The Urgency of the Moment
“It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment.”
Standing in the shadow of the Great Emancipator, staring out over a glorious sea of faces punctuated only by the exclamation point formed by the grand testament to our founding father and an appropriately named reflecting pool, Martin Luther King Jr. notified the world that August 28th, 1963 would be a transforming moment in the history of the United States of America. It is a moment that is at once a reminder of how grave the mistakes of this country have been and how extraordinary this country can be. It is a moment that transformed this nation and it is a moment that, in many ways, parallels that which we live in today.
It has been said that America now stands at a fork in the road; we may either continue down the dangerous path forged by our current President, or forge off into the new and unknown in search of a better tomorrow for our country. And having faced the continual disappointment of the last 8 years, this seems to be true and exciting. Yet, this notion of a bifurcated path belies a deeper truth and robs us of a true understanding of the fierce urgency of now. For America always has this option, that is the greatness of this country. We always have the option to cast off the old in favor of the new, but we often fail to exercise this option, instead opting for a slight shift, a quick correction–a narrow re-imagination of the status quo. Now is not the time for such timidity.
Both internally and externally, America hungers for leadership–for some rejuvenating voice that can remind the world and remind ourselves what we stand for and what we believe in. America hungers for hope and change in a way that exceeds the trite manner in which those words are recycled from election to election. And whether or not all of the nation can taste it yet, America hungers for Barack Obama.
continued below…
Substance and Flash
The most common criticism that I hear of Senator Barack Obama is that he is flash without substance, rhetoric without action. And, indeed, he is young, he does have less high-level political experience than his opponent, and his time in the Senate so far has been brief. It’s not difficult to combat the substance prong of these critiques by pointing to his extensive legislative accomplishments in Illinois (aptly analyzed and advocated in this Washington Post article), his flawless intellectual credentials as the first black managing editor of the Harvard Law Review and a professor of Constitutional law at the University of Chicago, or the fact that he has more foreign policy experience than either of our last two Presidents.
But those arguments don’t cut to the flaw of the criticism: experience is not the same as judgment. One of America’s preeminent Presidential historians, Robert Dallek, recently wrote an article reminding us that some of our best Presidents (Lincoln and FDR, for example) were also some of our least experienced (less so than Obama) and some of our most experienced (Buchanan, Hoover) had a clear lack of judgment. Dallek notes, and I agree, that experience matters, but when the two conflict, judgment is the decisive presidential value. Here, Barack Obama is no slouch. Among other things, he was against the War in Iraq from the very beginning and never advocated for the bankruptcy bill.
In all honesty, Barack and Hillary are very equivalent in the substance department and there is no doubt that, from that perspective, that they would both make excellent Presidents. The flash, however, is a different story. The impact of inspiration should not and must not be underestimated; especially at a juncture in our nation’s history when around 3/4 of our country believes we’re on the wrong track. It was the inspiration of a forceful pamphlet that provided a crucial spark to start a revolution, it was three authors known collectively as “Publius” that provided the public swell of support for a controversial new constitution, it was the words for fallen soldiers at Gettysburg that still reverberate through our national consciousness today, and it was the phrase “I have a dream” that inspired millions to demand that the foundation of that dream be laid in Congress.
Whether it’s a challenge to heal the national wounds of a Civil War with a conciliatory tone or the challenge to go to the moon, the power of an inspirational President in a time of need cannot be understated. To be sure, the substance for action needs to back up the flash, but to ignore the power of that skill is to overlook an enormous opportunity. And one only need look to the stadiums packed full of curious voters, the legions of volunteers, or the scores of first time caucus-goers and voters who turned out just because someone inspired them to believe they can make a difference to see that Obama can translate that ephemeral electricity of rhetoric into tangible action.
These are reasons to consider Obama. These are reasons why his candidacy should be taken as seriously as any of the other major candidates. But these are not the reasons why you should vote for Obama; that was best summarized by Andrew Sullivan in an article that serves as a much more eloquent endorsement than the one I’m attempting here: “We may in fact have finally found that bridge to the 21st century that Bill Clinton told us about. Its name is Obama.”
