Barack Obama.
There it is. I’m going to vote for him in the primary. Barack Obama.
I wish I could say that this is solely because of Obama’s positives, but this morning I woke up and realized that my choice was cinched by some negatives. I can’t go for Hillary for one of the same reasons I can’t go for John McCain. No, it doesn’t have anything to do with “campaign finance” or “neck flab.” And I’m not a one-issue voter. But…
Barack Obama.
Sometimes societies go crazy. It happens, and in the same way it happens with individual people, it is very hard to see from the inside. But entire nations can lose their minds. It can be spectacular, like in Nazi Germany, or it can be a quieter, more harmless thing, like in the late 1800’s when Finland was found wandering around in its nightshirt before dawn and had to be escorted home.
It’s becoming clearer and clearer to me that the United States lost its collective shit after 9/11. Not a little - a lot. We did some things we’re gonna regret for a long time, and only the strongest-minded resisted the urge to be pulled along in the Crazy Tide.
And the craziest, and most dangerous thing to come out of 9/11 was George W. Bush’s batshit insane doctrine of preemptive warfare. I look at it, and… I still can’t believe we as a people went for that.
But now that more of us are thinking clearly, I have to say - if you’re a politician who supported the idea of going to war with a country that hadn’t attacked us, that hadn’t attacked our allies, that did not threaten to attack us, that had no plans to attack us, and - it turned out - didn’t have anything approaching the means to attack us…. if you supported that, and you still don’t see how 100% balls-out nuts that is, you shouldn’t get to be President.
Maybe if Hillary had conceded that she made a grievous error, maybe… but she hasn’t. I realize that she feels the need to look “strong on defense.” Sure. But if she’s managed to come across as a centrist on this one, she’s in the center between the world of sensible foreign policy and outright political insanity. That’s not good enough.
Whether or not staying in Iraq now is necessary, and it might be, going there in the first place is something we all need to wake up about - it wasn’t okay. Not even a little bit. I think I’ve gone on record saying that countries harboring and training terrorists and developing chemical weapons to give them… is a bad thing. If you don’t believe me, read my article in “Foreign Policy Monthly,” “Countries Harboring and Training Terrorists and Developing Chemical Weapons to Give Them is a Bad Thing” (October, 2002). My position in that paper may be a little nuanced, but you’ll get my drift.
Every candidate mentions that the decision to go to war is the hardest and most important decision a President can ever make. It’s said so often that the meaning has kind of been drained from it, in the same way that parental phrases like “cover your mouth” or “don’t touch that” become white noise to any normal kid. But it’s true - going to war is the biggest of big decisions. And I just can’t see myself electing a President who doesn’t see that our reasons for going to war with Iraq were completely inadequate, and that we should never, ever go to war on such flimsy grounds again.
The whole “HOW we went to war” thing is important too, and Hillary gets that. But the “WHY we went to war” issue is just as important, because tens of thousands of dead people is the kind of thing that needs a pretty good reason.
A society going nuts usually isn’t a result of them making insane decisions again and again. Just get a country to accept one or two completely nutty premises, and all the other craziness flows out of it in a sane, logical way. Once they believe “We’re the master race,” or “Islam is the only way that people should be allowed to live,” or - yes - “We have the right to attack people before they become an actual threat” - once a population swallows something like that, they’ve purchased their ticket on the Crazy Train, and the whole thing starts steaming down the tracks. [I respectfully disagree with Mr. Osbourne that such trains routinely go “off the rails.” Regular trains going off the rails is crazy. Crazy trains, by definition, are already…. but I digress.]
So maybe, right here, I AM a one-issue candidate. Oh well - at least it’s a big issue. It’s definitely the biggest, most distinct difference between the two major Democrats, whose main argument at Thursday’s debate was which one of them agreed with the other more.
I have other reasons for liking Barack (his healthcare plan seems more fleshed out, he’s got that ineffable star-quality “thing” right now, and I do believe he’s got a better shot at getting the other half of Congress to play ball), and in truth both Hillary and Obama manage to make me cringe with some of their campaign rhetoric each and every week. And I don’t have too many other problems with Hillary, save for the pervasive stink of Triangulacíon, the designer fragrance also favored by her husband. But if she wins the nomination… That’s for another day. Right now:
Barack Obama.
Fanny Roborat
63 comments
margaret
February 2, 2008 at 2:50 pm
1Well done. I’m so ditto on this. Your reasoning reads like my echo.
Of course, I voted a few primaries ago. You know, in that very first one, back in January. If you even remember it. I barely do.
It's Pat!
February 2, 2008 at 2:52 pm
2Adam, I remember the reaction of several nice (and elder) church ladies I know after 9/11 - it was not of fear for our safety from a terrorist attack, it was not that the US would be seen as weak in the opinion of the rest of the world. It was that our liberties would be further taken away in the name of “the war on Terror” (or “Terrah”, if your name was Shrub). They had seen what happened in the 50’s to 90’s when it was Communism.
I believe when we hear Obama’s catchword “change” many feel hope for change. That may be what is driving so many to his camp.
And I think cynicism, of the Karl Rove variety, will not play this time around. Fear has been a very successful driver of people to Repubs for 28 years. It won’t work now. I think we are about to see another shift in power. To what, depends on whatever Barack’s base is.
It's Pat!
February 2, 2008 at 2:54 pm
3oh, and by the way, my prediction is Pat’s 35, Giants 24. It just has to be that way.
hedera
February 2, 2008 at 3:27 pm
4Adam, count me in too, and for all the same reasons, plus this one: with a few exceptions, probably due to the stress of the campaign, when something weird and whacky comes at Barack, he doesn’t automatically go all weird and whacky back. He thinks about it - he’s done this several times - and comes back with a reaction I can summarize as, “What did you say??” Actually, it all comes down to: he thinks about it. He has an actual brain, and he uses it publicly, a trait not noticeable in the current administration (or, I’m sorry to say, always in Bill Clinton. Occasionally, but not always.).
