I’ve been surprised at the animosity towards Obama that I’ve seen here. But I’ve been far more disappointed because much of it appears driven by a lack of knowledge about his background, as well as a marked preference for a different candidate.
So I feel compelled to take a moment to explain why I am, and have, for some time, been a supporter of Barack Obama.
In summary, here is why I support Obama:
- He is intelligent, and intelligent enough to listen to those he opposes.
- He’s got MORE experience than Hillary Clinton, in terms of years in elected office.
- His positions closely match my values.
Intelligence
I think most of us agree that it’s important to have a person with intelligence in the White House. Goodness knows we’ve seen what happens when that is missing!
Intelligence isn’t just what you know, and say. Intelligence is also realizing what you don’t yet know, and being willing to listen to others, and also, importantly, to those who do not agree with you.
Obama learned to listen while working as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago. As Kenneth Walsh wrote in his U.S. News article about Obama of 8/26/07:
David Kindler, a colleague at the time, said the lanky newcomer with the funny name understood that a community organizer is a combination of educator, confessor-priest, social activist, motivational expert, mediator, and campaign leader. To accomplish his mission, Obama spent hours with Altgeld residents one on one, learning their problems and their dreams, and he resisted taking credit for success, preferring to give it to individuals in the community.
Obama realized that if he knew more, he could do more, and at the age of 27, older than most of his classmates, he became a law student at Harvard University.
In their Boston Globe article titled “At Harvard Law, a unifying voice” (1/28/07), reporters Michael Levenson and Jonathan Saltzman wrote:
Beyond his appearance, what set him apart was his approach to argument, the lifeblood of the law school and the constant occupation of the young lawyers-in-training. While other students were determined to prove the merits of their beliefs through logic and determination, Obama preferred to listen, seek others’ views, and find a middle way.
“A lot of people at the time were just talking past each other, very committed to their opinions, their point of view, and not particularly interested in what other people had to say,” said Crystal Nix Hines, a classmate who is now a television writer. “Barack transcended that.”
Even on campus, Obama was not just a student, but an activist as well:
In the fall of 1989, when Obama returned to campus for his second year, students were protesting the lack of minority law school faculty. They staged sit-ins in the law library, camped outside the office of Dean Robert C. Clark, and carried signs that read “Diversity Now” and “Homogeneity Feeds Hatred.” The tensions continued the following spring, reaching a high when Derrick A. Bell Jr., the first tenured black professor at the school, resigned in protest. Obama was a member of the Black Law Students Association, which organized many demonstrations that spring. But he was less confrontational than some of his peers.
“Barack was a stabilizing influence in that he would absolutely support those efforts, but was also someone who could discuss and debate them with students or faculty who had different views,” said Professor Charles J. Ogletree Jr., who became Harvard’s seventh tenured black professor in 1993.
When the topic of running for president of Harvard Law School’s prestigious publication, the Harvard Law Review, was raised by friends, Obama was initially reluctant. That position was seen as a stepping stone for those who wanted to go on to career positions at top run law firms. But in the end, Obama gave it a shot.
“You should not underestimate the significance of him being the first black president of the Harvard Law Review because that was and remains a very elite group,” said Bell, now a law professor at New York University. “These were some tough folks. . . . It’s almost as impressive that he was elected president of the Harvard Law Review as him being elected senator of Illinois.”
Obama so earned the respect of his classmates that the Black Law Students Association asked him, as opposed to the traditional judge or professor, to give the keynote address at their annual conference.
What did Obama do, given this honor? He urged his fellow classmates not to simply go forth and feather their own nests, but to take their education and use it to address society’s ills.
He practiced what he preached.
When he left Harvard, instead of feathering his nest with a high-priced law position, he chose instead to return to Chicago to work as a civil rights lawyer and to teach at the University of Chicago Law School.
Experience
Experience does matter, greatly, in my opinion. If Obama’s first role in politics was his Senate seat, frankly, I’d have concerns. In fact, that’s one of the reasons I didn’t support Edwards in the previous election cycle. I felt he didn’t have enough experience.
