This man has already cost the Democrats the 2000 election (and most likely 2004 too). Doesn’t he understand that all he does is put Republicans in office?
Nader Could Be Launching Third Party Bid
WASHINGTON - Ralph Nader could be poised for another third party presidential campaign.
The consumer advocate will appear on NBC’s "Meet the Press" on Sunday to announce whether he will launch another White House bid. Nader kicked off his 2004 presidential run on the show.
I watched the Democratic debate in Texas tonight. It wasn’t because I needed to hear the candidates’ stances on the issues again; I already have a pretty good idea what their positions are (and they’re actually quite similar). No, tonight I watched the debates to really watch the candidates themselves, specifically Barack Obama. I wanted to see if I could be inspired by him like so many of you are.
As I sat in front of the TV, I took notes on a yellow note pad. Up until a few minutes ago I was planning to write a blog post with my take on the debate question by question. I had mentally scored each candidates’ answers and performance in my mind while trying to remain as neutral as possible. After quite a bit of contemplation, I’ve decided to write something different and hopefully a little more insightful.
First a couple of quick thoughts about the debate. I thought Clinton was stronger on foreign policy issues whereas Obama floundered and seemed a bit naive about Cuba. Obama however scored big in his defense of the attacks against him on substance. experience, and plagiarism. Both spent a fair amount of time debating their proposals for universal healthcare, but the difference between their two plans really comes down to whether or not you believe participation should be mandatory like Social Security (Clinton’s view) or voluntary (Obama’s view). In theory Obama’s plan could leave millions of Americans uninsured, but that’s if they decline to participate.
It was my observation (and I’m sure many will disagree) that the questions posed to Hillary, particularly those by CNN’s John King, were somewhat harsher than those posed to Obama. For example, questions about Obama’s experience as well as ‘rhetoric versus substance’ were directed to Clinton and not to Obama. This made Clinton out to be the attacker and Obama the victim of those attacks. I would have preferred if questions regarding Obama had been posed directly to him.
When I have asked people (including you my readers) why they support Obama, I hear the answer over and over again that he inspires them. Surprisingly I found the most impassioned moment of the debate in Clinton’s answer to the final question asking her to describe the moment in her life when she was tested the most. Obama’s answer to this question started as a life history and kind of meandered. It didn’t shine like I expected it to. Hillary’s answer seemed more heartfelt and really led me to believe she wants to help people. Judge for yourself:
Unfortunately at the very end of her answer, Clinton used some of the same lines as John Edwards did in an earlier debate when she talked about her and Obama being all right but she worried about the American people. When accusing people of plagiarism, people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
The point of this post isn’t about the debate though. It’s about the decision that I’ve come to. If I was a politician, I guess you could call this my concession speech.
I’ve decided to support Obama.
What?!? I can hear throngs of Hillary supporters out there getting ready to tear me a new one in the comments. Before you do though, hear me out.
First off, I still think Hillary would make an excellent President - perhaps better than Obama. She is smart, tough, and determined. In the debate tonight she really reinforced the impression that she knows what she’s talking about. I have much more confidence in her on issues like foreign policy than I do with Obama. I agree with her approach to healthcare more than I do that of Obama. She has been a loyal friend to the GLBT community.
So why then my change of heart?
In a perfect situation, Hillary could run and win. People would listen to her with an open mind and not prejudge her because she is a woman or her husband is Bill Clinton. They would see her intelligence and desire to help people as President. This is not a perfect situation though. The Democrats are up against a tough opponent in John McCain. Hillary might make the best President, but I now feel strongly that Obama has the best chance of winning.
And I want to win.
The question I’ve wrestled with is do we elect the person who will make the best President, or do we elect a person who can win? Obama showed me both tonight and in recent weeks (and also through his book I’m listening to) that he is a very intelligent, capable man. My concern about him being "Republican-lite" has been alleviated for the most part by looking at his voting record which reveals he’s been very loyal to the Democrat party. Though Obama may lack the same experience as Hillary particularly in foreign relations and policy, he can still surround himself with people in his cabinet who have the experience in any areas he lacks. Perhaps he would even consider Hillary for Secretary of State (a role I feel she’d be better in than Vice President). I feel with the right people and advisors on his team, Obama could be a very strong President indeed.
More importantly Obama is incredibly popular. The enthusiasm of his supporters is like nothing I’ve ever seen before. It seems Obama will bring more voters to the polls come election day. Furthermore I believe that Hillary’s supporters will vote for Obama should he be the nominee (if for no other reason than to keep McCain out of office), but Obama’s supporters seem more likely to just stay home than vote for Hillary. Is that right? No, but I believe it to be the truth. I’ve witnessed it firsthand by talking to Obama supporters and the comments they’ve left on this blog. I don’t understand all the venom that exists against Hillary, but I can’t deny its existence.
Strategically Obama does stand the best chance against McCain. A recent poll by SurveyUSA showed that in a hypothetical matchup against McCain, Obama would win the key swing states of Wisconsin, Iowa, and Virginia by ten, ten, and six points repectively. In a hypothetical matchup of Clinton versus McCain, she would lose in those same states by seven, eleven and three points. I know, I know… you can’t trust polls completely, but I do think that this does give an indication of what would happen in a general election come November.