The other reason I’m for him is the charisma thing - he is a leader. If you want to know, can this man get other people to do stuff for him, to follow his plans - look at his campaign. I heard him use that as, essentially, a portfolio item for his candidacy the other day, and he’s dead right. He is a leader and a manager, and he’s the ONLY candidate I see running who has the ability to climb into the bully pulpit of the presidency and say, People, we’ve been wrong for years, and this is the right way, and this is what we need to do to fix things. He can persuade - all the Repubs do is play the fear card.
Charisma can be a dangerous thing, and we may elect him to find that it’s 1933 in Germany again. But I don’t think so. He’s just too - sane - for that.
And, It’s Pat, kudos to your elderly church ladies, and I’d like to meet them. They were dead right.
Linkmeister
February 2, 2008 at 3:43 pm
5I can agree with Adam on his reasoning and still think maybe Hillary’s a better bet, can’t I? ‘Cause I just don’t think Barack’s vaunted “persuasive” technique is enough to get the Republicans in Congress to go along with his plans. I think Hillary is meaner and nastier and capable of standing up to that crowd of reactionaries; I wish I could be sure Barack would be.
David
February 2, 2008 at 4:24 pm
6Adam, your assessment of the reaction of America to 9/11 is dead on, and the consequences really are that serious, and that hard to believe. But history does tell us that nations who should know better can go batshit crazy down a very “logical” track, once a batshit crazy premise has been accepted.
I would also offer my perspective that the invasion of Iraq was not only both a terrible mistake and a colossal foreign policy blunder, it also qualifies as a war crime, but I can’t imagine that assessment ever coming in from the shadows, even if no less than Stephen Hawking was willing to call it by its correct name. And since there is no authority with sufficient clout to put the appropriate people in the dock at The Hague, the best we can hope for is a president who will say that we must reverse direction, get out of Iraq in the most orderly, least destructive but still expeditious manner possible, repudiate the doctrine of pre-emptive war, and quit killing people on behalf of petroleum reserves and a belief in the right to assert our will through military might whenever and wherever we please.
I understand Linkmeister’s reasoning, but I too have to go with Barack. Beyond that, it’s whoever the Democratic nominee is. The Republican Party should not be entrusted with the White House, no matter who their nominee is, and they damned sure should not be rewarded with four more years after what they did during the past seven.
David
February 2, 2008 at 4:58 pm
7From Josh Marshall’s Talking Points Memo:
Money Woes
Need proof that it’s tough running for President as a Republican this year?
Mitt Romney had to pony up $18 million of his own money for his campaign in the fourth quarter alone, which was two-thirds of the total amount he managed to raise.
To keep his poorly financed campaign afloat, John McCain had to take out a $3 million loan and secure it in part with a life insurance policy on himself.
And those are the top GOP candidates.
David
February 2, 2008 at 5:03 pm
8And by the way, on balance the sky really is falling:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080202/ap_on_re_af/60_acres_a_minute_i
dee
February 2, 2008 at 5:30 pm
9I hate to endorse anyone, since my track record for just about all of my life has been pretty miserable. But I’ll throw caution to the winds and second everything Adam has said. Hillary may indeed be meaner and nastier, but I don’t think Obama’s a pushover. And Obama’s appeal to independents is something Hillary will never have.
So now that that’s settled, let’s give the next Democratic president a Democratic congress. One with a spine would be a nice change, but at least a filibuster proof majority would suffice.
siobhan
February 2, 2008 at 6:08 pm
10Speaking of a congress with a spine…
Arlen f*ing Specter is calling for hearings on why the NFL destroyed tapes related to the New England cheating scandal. Does anyone remember him calling for hearings on why the CIA destroyed tapes related to “harsh interrogations”? Of course our team hasn’t done much better. I’m all in favor of stem cell research anyway, but I support doubling the efforts if it means they can come up with a way to strengthen weak spines.
unpaid Bill
February 2, 2008 at 6:33 pm
11It seems to me that Hillary personifies herself a little like “one of the boys”, maybe to be more tough-seeming and therefore widely accepted. But to me that also carries an ability to not show all her hand. Of course, we know that the bar has been raised for the (astounding) level of corruption accepted (or allowed) in Washington over the last 7 years, led by fear and war-mongering neocons, that would have made an unbelievable and low-selling novel prior to 2000 but now will unfortunately be one of the darkest periods in non-fiction - MY but we evolve slowly!
Anyway, back to it; Obama appears, at least, to stand by his more well-thought-out and, should I say, socialist leaning vision, than his primary rival, who seems to mistake her husband’s experience as her own.
I will vote for Obama, also because I think there’re more polarized feelings for Hillary, and we MUST have a dem. in office. But she’s got Bill as her 1st Man advisor - either choice has a substantially more well-crafted and better functioning brain organ than the current mad cowboy diseased delusional non-sensicle narrow-eyed dipshit we call leader, or is that loiter?
Check out his impressive resume if you get a chance.
Adam, I love you on “Wait,Wait”.
p.s.-let Paula win more often.
SallyMutant
February 2, 2008 at 7:19 pm
12i hate that I have to think of electabilty as an important factor, but the repugs MUST go. Hill will be such a red flag in front of the wingnuts who loved bashing her way before she was a candidate. The resulting ugliness will drive some people away from Hill even though she didn’t start it. Idiot undecided voters will like Barak because they prefer cute and well-spoken to thick ankles and a braying laugh Some will actually vote on that criteria alone. I think Barak’s only worrisome vulnerability is youth, thus less length of service. I like his brain, and Dee’s right–he’ll appeal to independents. He’ll bring in nonvoters, too. (And since I always vote for cute and well-spoken alone, he’s got me.)
