BARACK IS DA BAMA
I have a problem. For the first time in my voting history, I can't say that I have a slam dunk choice for the Democratic presidential nominee. And to make my dilemma worse, it looks like my vote will actually matter this time around. Because you see, those pesky New Hampshanuts didn't obey the polls and vote for Obama like everyone said they should. Well, Hillary's rally at UCSB on Friday reminded me that Super Tuesday is just around the corner, and it's clear that no more speeches or debates are going to help me. Nope, I have to stop sitting on the fence and make a decision. So, here goes ... Trekking Left officially endorses ... Barack Obama!
Want to know why? I'll break it down:
JOHN EDWARDS - I like John; I really do. And I feel a little bad for him. Without even getting into his personal struggles, the guy came so very close to being VP in 2004 and then followed that by campaigning his butt off for longer than anyone else. Plus, he's been the first candidate to come out with many key initiatives (e.g. universal health care coverage). Yet, the man can't seem to get the traction needed to be a serious contender. What's this country coming to when a rich white guy can't catch a break? Seriously, though, if I strongly felt he could bring more to the presidential table than the others, I would vote for him without blinking. But all things being fairly equal, I'm just really liking the idea of a woman or a black person being president. Maybe that shouldn't be a major factor in my decision making process, but I don't care. Now is the time to break some barriers in this country!
HILLARY CLINTON - Hillary is such a complicated figure. I have so many conversations with my friends about her, and it seems that every one's feelings are all over the map. For me, it can mostly be boiled down to two things ... Firstly, I want a candidate who's playing to win, rather than someone who's playing not to lose. I am so done with the middle of the road, say nothing, don't take any chances, court independents, listen to crappy consultants kind of politics that plagues the Democratic party. That was a losing strategy for Gore & Kerry, and it's a loser today. It seems to me that Hillary is totally using that same awful playbook. Secondly, and more importantly, I don't think people on the Left truly understand how deeply the hatred goes for her amongst much of the citizenry. Heck, you don't even have to look past the comments on this blog to feel that. And I can't tell you the number of times I've heard some independent or moderate conservative on the teevee say that they would vote for any Democrat but her. My gut tells me a general election that comes down to a few votes in one state like Florida or Ohio will go to the Republicans if she is the nominee. To be clear: the problem with her electability is not that she's a woman .... it's that she's a Clinton.
BARACK OBAMA - I think the key to winning the next election is to inspire hope and make Americans feel good about being Americans again. We simply can't thrive as a country with another 4 or 8 years constantly feeling as if some boogeyman is going to blow us up. We need a respected, calming figure who can show the world what America is really about. I believe that Barack Obama is that person. Not only is he inspirational, but he's shown an uncanny ability to attract independents, young people, and even some Republicans. Now, I know there is this feeling amongst some that latent racists tendencies will prevent many people from actually voting for a black person. That doesn't seem to be a factor so far with Obama. However, for the sake of argument, let's say that it might play a role in the next election. I say, let those votes go. Who wants'm anyway? Finally, there's the lack of experience thing. All I'll say there is that 5 out of the last 6 times we changed parties in a presidential election, it went for the less experienced candidate. And might I add that George H.W. Bush aggressively played the experience card in the race against Bill Clinton.
I probably shouldn't end without talking a little bit about the leading Republican candidates. Hmmm, okay, McCain is the only one who doesn't give me the heebie jeebies.
Well, maybe the heebies.
Labels: barack obama, hillary clinton, john edwards, presidential primary
posted by Trekking Left @ 10:45 AM
21 comments
21 Comments:
Put me in the ABC (Anybody But Clinton) camp. If she is the dem I will be forced to stay home for the general election. Thank goodness for Ron Paul, or I would have to stay home for the primary too.
I was there last Thursday for the Hillary rally, uh...Town-Hall Meeting, uh...crowd riot, or whatever it was.
Hillary made a great speech that first originated with Edwards 4 months ago.
Just about spot-on with your candidate analysis.
The only problem is your take on Edwards. His history running for high office has little impact one way or another for me. But when your ex-running mate chooses someone else, that's not a good sign. John's other career does not sit too well with some folks. A litigation atty in the White House? Maybe it's fitting in today's world obsessed with litigation.
I will vote Republican before I vote for Hillary. Her negative ratings are high for a reason. And the last thing a candidate wants to do is motivate the opposition's base to vote. Hillary will do just that.
Obama represents change not only internally but can you imagine our perception in the world after electing a person of color. Ultimately, Obama represents the American Dream. The Dream that could renew the respect and admiration for the US that has been diminished over the last 16 years.
Ok, I think Hillary and Barack should flip a coin; the winner runs as president, the loser as VP; then after 4 years they switch; then after 4 years they switch; then after 4 years they switch. That way we get 16 years of precedent-setting presidents. It's going to take that long to bring about meaningful change.