The truth is, Obama has more experience in elected office than Hillary Clinton.
Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate in 1996. He wasn’t immediately welcomed, as Peter Slevin noted in the Washington Post of 2/9/07:
“When you come in, especially as a freshman, and work on something like ethics reform, it’s not necessarily a way to endear yourself to some of the veteran members of the Illinois General Assembly,” said state Sen. Kirk W. Dillard, a Republican who became a friend. “And working on issues like racial profiling was contentious, but Barack had a way both intellectually and in demeanor that defused skeptics.”
…In 1997, Obama was not instantly embraced, Dillard said: “The fact that he was a law professor — and a constitutional-law professor — and he was a Harvard graduate made many members of the General Assembly roll their eyes.”
But Obama was determined, and persistent. “He was very aggressive when he first came to the Senate,” said State Senator Emil Jones, Jr., who chose Obama, at the recommendation of former judge and Democratic congressman Abner Mikva, to represent the Senate Democrats on an effort to reform campaign financing. As Slevin wrote:
Obama favored more ambitious changes in campaign law, including limits on contributions, but nipped and tucked in search of consensus.
“What impressed me about him was his ability in working with people of the opposite party,” said Mike Lawrence, director of the Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University. “He had definite ideas about what ought to be contained in a campaign finance reform measure, but he also was willing to recognize that he was probably not going to get everything he wanted.”
The result, according to good-government groups, was the most ambitious campaign reform in nearly 25 years, making Illinois one of the best in the nation on campaign finance disclosure.
When you hear Obama talk about reaching across the aisle, he is not doing that out of naïveté, but out of experience. He knows that dialog, not partisanship, is the only way to move forward in a bi-partisan legislature.
Obama was re-elected to the State Senate in 1998, skipped the 2000 cycle to run, unsuccessfully, against a popular Congressman, returned to the state Senate in 2002, and then left in 2004 when he became a United States senator for Illinois.
Edwards served one six-year term. Hillary is on her second six-year term. Obama started his Senate term in 2004, but when you add in that Obama served in the Illinois State Senate for six years, Clinton is entering her eighth year in public office, but Obama is entering his tenth!
Neither Edwards nor Clinton served in any elected governmental other than the U.S. Senate. And while Hillary was at her husband’s side for a long political lifetime, she was not herself running the show.
Experience is key. But what kind of experience? Obama has worked in many different environments, from teaching to organizing to writing (his first job out of college was as an editor for a company that was later bought by the Economist) to creating not just legislation, but legislation that got passed.
Knowing when to hold ’em, and when to fold ’em, is also key. Obama is reputed to be an excellent poker player, an attribute that would come in handy when dealing with foreign leaders, as well as domestic opponents.
Obama on the Issues
Obama has a solidly liberal record, with high ratings on issues that are important to me from various interest groups. Want a quick listing? Check out Project Vote Smart’s page on Obama.
You can also look for his votes on U.S. Senate legislation, and can click through on the bills to compare his vote to that of other Senators. Obama has a solid record of voting with his party.
I encourage people to stop reading uninformed or malformed opinions about Obama, and to look into his actual record.
I will support whoever the Democratic Party nominates in the 2008 election. But my first choice is absolutely Obama.
If you haven’t given him a serious look, I encourage you to make an attempt. You might just like, very much, what you see. There’s a lot of substance behind the poetry.
Thanks for this diary. I learned several new things from reading it. 🙂
I’m taking holy hell from friends who are Edwards supporters. Hey, if I really thought Edwards had the best chance of getting elected in November, and fixing what’s broken, I’d be pushing him. There’s a lot to like there.
I just don’t, and have to vote my conscience. I trust everyone else to do the same.
In a Democracy, it’s important that we learn to disagree respectfully with each other, and that we are open to learning about others.
Thanks for being open to learning more.
I think if everyone that has said Edwards doesn’t have a chance got behind him he would win by a landslide. But go ahead and let Iowa and the media choose our candidate. Lets just all settle again.
I’ve heard that all my life, but it never happens. That’s what Jerry Brown’s supporters said. And Paul Tsongas’s. And Paul Simon’s. And Muskie’s. And Kucinich’s.