But now that it’s down to just the two, time to comisserate with our wish lists: Gore! I want my 2000 vote closure! Richardson! I want lots of foreign policy smarts and more solid blue states in the West! Kucinich! I Liberal Cheezburger Now!
YLlama
February 2, 2008 at 7:53 pm
13If it weren’t for alcohol, I’d also endorse Obama. But I somehow stumbled into being a PCO for the Republicans. This stumble resulted from a drunken decision to support Ron Paul that took months to wear off. With the Washington caucuses a mere week away, I should probably figure out what a PCO actually does and see whether the Turtle deserves my support. Either that or resign and make some sort of last minute pledge toward Mike Gravel, who appears to still be an available option here.
LAmom
February 2, 2008 at 8:22 pm
14Ditto, Adam. You covered in this one post the very same feelings that it took me two posts to express.
Dale
February 2, 2008 at 8:35 pm
15As my 4th grade teacher used to say as she handed out the dreaded purple-tinged math worksheets… ¨Ditto!¨
SeattleTammy
February 2, 2008 at 10:54 pm
16Bill’s doing pretty good, but he does need some F**’ng Union writers!
HONK!
Yes We Can! Sing it People!
Chatsworth
February 3, 2008 at 5:45 am
17Tsk! Tsk! Dale, are we still intimidated by math - Ye who speaks the nuanced courtly jargon of Isabella I and Ferdinand of Aragon, and no doubt 16 dialects of Basque fluently? Tsk. Tsk.
By the way, I was but a lad in 1960, but my mom’s best friend was a connected Democratic operative in those days and was invited to the inauguration of President Kennedy, so JFK was the first politician I ever really paid any attention to. I remember how excited and inspired people were by Kennedy and, you know, Barack might just be a Jack Kennedy.
sharon
February 3, 2008 at 7:48 am
18Ditto, ditto, and ditto! And Dale, I can still close my eyes and imagine the aroma of the mimeograph.
Mojo
February 3, 2008 at 7:59 am
19I’d like to put in my 652 cents. While I agree that Obama is the better candidate, I scrubbed the word “ditto” from my vocabulary when I heard it 147 times in a week of Rush Limbaugh.
Adam, I disagree about Obama’s health plan. The lack of a mandate for adults leaves a huge, gaping hole that will bleed it out. The insurance companies will continue to cherry pick the healthy, millions will continue to not carry insurance at all (giving hospitals continued excuses to charge $10 for a bandaid), and the government-subsidized insurance will bear a disproportionate cost of overall health care, giving “drown it in a bathtub” type conservatives an easy target.
hedera, Good point about Obama actually using his brain in public.
Linkmeister, I’d be more willing to give Clinton credit for being able to influence Congress if I’d seen the slightest indication that she’s been able to do that, or even tried to do more than go with the flow on important issues, while a member. Clinton has shown that she’s willing to go on attack sometimes, but it’s generally been only against other Democrats.
siobhan, Specter joined Leahy in demanding information from the CIA and DOJ regarding the CIA tape destruction. But putting more effort into the NFL tapes issue than the CIA tapes is pretty much unforgivable.
Chris Harlan
February 3, 2008 at 9:41 am
20Maybe it’s just my bad ears, but I’m pretty certain that I’ve heard the big H say that she that she never would have gone to war had she known then what she knows now, and that her decision was based on a bunch of Bushy-tailed lies. I’m sure if she had a way-back machine, she’d go and change her vote.
I am sympathetic since I was also not among the few, the mighty, the strong. I purchased a ticket on crazy train. Her reasons were my reasons. Sad but true.
LAmom
February 3, 2008 at 10:22 am
21“that she never would have gone to war had she known then what she knows now, and that her decision was based on a bunch of Bushy-tailed lies”
Even if a person believed the stuff that Bush was saying, that would still mean that they support the idea of preemptive war in certain situations. I also believed that Saddam had WMDs at the time, but I was still against the invasion from the start. Just because a person possesses a weapon doesn’t mean that you can attack them when they haven’t done anything to you.
The only thing that would justify supporting the war would be if someone had thought that Saddam was responsible for 9-11. I don’t think she believed that.
Linkmeister
February 3, 2008 at 10:30 am
22Mojo, to some degree I agree with you about her influence in the Senate, but she would no longer be a fairly junior Senator, she’d be President of the United States, with all the arm-twisting options that entails. I imagine that in LBJ’s first 8 years in the Senate he hadn’t accumulated nearly the power he had when he ascended (descended?) to the VP slot.
Jim (OJNTNJ)
February 3, 2008 at 10:58 am
23I’m voting for McCain because he’s willing to stay in Iraq for 100 years if that’s what it takes. Sorry waterfowler.
O.K. now that you’re paying attention: that was a lie. My choice, as I’ve said before is Barack Obama, now that Edwards is out of the race. My apologies if any of my fellow Fanappers strained a muscle doing a particularly vigorous eye-roll of contempt. I know I do during every
Ppresidential press conference.Not only does Senator Obama display intelligence, charisma, and actual consideration when questioned. He was right on Iraq. He also appears to have a better working relationship with others in the Senate. There appears to be none of the knee-jerk aversion to his negotiations that ,unfortunately, are applied (unfairly) to many of Senator Clinton’s negotiations (read “triangulations”). Unfortunately, the irrational Clinton hatred would mean road-blocks all along the way (unless we also achieve an unfilibusterable (is that even a word? - if not, FIRST!), Democratic majority in both houses.
