Re: Hillary vs. Obama or whatnot, I'd rather be skeptical than duped/sorry. I never supported a Clinton candidacy, though clearly a few of her Obama critiques were accurate, relevant, and not completely resolved by his campaign so far. She isn't all full of hot air, and actually knows some things about real leadership. As I said before many times, Obama is clearly the best choice that the 2 major parties have offered in a while. But that's like saying the Honda CRV is the least polluting and most efficient SUV. Good but still bad.
My critical eye towards Obama, McCain, or whomever is partially a manifestation of general political distrust. And particularly when his media exposure is off the charts and generally positive (even though he hasn't really done anything yet), someone has to play the role of killjoy, or at least remind us to keep our heads. Didn't Obama and other dissenters do that against the prevailing Washington jingoism leading up to the Iraq invasion, and they turned out to be right? I think it's funny that Obama likes to remind us of that fact wherever he goes (except visiting troops and VFW gatherings), while McCain rarely, if ever, discusses his war experiences publicly. I definitely give the personal sacrifice and humility edge to McCain, though I guess very few major politicians could be characterized as humble. And as you know from my sports emails, I just like to hate on anything that's popular. :)
But I think it's also an OBLIGATION for all citizens, and especially supporters, to be critical. The secrecy of the Bush years, combined with less interest in government oversight (especially due to 9/11 fears and the "patriotism" debate), have demonstrated how damaging it can be when leaders operate freely without public scrutiny. Lumping praise on Obama (especially when thousands of people have already said the exact same stuff) doesn't make this country better. Constantly rehashing how "historic" his campaign is doesn't make this country better. Holding him accountable to be the best leader he can be and live up to his promises might make this country better.
It's like all those sports movies in Hollywood. The coach tells the star athlete, "I was hardest on you because I loved you the most, and you had the most potential to be great." There's no point coddling a candidate, which spoils them just like a child. I want to be hard on Obama because he might actually have a chance to do good. At work, when you sign your name on a collaborative report, you want to make damn sure you agree with all the data and conclusions beforehand. When you buy a used car, you want to know everything about that vehicle to ensure your purchase is justified. I want to make sure my vote is justified. If we really want positive change for America and the world, we have keep the heat on our leaders and not accept them and their message at face value. Of course we don't have to be jerks about it, and should also give credit when it's due. But they have professional press secretaries and publicists for that, so they don't need any extra help from us.
Yes I will be the first to admit that I tend to be pessimistic (you think?) about some Washington issues, based on my personality and the historical record. Sometimes I complain for comedy, other times to vent frustrations. Honestly, I would have rather voted for Ted Kennedy for the Dem nominee than Obama, before I found out he had a tumor of course. Politics has taken such a toll on his family, yet he didn't run away. He has stuck in the fight and served with dignity for decades, advancing some of the ideas that he and his constituents hold dear. That man, despite his faults and critics, has stood up for the powerless and shown love to his fellow citizens, no matter their background. That is heroism and leadership. He narrowly lost to Carter for the Dem nomination, in an ugly fight similar to Obama-Clinton, and the party never really healed during that election cycle. He might have been able to pick up where his brothers left off. I don't know.
And even though I guess you could label me as a leftist, that doesn't mean I will throw my blanket support to the candidate who seems the most liberal. While Obama is probably more liberal than the Clintons, he obviously angered many progressives by supporting the telecom immunity bill and other measures. I know that most presidential candidates have to drift towards the center as November approaches, but I don't think he should go back on his word and better judgment to score some political points, without sufficient explanation to us. Liberal, conservative, whatever - I will try to vote for the best candidate. Isn't that what Obama told us last night that this country needs?
--------
My thoughts on the matter are pretty brief but are as follows:
I was motivated and inspired by Obama's speech, and even though he probably already has my vote (in a state where my vote doesn't really count to sway anything), I still share T's somewhat pessimistic view. While Obama's policies and ideology seem better than what we've had in the past, I'm afraid its just rhetoric to get elected. What guarantee do I have as a citizen that his policies of change will come to fruition? If those policies are not enacted (not to say they even have to work), does his whole campaign of being "different than old Washington" come to anything other than political rhetoric which is no different than the very things in Washington he is trying to change?