I think the people of Iowa have a good sense of these things. They saw a lot of Edwards, but for whatever reason, what they saw wasn’t enough of what they wanted, and Obama had it.
Obama had Oprah and great speeches.
I’ve been to Iowa during caucus season (during the Howard Dean campaign). Iowans are too sophisticated politically to be swayed by rhetoric alone. What they vote on is perceived character, emphasis on perceived because we can’t really know what kind of character they’ll show in office until they ARE in office.
Lisa,
In your opening paragraph you wrote:
I hope you will explain to me, WHICH person is my marked preference for a different candidate??
I really do want to know, and I sincerely look forward to your response. Thank You for answering.
Grandma M – why do you think this is directed at you, or that I need to tell you who you are voting for?
seconded.
his organizational skills also cited. And his life experience – as a social organizer in Chicago’s troubled neighborhoods – he chose to live in project housing.
How’s Obama viewed outside the USA. via The Daily Dish
do Watch the Video of the Undecideds. In New Hampshire. No More
And if you think Obama is good, wait until you hear Michelle, his wife and mentor.
Eye of the beholder. One man’s/woman’s malformed opinion is another man’s/woman’s well-founded political belief. In any event, opinions do not usually come with titles.
Having been to law school, the meaning of this passage is lost upon me. Law school leaves little room for some kind of creative “third way”. Most issues are resolved by black letter/established law or by looking to developing law within such jurisdictions. I suspect that these statements were crafted specicifically with Senator Obama’s electoral benefit in mind.
As to intelligence, it seems that most, if not all, of our Democratic candidates have that in considerable supply.
I remain unconvinced and will continue to support Mr.Edwards as my first choice. His experience is perhaps somewhat less than what some may deem ideal. In this day and age, I’m not entirley sure that this constitutes a negative.
You wrote then blockquoted:
In any event, opinions do not usually come with titles.
And your excellent response:
A sad state of affairs, but not surprising since Obama personally edits ALL his speeches, Press Releases and written material.
As an Academic, I give him an “A” in Creative Writing, and a “D” in Integrity.
That would make sense if the sum total of one’s experience in law school was classwork, however, students have a knack for talking to one another outside of a classroom setting and these conversations are often centered on their opinions regarding their studies. It would be these conversation about which the author speaks of Obama, unless one believes that Ginsberg and Scalia see the law equally by black letter/established law or by looking to developing law within such jurisdictions. Perhaps, engaging classmates of such differing views with the skill that would get him elected president of the Harvard Law Review, Barack Obama indeed preferred to listen, seek others’ views, and find a middle way – Hegelian synthesis, not Clintonian triangulation.
Of ALL of the candidates. he seems least likely to have been seriously involved in or compromised by the PermaGov Intel forces.
That’s about a 40% plus right there.
Of course…it is also about a 40% rise in his own personal danger quotient, either in terms of electability (The Intel media may turn on him if his opponent(s) are more involved than he in the PermaGov system) OR in terms of sheer physical survival should he actually win the Presidency and try to DO something about the Intel mess in this country.
WE shall see.
One of the reasons that I tend to lean towards Hillary as the more practical candidate is because I am quite sure that she understands perfectly well the depth and breadth of Intel penetration into the entire structure of this country in terms of economics, media AND politics, and has reached a sort of détente with it. This of course is a two-edged sword. She is less likely to be seriously threatened by it but then she is also less likely to try to do…or be ABLE to do… anything substantive about the problem.
So it goes.
Later…
AG
until absolutely necessary:
This story, and then this story.
People need to cool their jets. This Obama juggernaut seems to be robbing people of all colors and persuasions of their intellects, especially folks on Leftblogosphere. Calm the f*ck down, read, think, and keep those keyboards hosed.
I’m going to be holding my nose and pulling the lever for whatever Dem candidate ends up at the top of the barrel of crabs, but I’m not going be that stupid to believe the propaganda that Obama is progressive and will lead us all to the Promised Land. Only one man brought us to the lip of that entrance, but we have to walk through to it our own damn selves, conscious and aware that even somebody beautiful and articulate (and our color, for us black folks) will try to keep us from reaching it.
