The title of my blog tonight is a really scary possibility, but we're inching closer to it every day.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are now officially tearing each other to shreds on the campaign trail. "Shame on you, Barack Obama," said Hillary today. Barack fired back, calling her "silly."
John McCain doesn't have to say anything bad about other Republicans because he's got virtually no remaining competition. How fantastic. McCain can look like a unifier.
Let me tell you what gets unified if Barack and Hillary don't knock it off: the US Supreme Court will be unified as a right-wing rubber stamp, ready to overturn Roe v. Wade, ready to shut out small businesses with pro-monopoly decisions, ready to irrevocably damage the environment, ready to take away more of our civil liberties.
So keep up the in-fighting, Senators Obama and Clinton: I want someone to blame when I'm living in a fascist state.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Obama = Osama, or, Complete Idiocy
The Christian right-wing yahoos are preying upon the ignorance of the American people again, by drudging up this notion that Barack Obama is a Muslim.
For God's sake, Obama's sake, my sake, and your own sake... and hell, a bottle of sake for that matter...
BARACK OBAMA IS NOT, AND HAS NEVER BEEN, A MUSLIM.
Yes, his father is Kenyan. His mother was from Kansas, and was white.
Yes, his middle name is "Hussein." Hussein is a very common name in Arabic, a language local to the part of the world in which Kenya lies. In fact, Swahili has an enormous number of loanwords from Arabic.
"Hussein" is also his father's middle name, and his grandfather's name. He didn't choose it, anymore than you chose to be Caitlin (even through you may not be Irish), Yvette (even through you may not be French) or David (even though you may not be Jewish).
His first name, Barack, is in fact, both Swahili (the native language of Kenya) and Arabic. It means "blessed." Incidentally, "Hussein" means "handsome." KInda like "Beau" (a French name) or "Kevin" (an Irish name).
"Obama" is no more related to "Osama" than "Pitt" is related to "Shit." They rhyme. BIg deal.
Barack Obama used to live in Indonesia as a child. The rumor persists that he attended a "Muslim" school. He attended a completely non-religious institution in Indonesia. The fact that a majority of the children in attendance were Muslim is simply because the majority of Indonesians are Muslims, period. His Indonesian school was no more Muslim than Hillwood High is a "Christian" school. The school was not administered by or subject to any religious body.
Today, Barack Obama attends a United Church of Christ Church in Chicago. It is unapologetically Afrocentric, the way a Greek Orthodox Church may be unapologetically Hellenocentric, or the way a Coptic Christian Church may be unapologetically Egyptocentric, or the way the Roman Catholic Church may be unapologetically Eurocentric, for example. Since the man is a first generation American of direct African lineage, why would he not want to belong to a church that stresses the cultural significance of Africa?
As for the idea that the Christian church he attends is a "front" for the Nation of Islam (NOI), understand this: the NOI is both Afrocentric and Muslim. Obama's church is Afrocentric and Christian. The leader of Obama's church, who has been influential in Obama's spiritual life, has played footsie in the past with Louis Farrakhan of the NOI, but Farrakhan is not in any way associated with the Church-- he's a Muslim. It's a Christian Church. Anybody see a problem there? Obama has also publicly disagreed with the giving of an award to Farrakhan by Jeremiah Wright's daughter.
Understand: Obama's pastor's daughter gave an award to Farrakhan, which he denounced publicly. If that makes him a Muslim by extension, then follow this logic: my therapist's son is a McCain supporter, that must make me a Republican! Not!
It is rumored that Barack Obama won't say the Pledge of Allegiance. That's bunk. He has in fact he pledge in the Senate.
It is equally slandered that Barack Obama placed his hand on the Qu'ran to take his oath of office. That was, in fact, Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison (who, incidentally, swore to uphold the Constitution with his hand on a copy of the Qu'ran that was once owned by Thomas Jefferson... I'm pretty sure he wasn't a Muslim, but you never know). Those who say Barack Obama is the one who swore on a Qu'ran have adopted a "they all look alike to me" worldview concerning Blacks, I guess.
And in closing, even if Barack Obama were a Muslim (which he isn't, and never has been), isn't that his right as an American? And shouldn't we listen to the man, and not the crazed paranoid hype people keep slandering him with?
So, let's get this straight once and for all, and please, tell anyone who might have the screwed up notion that Barack Obama is a Muslim, to check their facts. While you're at it, call their fear out for what it is: racism, pure and simple. Xenophobia. Fear of what's different. Small-mindedness.