He, in my opinion, also presents a more difficult target to the right-wing noise machine than Senator Clinton. I believe they actually may indeed do more damage to themselves by attempting to attack him. On what do I base this? Imus, Limbaugh, Bill “M-F’er” O’Reilly, and on and on.
I look forward the circus from the right.
Chris Harlan
February 3, 2008 at 11:16 am
24Dear LAmom, it is truly cool that you were able to see things so clearly back then. As I’ve said, I could not. And I agree with you, a preemptive war is a very ugly thing, but it wasn’t completely couched that way. I know it seems totally foolish at this point, but there was a pretext–a very flimsy pretext, in fact, a very flimsy, very wrong pretext, in fact, well, lies, and, as lies go not very good ones–not like the lies that got us into Vietnam, the Spanish American War, or the Mexican American War–but, there was a pretext.
It seemed to me at the time–a very serious time–that I needed to set aside doubt and trust my government. It wasn’t like, “Whooo-haaa! I wanna go to war!” It was more like “maybe they know something I don’t.” And, “I can’t believe they would be doing this if it weren’t necessary.” Now, I was, of course, many hundreds of rungs away from where things were happening. Ms. Clinton was a lot closer. Maybe her clearer view should have told her and most of the rest of congress something different. And maybe, one of the reasons I ended up with my view is because of the view she presented. Maybe if she had taken the kind of stance you are talking about, I would have thought more about it myself. Maybe I would have been less trusting.
So you have to ask, was it moral cowardice on her part? I acknowledge that it very well could have been. I don’t know. I’m also a thousand rungs from there, as well. It may have just been a cold, calculated, brutal, and stupid choice. But I’m going with the idea that, in the end, as she weighed everything, she needed to trust, too. That it was, in that chaotic time, her obligation to do so.
Unfortunately, that trust was betrayed, and that’s a truly great loss. It will be a long time before the next President who needs it will receive that kind of cachet.
David
February 3, 2008 at 2:31 pm
25My then senator from Florida Bob Graham, who was chair of the senate intelligence committee, voted against the resolution. The most unforgivable sin on the part of the senators who voted for the resolution was to ignore the leadership of Bob Graham, an intelligent, knowledgeable senator from the center of the Democratic Party. He was also one of Florida’s best governors.
On elections, he did get it right when he said that during the primary, we fall in love with a particular candidate, but during the general election we fall behind our nominee. I can embrace that because a Democrat, any Democrat, will be far better than any Republican, and will be the front person for the far better political franchise.
Kucinich, then Edwards, then Obama, then the nominee…
Chris Harlan
February 3, 2008 at 4:49 pm
26David wrote:
“On elections, he did get it right when he said that during the primary, we fall in love with a particular candidate, but during the general election we fall behind our nominee. I can embrace that because a Democrat, any Democrat, will be far better than any Republican, and will be the front person for the far better political franchise.
Kucinich, then Edwards, then Obama, then the nominee…”
I quite agree. I mean the top stuff. I had committed myself to Edwards a month or so ago, and now I’m trying to decide, which is why I’m visiting so many sites and blogs today. Its very strange. I’m putting in a lot more effort this year–I think–because I’ve felt so voiceless and disenfranchised over the last eight years. It feels like some sort of therapeutic ritual. I know my vote doesn’t count for much in the scheme of things, but this year it counts for me, more so than it has for many.
Raya
February 3, 2008 at 5:24 pm
27Edwards is still on the ballot, and I’m voting for him. I’ll vote for whichever Democrat is on the ballot in November, but in the primary I’m voting for the one I actually support — the one whose policies I want the Party to take to heart. And that’s Edwards.
Whichever of them ends up as the nominee, I’d like both Obama and Clinton to be on notice that they can’t take the “Edwards wing” of the party for granted; they’ve done enough pandering (already, in the primaries!) to “swing voters” on their right, it’s time to turn some attention over here to the voters they’ve abandoned on their left. That’s the message I want my primary vote to send.
cooper
February 3, 2008 at 6:45 pm
28Good idea, Raya. I have to wait until May 6 to vote in our primary, so it’s doubtful (as usual) that the NC primary will have any effect whatsoever on the outcome of the nomination.
David
February 3, 2008 at 8:41 pm
29I voted for Edwards in the Florida primary, and still would if it were part of Super Tuesday, I think, for the reasons Raya offers. I knew going in that Edwards was way behind in the polls, but I needed to say with my vote that this is Democrat I most want as president, at least among the front runners. And as it now stands, Florida will have no delegates, so I didn’t have to wrestle with whether or not I needed to choose between Obama and Clinton, even though I personally preferred Edwards.
Chris, you sound like a member of a civil body politic to whom your membership matters. That matters. Good on you.
Adam, Maria Shiver has signed on to the Obama campaign. You did it! (OK, so Ted Kennedy probably had a lot to do with it as the head of the Kennedy Clan, but I still think some credit should go your way.)
David
February 3, 2008 at 8:58 pm
30And now Susan Eisenhower is on board for Obama. One more, and you’ve scored a hat trick, Adam.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/01/AR2008 020102621.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
siobhan
February 3, 2008 at 9:01 pm
31This was brought to my attention today, and it pretty much sealed the deal: presidential debate between John McCain and Barack Obama.
Mr. WilsonJohn McCain is toast.SeattleDan
February 3, 2008 at 9:31 pm
32Thanks, David, for the Susan Eisenhower link. Good stuff.
We will caucus, ST, Danton, and I, for Obama next weekend, and do so gladly. We do have a primary here in Wa. State, which is only a beauty contest, as no delegates are at stake. I think I’ll vote for Edwards there as a sort of, I’m still thinking about you and your message, John.
madbard
February 3, 2008 at 10:01 pm
33Edwards promptly dropped out of the primaries right after I mailed in my ballot two weeks ago.
Dean did the same thing too four years ago.
