Thursday, January 31, 2008

My two cents

I am no Ted Kennedy (I always report traffic accidents promptly) or New York Times (I will provide the news that isn’t fit to print), but for what it's worth, I've decided to talk about the U.S. presidential race. You know that I'm interested in politics; you also know that I am (ahem) highly opinionated. I like to think that my opinions tend to have a basis in logic and fact; I also know that my opinions also take into account my, for lack of a better phrase, gut instinct. If you don't care about US presidential politics, or you don't particularly care what I think about US presidential politics, you can just skip over this one; I won't be offended.

I had been supporting John Edwards all last year. Yesterday, however, Edwards withdrew from the race. Since the first democratic primary of this election season, when Edwards’ numbers were on the low side, I've been watching Obama and Clinton carefully, figuring that I might have to transfer my allegiance to one of them should Edwards drop out of the race. After the events of the past week or so, the time is here.

I endorse Barack Obama for President.

I look around at this country. I hear talk of blue states and red states, of voting blocs -- the black vote, the hispanic vote, the christian right, the senior citizens' vote -- and I see a country being destroyed by its divisions. I look at Washington and I see fear-mongerers trying to scare us into relinquishing our constitution and our values so that they might obtain more money and more power over us. I look at the staggering economy and I see a nation drowning in debt to pay for a war that we didn't need to fight, our president dangling puny income tax refunds in front of us while borrowing money from China to pay for tax breaks for corporations and the richest of the rich. I see one of the wealthiest countries in the world, where millions of people don’t have health insurance. I see a Democratic-led Congress, but by the slimmest of majorities, too afraid they'll lose power to take a stand on many of the important issues that need to be addressed.

And I look at the two front-runners in the Democratic primaries. I see two intelligent candidates, both relatively new legislators, with positions on most issues that aren't tremendously different. Either is capable and smart enough to do the job; neither has a tremendous amount of experience to draw on. Both candidates have the advantage of being a potential "first": first woman or African-American President; both have the corresponding drawback of possibly tapping into irrational prejudice. How to decide between the two?

I can point to some specific differences: I like that Obama has opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning, and I don't like that Clinton has yet to categorically state that her vote in favor of invading Iraq was a mistake. I like that Obama has refused to take money from lobbyists and I don't like that Clinton still does. I like that Obama or his surrogates have never played the gender card, and I don't like that Mr. and Mrs. Clinton have, directly and indirectly, used race to try to gain political advantage in these primaries. I don't like political dynasties -- the Bush double-whammy is proof positive of why not -- and I don't like the intimation that Hillary Clinton somehow deserves payback because her husband and his political enemies put her through the wringer or because it’s “her turn.”

But really, the most important reason that I've come to support Barack Obama is not any of the above. My head tells me there isn't that much of a difference between the positions of the candidates; but my heart tells me there is a big difference. I listen to Obama describe the problems that our country faces:

We are up against the belief that it's ok for lobbyists to dominate our government - that they are just part of the system in Washington. But we know that the undue influence of lobbyists is part of the problem, and this election is our chance to say that we're not going to let them stand in our way anymore.

We are up against the conventional thinking that says your ability to lead as President comes from longevity in Washington or proximity to the White House. But we know that real leadership is about candor, and judgment, and the ability to rally Americans from all walks of life around a common purpose - a higher purpose.

We are up against decades of bitter partisanship that cause politicians to demonize their opponents instead of coming together to make college affordable or energy cleaner; it's the kind of partisanship where you're not even allowed to say that a Republican had an idea - even if it's one you never agreed with. That kind of politics is bad for our party, it's bad for our country, and this is our chance to end it once and for all.

We are up against the idea that it's acceptable to say anything and do anything to win an election. We know that this is exactly what's wrong with our politics; this is why people don't believe what their leaders say anymore; this is why they tune out. And this election is our chance to give the American people a reason to believe again.
It's corny and hokey and earnest, but I want a reason to believe again.

I want a candidate who is capable of bringing us past the divisions that are fracturing our society – and Obama has consistently delivered that kind of message during the campaign.