Let me be real frank.
Obama is a conservative Democrat.
He is the son of an African immigrant.
Immigrants have a far different ethos than that of native-born Americans. And that is to wed themselves to the status quo as soon and as much as possible regardless of the price.
GET REAL, PEOPLE.
That’s really just as bad as racism, saying that because he’s an immigrant, he’s going to vote a certain way.
But more importantly, it’s not even true! Obama is an American, born on American soil. If he was an immigrant, he couldn’t run for president.
I would not call him a progressive, in any case. But I’d call him a liberal with an open door for those to the left and right of him, and that’s more than I can say about anyone else in the race.
Will he be our saviour? Of course not. None of them will. FDR – that’s the aberration, and he came along at a time where, believe it or not, his politics were considered moderate compared to what was being espoused by populists like Huey Long in Louisiana (taxing 100% after the first five million, or something like that) and Upton Sinclair, who was running for Governor with a socialist agenda in California called his EPIC plan (End Poverty In California.)
FDR also came along at a time when there were many press outlets espousing views from the right and the left, when media ownership as not so consolidated, and when so many people were hurting that it was no problem getting a huge majority of the people behind him.
As progressive as many of us are, many others are not even paying attention, and until they do, we can’t forge a coalition to enact change on THAT level.
At no time does blksista state that Obama is an immigrant. The comment states that his dad was an immigrant.
She implies that Obama should carry an immigrants beliefs, which is ridiculous.
He never even knew his father. The father left when Obama was two.
So the whole topic is irrelevant.
to come home (mainland U.S.) after years abroad and from Hawaii to live with his mother and grandparents.
How did he feel?
Did he belong or didn’t he?
He certainly says he had some problems adjusting.
I allow that his father was out of his life by the time he was 2. However, that does not erase the fact that he’s the son of a foreigner, a would-be immigrant who eventually went back to Kenya.
It also doesn’t render moot the fact that Obama is pretty much wedded to the capitalist system and gives shout outs to all these corporatists that he admires in his books. Fitting in and belonging means accepting without question certain ideals regarding the efficacy of capitalism as opposed to true democracy. Democracy and capitalism don’t go hand in hand, regardless of what some people think.
I still say Obama should be scrutinized so that people know what they are getting into.
Look. You clearly have an axe to grind here.
He was raised by an American woman. He was not raised by a foreigner.
I encourage people to go read facts, not opinions. Here’s a good profile on Obama’s upbringing, for those with a serious interest in reality.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-070325obama-youth-story,1,2946091,print.story?coll=c
hi-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true
Which I understood pretty clearly to be thus:
Obama’s heritage is not that of an African-american, but that of an immigrant; and even someone with a cursory interest in American culture and society knows that those immigrants who come to the United States and do well are the loudest, most unquestioning champions of the myth that America is a country where hard work will earn you enormous opportunity and reward, the light on the hill, everyone’s created equal blah blah.
It’s abundantly clear to me as a long-time informed observor of the United States that Obama is very much from and espouses the values bequeathed by his immigration heritage. This alone has many in the black community of the USA questioning him, as the articles blksista linked to show. His expounding on the wholesome goodness of American values and ‘achievements’, including corporate capitalism, would be quaintly naive if they were not coming from a serious contendor for the Presidency. His substantial financial backing from the corporatocracy of the USA demonstrates to anyone who’s looked at the history of the USA and its modern-day politics what the real story is – Obama can talk, but his walk will be radically similar to that of every other US President in most respects. He reminds me more and more of Bill Clinton, who was, as my American partner likes to say, the best Republican President the US ever had.
Of all the front-runner democractic candidates he is the strongest believer in and exponent for American exceptionalism ( nann at Eurotrib has an excellent diary on this).
To an external progressive observor, other than the important symbolism of his skin colour and the fact that he’s leaping the limbo-dancing like ‘benchmark’ of not being George W Bush, there is little to get excited about with regards to the Obama candidacy. He’s just another rhetorically gifted corporately owned US Presidential wannabe.