Obama represents a bridge between the divides that plague America. He is a bridge between black and white. Similarly, he’s a bridge between the racially scarred history of America and a physical realization of a dream we still aspire to fulfill. He’s a bridge between generations–one still mired in the polarizing politics and baggage of the 60s and one still finding its voice. He’s a bridge between a chapter of American politics that is a national embarrassment and a possible future. He is a bridge between the political discontent of a nation lost in its sense of purpose and an almost spiritual yearning for something more. He’s a bridge between us and a world that increasingly associates America with arrogance (the raw excitement exhibited in world paper headlines when Obama won Iowa is staggering). He’s a bridge between traditional liberals and Republicans who may not vote for him, but can’t help but respect him. And, apparently, he’s even a bridge between urban and rural.
In short, you should vote for Barack Obama because this country needs him. To borrow from Sullivan again, “at a time when America’s estrangement from the world risks tipping into dangerous imbalance, when a country at war with lethal enemies is also increasingly at war with itself, when humankind’s spiritual yearnings veer between an excess of certainty and an inability to believe anything at all, and when sectarian and racial divides seem as intractable as ever, a man who is a bridge between these worlds may be indispensable.”
This country faces another urgent moment and only a radical departure from the baggage of our past politics, a turn to a new chapter in our history, can possibly provide an answer to that urgency.
Pragmatism
As those who are regular readers of this blog know, we are usually advocates of the pragmatic. It’s pragmatism that led to our endorsement of Amy Klobuchar, it’s pragmatism that led us to endorse El Tinklenberg, and it was certainly pragmatism that led us to endorse Kelly Doran. The impetus for this endorsement, however, is not pragmatism. As corny as it may sound, this endorsement is rooted in hope. But hope is an emotion that is nearly impossible to convey or pass to another; so for those who look for more logical reasons to vote for Obama, you need not worry, Obama has the fortune of being the pragmatic choice as well.
Assuming that you believe Obama’s issue stances to be acceptable (and, let’s be honest, Clinton and Obama part ways on little) the political considerations of having Obama as our presidential candidate should tip the scales. I sincerely believe that Obama would win in a general against John McCain (and especially Mitt Romney) with ease. The difference between the viability of the candidates would be instantly obvious when the two candidates stand next to each other in the first debate. The crowds drawn by Obama will continue to grow and simultaneously excite Democrats and intimidate Republicans. Social conservatives will be discouraged from turning out to vote for either McCain or Romney while independents, liberals, and, if the caucus and primaries are any indication, moderate Republicans will come out in droves to vote Obama. The south will actually be in play.
Even if you don’t believe me that Obama will win with ease, most would have to concede that Obama is more viable than Hillary Clinton in the general. Again borrowing from Andrew Sullivan (last time, I promise), “she galvanises the conservative movement in ways no other Democrat can. Against McCain, she and she alone enables the Republicans to forget their deep internal divisions and unite. Nothing – nothing – unites them as she does.” The Republican election machine is largely broke, but watch the coffers fill when Hillary’s the opponent. I’m not saying that sentiment is fair or valid, but it is real and it is a force to be reckoned with.
But perhaps the most significant impact of a Clinton candidacy would be felt by down-ticket Democrats. There is no coincidence that red-state Democratic elected officials are almost universally endorsing Obama: Clinton brings people to the polls to vote Republican. In a Presidential year so much of the ballot turns on what way the top vote is cast and for the reasons stated above, Clinton simply motivates more Republicans to cast a Republican Presidential vote. Obama, on the other hand, has been a one man GOTV machine that has single-handedly brought out more non-voters than anyone ever dreamed was possible, and he brings them out to vote Democratic. It’s not just a President we’re electing this year, it’s also a Congress, a handful of Governors, thirty-three Senators and hundreds of state legislators. In many areas the Presidential candidate won’t make a difference to them, but in the close races where it counts, there is no doubt it will.
All other things being equal, Barack Obama represents our best shot of electing a Democrat and a better chance for Democratic wins down ticket. He appeals to my heart, but for these two reasons I should hope he appeals to all Democrats’ heads.
What We Need is not Division
No matter who you are or what candidate you support I hope you truly understand the relevance of Dr. King’s warning of the fatality of overlooking the urgency of the moment. We stand as a nation on a dangerous precipice, with the fate of so many other empires awaiting us below. The importance of this election cannot be understated and I ask that above all, no matter who you support, that you commit yourself to involvement at all levels of the process. Whether that means signing up at a local campaign office, making a donation to your favorite candidate, or simply having a conversation with a friend, the important element is commitment.