I want a candidate who isn’t so desperate to win that he’ll say anything or do anything to get there. Obama has refused to let the Clintons and their race-baiting change his message or his tactics, even when the Clintons have tried to marginalize him as “the black candidate.”

I want a candidate who can get people – people of all ages, backgrounds, walks of life – excited about leadership and inspire them to make positive societal change. I see that in Obama’s supporters.

I want a candidate who has the real-world ability to work with politicians from all parties to try to get something done, without important legislation getting stalled by sound bites or pork or extremists. I don’t think Hillary Clinton will be able to do that effectively.

I want a candidate whose nomination won’t serve as a rallying call for the crazy conservatives (and Hillary’s certainly will, calling into question her ability to actually get elected) and I want a First Spouse (brace yourself; this one’s harsh) who isn’t a convicted perjurer who can't keep his pants zipped.

I want a candidate who believes this:

make no mistake: the choice in this election is not between regions or religions or genders. It's not about rich versus poor; young versus old; and it is not about black versus white. It's about the past versus the future.

It's about whether we're going to seize this moment to write the next great American story. So someday we can tell our children that this was the time when we healed our nation. This was the time when we repaired our world. And this was the time when we renewed the America that has led generations of weary travelers from all over the world to find opportunity, and liberty, and hope on our doorstep.

If you are so inclined, donate here.


Anonymous said...

With you 100%, Caro.
I want the person whose dynasty doesn't owe favors to lots of people.
I want the person who doesn't think the Presidency is owed him because otherwise IT'S NOT FAIR.

Tracy Purtscher said...

Thank you for saying this.

Not for me, not for Obama, but for our country.

Meghann said...

Beautiful! Thank you for adding your voice to many others. Because it DOES make a difference

Anonymous said...

Amen, sister! You've done a wonderful job articulating my inchoate reasons for supporting Obama.

Kathy said...

Amen! I am so tired of divisiveness...and negativity...and lies. I am inspired by Obama...I feel better as an American after listening to him speak. But I am so fearful that it will come down to our choice being between McCain and Clinton...I could cry! Is this the best we can do?

Carol said...

Inspiring piece of prose! I've gone right over and donated.

Mel said...

Thanks - I needed to hear that I wasn't the only one who felt this way.

Maybe, whomever wins, this country can start back in the right direction.

Sherry W said...

I *really* wish Al Gore had run.

Obama doesn't inspire me at all. I get this feeling that he's the Democratic cupie doll that knows just what to say and just how to look. But does he know what to do, and can he get it done? Maybe he can still convince me.

Anonymous said...

It's important to remember that Hillary Clinton came
back from her fact=finding visit to the Middle East this summer and had the perfect opportunity to say she was wrong about this war and that we need to end it.
She didn't.

I find it equally important that it sure seems as if the
reason she didn't dump loose trousers Bill is that
she feared it would be bad for her presidential campaign.
And not for any human reasons.

Carol said...

Al Gore blew it in 2000, plain and simple. Why would we want him back now -- to lose to McCain or Romney? No way.

Sherry W said...

I can't call winning the popular vote 'blowing it'.

America is ready for a smart candidate, as the current crop of potentials show. They where taken in my the friendly cowboy. Now they see intelligence is a good thing.

I just can't believe dems couldn't come up with someone with a little more experience.

Jenni said...

It will be a hard decision to make this year, to be sure. I just deleted my comments about why I won't vote for Obama, but I don't need the hazing. My biggest urge: read the platforms (not the media) of everyone running. Decide who you agree with and vote, vote, vote.

Carol said...

If Al Gore didn't blow it, why have we been stuck with Dubya for 8years? The election should never have hinged on the results of 1 state. He was an awful campaigner -- wooden, couldn't connect or get people excited about what he had to say. I liked him a lot and voted for him, but there's just no going back.

Jenni, I keep a pretty tight rein on "hazing" in my comments and don't like disrespect, if that makes you feel any better.

Anonymous said...

Well said, Carol. I think you have put your finger on what a lot of people are looking for.


Bridget said...

At this point, I don't really feel strongly one way or another about either of them. Which is disappointing to me.