I think all your blog post serves to do is perpetuate the stereotypes about Hillary Clinton that have been invented by Republicans and malicious Democrats. She's having a hard time "because she's a Clinton"??? That's one of the most inane political analyses I've witnessed. Ya, being a Clinton, and I assume you're talking about her relationship to Bill Clinton - one of the most popular presidents of our time - is hurting her. Hah! What crock.
People just can't stand intelligent people and she's not only highly intelligent, she's a woman so that makes her scary. That's why they spew all this crap about her being polarizing and people like you gobble it up and spew it right back out.
That said, I hope Obama runs for president again after Hillary's eight years because I'd love for him to be president one day. Just not this day.
Elect a guy because he makes you "feel good." Hmm, that's interesting. You say you don't want to have a president that scares the populace with rhetoric about the terrorist threat, well let me ask you a hypothetical... if BO gets the nom and then gets elected, and we have a second 9/11 under his watch when he's busy "talking" to the terrorists, will you guys then get on board with the war on terror? After W is long gone, how would you be able to justify our taking another hit when there's no evil republican president to blame for any of it? My guess is you'd still blame GWB for a terrorist attack that comes in, say 2011, but unless I'm killed in that attack I'll be right back here saying I told you so.
On a side note I'd like to see BO win the nomination, because I think whoever gets the other nom will destroy him, but what amuses me is that the dem heads are so swelled that they can't see the forest for the trees. If the pantsuit and B. Hussein were to team up and be the ticket don't you think they'd win in a landslide? I do. But they're so full of themselves they would never do it.
You nailed it exactly. My thoughts have been following the same direction and just yesterday I came to the same conclusion for those exact reasons. I've been listening to NPR over these many weeks and have learned plenty but even if Edwards has the populist stance (as does the unelectable Kucinach) I want to have that new hope and breathe a bit easier knowing electing Barack will signify the dramatic movement in our cultural racism. We still have a long way to go but it makes me weep at times to think of how far we've come in my lifetime. A woman will be elected soon. We have been oppressed but are not a minority. My 10 year old nephew was floored when he 1st realized there has never been a woman president. I wouldn't go back to the past for any reason, not even for safer streets and more "innocent" times.
Obama is the one who can set America Barack on its tracks. With McCain, our USA will continue to wander off its tracks, further into the wilderness.
Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Clinton? For almost half of my life, these families have, for better or for worse, been in charge of our country.
I would love to vote for a woman president, but I'm for Obama because it is time for completely new blood.
I'm mildly concerned about Obama's lack of experience on the world stage, but I'm convinced that he's far more intelligent than the current president, who had the same problem going in.
A president is ultimately only as good as his cabinet ... see Bush43, 'nuff said. Many of Bill Clinton's former cabinet members and advisors are in Obama's camp. Why is that?
If Hillary is the eventual nominee, I will vote for her and I won't be holding my nose for the following reason (which no one is talking about now or was in 2004): It's the supreme court, stupid.
The stench of W's presidency will be with us for generations to come thanks to his judicial selections (and it's possible he'll get another one before he's done).
Wake up, people!
I'm for Obama, but I hope the results are conclusive enough either way on Feb. 5 for them to stop beating up on each other. If you think it's bad now, wait until the swift-boating starts.
I will vote Republican before I vote for Hillary. Her negative ratings are high for a reason. And the last thing a candidate wants to do is motivate the opposition's base to vote. Hillary will do just that.
This attitude is pervasive. I suspect that the dems want another republican president. No, I'm not kidding. It is the only logical conclusion I can draw from the evidence.
Anon (9:48 AM) - You said, 'She's having a hard time "because she's a Clinton"??? That's one of the most inane political analyses I've witnessed ... she's a woman so that makes her scary. That's why they spew all this crap about her being polarizing and people like you gobble it up and spew it right back out.'
Look, I'm not gobbling up anything. And I never said the hatred of the Clintons is fair or justified. You may not like my comments, but I'm just calling it as I see it. The Republicans want her as the candidate because they feel that she is the only person who can unite their fractured party. That's not me repeating Republican talking points. That's just a fact.
MCConf - You said, 'if BO gets the nom and then gets elected, and we have a second 9/11 under his watch when he's busy "talking" to the terrorists, will you guys then get on board with the war on terror?'
Firstly, let me remind you that 9/11 happened on Bush's watch. You guys always seem to forget that. If he paid attention to PDB's like "Bin Laden Determined to Attack in the U.S.," we may not have had a 9/11.
Secondly, the Iraq war has done more to create a generation of young Muslim men who want to kill us than any single event in history. So, yes, if we are attacked again, Bush will be to blame.
Thirdly, where do you get this idea that Obama would "talk" to the terrorists? I mean, where did that come from?
Finally, what is the war on terror? When does it end? How do we win? You can't have a war with a tactic. So, no, I'll never be on board with that.