Words improvised by another great American in a ghetto of Indianapolis on April 4th, 1968, the night of Dr. King’s assassination, also come to mind–both because they reflect the scope of this moment and because they are proof that words are important (it was one of the only predominantly black urban areas in the nation that didn’t riot that night):
What we need in the United States is not division; what we need in the United States is not hatred; what we need in the United States is not violence and lawlessness, but is love, and wisdom, and compassion toward one another, and a feeling of justice toward those who still suffer within our country, whether they be white or whether they be black.
…
Let us dedicate ourselves to what the Greeks wrote so many years ago: to tame the savageness of man and make gentle the life of this world.Let us dedicate ourselves to that, and say a prayer for our country and for our people.
- Robert Francis Kennedy
Loading ...
The title of this post encapsulates the reasons why I hate the Obama movement. I can see no difference between an Obama presidency and a Clinton presidency. Obama hardly differs from her on policy and she has the experience. The only thing that has me intending to caucus for Obama tomorrow is that so many people would be less likely to be engaged if he wasn’t the candidate. As far as everything else goes, he is not anything special. He doesn’t have super powers that are going to magically change how politics are done. And the idea that he will that is propagated by his supporters makes me want to vote for Clinton out of spite.
Strong words Archer Dem for the supporters of the person for whom you are going to caucus.
I think Archer Dem has summarized the differences between Hillary and Obama supporters perfectly. Clinton supporters have already given up and are bitter that other people haven’t. There is almost no space between Bush and Clinton in foreign affairs and she is every bit as beholden to special interests and business interests as Bush was when elected. Supporting Hillary is more or less saying that leadership and ideology are not as important as loyalty to the party machine.
Barack Obama is no superman because nobody is. As an independent who has supported McCain in the past I will say that Obama would be the only Democrat that would likely get my vote in November. Democratic caucus goers, including my wife and possibly me, will have to decide if they think cynicism, bitterness and fear are more important than taking a chance on changing the tone of the conversation. How much that gets done in the next four years will have everything to do with gaining the support of a majority of Americans. Something Barack can do and Hillary can not.
Well Archer, I certainly respect your sentiment but I hope you took the time to read the rest of the post. Hopefully the content of the article addresses some of your frustrations. And if it doesn’t I would be interested to hear your thoughts on specific points of my argument.
A Barack Obama Administration just might get more Americans to work togetehr to bring about change that can affect the World.
The last 6 years has seen American Credibility go downhill. The level of arrogance coming from the Bush Administration has been stifling to say the least.
Obama is an inspiring personality who came up the ranks through persistence and hard work. A belief in his abilities that change can come if the decision is made to change. His books are inspiring to read as an example.
People will work for Change in their lives if there is something they can believe in and someone who believes in them. That came in a profound book written by Rich DeVos, co founder of Amway Corp(now Quixtar), titled COMPASSIONATE CAPITALISM that I have read several times over the years.
Pretty sweet endorsement piece. Small correction: 50 senators are not up right now. Control of the senate basically is, because Dems could hit 60.
I taped the Obama rally in HD with a borrowed camera. Here’s the quick 60 sec clip we put together… Going to release more soon: http://blip.tv/file/643720/
Obama events today with Scarlett Johannson, Kal Penn, Keith Ellison:
University of MN UDFL event, 5 PM at Coffman Memorial Union (on the East Bank), The Whole Music Club (sub-basement level):
We are holding a training session along with our regular meeting, so please come to learn how a caucus works!
We are expecting special guests Rep. KEITH ELLISON, SCARLETT JOHNANSSON (Yes, the Scarlett of such movies as Lost in Translation) and KAL PENN from Harold and Kumar! Don’t miss this amazing opportunity to not only meet your congressional representative but Kal Penn and Scarlett Johansson as well!
Monday, Feb. 4th at 5pm in Coffman’s The Whole Music Club.
COOKIES WILL BE PROVIDED!
Map to Coffman: http://www1.umn.edu/twincities/maps/CMU/index.html
6:45 in St. Paul — this is the only one that I can find on the Obama website:
Learn about Caucusing with Kal Penn and Scarlett Johannson (Meeting)
Come learn about the caucus process and hang out with Kal Penn, from the Namesake and Harold and Kumar, and Scarlett Johannson, from Nanny Diaries and Last in Translation.