I'm hoping to change my mind when it actually comes time for me to vote.

And for what it's worth, I think Al Gore would have been a pretty good president. I would have been happy to settle for wooden-mannered over wooden-brained. But I tend to admire people who others think lack charisma, so what do I know???

Anonymous said...

Yes, all the destruction by division is so frustrating. It gets pushed in our faces and creates more than what was truly there to begin with. That kind of ugly grows and takes on a life of its own.

Sherry W said...

We got stuck with Bush because he was a smooth campaigner and inspired a lot of people he'd be a mechanism for conservative change. He got the fundys out to vote for him (twice).

Lots of other folks stayed at home and watched Big Brother instead of voting. Blame them.

alimum said...

I found you through Ravelry. Great post!

Sherry W said...

I'm kind of curious what everyone's issues are this time? The lrge and minor ones?

I'm concerned with an energy crunch/dependency and the economy. Since my Dad's injury this year, I'm also concerned with funding for stem cell research.

Carol said...

Go Knit in Your Hat for President! I wish you were in the media.

Anonymous said...

Those are great reasons for supporting Obama, or any candidate. However, I cannot--and will not--vote for Obama in this election, even if that means that I have to vote for a Republican. (aaack) Obama has no record, and once he develops one, I'll be happy to vote for him. What this country does NOT need is another inexperienced President like the present one.

Carol said...

My issues are, in no particular order, getting done with the war in Iraq, repairing our position in the world/foreign policy, the economy/budget deficit, health care, environment, and basically not having a complete moron in the White House.

As far as his supposed lack of record, I'm not sure how you figure that. He was in the Illinois state senate AND the US Senate. Anonymous, have you looked up what he worked on in either of those places?

Anonymous said...

Carol, I apologize for posting as "Anonymous", but like your earlier commentator who deleted a comment, I don't need the hazing. I admire you for being willing to openly publish your own opinions. Election to the Senate, once, does not add up to "experience" for me. I do agree that Obama says all the right things.

Loren T said...

I'm not sure that being governor of a small state or mayor of a large city counts as much "experience" either, for what it's worth.

I've been chronicling my electoral indecision on my blog now for months. It's definitely a head v. heart issue for me. However, the Clinton campaign's shenanigans have not only turned me off for now, but have reminded me of all the negative crap from the Clinton administration that I had repressed/forgotten.

I have until Feb. 12th to decide (unless Super Tuesday forces my hand), but I'm kind of leaning toward Obama at this point.

(Forgive me if this posted twice. I got some bizarre comment burp message.)

Elizabeth said...

Go Carol!

Anonymous said...

I'm with Sherry, I pine for Al. I loved Al in 2000, and still think he was robbed. I love Al now, and wish he'd ride in on a white horse and save us. But alas, I fear he will not.

I also put a fair amount of blame for the election of our current Moron in Chief (both in 2000 and 2004) on the Clintons (stay with me here!). I think they put Hillary's ambition ahead of party and country, having Bill stay in the background and not campaign hard for Al or John Kerry (ugh, but still better than Shrub), all the while waiting for it to be "her turn." And I think the way they are campaigning now just serves to highlight how it's not about us, it's about her.

Like Kathy said, she seems to have held onto Bill for this same self-serving reason. I kept waiting for his clothes to be strewn across the White House lawn, but it never happened.

I can't vote for such a person, at least not in the primary. But unlike some other folks I know, I'll vote Dem in the general no matter who the Dem is, because good lord I cannot and will not vote Republican.

Carol said...

Hey Anonymous-s, I don't mind sincere Anonymous-ness; it's the trolls I loathe. Well, Clinton has only 1 Senate term (or part of one) more, and Obama has experience in the Illinois legislature. Looking on the Republican side, we've got Romney (no federal public office, 4 years as state governor); Huckabee (governor of Arkansas, no federal public office); and McCain (the only one with experience in the federal government). Of course, experience in office doesn't always help, like McCain's close involvement with Keating (anybody remember the S&L crisi of the 80s? and how McCain was reprimanded for trying to interfere with the federal regulators for Keating?