Yep. Call a spade a spade. And yes, I said it.
For God's sake, Obama's sake, my sake, and your own sake... and hell, a bottle of sake for that matter...
BARACK OBAMA IS NOT, AND HAS NEVER BEEN, A MUSLIM.
Yes, his father is Kenyan. His mother was from Kansas, and was white.
Yes, his middle name is "Hussein." Hussein is a very common name in Arabic, a language local to the part of the world in which Kenya lies. In fact, Swahili has an enormous number of loanwords from Arabic.
"Hussein" is also his father's middle name, and his grandfather's name. He didn't choose it, anymore than you chose to be Caitlin (even through you may not be Irish), Yvette (even through you may not be French) or David (even though you may not be Jewish).
His first name, Barack, is in fact, both Swahili (the native language of Kenya) and Arabic. It means "blessed." Incidentally, "Hussein" means "handsome." KInda like "Beau" (a French name) or "Kevin" (an Irish name).
"Obama" is no more related to "Osama" than "Pitt" is related to "Shit." They rhyme. BIg deal.
Barack Obama used to live in Indonesia as a child. The rumor persists that he attended a "Muslim" school. He attended a completely non-religious institution in Indonesia. The fact that a majority of the children in attendance were Muslim is simply because the majority of Indonesians are Muslims, period. His Indonesian school was no more Muslim than Hillwood High is a "Christian" school. The school was not administered by or subject to any religious body.
Today, Barack Obama attends a United Church of Christ Church in Chicago. It is unapologetically Afrocentric, the way a Greek Orthodox Church may be unapologetically Hellenocentric, or the way a Coptic Christian Church may be unapologetically Egyptocentric, or the way the Roman Catholic Church may be unapologetically Eurocentric, for example. Since the man is a first generation American of direct African lineage, why would he not want to belong to a church that stresses the cultural significance of Africa?
As for the idea that the Christian church he attends is a "front" for the Nation of Islam (NOI), understand this: the NOI is both Afrocentric and Muslim. Obama's church is Afrocentric and Christian. The leader of Obama's church, who has been influential in Obama's spiritual life, has played footsie in the past with Louis Farrakhan of the NOI, but Farrakhan is not in any way associated with the Church-- he's a Muslim. It's a Christian Church. Anybody see a problem there? Obama has also publicly disagreed with the giving of an award to Farrakhan by Jeremiah Wright's daughter.
Understand: Obama's pastor's daughter gave an award to Farrakhan, which he denounced publicly. If that makes him a Muslim by extension, then follow this logic: my therapist's son is a McCain supporter, that must make me a Republican! Not!
It is rumored that Barack Obama won't say the Pledge of Allegiance. That's bunk. He has in fact he pledge in the Senate.
It is equally slandered that Barack Obama placed his hand on the Qu'ran to take his oath of office. That was, in fact, Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison (who, incidentally, swore to uphold the Constitution with his hand on a copy of the Qu'ran that was once owned by Thomas Jefferson... I'm pretty sure he wasn't a Muslim, but you never know). Those who say Barack Obama is the one who swore on a Qu'ran have adopted a "they all look alike to me" worldview concerning Blacks, I guess.
And in closing, even if Barack Obama were a Muslim (which he isn't, and never has been), isn't that his right as an American? And shouldn't we listen to the man, and not the crazed paranoid hype people keep slandering him with?
So, let's get this straight once and for all, and please, tell anyone who might have the screwed up notion that Barack Obama is a Muslim, to check their facts. While you're at it, call their fear out for what it is: racism, pure and simple. Xenophobia. Fear of what's different. Small-mindedness.
Yep. Call a spade a spade. And yes, I said it.
Thursday, February 07, 2008
How To Stop A War
Mitt Romney dropped out of the Republican Presidential race today, stating, "In this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror."
A surrender to terror?
Surrendering to terror is when you allow terrorists-- or the perceived threat of terrorists-- to interfere with the flow of your everyday life. When you get all worried and flustered with fear that you or your loved ones might get blown up by a bomb, you've surrendered to terror.
It is with that in mind that I challenge Mr. Romney's reasoning for dropping out of the race, leaving John McCain the heir apparent to the Republican nomination this fall.
