In hopes of derailing the juggernaut, "Why I can't get excited about Obama . . ."
When I saw him at the 2004 convention, I said "this guy is our great Democratic hope for the future! He speaks as well as (Bill) Clinton except better because he knows when to stop! He's got all the energy and dynamism that most of the other possible future candidates lack, and he didn't vote for the Iraq invasion!"
Since then, while I still think he's the best and most charismatic speechmaker of the lot and second only to (Hillary) Clinton in debating skills, he's lost me, and has been near the bottom among my Democrat choices for months. Here's why:
(1) His support for nuclear power (see the book "Why Nuclear Power is Not the Answer" by Helen Caldicott, I think, for a better & lengthier and more detailed argument than I could possibly give if you don't think this is a big deal) and liquid coal. Both of these are environmental disasters to a greater degree than oil and gas have been, and horrible ideas all round. To me, saying you support investment in more nuclear power plants is like saying you support more judges like Scalia/Thomas/Alito, and think Iraq worked out so well you want to invade a couple of more countries as soon as possible.
(2) His repeated overtures to the right wing fundamentalists. Now, the other leading democratic candidates are guilty of this to some degree as well, but his overtures to them make me more nervous, especially backed by his refusal to get rid of the homophobic fundie "gayness can be cured" guy from his South Carolina support concert.
(3) Having skimmed his book "The Audacity of Hope", the following things from there:
where he keeps talking about the "undeniably vexing issue of abortion" and you have to read to the end to figure out that he is pro-choice--probably--but clearly has a lot of sympathy for anti-choicers,
where he seems to blame the democrats as much as the republicans for the rancor in washington despite the dems having moved steadily rightwards for years and compromised themselves to death, practically, (aside from your own observations over the years, I strongly recommend Paul Krugman's "The Conscience of a Liberal" for more details on this) and (related)
his level of sympathy for red-state democrats who vote conservatively and/or don't speak their conscience in order to get elected/re-elected.
(4) He didn't even support the filibuster of Alito . . . . Yes, he voted against him, but he knew the vote wasn't going to be enough without the filibuster, and if ever there was a time for a filibuster, this was it. Almost as bad and a lot more recent than the Iraq votes of Hillary & Edwards, plus far worse coming from someone who claims to be the most outspoken for progressive change.
(5) He *is* the most outspoken for progressive change, but there's absolutely zero indication that he's going to try to accomplish any more than the others -- he's almost never specific except when forced to be, and when he does offer specific policy plans, as with health care, they seem very similar to something one or more of the other candidates has already put forward. When you actually look at both his specifics thus far, combined with what he's done since being in *national* office, he actually seems less likely to accomplish--or even try for--real change than either Edwards or Clinton. Coming from someone with his campaign-speak, this not only rubs me the wrong way, it makes me fearful that an Obama election followed by a socially conservative, economically moderate presidency will make a lot of progressives simply quit voting.
(6) He keeps speaking in vague rousing platitudes without specifics just like that other charismatic, well speaking politician, Ronald Reagan. I don't think Reagan was a good president. And things like "hope freed the slaves" actually bug me far more than "morning in america", since the latter is just empty phrasing, while the former makes it sound like happy feelings rather than grim determination, warfare, and the whole blood sweat & tears thing was what was needed. Except for shooting-type warfare, I think sacrifice and fighting more than hope will be needed to fix many of our problems now, anyone who's studied the current situation realizes this, and anyone who implies different is being well beyond disingenuous.
That said, if he gets the nom I'll almost certainly vote for him -- not only because I like him much, much much more than any of the Republicans, but also because the supreme court appointments are just too important (tho this is another area where I have less confidence in him than Clinton, Edwards or Richardson), plus the Republicans have shown themselves too fond of invading countries for non-existent reasons to be given further opportunity. But I'd a hell of a lot rather see any of the other three top candidates.
(x-posted to "progressives")
Since then, while I still think he's the best and most charismatic speechmaker of the lot and second only to (Hillary) Clinton in debating skills, he's lost me, and has been near the bottom among my Democrat choices for months. Here's why:
(1) His support for nuclear power (see the book "Why Nuclear Power is Not the Answer" by Helen Caldicott, I think, for a better & lengthier and more detailed argument than I could possibly give if you don't think this is a big deal) and liquid coal. Both of these are environmental disasters to a greater degree than oil and gas have been, and horrible ideas all round. To me, saying you support investment in more nuclear power plants is like saying you support more judges like Scalia/Thomas/Alito, and think Iraq worked out so well you want to invade a couple of more countries as soon as possible.
(2) His repeated overtures to the right wing fundamentalists. Now, the other leading democratic candidates are guilty of this to some degree as well, but his overtures to them make me more nervous, especially backed by his refusal to get rid of the homophobic fundie "gayness can be cured" guy from his South Carolina support concert.
(3) Having skimmed his book "The Audacity of Hope", the following things from there:
where he keeps talking about the "undeniably vexing issue of abortion" and you have to read to the end to figure out that he is pro-choice--probably--but clearly has a lot of sympathy for anti-choicers,
where he seems to blame the democrats as much as the republicans for the rancor in washington despite the dems having moved steadily rightwards for years and compromised themselves to death, practically, (aside from your own observations over the years, I strongly recommend Paul Krugman's "The Conscience of a Liberal" for more details on this) and (related)
his level of sympathy for red-state democrats who vote conservatively and/or don't speak their conscience in order to get elected/re-elected.
(4) He didn't even support the filibuster of Alito . . . . Yes, he voted against him, but he knew the vote wasn't going to be enough without the filibuster, and if ever there was a time for a filibuster, this was it. Almost as bad and a lot more recent than the Iraq votes of Hillary & Edwards, plus far worse coming from someone who claims to be the most outspoken for progressive change.
(5) He *is* the most outspoken for progressive change, but there's absolutely zero indication that he's going to try to accomplish any more than the others -- he's almost never specific except when forced to be, and when he does offer specific policy plans, as with health care, they seem very similar to something one or more of the other candidates has already put forward. When you actually look at both his specifics thus far, combined with what he's done since being in *national* office, he actually seems less likely to accomplish--or even try for--real change than either Edwards or Clinton. Coming from someone with his campaign-speak, this not only rubs me the wrong way, it makes me fearful that an Obama election followed by a socially conservative, economically moderate presidency will make a lot of progressives simply quit voting.
(6) He keeps speaking in vague rousing platitudes without specifics just like that other charismatic, well speaking politician, Ronald Reagan. I don't think Reagan was a good president. And things like "hope freed the slaves" actually bug me far more than "morning in america", since the latter is just empty phrasing, while the former makes it sound like happy feelings rather than grim determination, warfare, and the whole blood sweat & tears thing was what was needed. Except for shooting-type warfare, I think sacrifice and fighting more than hope will be needed to fix many of our problems now, anyone who's studied the current situation realizes this, and anyone who implies different is being well beyond disingenuous.
That said, if he gets the nom I'll almost certainly vote for him -- not only because I like him much, much much more than any of the Republicans, but also because the supreme court appointments are just too important (tho this is another area where I have less confidence in him than Clinton, Edwards or Richardson), plus the Republicans have shown themselves too fond of invading countries for non-existent reasons to be given further opportunity. But I'd a hell of a lot rather see any of the other three top candidates.
(x-posted to "progressives")