I understand the argument.
I just ENTIRELY disagree with the premise.
He was raised most of his life in Hawaii. Hey, I moved several times in my youth too, but then spent most of my growing-up years in Palo Alto. Does that give ME an “immigrant heritage”? I am half-Irish, and a woman, which places me among two very oppressed minorities in a historical context.
But Obama’s childhood was pretty American, as you can see if you read the article I posted about that.
I don’t care if people like or dislike Obama. But I want them have their opinions based on facts, not on unsupportable assertions.
the argument is not really about whether his childhood was really American, it’s about what values and paradigms about the USA he was exposed to, or chose as part of his own story and beliefs.
when it comes to those, it’s patently clear to me and others it appears, that from his own speeches and writings, his attitude is very much one that reflects a ‘classic’ immigrant heritage-derived, unshakeable belief in the myth of America as the land of equal opportunity etc. I can assure you if I hadn’t heard him reference this value set explicitly and implicitly over and over, I wouldn’t be attributing them to Obama.
I’m half immigrant as well, but as a white – and I presume you are too – I don’t think our experience is particularly comparable to that of those of colour.
As a member of “the black community of the USA” I can assure you that your argument is male-bovine fecal material. You might want to take a look at Obama’s record of community advocacy in Chicago before casting aspersions at his intentions. People have questioned his ability to win, believing that Whites would not truly embrace a Black man for president, but that question has been answered in spades, so to speak, in Iowa, with New Hampshire looking like it is about to overwhelmingly agree.
Questions about Barack Obama ended on January 3rd in my neck of the woods – the only question now is just how big will the record number of us be who show up to make history on November 4, 2008.
on Obama and how he’s perceived by the black community, starting with the whole “is he really black” discussion from thereon in.
I’m well aware he has an excellent record for community activism in many aspects, and his record in Illnois also seems sound. However all that with regard to his intentions is rather counteracted by the glowing praise he fills The Audacity of Hope with, in regard to corporate America in all it’s glory; and the glowing piles of cash he’s accepted from them. I suspect you know what that means as well as I do.
Your point about his intentions and everyone being sanguine with them is rather refuted by the 2 articles that blksista linked to, and several others I’ve seen along the way.
I hope his intentions and his actions are all to the good, I really do – although you’ll have to put up with continuing to be a strong critic of any American President he sounds the trumpet of American exceptionalism from the rooftops and perpetuates that catastrophic myth on the world.
Me, I’m looking for a president, not someone to tilt windmills. If you’re looking for a savior who will crush the corporations and who doesn’t believe (at least in their public persona) that America is exceptional then you might want to look for a revolutionary who is willing to overthrow the government, because you’ll never find that in a presidential candidate.
If you’re looking for a president to crush corporations without a public groundswell behind him, you’re the one who is dreaming.
FDR FOLLOWED public sentiment. He did not LEAD it.
That’s my frustration with people who don’t know history. They make bad decisions when informed only by bad history.
Oh, thank goodness for saying this. Why are people acting FDR ran as governed???
FDR didn’t come up with, nor did he run on Social Security (before its enactment). That would be Eugene Debs.
I just don’t get this thought that he has to be as pure as the driven snow before he gets folks support. Dammit, I WANT him to be like Reagan–nicely work to restore and implement progressive laws and policies. Yes, do it with a smile!
If he turns out to share more in common with dick cheney than a distant relative, then I’ll be the first one to sign up to help his primary opponent.
Is he getting lots of adulation? Yes. Do I trust it? No. But I trust him to use what he has to get what I want.
against Obama. I was glad that he’s been able to wipe the inevitable moniker off the Clinton escutcheon, and that he is taken very seriously.
That being said, I’m not all that convinced that he is what we need for this country at this present time.
Like with embarrassments Colin Powell, Condi Rice, and Clarence Thomas, I will say about Obama: black folks used to pray to see our people in the Cabinet and the judiciary and the White House. But we did not qualify our prayers, and as a result, we’ve got these lawn jockeys.