Time: Monday, February 4 at 6:45 PM
Duration: 1 hour
Host: Rachel Haltom-Irwin
Contact Phone: 645-651-2008
Location:
Sweeney’s Saloon (St. Paul, MN)
164 Dale Ave
St. Paul, MN 55114
Another rally at the Superblock of dorms on the U of M East Bank campus (this is from a facebook comment and I can’t find another source, but it seems likely to be a real event.)
Scarlett and Kal at 9:30 in the park space in the middle of the Super Block!
The Superblock is the group of Pioneer, Frontier, Territorial, and Centennial Halls, grouped in a square cluster. The rally should be in the middle somewhere. Here is a map to Pioneer: http://www1.umn.edu/twincities/maps/PioH/index.html
There may be other events with these people out there as well, but this is what I found.
Like this was a big surprise.
Not related to Obama or the Obama endorsement, but Publius has gone so downhill in the past year. It’s sad the dearth of decent, thoughtful blogs in this community. Or humor - oh for the days of American Hot Sausage!
If you think Obama has the gift of being able to convince Americans that they should pay more in taxes and have a bigger federal government - you are mistaken.
If you think Obama can make Pro-Life people support abortion rights. You are mistaken.
If you think Americans want a bigger, more powerful federal government. You are mistaken.
The man is a good speaker. As was Bill Clinton. At the end of the day, Democrats are unable to implement their agenda because a majority of Americans fundamentally reject the notion of a bigger federal government.
This is exactly why George Bush and the Republican Congress got their ass kicked so bad in 2006.
Go ahead, pick the rock star Obama. When the pop culture craziness fades…he’ll raise taxes, he’ll make government bigger, he’ll be unable to say no to the extreme left of your party….and watch your party slide back into the minority. It really is the only thing that can save us Republicans. Sounds just like 1993 and 1994 all over again doesn’t it?
boring
I agree 100%!!
Everybody knows the Democratic majority in the House, Senate, and the Democratic White house will not accomplish anything worthy, and will not move America forward. I say this because the Republican track record of correctly predicting outcomes stands tall.
It is us Republicans who will enjoy, and laugh, as the Liberal Dummocrats slide into a minority again. HA HA HA!! Then America will greet the Republican Party as liberators.
HA HA HA!!
Great Job!
Its just like 1993. Clinton was unable to say no to the far left and his party was slaughtered during the 1994 elections. The moderates will be steamrolled (just like the Republicans steamrolled their own moderates when they were in total control.)
I have to admit…watching the Democrats try to stop themselves would be good entertainment. Won’t be good for the country, but it will be good entertainment.
Matt (is this the author or some other Matt?),
I have read the article and it sums up both why I’m not happy about voting for Obama and why I am voting for him. Here are my issues:
“America hungers for hope and change.” I see no way to quantify hope so I find that as a baseless claim, as for change that is true because like you state in the post, a large percentage of Americans think the country is on the wrong track. However, what needs to be realized is that not everyone wants change in the same direction. Obama isn’t going to make people who the country to go to the right to change into his vision of America. He’ll motivate those that want what he wants. In this case, “change” as I see it is simply a move towards Democratic principles. At least I hope so, any other change and I’m not on board with. And as I’ve said so many times on this blog, I don’t believe he can make a change in how politics is done in America.
Secondly, his record in the Illinois State Senate is as glorious as made out. He had an unfortunate habit of voting “present” on some very important bills, including bills regarding choice issues. http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110009664
While he had good judgment about Iraq at the beginning of the war, he has continually voted for funds for the war. What saves him on this issue is that Hillary is no better. His judgment has been poor for a while though.
But, why I am voting for him is because he does engage so many people. He gives them hope. I guess for me hope and faith aren’t enough. I don’t understand where this hope comes from or why people feel it. The only thing he says differently from other candidates is his soaring rhetoric which has no substance. Your case on him being the pragmatic choice is about right and why I will caucus for him. I just don’t think it is change I can believe in.
I sincerely believe Hillary would be an amazing president but Barack is a better candidate against John McCain. If we were running against Mitt Romney, I’d be voting for Hillary. The truth is, when compared to the joke that is the Republican field, we have two great candidates. However, none of them deserve the praise and adoration that is heaped upon Obama.
boring makes a great point that I needn’t repeat in depth. Being charismatic on the stump doesn’t mean you can change peoples’ fundamental and long-held core beliefs.