Unknown said...

Wow...what an interesting forum.

First, I can't understand how folks like Edwards doesn't get any traction in the primaries. Bill Bradley was another guy who should have been a sure winner and never went anywhere.

Second, I love listening to Obama and find him incredibly appealing. If I was going to look for a pal or a sex partner, he would be my first choice.

Third, I find Hillary to be poised, well-advised and accomplished. I also feel she gets a bum rap in the media and they have created her persona with the majority of Americans.

Finally, I feel as though folks in this country have no idea how to evaluate someone for president...or perhaps I feel that there is no sure-fire way to make a good decision, especially when it's so easy to be swayed by the incessant chatter of pundits.

All that being said, I will support Hillary entirely, and hope to god she makes a good president.

I'll take any hazing at all...I fear no comments whatsoever.

Anonymous said...

Hey, Joe, even if I say you have a funny nose?

Anonymous said...

I was for Edwards too and was really sad he didn't do better.

As for the 2 that we have to choose between, I can't make up my mind.

With Ms. Clinton I kind of agree with Joe that the media has too much to do with how we see her. But I have other reservations about her like how religious she really is? Is she the liberal she once seemed to be or quite conservative as it seems to me now etc. and I really didn't like the recent personal attacks on Obama.

And Obama, I can't really get a feeling of him, he seems to me too much of a politician, although this feeling changed a bit after his victory speech in SC.

So, I have problems with both of them but I know I will vote (if I get my citizenship in time, it looks promising!)for the Democrat candidate no matter what.

But an important consideration that I want to mention here, if McCaine will be the Republican candidate, who has more chances to win against him? I can't decide, I think Obama but I am not sure and I think this should be the most important consideration because we must have a democrat in the white house come January 2009, right?

Anonymous said...

Hi gang, I'm posting anonymous but will sign my first name. The bigger problem than which candidate to vote for is that the electoral system is broken. Party politics is getting in the way of individual votes. Floridians were screwed again this year by the system (stripped of our delegates because the state parties -- really the state legislature -- won't play by national party rules).

No matter what your politics may be it is wonderful and about time that the democratic party (small letters on purpose) is going to nominate a black man or a woman as candidates. I voted for Hillary in the hope that my vote might count by the time the convention arrives. I think experience counts for a bunch and I'm old enough to have been fighting the fight for women's rights for a while now. Obama's time will come. Hillary's time is now (no matter how big an idiot she married -- we all have our weaknesses).

Linda in Florida

Carol said...

Hey Linda, I do think that this whole weird system where some primaries seem to count more than others is stupid. And if states try to move up their primaries to be more influential, the parties decide that the primary "doesn't count." I truly am glad that people like you and Joe feel free to express your opinions here.

Joe, if the nominee ends up being Hillary, I will support her and vote for her because I do believe we need someone, anyone, from the democratic side in the White House. But I fear she is less electable than Obama. It's a tough call, though: does mysogyny trump racism, or vice versa?

And being old enough to remember Geraldine Ferraro's reception as first woman V.P. candidate, I think there's less, or at least less overt, sexism than there was then. Small comfort, though.

Kate said...

I've always been fascinated by the complexity of the American Electoral system and the extreme pressure it places on one human being to be all things to all people.

I can only watch from the sidelines and hope fervently that the recent Australian Federal Election results may inspire voters in the States; An incumbent Head of State is voted out of his seat by a dissatisfied and unrepresented electorate.
All power to the people!

owenandbenjamin said...

Mr. Obama is exciting a lot of people. He has intelligence and charisma. We will see if that is enough to overcome his lack of political experience.

I think intelligence and leadership ability and the ability to inspire people is enough to overcome inexperience.

Katie K said...

I don't get the impression that Obama is a man of ideas. We need policy, not "inspiration". Hillary's connection to Walmart among other things gives me the creeps. Without a viable progressive candidate now that Edwards is out, and the way the economy is going, things don't look good.

Big Alice said...

Thanks Carol, for a very interesting post. And I don't mean interesting in the derogatory interesting way. Stupid text. I'm being earnest, truly.