You also said, 'If the pantsuit and B. Hussein [cheap] were to team up and be the ticket don't you think they'd win in a landslide? I do. But they're so full of themselves they would never do it.'
I, um, agree.
Pretty lame MCC. Kowtow to the fascists or the booger man will kill us all. The real question is: "Who are the terrorists?" The answer to that question would probably surprise you.
Ansering T_L's points:
On the first, I am fully aware of the fact that 9/11 happened on W's watch. I also know how inaction on the part of the previous administration helped that situation to arise. We've argued this point ad nauseum, and I'm not really interested in placing blame for 9/11 on anybody but the perps themselves.
On the second, I think you know that these folks wanted us dead before we deposed the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. Our being over there is not an impetus that they need to justify their brand of terror. Are there more fighters now than there were before? Probably. I'd rather they wear uniforms to identify themselves too, but they don't play by those rules, so maybe the best we can do to identify exactly who the bad guys are is to be fighting them over there.
On the third, I was referring to BO's statements from late last year that he would be willing to talk to the Iranians. Just google "Obama talks to terrorists" and you'll see the coverage from that statement alone.
I don't need to define terrorism for you again, as I feel I've done it so many times before. I think it ends when nations stop harboring terrorists. We're not fighting a country, or even a tactic; you know it's so much more than just a tactic. We're fighting an ideology that suppresses the rights of women, treats suicide bombing like an honor, wars against civilians on purpose, and wants to dominate the world with Sharia law. What parts of the ideology do you think we should accept?
I think it ends when nations stop harboring terrorists...
Okay, so when do we hand over Bush and Cheney?
Okay, MCConf, let's say (for the sake of argument) that I accept your basic point to view. Let me then ask you a sincere question ... What is your end game with the war on terror? I mean, what's the long term plan for this? For example, do we stay in Iraq for 100 years (as McCain has suggested) and then attack Iran and then just keep going into all Middle East countries that harbor terrorists? Is the goal to really try and kill every terrorist in the world?
I'm really not being snarky this time. Even Rumsfeld admitted that our actions might be creating more terrorists than we kill. And what about Saudi Arabia? You've stated in the past that it wouldn't make sense to attack them. So, how do we get the terrorists there ... or in Pakistan?
Forget about what a terrorist is or what they want. How do you achieve the world you want?
Vee must kill all zee muzzies! [/sarcasm]
We do stay in Iraq for 100 years. I believe the plan was to nation build a democratic entity in the middle of the region that would emanate outward by itself once the other countries saw how profitable it could be for them. It's the whole beacon of democracy idea, and I still believe it could work. The trick is the hearts and minds thing. If we can convince the regular everyday Iraqi that the insurgents are the bad guys, that they need to help identify them in order to help eliminate them, then the message will begin to be sent to the terrorists. The message is that their fellow muslims will not stand for the evil that is terrorism to be bred within their borders. Once you get regular Iraqis giving up the hideouts of the Al Qaeda in Iraq baddies, then the terrorists really start to get weeded out and eliminated. I think this sentiment, once it begins to truly be expressed by the moderate, peace loving muslims, will be the thing that quells islamofascism. We're really just the first few hundred dominoes in a line of thousands. I believe this could work, and I think that if and when it does, then the history books will treat the current administration appropriately in acknowledging their role in curbing islamofascism. But since the problem is largely a muslim one, it must ultimately be solved by muslims, with a little nudge at the beginning of the whole affair by the last world superpower.
I have some issues with this philosophy, but you gave a sincere answer to my question, so I'll let you have the last word today.
One quick follow-up question, though ... It's certainly not realistic to have 150,000 troops there for 100 years. How long do you propose keeping that many people in Iraq?
I'd say keep up those troop levels there until the Iraqis can adequately defend themselves from the threat if we cannot eliminate the threat ourselves. We brought the fight there and I think it would be immoral of us to leave now or anytime before they have the ability to exercise their own justice upon the bad guys. Like I said, we started it over there but it will be up to moderate muslims to defend themselves and their homelands from the fanatics that are literally trying to take them over. It's 60 years since WW2 and we still have a presence in Germany in Japan, and decent relations to boot.
I know you've got issues with my philosophy of how our country should deal with this problem, T_L. That's why I come back here. And it's not to necessarily try to persuade you to come over to my side of the camp. I think Americans need more serious, no-finger-pointing, no-name-calling, mature debate over what I perceive as the biggest issue to face the world since the threat of Nazism. It starts with the acknowledgement of the threat. Then we can proceed with figuring out what the best way to deal with it is.
Good day now, stay dry all.
You're so much more persuasive when you're not namecalling, McC! Not that I agree with that strategy in the slightest, but at least I finally understand it.
I can't help but think that if Bush had had the balls to actually present that honestly, instead of all the bullying and WMD bull$#it, he might have actually been able to get the rest of the world onboard.
Post a Comment
<< Home