I first read about Barack Obama in The Atlantic. ("The Natural") Although initially I was turned off to Obamania by this: when we sat down to talk in the dilapidated storefront that houses his Springfield campaign headquarters, that the blue-pen drawing he'd doodled on his newspaper during fund-raising calls was a portrait of himself. But my opinion about Senator Obama changed with six words of his - "sorry for messing up your game"
That showed me that he got "IT". And when he went to Detroit and gave a speech telling automakers they have to do better and make cars more fuel efficient (See: Obama Takes On Detroit) it was juxtaposed in my memory with images of Senator Clinton in a Yankees hat while in NYC and a Cubs hat while in Chicago.
When I vote for President I am voting for who I think has the best instincts. Every candidate has advisers and polling data to guide their policies but a President is most important in a crisis. There are examples of how it should be done: Lincoln getting the country through the Civil War, JFK avoiding WWIII during the Cuban missile crisis; Reagan's speech after the Space Shuttle Challenger explosion; George Bush leaving Iraq after Desert Storm. And then there is the wrong way, the wrong instincts: Carter with the Iranian hostages, George W Bush and September 11, Iraq, and Hurricane Katrina. Obama was right about Iraq and I believe Obama's instincts will guide him correctly in a crisis.
I too see him as an historical candidate. He is the United States' bridge to the 21st Century and represents the new America. Senator Obama must be elected the United States' next president. Read "Why Obama Matters" and you'll understand too. Example:
What does he offer? First and foremost: his face. Think of it as the most effective potential re-branding of the United States since Reagan. Such a re-branding is not trivial—it’s central to an effective war strategy. The war on Islamist terror, after all, is two-pronged: a function of both hard power and soft power. We have seen the potential of hard power in removing the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. We have also seen its inherent weaknesses in Iraq, and its profound limitations in winning a long war against radical Islam. The next president has to create a sophisticated and supple blend of soft and hard power to isolate the enemy, to fight where necessary, but also to create an ideological template that works to the West’s advantage over the long haul. There is simply no other candidate with the potential of Obama to do this. Which is where his face comes in.
Consider this hypothetical. It’s November 2008. A young Pakistani Muslim is watching television and sees that this man—Barack Hussein Obama—is the new face of America. In one simple image, America’s soft power has been ratcheted up not a notch, but a logarithm. A brown-skinned man whose father was an African, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, who attended a majority-Muslim school as a boy, is now the alleged enemy. If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology, Obama’s face gets close. It proves them wrong about what America is in ways no words can.
Obama is left-libertarianism in that his instinct (and those of his economic advisers) or to lower barriers rather than put up government mandates. Clinton wants to mandate health care, Obama wants to make it more affordable. See: Substance, not style: Despite what many believe, there are significant differences in policy between Barack Obama and the other candidates
Another example is the Democratic candidates' economic stimulus plans. Obama wants to lower barriers while Clinton wants a government fix. See:
Stark differences in candidates’ economic plans
Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama have proposed plans that could ultimately cost $110 billion. The Clinton plan relies heavily on government spending, and the Obama plan would rely more heavily on temporary tax breaks.
Mr. Obama would provide an immediate tax rebate of $250 to workers and would pay an extra $250 to every person collecting Social Security benefits. If unemployment increases three months in a row, he would pay an extra $250 to workers and retirees.
Mr. Obama’s plan would also provide $10 billion to help homeowners avoid foreclosure, $10 billion to states that are hardest hit by the downturn and $10 billion to extend unemployment benefits to more people, including temporary workers and self-employed long-time unemployed workers.
Austin Goolsbee, Mr. Obama’s top economic adviser, said the payments represented the fastest way of getting money to people who are most likely to need it and to spend it quickly.
Mr. Edwards and Mrs. Clinton have proposed plans to channel more money to government programs. Mr. Edwards would put money into building “clean energy” public works. Mrs. Clinton would put $30 billion into an “emergency housing crisis fund” and $25 billion into helping low-income people pay heating bills.
