Caucus Tomorrow! & Why I Support Barack Obama
Dear Friends,
Tomorrow (2/9/2008) at 1 PM are the Washington State caucuses. If you're not planning to go already, I urge you to. If you're not sure where yours is, here are the resources you need: http://www.wa-democrats.org/caucusfinder (for Democrats) or http://kcgop.org/caucus_locator.html (for Republicans.) Unlike a regular election, the number of people who show up to support a candidate determines how many delegates they will get, so every person who shows up can change the tallies. In addition to discussing the presidential candidates, you will also be able to propose and discuss changes to your party platform (its best to bring paper and ideas, as this part can be overshadowed by the presidential component.)
Before I go into why I prefer Barack Obama, here is a link to an interesting video on the subject: http://s3.amazonaws.com/truth/4obama.mov . The production values are mediocre, but I think the thoughts behind it and the primary sources are quite good.
This year I plan to caucus as a Democrat in support of Barack Obama. Initially I had a great deal of trouble choosing between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama (I started the season in favor of Edwards) since they both hold such similar policy positions. I thought about it for a long time, and concluded that for reasons of integrity, charisma, and electability the man from Illinois is the right choice.
When I talk about integrity, I mean consistently sticking by one's own values and guiding principles. Hillary Clinton, I think most people recognize, has been strongly driven by polls and focus groups to choose a moderate position that would allow her to run for President of the United States of America. To choose an issue of the War in Iraq, Hillary has said that she voted to authorize the use of force because she had bad information, but that she made the best decision with the information she had. Despite calls from many Democrats, she has refused to apologize for her vote, or call it a mistake. This has been a careful attempt to appease some Democrats with anti-war language, while not exposing herself to more pro-war persons on the right. You have to remember that this made sense when she first chose the position several years ago, and support for the war was much higher. She just hasn't changed her position, because she knows that once you choose a position, you will get destroyed for changing your mind (like John Kerry or Mitt Romney.) Going further into this issue, one has to ask why she voted for the war at the time the issue came up. At that time, I remember being a part of the anti-war protests going on, and we ORDINARY CITIZENS knew the Bush administration was just looking for an excuse to send troops over, and made vehement pleas to our elected officials not to vote for this authorization. Thus, I don't even buy her claim of ignorance... unless we include willful ignorance... it's a political explanation that's meant to tidy up an uncomfortable issue for a lot of the Senators who voted for the war. She was almost certainly motivated by the desire to score political points when the war was popular (or else has incredibly poor judgement.) Obama was not in the Senate in 2002, but he was leading protest marches on the streets of Chicago at the time. He had the discernment to recognize the war was a bad idea even in a time when that wasn't a popular position. I don't want a President who makes politically expedient decisions, I want a President who will choose the hard, right road and take the political consequences for it.
The other issue that comes to mind when I talk about integrity involves campaign financing. I think it is generally agreed that Truman's warning to be wary of the military-industrial complex was correct, and that there is a modern problem with corporations wielding undue influence through campaign donations and lobbyists. Since arriving in Washington D.C., Barack Obama has worked on legislation to reduce this scourge which has caused great damage to our environment, our health care, our rights, and costs significant chunks of taxpayer money for private benefit. In his campaign he has not taken any money from Political Action Committees (PACs), and instead drawn his funds from individual donors exclusively. Moreover, he has pledged not to hire any lobbyists into his White House staff. To me, this means he hasn't been bought, and won't be obligated to give undue access or influence to anyone. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has claimed that it isn't realistic not to take PAC money, and has taken generous contributions from a variety of these sorts of groups. I haven't read her health care bill personally, but speaking to more than one friend involved in medicine, they all confirm that the bill she's presenting aligns strongly with the interests of the insurance lobby and health care industry. It may cover everyone, but it does so in a way that is expensive and benefits corporations more than it needs to, rather than focusing on the needs of doctors and patients. I have no doubt that this slant to her bill comes from working too closely with lobbyists and perhaps owing favors to people who have supported her campaign. I also worry that perhaps she learned the wrong lesson years ago when she tried to write health care legislation while her husband was president. I think maybe she was beaten so badly that she now overcompensates in her need to compromise to get things done. I worry that she may waste historic opportunities and set unfortunate precedents while in office because she lost so long ago. (For example, in the 40s during World War II, unions effectively lost the right to really strike in important industries because of the compromises of their leadership and some people in government, and that balance has stuck for the worse ever since.) I want someone who will work to curb corporate power and will take the strongest stands for their own values, and I think that Barack Obama is more likely to be that person.