This is not to say that Obama is getting there home free. John McCain and the Republican machine are going to be tough -very tough- to beat. Just look how quickly this scandal about his possible affair with a lobbiest is being buried. It will take the effort of every Democrat out there, but I think we can win if we’re willing to put in the work (and this means you!).
Finally I have to share a very revealing and personal story about myself with you that I’m not proud of to explain some of my original opposition to Obama.
Back when I was growing up, I lived in an overwhelmingly white community. Of the local high schools, mine was the whitest. In my graduating class of about 600, i would say that only about 10-12 students were black.
There was one African-American student however, a guy, that was very popular. The more I tried to figure out why this guy was so popular, the more I became convinced that other students were befriending him because he was black. It was kind of a rebellion of sorts: the other students were trying to prove how open-minded they were about race. It seemed to me that it had become cool to be friends with this guy not because of who he was as a person, but because of his race.
My sense of fairness kicked into play. The more I saw this kid get popular, the more it angered me. It was my belief then, and still is today, that we should be colorblind when choosing our friends. How can we ever be free of racism if a person’s skin color is more important than what kind of person they are? My resentment towards this guy’s popularity though was yet another form of bigotry, one I didn’t realize until years later. I’m ashamed of it now, but at the time I thought I was being a better, less-racist person than those who were his friends. It was still a form of racism but flipped on its head. (I should mention though that I was friends with a couple other black students and have been good friends with many people of all races since then.)
I accept now that I may have been doing the same thing in regards to Obama. I have scrutinized him relentlessly, but I may have been doing so because I didn’t want my reason to be supporting him to be simply "because he’d make history as the first black President." That sounds really stupid and silly, I know, but in my overly ambitious efforts to be open-minded in regards to race, I sometimes become very close-minded.
What this all boils down to is that I’ve chosen to support Obama because I want to win in November. I see the writing on the wall; the momentum is toward Obama. As much as it pains me, I can’t continue to say Hillary is the better choice for victory. I think she’d put up a hell of a fight against McCain, but I’ve come to doubt she could overcome the sexist attitudes and deep-seated hatred of all things Clinton. If Obama leads the delegate count after the primaries but before the convention, Clinton should graciously step aside so that the party can reunite and move on.
I’m okay with that though. Barack Obama is a candidate worth supporting. I’m proud to do so and hope you will be too.
UPDATE: The AP is reporting today that many "superdelegates", i.e. those delegates (party officiials, etc.) who are not bound to a candidate by the voting public, are switching their support to Obama. See the influence I have?
I’ve been giving some thoughts to different things:
Although in my heart of hearts I still feel that Hillary Clinton is better prepared to be President, even I am somewhat taken aback by the sheer number of Barack Obama supporters. I’ve begun to accept the facts that 1) he most likely will be the Democrat’s candidate, and 2) he may be a more strategic choice if we want to win in November.
The Republicans got smart at the last minute and dumped Romney, Thompson, Giuliani, and for the most part Huckabee too (I don’t care what Coulter and Limbaugh are saying now; they won’t vote for a Democrat over McCain). That puts us Democrats in a tough position. McCain has a lot of crossover appeal and will play well with independent voters. If Hillary becomes our nominee, even I have to admit that choice will help McCain. Independent-voting men in particular are said to overwhelmingly favor McCain over Clinton. I don’t get it, but so many men seem to have a hang-up about voting for a woman for President. Must be some sort of macho, straight-guy thing.
I also have to agree that more Clinton supporters will cast their votes for Obama should he win the nomination than vice-versa. Because McCain and Obama both play well among independents, it will be critically important for them to choose the right running mates. If McCain chooses a conservative running mate, it might shore up the Republican base but I don’t think it will help him any. Whomever Obama picks though will be crucial to his chance of winning.
I’m beginning to see more and more cracks in Obama’s armor. The recent controversy about "borrowing" lines in one of his speeches is a rookie mistake (like the refusal to put his hand over his heart incident), and it’s exactly those kind of mistakes that will cost him the election come November. The Republicans in the past have expertly turned little issues into near career-stopping scandals. Remember John Edwards’ $400 haircut? They still bring that up every time Edwards’ name is mentioned, and unfortunately it sways a lot of people- even Democrats. Obama needs to get a campaign manager or someone who can keep him from making these gaffes ASAP. Now that McCain has nearly secured the Republican nomination, he is attacking Obama with full force. Obama needs to make sure he doesn’t give McCain any more ammo.
The Arizona Republic recently tried to figure out who McCain might pick for his cabinet if elected. Their predictions:
Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., in a prominent job, possibly even secretary of State;
Former Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn., as attorney general;
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani as Homeland Security secretary;
Former Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas as Treasury secretary;
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee as Health and Human Services secretary.
Notice anything about these choices? With the possible exception of Liberman being Jewish, not a single minority group is represented. I guess we can look forward to another four to eight years of the government being run by rich, white men should McCain be elected.
