans just yet. His idealism is inspiring, and using that should help him gain a lot of support (but I agree, he'll have to eventually).
As far as electability goes, there are some issues. The biggest one is race, and it's this topic that might be a little backwards than one would initially think. I was watching the Colbert Report this morning, and there was a woman on who was saying that Obama didn't have a lot of support from the black community because he isn't their definition of black. He isn't descended from slaves (West African slaves specifically), and thus didn't have the same upbringing and challenges that most in the black community have had. He has a white mother, and was apparently raised around her parents, thus having a predominantly white upbringing. This is great for attracting white votes - he has the skin color, but the upbringing (some would say personality) of a white person. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson had the opposite problem, they had black support, but alienated the white votes. Recent polls show that Obama only has 20% of the black vote, meanwhile Clinton is in the lead in black polls, getting at least 60% I think.
Speaking of Hillary, she has a bit of an edge, mainly just with name recognition. Through her 8 years as first lady, and now her time in the senate, there's not a person in the U.S. who hasn't heard of her. Of course that can also be her pitfall. There are people out there who think she's Satan incarnate, and I highly doubt that Obama or Edwards has generated that kind of hatred against them. She also has Bill though, and there are tons of people who would vote her in just to have him back in the White House in some form. Unfortunately, I think that she doesn't have as much of a chance because she's a woman. Black men got the right to vote before women did, and I don't see the election of president being much different.
I supported Edwards in the 2004 election. Mainly it was because my roommate Lindsey was working for his campaign, and needed the help, but I also thought he had the charisma to win. Sadly, he was a bit of a one-trick pony (son of a mill worker), but he did secure the nomination for vice president. I think it was a ploy to win the southern votes, but it backfired because (if memory serves me correctly) before the nomination Kerry was farther ahead in the polls than he was. It seems he's learned a lot since then, but some of the stigma from the last campaign may still be attached. It's the same thing Al Gore will have to face - they've already lost one election, why bet on them a second time? (Gore though has the advantage of technically having won his election, and if he runs again, the people might have enough momentum this time to make sure there's no doubt if he wins).
Another hot topic is experience. While I'm sure it's nice to have, is it always necessary? Right now we have a president who already has served one term AND has a father who served - plenty of experience right? Look how fucked over we are. While I think experience can be important in making decisions, that's what advisers are for. I haven't seen it yet, but I would have to laugh if Edwards ever criticizes Obama for using the "Washington outsider" play, as it was the one he used in the last election.
As far as Obama's Christianity, it can't hurt right? OK, well actually I suppose it could. It will be a key tool in attracting the conservative religious votes, but he can't overplay it and lose the people who aren't religious. Of course, if he ends up being the Democratic nominee, then that won't be as much of a worry, because I think the non-religious would vote for him regardless, just to get a Democrat in office.
As of right now, I'm still not throwing my support towards any particular candidate - I still need to find out more.
I'm voting for Barack Obama, but can he win?
Even though it’s not yet 2008, politicians have begun to announce their respective candidacies for the presidency. It’s still quite early in the race; at this point we have no way of knowing who will join the race, who will bow out, what skeletons will emerge from which closets… and we certainly have no way of knowing just who the Democratic nominee will be. However, ever since the 2004 Democratic Convention, when I watched Barack Obama’s keynote speech (and found myself wishing that he – not Kerry – were the Democratic nominee), I’ve been hoping that he’d run in 2008. With Obama’s recent announcement that he is indeed throwing his hat into the ring for 2008, I’ve decided to support him.
Now, as much as I was blown away by his keynote speech at the convention (you can watch it here, or you can download it for free from i-tunes), I’m not going to back a candidate solely on the basis of his oratory skill. (If nothing else, Reagan was an exceptional speaker, and we all know that I never would have voted for the man. You know, had I not been all of two and six when he was running.) I did some research into the Democratic Big 3: Obama, Hillary and John Edwards. They all have very similar records/views when it comes to the issues I care about, specifically things like Roe v. Wade, contraception, stem cell research, etc. HOWEVER: Both Edwards and Hillary both gave into Bush’s obviously bullshit request to authorize the invasion of Iraq. That makes Obama the only candidate of the three who is untainted by the choice to send our troops into the desert. Granted, Obama wasn’t a Senator at the time, although he says that he wouldn’t have voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq. Of course, he has the benefit of making this statement after the fact, knowing what we know now. I was vehemently opposed to the invasion of Iraq back before this whole mess began, and I would like to think that there’s a politician or two out there who share my views. I would like to believe that Obama would be one of them.