A black face is not enough. The right face AND the right politics is what is needed. We’re headed for a serious economic slowdown due to a number of factors, including BushCo’s failed, devastating policies. Will he be strong enough to lessen the impact of these events on Americans?
It doesn’t mean I won’t vote for Obama if it comes to that; but only if I hold my nose.
And that’s your right.
I just wanted to tell people why I like Obama, and you’ll note it has nothing to do with the color of his skin or the power of his rhetoric. My opinion of him is based on his record, nothing more, nothing less. It’s hardly stunning. But it’s competent, and while some may feel that bar is set too low, believe me, after many years of incompetence, competence looks pretty dang amazing to me right now.
Now, you know I love your posts and outlook to death but you can’t possibly equate him with Colin Powell, Condi Rice, and Clarence Thomas.
I don’t equate him with Harold Ford, either.
I am SO there with you about the Black face in a high place thing. Clarence, Dollar Bill, etc. come to mind, and they don’t represent nice thoughts.
But I do not think that way about Barack Obama. Not. At. All.
I think he operates at a fine line to be progressive but not to engage before it’s time. Sure, there’s a time and place for it, and will come. He may not take say, money from Pharma but money from ethanol interests. I don’t agree with that, btw. I DO know that he’s from Illinois. I do understand that you can’t be pure on every issue, if for no other reason than to not draw incoming fire.
I think it’s fair to wonder where the line between compromise and sellout lies, and I do not dismiss the question. But to claim he’s not progressive? That’s more than a stretch.
I didn’t equate Obama with Rice, et al.
It’s the expectations people had of these blacks that they would represent us and the country honorably. Instead, we got a bunch of hacks, sycophants, incompetents and outright sellouts. Lawn jockeys.
Harold Ford? Cold Cash Jefferson? Sellouts.
The same kinds of expectations are building and swelling about Obama. Inevitably, he’s going to disappoint. And it’s obvious why. His stands are not unlike Hillary’s. His handlers are ex-Clintonistas. What does that tell you? As I told a friend of mine from college years, it’s like empty vessel time. We have to be careful and measured about what and who we embrace as s/heroes.
Yes, I am proud of him, but that should not be the sole reason why I should support him. Yes, politics is also compromise, but it is also not retreat and betrayal.
I say again: right face AND right politics. So far, I’m not buying the easy nostrums that Obama is progressive, and that he is “with” us and has our best interests at heart. The last time I truly felt that way about anybody was Bobby Kennedy. Obama is going to choose his battles; Kennedy went in for the kill. That’s the difference between them. Not that Kennedy is dead and white and Obama is black and alive. It’s their tactics.
I know two people know who are one handshake away from Obama – one of my friends is friends with one of Obama’s best friends (I’ve met the friend who knows Obama personally).
And yesterday, I found that someone I work with has a brother-in-law who has been working doing community organizing with Michelle Obama and knows them both.
Both tell me he’s a good leader, and he is what you see on TV. It’s not an act.
YES, btw, I agree on one point. ALL candidates disappoint. We imbue them with our beyond-realistic hopes and dreams and INEVITABLY feel let down when they prove to be simply human, instead of Herculean. That’s not the candidates’ fault. That’s OUR fault, for expecting them to be so much more than anyone ever is.
I’m one degree of separation from him, too. I’ve also had the opportunity to meet him. He was polite, dignified, very low key. Not overly gregarious or standoffish but engaged and attentive during conversation.
He’s not the revolution. He’s not going to make life sweet for everyone the next day, or after a full term. Or 2.
But he will make life better by a factor of 1000. He will continue to bring people in the party. An Obama presidency ends this dynastic crap. He will make sure the DNC is rid of the Lanny Davis/Mark Penn/etc. of the world.
And finally7–he’s someone I am enthusiastic about! FINALLY!
That counts for a lot.
I feel you on retreat and betrayal, which about sums up the Clintonian ethos.
I want to be rid of that with someone that I believe is progressive. I don’t think the Clintons ever were.