DantheMan: So true. I make no claim that Obama can change any individual’s fundamental beliefs. But imagine the difference in efficacy between a candidate who elicits the phrase “he makes me proud to be an American” from the mouths of those ideological opposites and a candidate who those same individuals irrationally scorn.
Oogh! Scarlett Johannssen [or however her name is spelled] - isn’t she the Girl with the Pearl Earring?
That’s almost enough to get me to take a shower and get out of my bath robe on a snowy day . . .
I just had a call wanting to know if I was going to caucus and for whom.
The caller said he was with the Hillary Clinton Campaign.
On my door today I found a color print flyer and a black and white note informing me of my precinct caucus location from the Obama for America Campaign.
Don’t those people ever take a ‘Snow Day?’
It’s easy to get on the Obama wagon, it’s much more difficult to think and learn about the real difficult issues that face our country. It’s easy to be young and have no record in congress. It’s easy to cast present votes and not take a stand. I’m young, knowledgeable, and passionate and I support Hillary because she is a strong, intelligent, woman. I believe our country needs her NOT Obama. I will not fall for the over hyped celebrity mentality or the false claim that she is less electable. I choose substance, experience, and a true desire to do what is right for this country not a celebrity craze that will fizzle with the first unkept promise. I know who can lead this country and her name is Hillary!!!
I’m going to level with you. I think we have four interesting Presidential candidates from both sides of the aisle:
Obama: Young, energetic, articulate, fresh
Romney: Proven track record as an Exec (Governor, Olympics). Doer.
Clinton: Seasoned, perserverance
McCain: Strong, admirable, hard to not respect
My personal endorsement (like it matters): Romney. But I’ve been watching the polls, and I know he might not win, but he is still my guy.
Obama is an easy, obvious choice. How about a senate endorsement before the caucus. My mind could still be changed.
Did you know?
Obama is pro-nuclear industry and has accepted money from the nuke industry
Obama is pro- coal to liquid fuel
Obama voted for the reauthorization of the Patriot Act
Obama voted for the Cheney energy bill
Obama has voted for every war funding bill
Obama supported Lieberman for President
Obama voted to expand NAFTA into Peru
Obama voted yes to confirming Condi for Secretary of State.
Obama voted yes to confirming Negroponte for Director of National Intelligence
I am a proud progressive voter and those above facts leave me disheartened and frightened…not hopeful of any change. (want more? http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060626/sirota/3 ), http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22971762/)
Edwards is still in the race. “Suspending” his campaign (not ending) means he’s still on all the ballots, still has his delegates and will earn more when supporters like me vote for him tomorrow. He led the direction of the Dem’s platforms (see Paul Krugman’s article, “The Edwards Effect”.
Super Tuesday — VOTE EDWARDS so he can continue to leverage the Democrats toward real change.
To Laurie: I’m an Obama supporter after my initial choices (Joe Biden, John Edwards) had been eliminated. If you feel a race should be between more than Candidate A and Candidate B, vote Jack Nelson Pallmeyer.
Well - I like the purple coolaide that you are all drinking. Unity means “…agree with me (Obama), and all will be well…” That is a message that ANY candidate could use. Let’s not be divided - just agree with my (insert, any candidate name here) position(s) and we will all get along. HAHAHA
Not what I’m saying MNred. I’m saying unity comes before candidate choices. I certainly hope that people will be convinced and vote, or at least consider Obama, but that doesn’t preclude my respect for those who don’t. Hillary is a fine choice as well. I happen to think Obama is the better choice, but that certainly doesn’t mean that I’ll have any bad blood with any Democrat if she ends up being the nominee (well, any Democrat with the exception of, perhaps, Bill Clinton).
Obama hasn’t earned my vote yet, nor has Clinton, so I’m still caucusing for Edwards.
My issues are his issues.
That hasn’t changed.
Oh, and that homeless vet that Bill O’Reilly talked about with Ed Schultz when he was mocking Edward’s claim that nearly 200.000 military veterans are homeless in America? O’Reilly told Ed, ‘Let me know when you find him . . ’
I think I found ‘Him’ standing on the street corner by Lake Street and Hiawatha.
Now how do I collect my ‘Finder’s Fee’ from O’Reilly?
B4JRE -
As a moderate, your points actually make me MORE likely to pay serious attention to Obama. I had heard that he was open-minded enough to consider clean, nuclear energy, but didn’t know about all the other things.
A politician who sees himself as a public servant, not merely part of a partisan team, is rare. Could Obama be that guy?