One thing the president of the United States can do better than any other official is to get on the TV and in the newspaper and speak to the American people. It's a power that our founders hadn't really imagined, but has become immense with the modern media. With a few speeches a president can draw attention to an issue, and if he works at it tenaciously can often get his way in congress. This is because the president has the power to shift polls with the right words all across the country (and because congress sometimes must compromise a bit in order not to have other legislation vetoed.) There is no question that Barack Obama is a more uplifting, motivational speaker than Hillary Clinton, and thus would be able to wield this power far more effectively. Johnson used this power to create the Great Society, Kennedy to send us to the moon, even Bush was able to have No Child Left Behind. The scope of the project seems to be somewhat proportional to the leader... so I think it only makes sense to choose the leader who might inspire us to something larger and greater.
Republicans have gained a small advantage by consolidating behind their candidate early in the race. They have chosen, in my opinion, the most respected and electable of their number. This will make the race in November difficult, even in a year where you'd expect the Democratic party should win in a landslide on resentment over the war, the economy, the deficit, and the poor health care in this nation. They will be able to spend more time advertising their candidate, without any more time spending their own resources to attack themselves. The disadvantage for Republicans is that the Democratic party can evaluate their own candidates in terms of how well they will perform against the Republican nominee-to-be. In polling, John McCain has been shown to run slightly ahead of Hillary Clinton while running slightly behind Barack Obama. These percentages are all within the margin of error, and a lot will change between now and election day, but the point is that it's going to be a close race in November. Hillary Clinton now has one of the highest unfavorable ratings of all national politicians (over 40%) while Barack Obama doesn't have enough of a national political history for people to dislike him. This is important, as it means Hillary is not only disliked by almost all Republican voters, but there are a lot of independents already soured against her as well. This isn't her fault, it's mostly baggage from her husband's administration, but all the same she has it. Obama, by contrast, is one of the politicians most favored by independent voters, and you can tell that this translates to support if you look at the election results so far. Hillary Clinton won staunchly democratic states in the primaries so far, but Barack Obama has beaten her in states that traditionally vote Republican or are swing states. Considering how close the last few elections have been, doesn't it make sense to choose the candidate with the strongest appeal to swing voters? Campaigns in states throughout the "Heartland" have invited Obama to help campaign in the past years because they know he will help their candidacies. Hillary Clinton has received far fewer invitations, because those same people know she will not help their candidates. I respect John McCain for many of his positions, and his integrity, but his willingness to stay in Iraq for the next 100 years chills me. The idea of him winning in November disturbs me, and I urge you to choose the candidate more likely to defeat him: Barack Obama.
Good luck tomorrow. I hope I've provided you with interesting things to think about, or useful things to say to those you are caucusing with. (I apologize for a lack of references, I didn't have a lot of time today. I have tried to share only information from sources I trust.)
Much Love,
Alexander
Tomorrow (2/9/2008) at 1 PM are the Washington State caucuses. If you're not planning to go already, I urge you to. If you're not sure where yours is, here are the resources you need: http://www.wa-democrats.org/caucusfinder (for Democrats) or http://kcgop.org/caucus_locator.html (for Republicans.) Unlike a regular election, the number of people who show up to support a candidate determines how many delegates they will get, so every person who shows up can change the tallies. In addition to discussing the presidential candidates, you will also be able to propose and discuss changes to your party platform (its best to bring paper and ideas, as this part can be overshadowed by the presidential component.)
Before I go into why I prefer Barack Obama, here is a link to an interesting video on the subject: http://s3.amazonaws.com/truth/4obama.mov . The production values are mediocre, but I think the thoughts behind it and the primary sources are quite good.
This year I plan to caucus as a Democrat in support of Barack Obama. Initially I had a great deal of trouble choosing between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama (I started the season in favor of Edwards) since they both hold such similar policy positions. I thought about it for a long time, and concluded that for reasons of integrity, charisma, and electability the man from Illinois is the right choice.
When I talk about integrity, I mean consistently sticking by one's own values and guiding principles. Hillary Clinton, I think most people recognize, has been strongly driven by polls and focus groups to choose a moderate position that would allow her to run for President of the United States of America. To choose an issue of the War in Iraq, Hillary has said that she voted to authorize the use of force because she had bad information, but that she made the best decision with the information she had. Despite calls from many Democrats, she has refused to apologize for her vote, or call it a mistake. This has been a careful attempt to appease some Democrats with anti-war language, while not exposing herself to more pro-war persons on the right. You have to remember that this made sense when she first chose the position several years ago, and support for the war was much higher. She just hasn't changed her position, because she knows that once you choose a position, you will get destroyed for changing your mind (like John Kerry or Mitt Romney.) Going further into this issue, one has to ask why she voted for the war at the time the issue came up. At that time, I remember being a part of the anti-war protests going on, and we ORDINARY CITIZENS knew the Bush administration was just looking for an excuse to send troops over, and made vehement pleas to our elected officials not to vote for this authorization. Thus, I don't even buy her claim of ignorance... unless we include willful ignorance... it's a political explanation that's meant to tidy up an uncomfortable issue for a lot of the Senators who voted for the war. She was almost certainly motivated by the desire to score political points when the war was popular (or else has incredibly poor judgement.) Obama was not in the Senate in 2002, but he was leading protest marches on the streets of Chicago at the time. He had the discernment to recognize the war was a bad idea even in a time when that wasn't a popular position. I don't want a President who makes politically expedient decisions, I want a President who will choose the hard, right road and take the political consequences for it.