Not all ex-Clintonistas are the same. Yes, lots of them are arrogant blowhards who are impressed with their own “genius” but not all of them. Some tried to make a difference within their sphere. At the end of the day, though, they could only make policy recommendations; the policy decisions are left to the pres. But I’m not telling you anything you don’t know already.
Perhaps their politics may have reverted or evolved. That there are former Clintonistas who are now Obama supporters and advisers (Susan Rice, Greg Craig, etc.), tells me that they know better than anyone else that we don’t need Clinton 2.0.
Somehow, that is both comforting and chilling.
Lisa, you’re not analyzing…you’re driving on true believer shift.
I said that Obama was THE SON of an African immigrant. He was also raised among his white relatives, as well as among Indonesians and Europeans/Hawaiian Americans overseas. He’s a mixed bag.
My grandparents thought of FDR as god himself, but coming from their experience of the Depression, FDR was like that for a lot of people. I saw the flip side of FDR when I read more and got older, and it wasn’t a pretty sight. He robbed here, lied there, and abandoned all around, but he still saved the country. That being said, he also had Eleanor, who achieved much to maintain those ties to left/liberals, blacks and unionists for the party.
Roosevelt was essentially a conservative Democrat who used liberal/progressive means to save the country regardless of his blood, social, and even corporate ties.
Obama, on the other hand, is a conservative Democrat. FDR, he is not. Suck up artist, possibly. Feingold, he isn’t. He was happy to dog the late Wellstone when it suited him in one of his books.
I suggest people read those links I offered for an alternate view and make up their own minds. Anybody looking for a nod from a man who stole the debate briefing books from Carter’s campaign for Reagan’s preparation while working for ABC News and thus deserves to be called a prince of darkness, definitely NEEDS to be given the fish eye.
He was not the son of an immigrant in that he was essentially fatherless. His father left when he was 2.
And my argument is that FDR, if he were around today, could not push through the necessary reforms because we’re not in a depression (yet). There’s no one with power to the left of the candidates running to allow them to move left.
Upton Sinclair and Huey Long were loud and vocal to the left of FDR, giving him cover to swing their way and still appear moderate to many Americans. Long was already a governor and Sinclair was well on his way (until the media stepped in to essentially stop him in his tracks.)
It was a unique period in time, not at all like our situation today.
I’m also a mixed bag.
COOL IT.
Gallup: Obama and Hillary Tied – Nationally. Her 17 point lead has collapsed.
Jan 7
Obama 33% (+6)
Clinton 33% (-12)
Edwards 20% (+5)
Rasmussen Jan 7
Clinton 33%
Obama 29%
Edwards 20%
In SC
Obama 42%
Clinton 30%
Edwards 14%
After NH, he’ll take the lead and never lose it. It may expand and contract, but she’s out, after NH, if she loses. That’s the historical reality, barring something really drastic.
blksista,
What powerful links. Thank you! Michael Fauntroy, though not as eloquent as you, shares your sentiments.
Every word you say is true, RHL, Obama is a great guy and I totally respect him, but my gut tells me that the surest way for us to guarantee another Republican administration is to nominate Obama. Surest way.
I will support whichever candidate is nominated and if it is Obama I will support him, but mark my words, he won’t win the presidency of the United States. Just ain’t gonna happen.
There are three main reasons, and I won’t say the reasons, since you know the reasons and quite frankly I have become afraid to express an opinion about any of the candidates — especially Obama — since there seem to be a large contingent on the internets who launch personal and very nasty attacks against anyone who dares to criticize their darling favorite presidential candidate.
My guess is that a large percentage of these are paid operatives, since I have never witnessed a time when it was impossible for Democrats to have an even remotely civilized debate about who they want to elect. The blogs are a perfect opportunity for this kind of thing to happen because they have become such a powerful tool in politics and yet they are conveniently anonymous.
The blogs just can’t be ignored, so we can be sure that all the candidates have people on staff who blog for them. Of course I have no real evidence that the troublemakers are paid political operatives, it is just an assumption based on my intuition, but I’m sure the evidence is “out there” (with the truth) and will one day be exposed.