I commented because I concur completely with your statement,

> I want a candidate whose nomination won’t serve as a rallying call for the crazy conservatives (and Hillary’s certainly will....

based completely on personal experience. Nothing will get my ultra-conservative (but not a nutcase) father more worked up than saying the word "Clinton" around him. He won't articulate why, but he despises Mr. Clinton. He'll vote for Mr. Chimps the Freewheeling Monkey if that's the other candidate besides Mrs. Clinton.

Carol said...

Geez, Alice, maybe we're long lost sisters. Last weekend my dad starting spouting stuff from Rush Limbaugh. His spouting turned to sputtering when I asked him why he cared what a convicted druggie said about politics.... (;

Ruth said...

i could see one of them as Prez, and the other as vice-prez. Quite a combination.

M-H said...

Like Kate, I'm watching from the sidelines here. But something people are saying to me here is that they wonder if the election of a black president may lead to civil unrest in some of the more unreconstructed areas of the US. What do you Americans think about this? No-one has mentioned it so far. Is it a real risk?

Ann said...

A while back I took a quiz on the Washington Post's website asking my views on various issues and then matching me up with a candidate -- John Edwards. I was disappointed but not surprised when he dropped out. Now I'm bouncing between Clinton and Obama. I really liked your post.

However, now I'm concerned that Mr. Chimps the free-wheeling monkey has entered the race. I need to check out his platform ...

Anonymous said...

I, too, am straddling the fence on Clinton or Obama, if those are my only choices. I have no respect for how Hillary has tolerated that cheating dog of a husband; that being said, he was a great president. I wish they would have abolished the electoral college a long long time ago, in this techy world, it is so archaic. Hillary has tons of political experience, she has served as first lady in various places for years and years, an unpaid position. Try to tell any military wife that she has no military experience... how do you think that will go over? Still, I don't really trust Hillary.
I was listening intently to Obama until he invoked Reagan. Are you kidding me????? Reaganomics nearly ruined our country, wanna have your kids get catsup as a vegetable at school again? In addition, there has been an admission that Reagan was severly impaired by Alzheimers his entire last term. And now Obama HAS talked about gender and race and religion and said that Hillary would be a step backward - compared to the last 7 years???? seriously????

I would vote for Edwards and especially Gore, if I could. I will decide by who is best behaved by Tuesday ( our prelim here in AZ ).

If McCain wins the presidency, I will be leaving the country. His idea of law and order is to support a sheriff that kills. Read about what we have to put up with here in AZ by reading some of the articles in the New Times (Phoenix edition ) archives...... so scary.

So my vote will go to the best behaved "first" or I'll write in Al Gore.

BTW, as a kind reminder, America, whether North or South are continents and we do not have sole use of the phrase "American", any more than an Italian or Irish or Spaniard has sole use of "European". It is a true insult to all peoples in both North and South America for us to be that arrogant.

Carol said...

m-h, it's hard for me to judge. I think that seems unlikely but I live in an urban area that has a large african-american population.

Janice in GA said...

Is anybody else weirded out by the thought of dynastic presidencies?? First George H.W. Bush, then his son W. I don't really think I want Bill Clinton and then his wife. Just seems wrong to me.

Anonymous said...

Amen, Carol and well written.

Obama makes me remember why I love politics and the idea of actually thinking: what might be possible? He's inspirational, thoughtful and smart. That's what's made me a huge supporter. We could use a bit of that in our world.

I've been put off by the Hillary campaign machine and the idea of a dynasty.... most recently, the idea that women should vote for a woman. I believe in choice for women and that includes voting. Do not castigate me for considering Hillary and voting for Obama.

In the end, I will vote for the Dem. candidate. But I would like to feel inspired and hopeful when I vote.

Anonymous said...

Hi again,
Carol, thanks for keeping this going and to everyone for being so civil about this discussion. Seeing so many thoughtful comments from around the country I'm learning so much from each of you about why you feel the way you do.

While I think change is good and growth is important I really think experience counts for a lot these days.