I am the Kiss of Primary Death, Destroyer of Candidates!
David
February 3, 2008 at 10:42 pm
34Speaking of Dick Cheney, this tidbit from Steve Clemons’ Washington Note (Steve Clemons does not make stuff up):
Secondly, a friend of a friend of mine went hunting last week with Cheney-target Harry Whittington who was shot just about two years ago. In fact, the two year anniversary of the cloak-and-dagger hunting accident featuring Cheney shooting his campaign contributor will be February 11th.
According to my source, Whittington commented that the press really got played by Cheney’s team not only in the delayed reporting — but in how serious Whittington’s situation really was. According to my source, he nearly died and to this day, still carries quite a few metal pellets in him. But the seriousness of his condition was underplayed by Cheney’s team and in the press.
I wonder what would have happened if Whittington had accidentally shot the VP? Let’s not go there. . .
David
February 3, 2008 at 10:48 pm
35And as I said somewhere, if Dick Cheney had been hunting with duck load, say express number 5 shot, instead of what I assume was low-brass number 8 or 9, he would have killed Mr. Whittington. Maybe he was and it was blind luck that he didn’t kill his friend, although duck load for quail would be pretty bizarre, but then we are talking the Dickster. I still say Scalia is really lucky he didn’t get the Whittington treatment, because they were duck hunting.
Jim (OJNTNJ)
February 4, 2008 at 7:06 am
36David, I keep waiting for someone to do a dramatic reinactment of the shooting (playing it straight, rather than for satirical or comedic effect).
Maybe then more folks would realize the seriousness of this particular hunting accident.
I think Rob Zombie as Director would probably be able to accurately portray the horror of such a situation. Even if it wouldn’t match the incredulousnous I felt when the whole situation was essentially down-played to the point of Whittington apologizing to cheney.
sharon
February 4, 2008 at 10:54 am
37Thanks for the link, David. Wow, an Eisenhower granddaughter for Obama! I can’t wait to see how the Coultergeist and her ilk tar and feather this one.
This to me was the most telling sentence in her essay: “As we no longer have the financial resources to address all these problems comprehensively and simultaneously, setting priorities will be essential.” There are still very few people who are willing to face this. Paul Krugman is one. James Howard Kunstler is another.
Ann
February 4, 2008 at 12:16 pm
38What’s with all this “we” talk, Adam? If memory serves, you and most of the people who comment on this blog were squarely opposed to the war! I was one of the undercounted millions around the world who even took to the streets in protest.
I also seem to remember your writing something cogent about there being no way to know who was right until after events played out, but I’m too lazy to search the archives for it. And in many ways that’s true, but on principle, starting an unprovoked war is a great evil. I don’t think our country is going to live this down or recover from it for many, many years.
I’m going to caucus for Edwards, just to keep his positions in play. And yes, Hillary is hated by too many people. Dammit.
Rob Allen
February 4, 2008 at 1:31 pm
39The Kennedys and Eisenhowers aren’t alone. Stephanie Miller, the daughter of 1964 Republican VP candidate Bill Miller and a radio host, has been an Obama supporter for a while now. Stephanie has also teamed up with CC Goldwater, granddaughter of Barry Goldwater, in a satirical Presidential campaign of their own. They’re trying to arrange a debate with Stephen Colbert. Details at www.goldwatermiller08.com and www.stephaniemiller.com .
I also recommend Stephanie’s radio show - it’s a hoot!
David
February 4, 2008 at 3:32 pm
40Hell, Rob, I would be hard pressed not to cast a serious vote for CC Goldwater and Stephanie Miller. I get to listen to Stephanie’s show when I’m up in NC. It really is well worth the listen.
Really glad I came across it on Talking Points Memo (I think that’s where I got the link), Sharon - the reasons and Susan Eisenhower’s talent as an articulate essayist really got my attention.
Acronym Jim, I like it. I was dumbfounded by the press’s treatment of the story. Among other things, I had drilled into me from early childhood that there is no excuse for a hunting accident, ever, and that there is no such thing as a minor hunting accident. You shoot somebody and it starts at serious and goes from there to deadly. And you do not pick up a gun if you’ve been drinking, period. I really have to question Cheney’s credibility as a hunter. I damned sure wouldn’t want my children learning about guns and hunting from him.
David
February 4, 2008 at 3:44 pm
41It’s a hat trick for Adam! Joan Baez has done something she had never before done - she has endorsed a candidate for public office. You did it, Adam! You da man!
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/04/6833/
Murray
February 4, 2008 at 3:46 pm
42I agree, being wrong on the biggest thing is by definition a big thing.
It was plain as day that W was headed for war. I knew it was inevitable from the beginning, so did Adam and most the people here. Al Gore had a major speech telling people that going to war was a mistake.
Hillary knew what was happening. Her vote was a calculation that if she opposed the war she would be seen as not strong enough to be president. As a woman she saw this as too big a thing for Americans to accept. She gambled that things would go well with the war and she lost. Although as you recall, many who voted against the war were removed in the elections of 2002 and 2004.
To me this is a finger in the wind candidate who isn’t willing to take a stand and lead, but rather looks to follow the public.
I know that Hillary will do a fine job in office. Her voting record is pretty similar to Barack’s so the difference is small. It just boils down to who we feel comfortable with.
In most ways for me that would be Obama.
sharon
February 4, 2008 at 4:47 pm
43I have issues with both of them–Obama’s health care plan lacks mandatory coverage, and Clinton showed bad judgment in voting to enable the invasion of Iraq. I agree with Adam that dragging the country into an unjustifiable war trumps a flawed health care plan. I do think either of them would make a fine, competent, even inspiring president. But Hillary has a lot of baggage. And it’s name is Bill. I think it’s not her time yet. I’d like to see her serve another term in the Senate and then run again. Maybe by then Bill will be content to just stay at home.