McCain's stance on the war, taken from his web site, is as follows, verbatim:
We face an enemy that has repeatedly attacked us and remains committed to killing Americans and the destruction of our values. This election is about who is best prepared to lead and defend our nation and its global allies as Commander-in-Chief from day one. This election is about making sure we have the experienced leadership to guide us to victory in this war, protect the nation against future terrorist attacks, and support our troops and first responders who are on the frontlines of the war. This election will decide whether we choose to fight or announce surrender. It will decide whether we have a president who dangerously weakens U.S. security or strengthens it; whether we will flinch and retreat or fully engage the enemy on multiple fronts. We need decisive leadership with the vision and experience to guide our country and the world through this challenge. Having a courageous Commander-in-Chief who is willing to lead us in this war, rally our democratic allies and defeat our enemy to secure a broader peace is what's at stake in this election. (emphasis mine)
I underlined three things in his policy statement, that I'd like to take issue with:
1. VICTORY: Victory in war is an outmoded concept, and a short-sighted view of what the war even means. What does "victory" in the Iraq war mean exactly, Mr. McCain? The establishment of an American-style democracy in Iraq? That's never worked before. For most of the country's history, Iraq's presidents have been authoritarian dictators occupying an office without a clearly designed constitutional structure. Such presidents exercised all power single-handedly, operating only with the consultation of a small cabinet. Government after government has been overthrown, even prior to Saddam Hussein's accession to power. So what makes us think that we can come in and snap our fingers, and age-old differences between Iraqi power brokers is simply going the way of the wind? How long will we have to occupy Iraq to ensure they play by the rules we set up for them? Iraq is a failed state: its central government is so weak or ineffective that it has little practical control over much of its territory. We plunged it into civil war, and our soldiers are dying there. What do we "win" with "victory?" What's in it for the USA?
2. FULLY ENGAGE THE ENEMY ON MULTIPLE FRONTS: The war in Iraq, which is not against Iraq, but against insurgents, began as a political smokescreen to divert the attention of the American people away from our inability to capture Osama bin-Laden. Our failed war in Afghanistan was met with a failed war in Iraq. Now Mr. McCain wants to engage the enemy (singular), but on multiple fronts? Sounds like Mr. McCain defines "the enemy" as "our many enemies." We could go to war with Iran to get everyone's minds off the debacle in Iraq. What next? Venezuela to forget Iran? North Korea to forget Venezuela? "Do things our way or die" is not an instrument to peace. Previous American leaders effectively dealt with crazies like Muammar Qaddafi, Fidel Castro, Francisco Franco and Idi Amin, all without going to war with them. I don't Mr. McCain has any interest in pursuing peace with our enemies. I think he genuine wants to stay in a perpetual state of war. Maybe it's a holdover from his POW days-- I wasn't in 'Nam, I don't understand.
3. TO SECURE A BROADER PEACE: Again, a reductionist and short-sighted statement. How can one "secure" peace in an unstable world with factions and interest at impasses over limited and fixed resources and borders? A broader peace? Fighting to achieve peace, with all due respect, Mr. McCain, is like fucking to achieve virginity-- it won't work.
So... how do you stop a war? Both Democratic candidates have said they'll bring our troops home. And now that it looks like the only Republican choice will be John McCain... if you want an end to the war, you'll simply have to trust Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.
A surrender to terror?
Surrendering to terror is when you allow terrorists-- or the perceived threat of terrorists-- to interfere with the flow of your everyday life. When you get all worried and flustered with fear that you or your loved ones might get blown up by a bomb, you've surrendered to terror.
It is with that in mind that I challenge Mr. Romney's reasoning for dropping out of the race, leaving John McCain the heir apparent to the Republican nomination this fall.
McCain's stance on the war, taken from his web site, is as follows, verbatim:
We face an enemy that has repeatedly attacked us and remains committed to killing Americans and the destruction of our values. This election is about who is best prepared to lead and defend our nation and its global allies as Commander-in-Chief from day one. This election is about making sure we have the experienced leadership to guide us to victory in this war, protect the nation against future terrorist attacks, and support our troops and first responders who are on the frontlines of the war. This election will decide whether we choose to fight or announce surrender. It will decide whether we have a president who dangerously weakens U.S. security or strengthens it; whether we will flinch and retreat or fully engage the enemy on multiple fronts. We need decisive leadership with the vision and experience to guide our country and the world through this challenge. Having a courageous Commander-in-Chief who is willing to lead us in this war, rally our democratic allies and defeat our enemy to secure a broader peace is what's at stake in this election. (emphasis mine)
I underlined three things in his policy statement, that I'd like to take issue with:
1. VICTORY: Victory in war is an outmoded concept, and a short-sighted view of what the war even means. What does "victory" in the Iraq war mean exactly, Mr. McCain? The establishment of an American-style democracy in Iraq? That's never worked before. For most of the country's history, Iraq's presidents have been authoritarian dictators occupying an office without a clearly designed constitutional structure. Such presidents exercised all power single-handedly, operating only with the consultation of a small cabinet. Government after government has been overthrown, even prior to Saddam Hussein's accession to power. So what makes us think that we can come in and snap our fingers, and age-old differences between Iraqi power brokers is simply going the way of the wind? How long will we have to occupy Iraq to ensure they play by the rules we set up for them? Iraq is a failed state: its central government is so weak or ineffective that it has little practical control over much of its territory. We plunged it into civil war, and our soldiers are dying there. What do we "win" with "victory?" What's in it for the USA?