I admire Obama very much. I worry for him and his family. I still think his time will come but he needs more experience: perhaps a cabinet position or a leadership position in the Senate this time around?

While the Clintons are far from perfect they have experience and things were pretty good in the U.S. of A. during Bill's term. While he made some stupid decisions in his personal life they weren't about his marriage or his family or his governance. they were about his own weaknesses and drives. most of us have done stupid things in our pasts, we just haven't gotten caught. I think Hillary understood his weaknesses and his strengths and I'm sure she made him pay for being an idiot.

As I said before, Hillary got my primary vote and I hope she can make the voters around the country understand who she is and how much experience she has built up through her years and years of direct and indirect public service. The comment above about how much military wives learn as spouses was very enlightening. Hillary has experienced even more in her career.

But most of all, everyone, please think hard about the candidate of your choice and vote in your primary, and again in the general election. This country needs the votes of thoughtful people in all the states.

Linda in Florida

Anonymous said...

Lve you Carol for loving Edwards! I am totally bummed but now leaning toward Obama. Love you Joe for bringing up Bill Bradley! I still have my Bill Bradley for President t-shirt and Bill Bradley para Presidente button. Sigh.


Jenni said...

The debate last night was surely interesting! A joint ticket?! Doubtful.

What pains me the most about many of the comments here: voting for the 'electable' person, the individual who can win against the Republican nomination. This is not the point of democracy. This attitude is why Edwards dropped out, Bill Bradley is but a dream, and dare I mention Kucinich? I will reiterate: read the platforms and critically think about which candidate better aligns with your opinions and views. Then go vote. What you find may just surprise you.

Carol said...

Jenni, I (respectfully) take issue with your assumption that our statements that either democratic frontrunner is better than anyone in the republican field is not based in knowledge about the candidates' positions.

The remaining republican frontrunners have refused to commit to end our involvement in Iraq. They stand firmly in favor of pro-life outlawing of abortion, and in favor of banning gay marriage. They continue to talk about silly tax cuts that will benefit the wealthiest while we have a spiraling budget deficit. They are but a few examples.

The republican party is speaking as one on certain critical issues. I heartily disagree with all or most of those issues, and they are important to me, which is why I will vote for any democrat (i.e. anyone whose views are closer to my own) than any of the republican contenders.

I also respectfully disagree that our discussions are somehow contrary to the point of democracy. Here we are, frankly and openly discussing our political views and favored candidates. The vast majority of folks who have commented are well-informed on the issues that matter. I suspect that a high percentage of them are regular voters, too: I have not missed voting in an election in years, and I believe I've never missed a presidential one since I turned old enough to vote.

I am a political realist, in many ways. I think about what, realistically speaking, my choices will be in November when I walk into that ballot box. Unless some brand new republican contender comes out of the woodwork, the republican field is hopelessly at odds with most of my priorities. Any of the leading democrats is closer to my priorities, and therefore will get my vote. I can dream about what my ideal candidate would be, but democracy doesn't give me the constitutional right to have a dream candidate to vote for; it only assures me that, god willing, i'll be able to get into that ballot box and make my choice from the ones that appear there.

Anonymous said...

Ah, I went to see all three Democratic candidates speak in NH about a month ago. I like all three but Hillary is my gal. One of the reasons I dismissed Obama is because he took no questions from the voters at any of his events. If he won't listen to us now, what will it be like later. Whereas Hillary answered questions, with absolute honesty and conviction for over two hours. I also liked Edwards but both he and Obama were not focused on the past (Selma, etc.) and I wanted to hear solutions for the future. Visit my blog for mid January to see pics of the candidates, etc.

Anonymous said...

Our household is torn between the two remaining Dems, and we have to decide before next Tuesday. I wish we could have both, as Wolf Blitzer suggested last night. I have to say that Obama's candidacy scares me a bit, and no one is saying this out loud. I'm old enough to remember the devastation in the aftermath of of the deaths of JFK, RFK and King.

Carol said...

You know, if Obama isn't scared, why should you be? And given the tremendous strides in presidential security since then (no more open limosines, for example) the likelihood of incidents is substantially less. I also think that such scenarios could equally apply to Hillary, since misogyny is certainly alive and well and there's no shortage of Clinton-haters.