Obama is also the only candidate to articulate a digital policy -
Obama's Digital Policy
Why Senator Clinton Is Not A Good Candidate
First of all is the question of whether her candidacy is even legal. Not literally, but if Hillary counts her co-experience with Bill as preparing her for the presidency now, then does that violate the spirit of the 22nd Amendment? ( Hillary and the 22nd Amendment, Hillary Clinton Bucks the Spirit of the 22nd Amendment) Or is this another example of Senator Clinton bending rules for her own ends? Like when the other candidates agreed not to campaign in Michigan or Florida and removed their names from the ballot but Senator Clinton kept her name on the ballots and now wants the votes to count for her. (See: No Way)
I think many Democratic voters are getting sick of these antics. And tactics like the Clinton campaign trying to bait Obama into using race. (See: Race Wars and Bill Clinton as bad cop)
I am curious as to the source of Senator Clinton's support despite stories like these?
I believe part of her continuing support is that many older women may vote for Senator Clinton based solely on her gender. But the leader of Chicago NOW has switched from supporting Clinton to Obama - Not only is he 100 percent pro-choice, he's 100 percent honest
And there are many more examples of prominent women either supporting Obama or openly questioning their support for Clinton:
This seems to be the moment for which feminists have waited. Those of us who came out of the women's movement of the late '60s and '70s have longed for a greater presence of women in the political and public spheres. So why are we not ringing doorbells for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton? In my case, I would say it is ambivalence. I am certainly not against her. I just can't bring myself to be for her.
Other Voices
Who Could Be On The Ticket?
Who could possibly be Hillary Clinton's running mate? For a national election she cannot choose a man for a vice-president running mate. Half the country is ready to vote against her and only a man who was not interested in political office afterwards could be vice-president as it would appear to be too emasculating and be a factor in electability for a national election. She cannot use Jennifer Granholm because she's Canadian. I wonder if she would choose a moderate Republican in a ploy for a Unity ticket? Then would Senator McCain ask Senator Obama to be his running mate in response?
Were Senator Obama to win the Democratic nomination he has many options for a running mate. My thoughts on the running mate issue took me to Ambassador and current governor Bill Richardson as Obama's vice president. The VP role is best executed as a foreign envoy and behind the scenes convener. Governor Richardson excels in this role. He would fulfill the role Cheney did for Bush. And this selection would help bridge the Latino-Black divide. It would be a dream team.
The Election In November
What worries me is with this Bush administration we've seen what having to make political pay backs can do to people's lives. Old ties is what led to the Katrina disaster. ("heck of a job Brownie") Wanting a payback is what led to Iraq. If Senator Clinton is elected she'll have to pay back many political allies and when Bill is roaming the White House maybe he'll be looking for payback for his impeachment.
Clearly I am hoping for an Obama win in the democratic nomination. Otherwise we may face the unpalatable possibility of a haphazard McCain or a vindictive Clinton presidency. For example, in the last debate Hillary said a Clinton was needed to clean up after the first Bush presidency and it'll take a Clinton to clean up after this one too. But President Bush 41 was a decent enough President and only lost out on two terms because of a little conspiracy nut by the name of Ross Perot. There really wasn't anything to "clean-up". And do you really want to say a Clinton president needs to "clean-up" afterwards when put in the context of President Clinton's peccadilloes? Senator Clinton very well may be running for a payback Presidency. Isn't that what we have now?
What is mostly unsaid however is that the 1960's still cast a pall over today's elections. Many African-Americans will not vote for Senator Obama because they are afraid doing so will set him up for an assassination. Many women will vote for Senator Clinton simply because she is a women and they feel they've waited a long time for this.
For the democrats, the upside of the primaries is either Senator Clinton or Obama will have much more clout in the Senate after the election.
Regardless of what plays out in the nomination process the democrats will have an historical candidate and in the end you must find your own candidate. Here are some sites that can help:
May you live in interesting times...