The other issue that comes to mind when I talk about integrity involves campaign financing. I think it is generally agreed that Truman's warning to be wary of the military-industrial complex was correct, and that there is a modern problem with corporations wielding undue influence through campaign donations and lobbyists. Since arriving in Washington D.C., Barack Obama has worked on legislation to reduce this scourge which has caused great damage to our environment, our health care, our rights, and costs significant chunks of taxpayer money for private benefit. In his campaign he has not taken any money from Political Action Committees (PACs), and instead drawn his funds from individual donors exclusively. Moreover, he has pledged not to hire any lobbyists into his White House staff. To me, this means he hasn't been bought, and won't be obligated to give undue access or influence to anyone. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has claimed that it isn't realistic not to take PAC money, and has taken generous contributions from a variety of these sorts of groups. I haven't read her health care bill personally, but speaking to more than one friend involved in medicine, they all confirm that the bill she's presenting aligns strongly with the interests of the insurance lobby and health care industry. It may cover everyone, but it does so in a way that is expensive and benefits corporations more than it needs to, rather than focusing on the needs of doctors and patients. I have no doubt that this slant to her bill comes from working too closely with lobbyists and perhaps owing favors to people who have supported her campaign. I also worry that perhaps she learned the wrong lesson years ago when she tried to write health care legislation while her husband was president. I think maybe she was beaten so badly that she now overcompensates in her need to compromise to get things done. I worry that she may waste historic opportunities and set unfortunate precedents while in office because she lost so long ago. (For example, in the 40s during World War II, unions effectively lost the right to really strike in important industries because of the compromises of their leadership and some people in government, and that balance has stuck for the worse ever since.) I want someone who will work to curb corporate power and will take the strongest stands for their own values, and I think that Barack Obama is more likely to be that person.
One thing the president of the United States can do better than any other official is to get on the TV and in the newspaper and speak to the American people. It's a power that our founders hadn't really imagined, but has become immense with the modern media. With a few speeches a president can draw attention to an issue, and if he works at it tenaciously can often get his way in congress. This is because the president has the power to shift polls with the right words all across the country (and because congress sometimes must compromise a bit in order not to have other legislation vetoed.) There is no question that Barack Obama is a more uplifting, motivational speaker than Hillary Clinton, and thus would be able to wield this power far more effectively. Johnson used this power to create the Great Society, Kennedy to send us to the moon, even Bush was able to have No Child Left Behind. The scope of the project seems to be somewhat proportional to the leader... so I think it only makes sense to choose the leader who might inspire us to something larger and greater.
Republicans have gained a small advantage by consolidating behind their candidate early in the race. They have chosen, in my opinion, the most respected and electable of their number. This will make the race in November difficult, even in a year where you'd expect the Democratic party should win in a landslide on resentment over the war, the economy, the deficit, and the poor health care in this nation. They will be able to spend more time advertising their candidate, without any more time spending their own resources to attack themselves. The disadvantage for Republicans is that the Democratic party can evaluate their own candidates in terms of how well they will perform against the Republican nominee-to-be. In polling, John McCain has been shown to run slightly ahead of Hillary Clinton while running slightly behind Barack Obama. These percentages are all within the margin of error, and a lot will change between now and election day, but the point is that it's going to be a close race in November. Hillary Clinton now has one of the highest unfavorable ratings of all national politicians (over 40%) while Barack Obama doesn't have enough of a national political history for people to dislike him. This is important, as it means Hillary is not only disliked by almost all Republican voters, but there are a lot of independents already soured against her as well. This isn't her fault, it's mostly baggage from her husband's administration, but all the same she has it. Obama, by contrast, is one of the politicians most favored by independent voters, and you can tell that this translates to support if you look at the election results so far. Hillary Clinton won staunchly democratic states in the primaries so far, but Barack Obama has beaten her in states that traditionally vote Republican or are swing states. Considering how close the last few elections have been, doesn't it make sense to choose the candidate with the strongest appeal to swing voters? Campaigns in states throughout the "Heartland" have invited Obama to help campaign in the past years because they know he will help their candidacies. Hillary Clinton has received far fewer invitations, because those same people know she will not help their candidates. I respect John McCain for many of his positions, and his integrity, but his willingness to stay in Iraq for the next 100 years chills me. The idea of him winning in November disturbs me, and I urge you to choose the candidate more likely to defeat him: Barack Obama.
Good luck tomorrow. I hope I've provided you with interesting things to think about, or useful things to say to those you are caucusing with. (I apologize for a lack of references, I didn't have a lot of time today. I have tried to share only information from sources I trust.)
Much Love,
Alexander