2. FULLY ENGAGE THE ENEMY ON MULTIPLE FRONTS: The war in Iraq, which is not against Iraq, but against insurgents, began as a political smokescreen to divert the attention of the American people away from our inability to capture Osama bin-Laden. Our failed war in Afghanistan was met with a failed war in Iraq. Now Mr. McCain wants to engage the enemy (singular), but on multiple fronts? Sounds like Mr. McCain defines "the enemy" as "our many enemies." We could go to war with Iran to get everyone's minds off the debacle in Iraq. What next? Venezuela to forget Iran? North Korea to forget Venezuela? "Do things our way or die" is not an instrument to peace. Previous American leaders effectively dealt with crazies like Muammar Qaddafi, Fidel Castro, Francisco Franco and Idi Amin, all without going to war with them. I don't Mr. McCain has any interest in pursuing peace with our enemies. I think he genuine wants to stay in a perpetual state of war. Maybe it's a holdover from his POW days-- I wasn't in 'Nam, I don't understand.
3. TO SECURE A BROADER PEACE: Again, a reductionist and short-sighted statement. How can one "secure" peace in an unstable world with factions and interest at impasses over limited and fixed resources and borders? A broader peace? Fighting to achieve peace, with all due respect, Mr. McCain, is like fucking to achieve virginity-- it won't work.
So... how do you stop a war? Both Democratic candidates have said they'll bring our troops home. And now that it looks like the only Republican choice will be John McCain... if you want an end to the war, you'll simply have to trust Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
My Choice for President
The MySpace/MTV forum the other day made up my mind on whom I was going to vote for in the upcoming Presidential elections.
Y'all may know I used to work for the Democratic Party. I am an unapologetic social liberal, and I believe in tight, responsible government with progressive fiscal policies and controlled spending. In some respects, I am a conservative. In some respects, I am a socialist. In some respects, I am a radical moderate. I am seeking a true Third Way.
I watched the forum with a mixed group of folks, including supporters of all the various candidates. I had not yet made up my mind, which is rare. I've been voting since 1984, and cannot remember ever getting this close to the polls without having a favored candidate.
As the program unrolled, I watched and listened intently. After that, I reviewed every candidate's web site, and read their "Issues" page.
Personality doesn't come into play for me. I don't care if the President is funny, or funny-looking, or what gender or race they are, or what state they come from or how they talk. It's all about what they say, what ideas they bring to the table, and how well I think they are going to lead.
Although I have a lot of differences with his views, I must pay some respect to Ron Paul. I am very impressed with the way he has wrangled support on the Internet. I wish he were running as a true third-party Libertarian candidate. I think to not do so is a tactical error on his part. He never answered questions that were directed at him, and his answer seemed to be, "Everything will work itself out." That's a great laissez-faire Libertarian attitude, but it won't fly in practical applications.
For example, when asked about dependence on foreign oil, he basically said (I am paraphrasing) that when gas gets to be so expensive that people quit buying it, the car and oil companies will develop alternatives. Is he kidding? He also is talking about shutting down foreign military bases, which sounds good until we need them. I respect his medical background, but he doesn't really seem to have a workable health-care plan other than "save your money." That won't work: my meds alone are over $1200 a month. Unless pharma companies are willing to take smaller profits (yeah, right), I can't afford them without help. So although I respect him, I cannot vote for him.
Romney and McCain didn't participate... that tells me they really don't care about the youth vote, and the youth of this country will have to live with their administration's decisions. I think that was short-sighted.
McCain is a warmonger who wants total victory in Iraq, which means more troops, more money, and more needless death. Anyone should be able to see this tragic debacle is unwinnable. Scratch him.