One of my favorite political monologues comes from the romcom movie "The American President". At the end of the movie, Michael Douglass' character (President Shepard) talks about his opponent not understanding the American people (ie McCain not getting it). Obama's speech reminded me of that moment and how Shepard comes to the realization that its not that his opponent doesn't get it, rather, his opponent can't sell it.
I do hope Obama isn't just selling change, I really hope that he tries to enact it.
Last issues: Can dems stop taking credit for economic prosperity of the Clinton era? Dotcoms didn't bust because the Reb came to office. I think the Dems managed domestic policy better during that era, ie. Greenspan, but it was Greenspans policies that helped lead us to the credit crisis of today (not that Bernake) - i'm sure you more educated people have chimed in or will chime in on this.
--------
Oh, a few more points about Obama that I forgot to mention in the last email (sorry if I'm going on too long, but I only get to do this every 4 years!). Actually it seems that I may have more problems with the American campaigning system in general, the running of Obama's campaign, and his irrational supporters rather than the candidate himself. He is not responsible for other people's actions, but he does profit from them. So the buck stops with him. Or maybe The Daily Show sums it up better from their 8/28 episode (He completes us!):
http://www.thedailyshow.com/index.jhtml
Obama's good, but all the hype and adoration is just ridiculous, and frankly it bothers me. 200,000 Germans came out to see him speak - why? Because it's cool? He won't do anything for them, and they don't even know anything about his record. People get moved to tears when he says things that other politicians have said for decades. I'm not jealous (because there's no way I could fill his shoes), but I bet others are, and that may come back to bite him. It bothers me because I don't think he deserves it (yet), while so many other heroes have bled and even died for much less credit and admiration, if they're remembered at all. I would like his campaign to tone it down a little and show a bit more restraint/humility/maturity. All the silly buzz isn't his fault per se, but he sure isn't trying to discourage it (and in some cases he's stoking it). Some people he worked with in Chicago say he's really full of himself, and I can see he really loves the camera (hence the celebrity attack). He's had some great successes in his life, but it's not like he's Google. A few small miracles had to happen for him to even get this far, as well as political events beyond his control and a colossal meltdown by the inept Clinton campaign. It's so hard for nobodies like us to get recognized and promoted in our mostly dead-end jobs, yet he's lived a charmed life and risen to the greatest heights, while not actually having many concrete and impacting accomplishments. It's like giving the Nobel Prize to a recent graduate who hasn't even had a major discovery yet, but has the potential to do so in the future. It just doesn't happen, but that's not to say that it shouldn't happen. We just haven't seen it yet and don't know the consequences. As Andrew said months ago, Hillary is the old veteran (despite still being a fairly junior senator) who gives you predictable stats every season, but won't be MVP. Obama is the unproven hot rookie prospect who could have a monster year if things go his way. No matter what anyone says, electing Obama is taking a risk. Sometimes risks pay off big time, and maybe the risk is justified if the alternatives suck worse.
I know that Obama rallies are like rainbows of American tapestry. He has supporters of every imaginable background. But actually you can say that of every major presidential candidate. America is so big that there's always going to be a gay Jewish lawyer, blue-collar black man, Asian soldier, white college student, or Native American single mom who will vote for you. And it's not like Obama has facilitated all these disparate groups getting together and reconciling their differences. We all still hate each other. So yes I think it's good that Obama has energized the Dem party and gotten young people interested, even gotten some apolitical people to vote for the first time. But sometimes I wonder if they're doing it because they love America and want to see it get better, or just because it's the cool, popular thing to do. If they cared so much about this country, this wouldn't be the first time they're voting.