I would hate to see you not vote for someone due to fear that a lunatic might try to take matters into their own hands. That gives the lunatic fringe too much power over us.

I also wonder if some of these scary scenarios -- possible assassination attempts or rioting in the south -- are being planted by Obama's enemies. Sounds like something from the Karl Rove playbook.

Anonymous said...

The idea of voting for someone to protect someone
else from assassination seems a (nothing personal)
bad choice.
I think it's a mistake to live our lives based on the fear of an unlikely event.
People end up hiding in closets protected by piles of newspapers that way.
And, as Carol asked, how to point out successfully who might be a target?

Mark David Chapman LOVED John Lennon.
Worshipped him for years.
He only killed him when John "disappointed" him.

It isn't Hillary's marrying Bill or even sticking with him that bothers me. I don't think people's sex lives are relevant to running a country.
It's that I think she makes every decision based on
how it will affect her political hopes.

Anonymous said...

the "but he lacks experience" line is all Clinton-party hype. Obama's experience compares quite favorably to that of Clinton. He has served IL with distinction (and has been elected to the US Senate twice, not once) and has sponsored & co-sponsored quite a bit of major legislation on the issues he'd face as President. By comparison, HRC's first term in the Senate was marked by her vote to authorize the Iraq war, her vote for the Patriot Act, and her many votes to approve the nominations numerous Bush appointees that she should hang her head over. It's hardly an extra 4 years I'd be crowing over, if I were her.

That and he's got several more years' experience in elected office than HRC does, namely being the star of the IL state senate, which is no bush league (check out our state's politics sometime! crazy hard stuff)... and while Hillary was serving on the board of Wal-Mart, Barack was pounding the pavement as a young civil rights lawyer and working as a community organizer, actually giving a shit about the people that Hillary was helping to exploit. Now THAT'S what I call experience I can trust.

Anonymous said...

I want a bumper sticker "Afraid for him, Afraid of Her"

I do fear a race civil disturbance should something happen to Obama, just because I saw/experienced the race riots when MLK died. I pray that the secret service will keep him and his family safe and secure. But there are no guarantees in life.

I am also afraid of Hillary. I know that she is smart, intelligent, savvy and I get a feeling not based on anything, that she's vindictive. I once talked with a co-worker about her and his remark was that "Bill will keep her inline." Yeah right and what about the middle east, Iran, Iraq, where women have no political presence in the governing of their country? Do you really think they are going to listen to her?

That said, plus I want to say so much more I will probably vote Obama. I want to hope, dream of a positive change, envision a future brighter than what is going on today.


sunt_lacrimae_rerum said...

This is a great blog post. I agree with you and I appreciate your articulate, sensitive, and logical reasoning behind your support for Obama. I agree with you 100%.

And just for the record, Al Gore is not president NOT because "W" campaigned better, but because the Supreme Court chose him. Nobody owes Hillary anything. Her sense of entitlement is fallacious. Her sense of "manifest destiny" is dangerous, even.

Experience is not all it's cracked up to be. The most experienced person in Washington is probably Dick Cheney.

Much of Hillary's "experience" is as a political wife and as a Wal-Mark apologist!

My issues are getting out of Iraq first and foremost. Secondly, I am worried that the USA is becoming a rogue nation, a theocracy as clumsy as some of the countries we supposedly abhor. The furthering of political dynasties feeds right into that perception. Economic justice and civil rights matter too.

Seanna Lea said...

One of the problems with Al Gore running for President is a problem faced by a lot of candidates. He was being molded into something by his campaigners, his handlers, which was unnatural. It didn't allow him to be himself, and that put him at a huge disadvantage. I'm not sure if it is a bad sign for how he would have been as president, but I feel that if he had fired some of his image people then he could have made that step out which would have made him a lot more accessible to the American public.

I voted on Super Tuesday. I think that Obama will get the candidacy even though I didn't vote for him.

Hannah said...

I'm with you, from the real commitment to Edwards to the need for hope. Thanks.