Romney and Huckabee say they will actively work to overturn Roe v. Wade. That would be a disaster for American women. Huckabee actually was a lot more lucid and less stupid-seeming than I had previously given him credit for, but all his pandering to "Christian values" and talk of "faith" leave a bad taste in my mouth. We need a commander-in-chief, not a pastor-in-chief. I listened as he spoke of widening highways. How about mass transit, and breaking America of its car-oriented culture? But I digress: reproductive freedom is non-negotiable. Romney and Huckabee are toast.
I heard someone say that we don't live in red states and blue states, but purple states. I personally am purple. Social liberalism, is, however, extremely important to me. I don't want my government dictating morality. So I will likely vote Democratic. Now for whom?
That leaves me the two Democrats, whose candidacies are historic in and of themselves. Honestly, I'd said going into it that I would be happy with either of them, and I do think they are each imminently qualified to be president. So which to choose?
Hillary Clinton is a forceful, formidable, admirable woman of strength, and, I think, a great leader. She hit me square in the pocketbook with her idea of making college tuition loans more affordable. Only thing is, she didn't say how she would pay for it.
Her health care plan appeals to me, but so does Obama's. Their differences on this issue are largely semantic.
They both have good GLBT stances, and during the forum, Obama was asked if he supported homosexual marriage, and he quickly and easily said no, but that he was in favor of civil unions. That's enough for me-- one step at a time. That may anger some gays and lesbians, but I think it will setback gay rights to shove things down Americans' throats they just aren't ready for yet. Hillary Clinton has also got a good track record on gay rights.
So there is no litmus test between the two Democrats, leaving me undecided, until Hillary Clinton was asked about electability. That's when it all came together for me.
I like Hillary Clinton. I admire Hillary Clinton. But many Americans don't. She is a divisive personality with a lot of baggage. It was present in how many people were running her down in discussions after the forum ended where I watched it. Hillary's great, but people either love her, or hate her, much the way people were about Dubya in 2004.
The choice suddenly was crystal-clear. I will be voting in today's primary for Senator Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination.
Obama's support base isn't typically black, unlike Jesse Jackson's historic 1984 campaign. He himself is biracial. Plus, he's truly an African-American... his story is much more an immigrant story than a "descendant of poor freed slaves" story. To be sure, there are people who will vote for Obama just because of the color of his skin, but there are also people who will vote for Hillary Clinton just because of her gender. To me, that's an uninformed choice.
The converse is also true: there are people who won't vote for Obama because he's black, or for Clinton because she's a woman. They may feel that way, but I do hope our society in general is socially progressive enough that they won't be able to say it out loud without fear of persecution or ridicule.
Obama's message of change and hope resonates with every ethnicity, every socioeconomic class, every region and every subset of American culture. His multicultural background make him a living embodiment of what America is all about. He's got a lot of ideas with merit, and an undeniable energy and verve that to me are captivating. He's a leader I can get excited about, and he has my support.
If Hillary Clinton is nominated, I will support her, naturally. She's on the right side of my issues. But Senator Clinton often seems to say what is politically expedient. She hedges, flops for audiences and uses weasel-words the same way her husband did, the same way Al Gore did. And mind you, I loved those men, and worked in their campaigns. Barack Obama seems to be steadfast in his message, and has taken some very brave positions, such as opposing the war in Iraq even when most of his own party caved to the Republican agenda. His ethics and job performance have proven beyond reproach. It's hard to find people who have bad things to say about him.
I just think America needs some healing, and Barack Obama is the man for the job. You may agree or disagree. That's your prerogative. Exercise it, and make sure you vote.
Y'all may know I used to work for the Democratic Party. I am an unapologetic social liberal, and I believe in tight, responsible government with progressive fiscal policies and controlled spending. In some respects, I am a conservative. In some respects, I am a socialist. In some respects, I am a radical moderate. I am seeking a true Third Way.
I watched the forum with a mixed group of folks, including supporters of all the various candidates. I had not yet made up my mind, which is rare. I've been voting since 1984, and cannot remember ever getting this close to the polls without having a favored candidate.
As the program unrolled, I watched and listened intently. After that, I reviewed every candidate's web site, and read their "Issues" page.
Personality doesn't come into play for me. I don't care if the President is funny, or funny-looking, or what gender or race they are, or what state they come from or how they talk. It's all about what they say, what ideas they bring to the table, and how well I think they are going to lead.
Although I have a lot of differences with his views, I must pay some respect to Ron Paul. I am very impressed with the way he has wrangled support on the Internet. I wish he were running as a true third-party Libertarian candidate. I think to not do so is a tactical error on his part. He never answered questions that were directed at him, and his answer seemed to be, "Everything will work itself out." That's a great laissez-faire Libertarian attitude, but it won't fly in practical applications.