I’ve voted Democrats on some past occasions. If Obama could be pragmatic about tax cuts and not insist on a socialized healthcare system, I could consider supporting him.
Dan, I’m with you. This is at the core of why I’ve been an Obama guy — he’s not afraid of the center or even the moderate right when that’s the principled place to go.
That being said, B4JRE is distorting some things:
(1) Obama supported Liberman’s Senate bid in 2006, not either of his Presidential bids. And every sensible Democrat should have been with him on that, no matter how obnoxious Lieberman is.
(2) Obama voted “for” the Patriot Act reauthorization in the same sense that everyone in the Senate other than Russ Feingold did: he voted for an upsetting piece of compromise. He knew it stunk, but he also know it’s the best we’d do. See his remarks here:
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/01/clinton-slams-o.html
(3) CAFTA was not NAFTA. It included many human rights and labor rights provisions that NAFTA did not. But, regardless, everyone who has taken even an introductory economics course knows that this was the principled thing to do both morally and fiscally.
The only thing that bugs me on that list is the vote for the Cheney Energy Bill, but even that is not a black and white situation. The bill included a lot of crap, but it also included a lot of money for potentially good things. In the end, I think it was the wrong vote, but it’s more than made up for in other areas. Read more on that vote here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-roberts/what-does-the-2005-energy_b_83130.html
Also, for how ever much ‘pandering’ you’d like to attach to it — many people in Illinois wanted that energy bill because of investments made in ‘Clean Coal’ technology. Illinois has 200B. tons of coal which currently is not particularly useful because it’s bituminous coal or ‘dirty’ (well, it’s subjective when you start talking about coal and cleanliness — but you get the idea.) Sean
For DantheMan — I’m not trying to get people to not vote Obama. I’m just letting people know his ACTUAL political leaning — something unsurmisable from his oft repeated platitudes. Your saying that his voting record makes you, a moderate, more comfortable with him kinda proves what I’ve been saying all along. Obama is not a progressive, he is Republican light. If you like that, I think you are very lucky to have a candidate for you doing well in the polls.
For Matt — Sounds like you’re coming from the center or right of center? Many progressives were excited to see Lamont challenge Lieberman. Kinda odd to have you telling us we “should have been with him (Obama) on that, no matter how obnoxious Lieberman is.”
Just like Obama’s repeated votes for funding the war, this Patriot Act bill vote was a weak move — showing a profound lack of leadership for someone who claims to be a leader on the issue.
You say, regarding Obama’s bad trade vote: “everyone who has taken even an introductory economics course knows that this was the principled thing to do both morally and fiscally.” You’re getting rude and not helping your argument with this attitude. That trade bill had almost every labor group and environmental group chiming against it. Again, as a PROGRESSIVE voter I find his vote offensive and favoring the over-powerful industries.
Re: the Cheney energy bill? Even Hilary knew to not vote for it. Want more on Obama’s bad choices? http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060626/sirota/3
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22971762/
Thusly, this progressive pro-environment, anti-corporate greed voter is Voting EDWARDS…He’s still on the ballot, still has delegates, still able to garner more
delegates, and can still shape what the other two talk about and propose.
I’m voting Edwards to vote my conscience, to help his issue based message still be heard and to help him gain delegates so he can continue to
leverage the other two for real change. I’m talking leverage, not winning.
I voting my conscience today..because I can.
I’m biting my tongue on Edwards… All I’ll say is that his voting record isn’t exactly a model of principled representation.
Well, DantheMan, unlike Clinton, he’s not proposing mandates.
Honestly, B4JRE, it sounds to me like you’re voting against Clinton and Obama more than you’re voting for Edwards. Matt’s entirely correct; Edwards’ Senate record wasn’t terribly progressive, and if you look back at Edwards ‘04 he was presenting himself in a dramatically different light. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for everyone voting their conscience. But painting Edwards as a progressive stalwart is ignoring history just as completely as Obama supporters ignoring his “present” votes in Illinois.
“(1) Obama supported Liberman’s Senate bid in 2006, not either of his Presidential bids. And every sensible Democrat should have been with him on that, no matter how obnoxious Lieberman is.”
Why should we have supported a Democrat who is supporting the worst foreign policy decision in US history and who vocally excoriates his colleagues for opposing the war in Iraq? Any sensibly Democrat should want Lieberman out of office and replaced by a better Democrat.