I am very sorry this has happened, since it has had the effect of suppressing any real debate on the issues. It has been a huge turn off for me not only because I feel I can’t express an opinion without being attacked, but because I feel like I can’t trust most of what I read about the candidates on the blogs.
With some obvious exceptions, including anything you write, of course, RHL… you know I’m a long-time fan!
I believe in voting my conscience, too, and my conscience tells me that electability is a huge factor that can’t be ignored. We just don’t live in an ideal world; we live by majority rule so we have to examine that majority and recognize it for what it is. When I hear people talk about voting their conscience at all costs, the whole Nader nightmare comes back and makes me want to crawl under a rock.
Not that I compare Obama with Nader in any possible way, God forbid, it’s just the ring of that phrase that brings back those terrible times and the terrible price we’ve paid for all those excellent consciences that put a criminal with no conscience in the WH for eight years.
I hope you know you are always safe from me! I respect your fears and frankly shared them, until Obama won Iowa. That was very important to me – to see if a mostly white state from the ‘heartland’ could elect someone like Obama. They gave us a resounding yes.
If you want to see polls re a potential matchup – you’ll find that Obama wins over every candidate easily, with the exception of McCain, who he ties. Of course, that’s from polls taken before Iowa. I’d like to see those again after New Hampshire. I suspect he’ll trump McCain then too, but it’s too soon to tell.
Thanks for having the bravery to discuss your views here.
The world is such a nasty place, and the reason I call this blog my ‘home’ is because for the most part, people are much more supportive of each other here, and I really appreciate that!
Thanks for all your comments and support over time, MythMother.
Yes, I do know I’m safe with you and that’s why I post in your diary, but I (and many others) have had bad experiences even on this blog. About six months ago I wrote a long, impassioned email about this to BM, which he totally ignored, so that was not reassuring, especially after being a member and major contributor to this community over so many years.
However, getting back to Obama, I hope you’re right with respect to the polls, which I do not totally trust. Call me the “burned child.”
Oh, I feel the “burned child” in me too.
It’s funny – one of my friends “accused” me of being “too blinded by my passion” for Obama. I am not passionate. I’m actually very lukewarm in my support. I like him better than the others. I am not in political love with him, and thank god, because that has been too painful. I was in “love” with Jerry Brown, and in “love” with Howard Dean.
I choose Obama not out of love, but practicality. Which isn’t to diminish what I’ve said. But if people think this is passion, watch out when I REALLY care! 😉
I’m sorry re your bad experiences here, and can only hope the guilty parties have been talked to.
I’m as guilty as others of getting too sharp and losing my temper online. One of my new years’ resolutions is to follow Obama’s lead on that, and try to listen more. Wish me luck – I will surely need it!
I’d like to think that you are on the right track, Lisa, but I don’t think you are. I wish you and Obama well, both he and you are going to have to find out the hard way.
Lisa, I have to admit Obama is growing on me quite a bit, though I still favor Edwards. But, I’ve always at least pretty much liked Obama.
Maybe you have written about it before this, but I am definitely curious how you moved from this:
To where you currently are in your support of Obama. Is it just that you hadn’t really looked into him too much and formed an opinion prematurely, but then found you liked what you saw upon closer inspection?
In a word?
Research.
That’s how I got from there to here.
I liked his speeches and charisma. But like many here, I thought that was all there was. But I had this nagging curiosity, and the more people ignored him or bashed him, the more I wanted to know. What WAS his background? Anyone in office that long has one, and I had to go find out for myself.
Once I looked into it, I was impressed. When I add that to what I already liked about him – wow, that DOES a leader make.
Also – re leadership, I loved that he had reached out to Kenya today, to see if he could help broker a peace between warring factions. He’s running for president and really “doesn’t have time” according to traditional rules to concern himself with that. But he has family there, and, let’s face it, a commanding lead in the polls so he could afford to reach out. Still – I can’t see any of the others doing that, not even Edwards, who I very much admire. I don’t just mean with Kenya – I mean with some issue not directly related to the campaign. Maybe they would have. But he DID.