For example, when asked about dependence on foreign oil, he basically said (I am paraphrasing) that when gas gets to be so expensive that people quit buying it, the car and oil companies will develop alternatives. Is he kidding? He also is talking about shutting down foreign military bases, which sounds good until we need them. I respect his medical background, but he doesn't really seem to have a workable health-care plan other than "save your money." That won't work: my meds alone are over $1200 a month. Unless pharma companies are willing to take smaller profits (yeah, right), I can't afford them without help. So although I respect him, I cannot vote for him.
Romney and McCain didn't participate... that tells me they really don't care about the youth vote, and the youth of this country will have to live with their administration's decisions. I think that was short-sighted.
McCain is a warmonger who wants total victory in Iraq, which means more troops, more money, and more needless death. Anyone should be able to see this tragic debacle is unwinnable. Scratch him.
Romney and Huckabee say they will actively work to overturn Roe v. Wade. That would be a disaster for American women. Huckabee actually was a lot more lucid and less stupid-seeming than I had previously given him credit for, but all his pandering to "Christian values" and talk of "faith" leave a bad taste in my mouth. We need a commander-in-chief, not a pastor-in-chief. I listened as he spoke of widening highways. How about mass transit, and breaking America of its car-oriented culture? But I digress: reproductive freedom is non-negotiable. Romney and Huckabee are toast.
I heard someone say that we don't live in red states and blue states, but purple states. I personally am purple. Social liberalism, is, however, extremely important to me. I don't want my government dictating morality. So I will likely vote Democratic. Now for whom?
That leaves me the two Democrats, whose candidacies are historic in and of themselves. Honestly, I'd said going into it that I would be happy with either of them, and I do think they are each imminently qualified to be president. So which to choose?
Hillary Clinton is a forceful, formidable, admirable woman of strength, and, I think, a great leader. She hit me square in the pocketbook with her idea of making college tuition loans more affordable. Only thing is, she didn't say how she would pay for it.
Her health care plan appeals to me, but so does Obama's. Their differences on this issue are largely semantic.
They both have good GLBT stances, and during the forum, Obama was asked if he supported homosexual marriage, and he quickly and easily said no, but that he was in favor of civil unions. That's enough for me-- one step at a time. That may anger some gays and lesbians, but I think it will setback gay rights to shove things down Americans' throats they just aren't ready for yet. Hillary Clinton has also got a good track record on gay rights.
So there is no litmus test between the two Democrats, leaving me undecided, until Hillary Clinton was asked about electability. That's when it all came together for me.
I like Hillary Clinton. I admire Hillary Clinton. But many Americans don't. She is a divisive personality with a lot of baggage. It was present in how many people were running her down in discussions after the forum ended where I watched it. Hillary's great, but people either love her, or hate her, much the way people were about Dubya in 2004.
The choice suddenly was crystal-clear. I will be voting in today's primary for Senator Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination.
Obama's support base isn't typically black, unlike Jesse Jackson's historic 1984 campaign. He himself is biracial. Plus, he's truly an African-American... his story is much more an immigrant story than a "descendant of poor freed slaves" story. To be sure, there are people who will vote for Obama just because of the color of his skin, but there are also people who will vote for Hillary Clinton just because of her gender. To me, that's an uninformed choice.
The converse is also true: there are people who won't vote for Obama because he's black, or for Clinton because she's a woman. They may feel that way, but I do hope our society in general is socially progressive enough that they won't be able to say it out loud without fear of persecution or ridicule.
Obama's message of change and hope resonates with every ethnicity, every socioeconomic class, every region and every subset of American culture. His multicultural background make him a living embodiment of what America is all about. He's got a lot of ideas with merit, and an undeniable energy and verve that to me are captivating. He's a leader I can get excited about, and he has my support.
If Hillary Clinton is nominated, I will support her, naturally. She's on the right side of my issues. But Senator Clinton often seems to say what is politically expedient. She hedges, flops for audiences and uses weasel-words the same way her husband did, the same way Al Gore did. And mind you, I loved those men, and worked in their campaigns. Barack Obama seems to be steadfast in his message, and has taken some very brave positions, such as opposing the war in Iraq even when most of his own party caved to the Republican agenda. His ethics and job performance have proven beyond reproach. It's hard to find people who have bad things to say about him.
I just think America needs some healing, and Barack Obama is the man for the job. You may agree or disagree. That's your prerogative. Exercise it, and make sure you vote.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