I think it's hilarious how politicians on the campaign trail speak of the war veteran with one leg, laid off factory worker, or single mom working 3 jobs to pay for night school, to demonstrate that they care about us and understand our problems. Are they having those people over for dinner after the speech? Will they even remember them if it wasn't for their speech writers? And they're so rich - if they really sympathize with those people's situations, why don't they write them a check for $100,000 on the spot? How's that for a PR moment? Maybe the fact is that they DON'T CARE, or they don't care about us as much as delivering great speeches and winning the office. We are just a means to an end, and such insincerity makes my blood boil. I know most politicians do "care" about us somewhat, but when push comes to shove, they care about their careers, their funders, and other important people more. No one ever gave a crap about the little guy, not even Lenin or Mao. I'd like to hear the speeches where candidates talk about their $5,000 plate dinners they had with Hollywood stars and other VIPs, or secret industry conferences that are "no press allowed". I'm sure that would go over well at the conventions.
And to me, it's kind of insincere and cheap for Obama to flaunt his humble upbringing to legitimize his "working class roots" and connect with such voters today. It's almost like he's bragging about formerly being poor, which is almost as bad as bragging about being rich (which he is today). A humble upbringing deserves a dignified, humble reflection on the lessons he learned from that experience. He doesn't have to plaster it all over the 6 o'clock news. His mom and grandmother loved him very much, and toiled to give him a good start on life. If he wants to express his gratitude for their sacrifice, then by all means. But what does that have to do with the presidency? We can read his books for that. I know it's his life and I have no right to tell him what to do, but as a voter, I don't approve of the practice and it reflects on his judgment. More importantly, is it even relevant? As Hillary said, is Obama a foreign policy expert just because he lived briefly in Indonesia as a kid? The struggles that Obama and his family went through decades ago are unfortunate, noble, and I'm glad he has made a better life for his loved ones now. But what he experienced in the 1970's has very little bearing, if any, on the troubles of families in a pinch today. It's a very different world and economy, and it's been some years since the Obamas have gone without (Michelle's family is fairly well off I think). Plus he was just a youth, and I doubt he totally understood what was taking place around him. I can't believe Joe Biden said on Wednesday that Obama understands the military and the duties of Commander in Chief because his grandfather served under Patton. Are we electing a candidate, or just his legacy? Bush asked his daddy's geriatric Cold Warrior friends to help him manage the War on Terror, and they were not able to adapt to this new form of warfare and counterinsurgency. The past can be a helpful guide, but it's still the past. Obama often criticizes McCain for having 20th Century thinking, but then why does he keep invoking his 20th Century past as credentials for president and "one of us" status in the 21st Century?
That leads me to this final point: are we electing a president based on what he has done and can do, or who he is and what he represents? Maybe it's a combination of all that. A singer in the Black Eyed Peas was interviewed by CNN about Obama yesterday. He was asked if he did research on Obama before he chose to support him. The singer said no, but later he read things that he liked. Hmmmm. So clearly some Americans refuse to support Obama because he's black, and other Americans want to elect Obama just because he's black, or new, or whatever. People don't have to have a "reason" why they like one candidate over another (and certainly don't require my approval). It is their vote and theirs alone, but it is worrisome if people make such consequential decisions lightly, or blindly. I hate to address race, but it is playing a role, and frankly I'd rather hear Obama speak about that than religion. Let's be honest; some people only support Obama because he's black. Take the exact same person and have him coming from two white Kansas parents instead of one, and you get a state senator at best. I don't know how many Americans, but they're out there, and I think they may cancel out the number of people who hate him for his race. The same can be said of some of Hillary's female supporters. Make her a man, and she's not even Ted Kennedy.
Different is unappealing to some but attractive to others, just for the sake of difference. How the heck can we Americans elect the most powerful person in the world just because they're the first of their kind with the chance? I'm not going to vote for McCain, not even if he was a Viet Californian Catholic scientist from the UC System. Actually that would turn me off even more! If Obama is the best for the job who happens to be black, then no problem. But really, I think some Obama and Clinton backers are just so enthusiastic to see a black person or woman gain power, that it might drown out their other sensibilities. Maybe they see part of themselves in the Oval Office, and they feel pride that somehow they are finally represented fairly and their leader thinks of them, because he/she is one of them. Maybe it's vindication after centuries of injustice, but the presidency should not be decided by affirmative action. Didn't MLK say that we should judge people, not by the color of their skin, but the content of their character?
--------
No comments:
Post a Comment