Are you opposed to primaries for our incumbents? Should we let Dan Lipinski, Al Wynn, and Leonard Boswell continue to make bad votes and then proceed to give them money, votes, and support? Part of the reason so few promises have been kept over the last year is due to roadblock Republicans, but part of it also falls at the feet of bad democrats like Lieberman, Lipinski, Wynn, and Boswell.
Archer Dem: Sorry, I should have provided more explanation for my comment. I feel that all we did in CT is provide Joe Leiberman with more of an excuse to cast off the “shackles” of party affiliation without gaining any possibility of winning in the general at a time when we need as much loyalty as we can get from every single Democrat. I’m sorry, but we never had a shot at winning the general against Lieberman and it was strategic blunder to cast him out of the party structure. Sure, functionally it probably doesn’t change his votes that much, but it clearly has had the affect of making him more cavalier about his party affiliation.
Should we have primaries for our incumbents? Absolutely! But in a very blue state with a Democrat who is fairly popular across the spectrum, indulging in retaliatory primary hand-slapping is damaging and small. That being said, I have a lot of respect for Ned Lamont and I understand where he and his supporters were coming from. I just also think that it was a strategic mistake.
Also, not that it’s worth all that much, but Lamont is a co-chair of Obama’s CT campaign and has been actively campaigning for him. So he must understand too.
The problem with that, Archer, is who precisely defines a “good” or a “bad” Democrat? Are you comfortable imposing idealogical litmus tests on our candidates? Can you honestly say you agree with every bit of Democratic boiler-plate?
I’m not trying to attack you, but this is an idea that drives me nuts. Having witnessed the epic infighting between moderates and fundamentalists in the Kansas GOP, I have no desire to see anything even remotely similar anywhere in the Democratic Party. The 85% of issues on which I agree with Lieberman more than balances out his aggravating support for Bush on Iraq.
A little correction and a little on Edwards — I want to apologize for a mistype in my first entry… I DID mean Obama supported Lieberman for Senate, but with all this “Presidential” stuff, my fingers went into auto-type mode…oops…sorry.
On Edwards…I am pro-Edwards because he led the way on Universal Health Care, Fighting Global Warming, Anti-Nuclear Power, Pro-Middle Class, Pro-Union, Fighting Corporate Greed, and Fighting Poverty. I am aware that some of his past votes were not-so-peachy votes but I do believe him to have evolved into the fighter and leader that he showed himself to be during the campaign. It was his work and platform that guided Clinton and Obama to address these issues (Read Paul Krugman’s article, “The Edwards Effect”… explaining how Edwards led the charge and got the other candidates to talk about real issues that we care about).
What I really want people to know is this:
1) If you were an Edwards supporter before he SUSPENDED (not ended)his campaign, KNOW that he is still on the ballot, still has delegates, still able to garner more
delegates, and can still shape what the other two talk about and propose. I’m talking leverage, not winning. As a progressive who is very concerned about the Liberals losing their backbone, I appreciate what Edwards has done for the race so far….and will be voting for him tonight.
2) I am baffled at how some of my very liberal friends are leaning Obama yet know absolutely nothing about him other than that he gives a nice speech. So many of them have forgone the vetting and research that they usually do on candidates. When I tell them, for example, that Obama voted for the Cheney energy bill, or that he voted to confirm Condi Rice, they are shocked. This is problematic for me. Seriously, if you know Obama’s voting record and political machinations (a good start is this http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060626/sirota/3)and still want him in the White House,…I may not like it but I won’t rain on your parade. I’m really just asking folks to wake up and take a closer look.
Tanuki,
of course I have a litmus test for candidates. It would be ridiculous not to. It is important to me what the candidates stand for. Despite Lieberman being good on other issues, the ways in which he savagely attacks his party (and now endorses a republican for president) and disagrees on THE major issue (Iraq) and has been a roadblock to progress shows that he does not serve the interest of the party. I’m not looking for an ultra-liberal democratic party, but I do want one full of people with sound judgment.
Just because someone calls themselves a democrat doesn’t mean we just need to accept it and welcome them into our ranks. Besides, the Democratic voters in Connecticut chose Lamont over Lieberman, but Republicans chose Lieberman. What does that tell you about him?
B4JRE, I may not agree or even find problematic all your critiques of Obama, but I see how you might take issue with them. I’m nothing short of baffled, however, that your list includes him not being opposed to nuclear energy and his vote to confirm Condi.