I didn’t make this connection until I read James Carroll’s essay on Common Dreams today. Ted Kennedy gave his endorsement at American University, the same place where JFK gave his world peace speech on June 10, 1963. This is my favorite excerpt. It still gives me chills:
“So, let us not be blind to our differences–but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal.”
We have not done our part to “build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the just are strong.” I thought that dream had died with the 1960s. But last week, for the first time in seven years, I felt that the dream might still be alive.
Chris Harlan
February 4, 2008 at 7:29 pm
44Chris, here. Still thinking about who I am voting for now that Edwards is gone. Raya, I know he is still on the ballot, but since he took his own name off instead of waiting a single week for ST–a move I don’t understand; could someone explain it, please?–I’m not going to vote for him.
As of now, I’m leaning toward H. Now, don’t all hit me. I haven’t decided yet. I >have
Chris Harlan
February 4, 2008 at 7:35 pm
45Sorry about the repeat. Let’s tray again:
Chris, here. Still thinking about who I am voting for now that Edwards is gone. Raya, I know he is still on the ballot, but since he took his own name off instead of waiting a single week for ST–a move I don’t understand; could someone explain it, please?–I’m not going to vote for him.
As of now, I’m leaning toward H. Now, don’t all hit me. I haven’t decided yet. I >have
Chris Harlan
February 4, 2008 at 7:36 pm
46Chris, here. Still thinking about who I am voting for now that Edwards is gone. Raya, I know he is still on the ballot, but since he took his own name off instead of waiting a single week for ST–a move I don’t understand; could someone explain it, please?–I’m not going to vote for him.
As of now, I’m leaning toward H. Now, don’t all hit me. I haven’t decided yet. I have been thinking a lot about what I’ve read here, which is why I keep coming back. I do like Obama. I’ll be happy with him as a nominee, but I don’t experience the same thrill that so many others seem possessed by. Maybe that mass thrill, itself, is putting me off. I don’t trust emotional groundswells. Or maybe it is the many comparisons to JFK, who I idolized as a kid, but have come to believe was not so great a President.
As to the war vote–this whole “H. voted to go to war” thing–well, it is not quite true. Kinda true, but not quite true. Sure, she voted to give Bush authorization, which may have amounted to the same thing, but all this warmonger talk (not as much here, but in many places) made me go back and read her floor speech. I would recommend it:
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html
The 20/20 hindsight we can all bring to it makes it a very odd read. Even spooky. Certainly sad. Some of you might want to read it. If for some reason she survives the rising Obama tide, and becomes our nominee, it might make you feel better about her.
Either way though, I think I’m happy–and still deciding.
Raya
February 4, 2008 at 9:52 pm
47Chris, if I had to choose between HRC and Obama, I’d go for Clinton as well. But I don’t want to choose between two candidates who represent neither the values that I hold dear, nor the direction that I want to see the party go in. Clinton, for all her many strengths, is the DLC candidate, and I believe the DLC has been a cancer on both the Party and the country for the last 15 years. Obama on the other hand has inexplicably squandered this incredible opportunity — created by his extraordinary charisma and momentum — on pushing right-wing memes instead of progressive ones: praising Reagan, wrapping himself in Christian propaganda, campaigning with homophobes, talking up the “Social Security crisis” etc. etc.
For me, the difference between either of those two and Edwards is that Edwards cared more about getting it right than about winning. HRC and Obama both appear to care more about winning than about getting it right. That’s why Edwards gets my “here’s what I’d like the Democratic Party to stand for” vote in the primaries.
My assumption re: Edwards pulling out is that both the remaining campaigns offered him something concrete to do so: either the bottom of the ticket, or an Attorney General nomination, something like that where he weighed the odds and felt that he could do more good and have more influence on the future direction of the country by taking them up on it than by fighting on to the bitter end only to be frozen out of the Party permanently when he didn’t win.
(Initially, I assumed they had had bad news about Elizabeth’s health, but that doesn’t seem to be the case — in that he said it wasn’t, when rather tactlessly asked about it by a reporter — and I can’t think of any other logical reason he would pull out so suddenly, and with such bizarre timing, right after the campaign’s record fundraising month.)
hedera
February 4, 2008 at 10:21 pm
48You’re right, Chris - that speech is very spooky, and very sad. Frankly, after reading it, I don’t think HRC has anything to apologize for; she clearly gave the matter deep and serious consideration and made the best call she could; and I think her current position that she would have chosen differently if she knew then what she knows now is a reasonable one. Unfortunately she assumed the President was a rational man pursuing rational ends.
gillian
February 5, 2008 at 5:04 am
49My take on this Obama/Hillary/Iraq/Bush-behind-the-wheel debate is this: Did I think going to war with Iraq was the right response to 911? I honestly had my doubts - and I’m an undereducated product of the public school system. If I had my doubts, what was Hillary thinking? Either she’s naive (and she’s not, IMHO) or she was girding her lions and looking tough for the coming presidential battle. That’s sad.
Ann
February 5, 2008 at 12:50 pm
50Yes, I’d have to say that one of the definitive ways to “look tough” is to try girding lions. They do not like it!
All joking aside, I’ve been thinking a lot about the “Hillary is hated too much to get elected” meme, and I suspect that we’re falling into a conservative trap. Surely any strong woman in the Democratic party—especially one that clearly has ambitions for higher political office—would attract the kind of nasty, personal criticism that HRC has. Then we would be hesitant to support her, and the “right-wing noise machine” would win. That is, she is hated precisely because she appears to have a chance. So we decide not to give her a chance! This is going to happen again and again, as long as it works. As long as we let it work.
Do you think the Repubs would pay the slightest attention to that tactic on the part of Dems? I doubt it.