Obama is getting better about specifics. His website now includes (finally) more detailed proposals about healthcare and other issues. One of the reasons I wanted specifics from Obama is so I could compare how he plans to accomplish things versus Hillary’s plans. Unfortunately I am not as fond of Obama’s plan for healthcare over Clinton’s. Newsweek looked at both candidates’ claims that all Americans would be covered under their proposed plans. Their verdict? Hillary’s plan would come close, but Obama’s not so much. Healthcare is one of the more vital issues for me when considering candidates. Knowing that Obama’s plan falls short dissapoints me greatly.
If I hear one more person say "We’ve had Bush-Clinton-Bush; We need a change," I’m going to scream. I liked Bill Clinton as President, but even I know that Hillary is not Bill. To say you won’t vote for her if she is the nominee just because she would be "another Clinton" doesn’t make sense to me especially since she and Obama are very similar on the issues. What specifically makes Obama a "change?" Inspiring speeches? Outline specifically what policies you think will be continued from the Bush-Clinton-Bush years that won’t continue if Obama is elected.
C’mon people. I don’t care if you want to support Obama, but please do it intelligently. Vote for the man because of his stances on the issues, not because "Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton" makes a good sound bite. I know the vast majority of you are supporting Obama for the right reasons, but nevertheless this simple turn-of-phrase seems to have influenced some.
I had a credit for a free audiobook download on eMusic so I decided to use it for Barack Obama’s "The Audacity of Hope." It was recommend to me by Michael that I should listen to it to understand the substance behind Obama’s campaign, so that’s exactly what I’m going to do. I promise to listen to it with an open mind.
A lot of you may think that I am dead set against Obama. That’s not true. I often tell Buckaroo that I wish I could like Obama and be excited about him. That has just not happened yet as my logical side keeps telling me that Hillary Clinton is the better choice. Despite hearing your reasons for voting for him, no one has yet swayed me to choose him over Clinton.
I don’t expect this book to make me completely switch sides, but I hope that it will convince me to be at least as supportive of him as I am currently of Clinton.
Lest we forget, this is the man that also thought it was funny to sing "Bomb Iran" to the tune of The Beach Boys’ "Barbara Ann" while thousands of our troops are being killed over in Iraq.
Do we really want a man who tells such insensitive jokes as the leader of the free world? It would be bad enough if he made these jokes in private, but on a public stage it’s inexcusable.
Scott also has a hilarious video of McCain’s take on the Obama music video here.
(Special note to Obama supporters: Please don’t skip over this post thinking I’m trashing your candidate. I’m asking for your help to understand why you support him.)
Something I’ve said repeatedly here on my blog is I like Barack Obama’s hope and idealism, but I find little substance to go behind it. In his last debate against Hillary Clinton prior to Super Tuesday, it almost became disturbing how many times Obama gave vague yet inspirational answers compared to Clinton’s specifics. The media hasn’t done a very admirable job scrutinizing Obama’s statements but instead uses them for a good sound bite on the evening news. When my new Time magazine arrived yesterday however, I was pleased to find an article by Joe Klein where he seems to realize the substance issue as well.
"We are the ones we’ve been waiting for," Barack Obama said in yet another memorable election-night speech on Super-Confusing Tuesday. "We are the change that we seek." Waiting to hear what Obama has to say — win, lose or tie — has become the most anticipated event of any given primary night. The man’s use of pronouns (never I), of inspirational language and of poetic meter — "WE are the CHANGE that we SEEK" — is unprecedented in recent memory. Yes, Ronald Reagan could give great set-piece speeches on grand occasions, and so could John F. Kennedy, but Obama’s ability to toss one off, different each week, is simply breathtaking. His New Hampshire concession speech, with the refrain "Yes, We Can," was turned into a brilliant music video featuring an array of young, hip, talented and beautiful celebrities. The video, stark in black-and-white, raised an existential question for Democrats: How can you not be moved by this? How can you vote against the future?
And yet there was something just a wee bit creepy about the mass messianism — "We are the ones we’ve been waiting for" — of the Super Tuesday speech and the recent turn of the Obama campaign. "This time can be different because this campaign for the presidency of the United States of America is different. It’s different not because of me. It’s different because of you." That is not just maddeningly vague but also disingenuous: the campaign is entirely about Obama and his ability to inspire. Rather than focusing on any specific issue or cause — other than an amorphous desire for change — the message is becoming dangerously self-referential. The Obama campaign all too often is about how wonderful the Obama campaign is.
This is something I’m having trouble with personally. I want to like Barack Obama just as much as I do Hillary Clinton, only I can’t. I guess I’m the type that wants a little meat on the bone. If Obama got specific about some of his plans, I would feel much more comfortable with him, but I’m not swayed by inspirational speeches alone.
For those of you supporting Obama, I ask you with all respect: Does it not bother you that Obama won’t outline specifics for the vision he holds? Do you have complete and utter trust in his ability to enact the change he speaks about despite a lack of details? Is hope and vision enough or where do experience and knowledge come into play?
This man has already cost the Democrats the 2000 election (and most likely 2004 too). Doesn’t he understand that all he does is put Republicans in office?
Entries (RSS)