We NEED more nuclear power plants. Modern plants that are appropriately regulated are not only extremely safe but, relative to other available mass-energy plants, green. Using carbon ball reactors, the nuclear waste is securely contained for centuries. I’m not saying they’re an end-all and be-all when it comes to our energy problems, and few are, but they’re a much better current solution than any other single technology. I’m a big supporter of wind turbines, but they can’t yet produce energy on this scale.
And as for Condi, come on, there’s simply no way anyone could come up with hard evidence at the time as to why she wasn’t qualified. The vote was 85 to 13 (2 not voting) and Clinton was a yea as well. Despite what you may think of her background and her involvement in the Bush administration, she is within the traditional realm of credible candidates for Secretary of State.
But I would agree with you that people should know who they’re voting for before they do so.
Actually, it tells me that Democratic primary voters chose Lamont, and by a very narrow margin at that. 52/48, I believe. And if memory serves, Lieberman ended up winning Democrats in the general by an equally slim margin. While winning over the overwhelming majority of independents and a goodly number of Republicans.
But on to the broader point. I think it’s healthy for people of sound judgment to disagree at times. And it’s with that point in mind that I take issue with the idea of terms like “good” and “bad” Democrat being thrown around.
Oh, and given how badly he was burned by the party establishment after losing the primary, I’m just glad Lieberman still caucuses with the Dems. Endorsing McCain was the weakest possible retaliatory move.
Matt -
I’m starting to like you. As a Republican who can support leftist positions (I’m all for lower tuitions, ample education funds, and LRT!!) I appreciate a Democrat who has an open mind about something like nuclear energy.
Nuclear energy is great except we don’t know what to do with the something like 38 tons of waste each reactor produces yearly. Much of this waste is being store at the plant site as it can’t be moved safely and there’s no place to store it safely. Answer the problem of waste and let’s start building. Meanwhile, smaller lower tech, hydrogen fuel cell generators, like those built by Ballard power are being used in China, India, Japan and Korea. These units are about the size of your average refridgerator and emit zero green house gases. They will provide all the electricity (950 watts) a home needs every month.
“Answer the problem of waste and let’s start building.”
The coal, oil, and gas industry sure didn’t have to answer the problem of waste for their product — send it into the sky and cause the environmental problems that your party is rallying behind.
Let’s not forget that the current energy “solution” creates at least as much waste which is at least as harmful as would a nationwide nuclear energy system.
All we need is a containment vessel capable of withstanding intense radioactivity for 16 million years. Piece o’ cake. Coal, oil, are not viable long term sources of energy. Hydrogen is the most abundent element in the universe. Ballard Power is a leader in fuel cell technology and are, at this moment, marketing their product worldwide. Aren’t we capable of matching them?
what do you mean “matching them”?
I mean aren’t we capable of the same level of invention and innovation as a Canadian company?
Or can’t we work with Ballard to use their technologies and take them to the next level? Here is a private industry that has brought the best solution to-date to fruition. They deserve to profit for their creativity and hard work, and there is no reason Americans can’t help advance it.
Ballard has American plants and American investors (I’m one). The fact they are Canadien is irrelevent.
Re: Obama’s Love of Nukes
Besides the inherent danger of nuclear power, “experts estimate that we would need to triple our number of nuclear reactors to make a serious dent in global warming. With just over a hundred reactors currently online in the U.S.A., and at a cost of around $5 billion per reactor, that would require at least $1 trillion (assuming we didn’t replace aging plants). Given that cost, and the fact that it takes up to ten years to build a new plant, it would take decades to start meeting the threats of planetary climate change with nuclear power. And that’s not even taking into consideration the risk taken by the public with triple the threat of nuclear disaster.” (from Friends of The Earth) Not that I make them my gospel but I figure, why plagiarize? Also see “Nuclear Facts”, http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/plants/plants.pdf Plus there is the problem of them as targets for terrorists.
Rather than go down that unnecessary road, I’d love for us to start with appropriately aggressive energy efficiency and conservation which would drastically reduce our carbon footprint and have the added benefit of being economically prudent(there’s a ton of cost analysis on this but I’m too lazy to google it. I’m on dial-up. sorry). Additionally, if we replace the zeal for nukes into R and D for green and safe technologies, I trust that human ingenuity, given the chance, will prevail.