Another thing I like about Obama is his Christianity and his willingness to court the Christian vote is an asset. Now, coming from me, this probably sounds mighty strange, as I am not religious whatsoever. However, as much as I would love it if the world would suddenly decide to share my point of view in this matter, I acknowledge that will never happen. Americans are a pretty religious bunch. Too long have the Republicans courted the religious vote, portraying the Democratic Party as a bunch of godless heathens, hell bent on destroying America. I think it’s about time the Democrats stopped shying away from religion; doing so simply allows Karl Rove, et al, to swoop in and snag Republican votes. (Somebody PLEASE remind the Religious Right that “turning the other cheek” is really not the same as bombing the shit out of one’s enemies.) However, even though Obama is a committed Christian, he also believes strongly in the separation of Church and State. Best of both worlds.
So those are some of the reasons why I’m supporting Barack Obama. But can he win? I don’t know. I hope so, but I just don’t know. I wonder if America is ready for a “black” candidate. (I put that in quotes because, as my father pointed out, if his mother is white and his father is black, isn’t he just as much a “white” candidate as a black one? But let’s face it, most people are going to take one look at this fellow’s skin color and label him “black.”) I myself am not so sure that America is ready for Obama, just as I’m not too sure that America is ready for Hillary either. Strategically, a vote for Edwards would be safer, but I very much prefer Obama over Edwards. I’ve talked about this electability issue with Nick before. His idea is that as long as the Democrats don’t waste too much time and money campaigning in the South, and instead focus on more “winnable” states, both Obama and Hillary stand a chance. I am not so sure either that the Democrats would essentially give up the South, or that the rest of America contains fewer bigots than the South.
This week’s discussion: What are your thoughts on Obama, Hillary and Edwards? Obama’s Christianity? The likelihood of a female or a person of color being elected President of the United States?
Now, as much as I was blown away by his keynote speech at the convention (you can watch it here, or you can download it for free from i-tunes), I’m not going to back a candidate solely on the basis of his oratory skill. (If nothing else, Reagan was an exceptional speaker, and we all know that I never would have voted for the man. You know, had I not been all of two and six when he was running.) I did some research into the Democratic Big 3: Obama, Hillary and John Edwards. They all have very similar records/views when it comes to the issues I care about, specifically things like Roe v. Wade, contraception, stem cell research, etc. HOWEVER: Both Edwards and Hillary both gave into Bush’s obviously bullshit request to authorize the invasion of Iraq. That makes Obama the only candidate of the three who is untainted by the choice to send our troops into the desert. Granted, Obama wasn’t a Senator at the time, although he says that he wouldn’t have voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq. Of course, he has the benefit of making this statement after the fact, knowing what we know now. I was vehemently opposed to the invasion of Iraq back before this whole mess began, and I would like to think that there’s a politician or two out there who share my views. I would like to believe that Obama would be one of them.
Another thing I like about Obama is his Christianity and his willingness to court the Christian vote is an asset. Now, coming from me, this probably sounds mighty strange, as I am not religious whatsoever. However, as much as I would love it if the world would suddenly decide to share my point of view in this matter, I acknowledge that will never happen. Americans are a pretty religious bunch. Too long have the Republicans courted the religious vote, portraying the Democratic Party as a bunch of godless heathens, hell bent on destroying America. I think it’s about time the Democrats stopped shying away from religion; doing so simply allows Karl Rove, et al, to swoop in and snag Republican votes. (Somebody PLEASE remind the Religious Right that “turning the other cheek” is really not the same as bombing the shit out of one’s enemies.) However, even though Obama is a committed Christian, he also believes strongly in the separation of Church and State. Best of both worlds.
So those are some of the reasons why I’m supporting Barack Obama. But can he win? I don’t know. I hope so, but I just don’t know. I wonder if America is ready for a “black” candidate. (I put that in quotes because, as my father pointed out, if his mother is white and his father is black, isn’t he just as much a “white” candidate as a black one? But let’s face it, most people are going to take one look at this fellow’s skin color and label him “black.”) I myself am not so sure that America is ready for Obama, just as I’m not too sure that America is ready for Hillary either. Strategically, a vote for Edwards would be safer, but I very much prefer Obama over Edwards. I’ve talked about this electability issue with Nick before. His idea is that as long as the Democrats don’t waste too much time and money campaigning in the South, and instead focus on more “winnable” states, both Obama and Hillary stand a chance. I am not so sure either that the Democrats would essentially give up the South, or that the rest of America contains fewer bigots than the South.
This week’s discussion: What are your thoughts on Obama, Hillary and Edwards? Obama’s Christianity? The likelihood of a female or a person of color being elected President of the United States?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