Furthermore, the kinds of personal attacks on HRC are distinctly woman-baiting, while overt race-baiting would not be tolerated. For example, Rush, BillO, and their ilk don’t hesitate to call her “strident” (almost exclusively a criticism of women), while they wouldn’t dare apply the epithet of “uppity” to Obama. Sure, there are countless people who hold negative views of minorities, but mostly those views are not expressed in public—or if they are, controversy and chastisement ensue. But it’s still socially acceptable to criticise a woman based on stereotypes of proper “womanly” behavior.
In short, I would hate to see us turn away from HRC as “unelectable” simply because the Repubs have focused their hatred on her—they would do the same for any Democratic woman, because they can.
gillian
February 5, 2008 at 1:08 pm
51Oh…. yeah…. right, Ann. Gird loins; yes, that makes more sense. Thanks.
…. But if she could gird lions, she’d look pretty tough, don’t you think?
Ann
February 5, 2008 at 1:30 pm
52Sure, but then the Repubs would call her reckless, or animal-abusing, or worse!
sharon
February 5, 2008 at 3:19 pm
53“Do you think the Repubs would pay the slightest attention to that tactic on the part of Dems? I doubt it.”
For sure Elizabeth “Libby” Dole did not get that treatment from Rush, BillO, Coultergeist, et al.
David
February 5, 2008 at 4:24 pm
54Hillary can beat John McCain or Mitt Romney, or both (as the realities concerning 9/11 Rudy continued to come out, she would have pounded him into the ground). Obama can also win, and is possibly the stronger candidate for the future of the Democratic Party, especially its progressive principles, because of the younger voters he will bring out. Hillary is the most qualified to be president of anybody in the race. Edwards was certainly well enough qualified - on the best track for American domestic policy and no slouch on foreign policy. And Elizabeth would have been the best first lady since Eleanor Roosevelt. Hillary Clinton currently holds that position, with Roselyn Carter a first-class first lady who does not get her due. She was the person who correctly observed that Republicans make us comfortable with our prejudices, which is why southern Democrats fled to the Republican Party in droves, which is exactly what LBJ knew would happen when he signed that landmark civil rights legislation, famously saying “We shall overcome.” Obama would do well to remind people that a Democrat, LBJ, set this country on the road to equality before the law for all Americans.
I think at this point what is more important than which Democrat we vote for is how hard we work to help elect the Democratic candidate in the generally election. There is nothing I would love better than to bury John McCain’s pseudo-moderate, pseudo-maverick (Chuck Hagel he ain’t), warmonger ass.
There is no excuse for the Democrats not winning in November. Enough people finally understand the msm for the lazy, journalistically shallow, create-a-controversy opportunists the majority of them, especially the upper echelon ones, are, so I don’t think they can idiotically carry the water for the swiftboaters the way they did in ‘04, and as they showed they want to in ‘08, mindless egotistical shitheads that they so often are (yes, I also mean you, Mr. Broder, in your case because your view of yourself as a wise elder is elevated so far above the reality that I think the biggest favor you could do America is get a clue - I will be the first to congratulate you if you do).
Ann
February 5, 2008 at 4:56 pm
55Yay. What he said. A caller to our local NPR station this morning said that McCain has “character.” No one with character would roll over for Dubya the way he has. McCain should have challenged him to a duel over the character assassination of the 2000 primaries, instead of embracing him so passionately.
It’s not too late, John!
Dave von Ebers
February 6, 2008 at 2:26 pm
56Seems to me, McCain’s biggest failing — at least on foreign policy — is his belief that the military can (and should) be used as a tool to accomplish policy goals. Kinda like the old adage about how if all ya got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Although I respect him for his military service, he’s too wedded to the military to see that its function in a free society is really very limited.
We need to get back to understanding the proper role of the military, which is, first and foremost, to defend the country. Aside from that primary goal, the only other legitimate use of military force is — in very, very limited circumstances — to enforce international law or to live up to international treaty obligations of the United States.
McCain, though, seems to be too willing to use the military as an implement of foreign policy strategy … and that’s just plain dangerous. And, I might add, it’s a betrayal of the President’s obligations to the troops … the principle obligation being to never, ever send them into combat without an ironclad justification.
David
February 6, 2008 at 5:37 pm
57Ann, my raised-’mongst-orange-groves sentiments exactly.
JM
February 8, 2008 at 11:48 am
58Sorry for weighing in so late on your endorsement, but I must confess to being a little disappointed in your Obamamania.
Before reading on, please understand that I criticize Obama with great hesitation, knowing that if he wins the primary he will certainly have my support, and my vote, against the Shrub-alike McCain. (The fact that Michelle Obama could not say the same yesterday about Hillary Clinton in response to a direct question is a disgrace and reveals her true Lady Macbeth-like motivations.)
Now let’s discuss Obama and the bases for your endoresement.
When you say that Obama’s health care plan is more “fleshed out” than Clinton’s, are you referring to the fact that, unlike Clinton’s mandate, Obama’s plan relies on the fanciful notion that he can make health insurance so attractive that everyone in the country will line up to buy it and no one, whether out of a feeling of invincibility or apathy, will choose to throw caution to the wind and wind up in the emergency room on everyone else’s dime? At the LA debate, Obama simply shrugged off — as he has a tendency to do with pesky details — studies showing that the there could be as many as 15 million of these irresponsible people under his plan. He alslo suggested as a possible solution, that these folks could be forced to pay back premiums when they get hurt. Actuarial science, and fundamental logic be damned, I’m am in the market for any insurance policy I can get that only makes me pay premiums when and if I have a claim. I’m pretty sure I’ll save a bundle. Other than this critical difference with respect to a mandate, Obama’s and Clinton’s health care plans are nearly identical. So, is this what makes Obama’s plan more fleshed out?
