Obama Is Winning Me Over
I’ve tried to resist getting too drawn in to the 2008 Presidential Election drama. Give me Hillary, give me Obama, give me John Edwards — any of them will feel like life-saving medicine after 7 years of what’s-his-name. I have been following the debates and the soundbites, but I start to feel disgusted as soon as it all starts to seem like a sporting event. Just give me a President who seems to have the basic skills for the job and who doesn’t lie to me every single day, and I’ll feel a lot better than I feel right now.
So I’m not getting too wrapped up in the Barack vs. Hillary headlines of the last two weeks, but I do want to say that Barack Obama is starting to win me over. I understood both sides of the argument over whether or not a US President should agree to meet and negotiate with a wide range of foreign leaders unconditionally (as Barack says) or whether we should maximize our advantage by seeking helpful preconditions in some cases (as Clinton says). I don’t mind the fact that Clinton chooses to emphasize the importance of pressing for advantage, but I do like it very much that Obama is articulating a larger principle: a simple, honest and open approach to foreign policy expresses America’s ideals best. I like it that Obama risked (and withstood) the criticism of other politicians in order to make this point.
And he risked and is currently withstanding even more criticism for his recent remark about renewing the battle against Al Qaeda — the original Al Qaeda, the one led by Osama Bin Laden, not the separate group that has now settled in George Bush’s Iraq — even if this means violating the borders of Pakistan.
Some find it hypocritical that a candidate who generally stands for diplomacy over war would suggest what could amount to “a war with Pakistan”. Nobody wants war with Pakistan and it’s very difficult to imagine that Barack Obama would act impulsively or recklessly against any other nation. But Obama is reminding us of a simple and important fact: our current administration has failed to weaken the organization that attacked us in 2001 and has credibly pledged to attack us again. Why shouldn’t our next President do what our current President has failed to do and defend ourselves against the group that threatens us the most?
It’s amazing how much criticism a politician has to take for speaking the plain and simple truth. Nobody wants war with Pakistan. But we remain “at war” with Al Qaeda — again, the real Al Qaeda, the first Al Qaeda — and it’s clear that Bush and Cheney, for all their bluster and military posturing, have no idea how to fight that war. I’m glad Barack Obama can recognize a real enemy when he sees one, and I’m encouraged that he can see through all the surreal nonsense of the last six years and talk about the possibility of taking action.
August 13th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Good points, all. It’s amazing that an apparently honest man would be slammed for speaking the plain truth; instead of playing the same old horseshit games that everyone else (including Hillary) engages in. Worse yet, the American press is about as unbiased as Tass or Izvetzi (or Fox). I saw William Cohen and Madeline Albright on CNN favoring Hillary’s position over Obama’s. Duh…they both worked in the Clinton Administration.
But just ask yourself - if you’s president, wouldn’t you try to do things differently? Meet with Castro, etc. Tell ‘em we’d like a change, or we’ll make some changes. The ‘old way’ isn’t working.
August 19th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
I am for Richardson. However, if he falls by the wayside, I think Hillary Clinton is more “practically minded” than Obama. Richardson has more experience than Obama and is about evenly matched with Hillary. Richardson’s well-rounded experience makes him the best person for the job of president.
February 5th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
I’m unpleasantly surprised to see people all gung-ho about this. The problem is that he hasn’t given a solid plan or a promise not to repeat the mistakes of Bush — namely, getting us mired down in something that ultimately only serves to strain the economy and torment our troops, and nationbuilding: regime-change through military force. That last item is the big problem — we cannot hope to create democracy through military force. If someone starts talking about wanting to go to war, we should start asking big questions about that. Like what sort of factors are they considering to initiate the war? What is the scope of the mission: just to get terrorists, or do more (i.e. the failed democracy-by-gun crap)? Is there a well-defined exit criterion, and if so what is it (i.e. no “Mission Accomplished!” celebration followed by 5 more years of continued fighting)? Can we sustain the proposed troop levels, even after getting out of Iraq? Is the economy able to take it? How is it going to help troop morale? How long will we be in there? And so on. If people don’t start asking these big questions now and just go in voting for this guy then they are repeating the very same mistakes that were made back in 2000 and 2004 with George W. Bush. And what do I see? A disturbing and ominous lack of such questioning. Democracy is best when the people make *wise* choices, and that involves asking questions — good questions — about the various choices. Currently, I do not like Obama because of this, and until I hear some solid answers to these questions, I will continue in my not liking.