Now, on to the war. I certainly agree with you that the war is not a good issue for Clinton. She made a huge mistake and she knows it. I tend to think she has apologized for it in as direct of a manner as possible in a political climate that frowns on acknowledging any true failures, but that is not enough and it does not change the fact that it was a huge mistake. Where I guess you and I disagree on is the notion that Obama would have done any differently in Clinton’s shoes. Obama’s much lauded (mostly by him) stance against the war “from the beginning” is about as meaningful as the votes cast against the war in various city counsels and probably a fair number of high school student bodies. The Illinois State Senate was not asked to authorize the war and that’s where Obama was when the real voting — albeit critically misguided and fraudulently-induced voting — was going on in the US Congress.
Would Obama really have voted against the war if he had been in the US Senate at the time, like Clinton was? Lord knows his hubris would never let him even entertain the notion now, but let’s look at a few facts that leave me skeptical. First, Obama is certainly no liberal, Kucinich-like dove when it comes to war (which I must confess, I am). He’s a centrist who talks of the use of military force is less than absolute-last-resort type terms. Second, he prides himself on his ability to work accross party lines, which suggests an unwillingness to stand alone as a voice of strident dissent against a seemingly overwhelming furror coming not only from Republicans, but from many Democrats as well. Third, in his limited time in the US Senate, Obama has not exactly taken up putting an end to the war as his defining issue — no firery speeches on the Senate floor about stopping needless bloodshed in morally bereft, profit-driven sham. He’s been to busy with self-ritious ethics reform legislation seemingly designed for the sole purpose of defining himself as a “voice of change from the status quo” in Washington.
So, while I am troubled by Clinton’s grave mistake on the war — allowing herself to be defrauded and pressured to toe the evil line of evil people — I am hopeful that she has learned from this mistake, as well as she has learned from all of the positive legislative and executive experience she has had (you know, doing the kind of work that actually qualifies one for the job she and Obama are seeking). I am less certain that Obama has yet had the opportunity, or the humility, to learn what he needs to know to be an effective president. I guess he’s long on a charisma that many find compelling, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but he’s awful short on the nitty-gritty details of actually being president as opposed to winning the presidency. The emperor (a view of Obama seemingly shared by the Obamamaniacs and Obama himself), I fear, has no clothes.
Dave von Ebers
February 8, 2008 at 1:13 pm
59JM, I’m mystified by the last comment. Hillary Clinton made a mistake, refuses to admit she made a mistake, but might have learned from it … and so somehow she’s preferable to Obama, who never made that mistake, who was on record opposing war with Iraq at the very time Hillary Clinton was making that mistake, but who, you conjecture, might have made the same mistake Hillary made had he been in her shoes, even though there’s really no reason to believe he would have.
Pardon me if I ask, Huh?
Dave von Ebers
February 8, 2008 at 1:16 pm
60And am I the only one who finds it odd that JM chastises Obama for hubris and arrogance?
Really? In the current political environment you think Barack Obama’s the one who’s full of himself?
Gina T.
February 8, 2008 at 1:40 pm
61You are right about one thing: Barack Obama will be a wonderful President…IN ABOUT 10 YEARS. That is about how long it will take him to exchange some of his amazing arrogance for a dash of much needed humility. And only age and experience can do that. And if he is going to talk about “change”, he can’t continue do it rhetorically he must do it specifically. Change can potentially be very bad! And I loved Joel Stein’s line from this morning’s paper: “Here is a man so soft that Oprah is endorsing him.” And let’s face it, there is nothing about him that is of the typical American black experience. He was born in Hawaii to wealthy parents, lived in Indonesia for much of his life, went to fancy private schools and then Harvard. I don’t deny him his privilege or his unique experience, but he cannot continue to keep comparing himself to blacks from the South Side when he never was one. It’s a lie. He lives in Hyde Park. And that is where the comparisons end. He was and is a very privileged man. And that’s ok. But he should use the fact that had those opportunities as his basis for “change”, not a fabricated story to stir more white guilt. I love you Adam, but I can’t believe you voted for Obama. He just ain’t there yet. And on a more important level, America has alot of diplomatic bridges to try and rebuild around the world since W has burned them all. And people like the Clintons, pure and simple. We have had enough arrogance over the last 8 years, and until Obama can show some humanity and humility, I don’t think he is going to be able to get us very far. Oh, and one more thing, can you really put your trust in a man who says “I don’t do paperwork.”? As President of the United States, that’s your job for god’s sake! Not to mention the fact that that statement sounded scarily “Bushlike” to me. So, anyway…can we still play poker next weekend?
David
February 8, 2008 at 4:55 pm
62Hubris is overweening pride that drives one to make tragic mistakes. This describes George Bush, Dick Cheney, and, given the opportunity, John McCain.
Hillary Clinton was guilty of seriously flawed judgment, likely driven by the same misguided political advice that caused John Edwards to make the same mistake. Both of them, I think, actually believed that the inspectors would first be allowed to determine whether or not Saddam still had WMDs. Several other Democrats fell into the same trap.
I’m not aware of any tragic mistakes Obama has been guilty of, nor do the comments of people who seem to know him suggest to me that he has the kind of hubris that would lead to such tragic mistakes. Having a big ego is not the same as being infected with hubris. One can have a big ego, and still have the capacity for sound reasoning. Hubris wipes that out.
I agree that Hillary is the most qualified, best prepared, most knowledgeable candidate of the entire group, but Obama is not the lightweight some of the commentary seems to suggest. I’m actually in Margaret Cho’s corner on this one.
David
February 8, 2008 at 4:59 pm
63Oh, yeah, the link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/margaret-cho/im-bicandidate_b_85490.html