WHY I CHANGED MY MIND AND DECIDED TO VOTE FOR OBAMA
>
There was a time when NARL meant something that was part of the struggle for liberation and progress. Since then they've become another conniving Inside the Beltway interest group that will back a Joe Lieberman as he seals the fate of our Judiciary by manipulating the confirmation of an anti-choice fanatic like Alito. Before NARL descended to that place of dishonor, it was brilliantly led by Kate Michelman who managed to accomplish everything that Lieberman's allies are attempting to wipe out today. I'm not sure if NARL is supporting Clinton or McCain or what Insider candidate they've made a slimy deal with, but Kate, an Edwards backer, wrote a great appeal at HuffPoon behalf of Obama Saturday.
The question I have been asking myself and others during my entire life in public policy and throughout this 2008 presidential Campaign-- the question which tens of millions of women and men have also been asking-- is how do we best bring America together in shared purpose, prosperity and, especially, equality.
Barack Obama, like John Edwards, is redefining what is possible and in so doing he's changing us, each one of us.
Many who had given up on politics are re-engaging. Many who had grown tolerant of the intolerable are now ready to demand more-- and not just from themselves but others. And many who had given up believing that the ideals of equality, dignity and justice would ever again be as politically important as money and power, now believe again.
And this too is why I'm endorsing Senator Barack Obama.
Barack and John Edwards were different candidates, with different backgrounds and life experiences, but all these many months and really throughout their lives, they have been on a common path.
Both are focused on changing our politics, both are committed to shaking the foundation of the Washington establishment, and both are profound voices for what our country should and can be.
DWT readers are probably aware that I was for Edwards too-- or, more appropriately, for Edwards' ideas. I wasn't terribly enamored with the candidate himself; I'm not terribly enamored with any of them and I like many of the ideas all of them have been talking about (the Democratic ones, obviously; the Republicans' ideas are hateful and ugly). After Edwards dropped out, my immediate reaction was to just vote for him anyway in the hope of sending a message to whichever Democrats come to power that out beyond the Beltway, there are Democrats in the grassroots who want the progressive vision John Edwards was voicing to be the predominant direction of the Democratic Party. Politicians don't take messages to heart. They take power to heart. I decided to vote for Obama.
He isn't perfect; what candidate ever has been? But the symbolism he represents is what I'm voting vote; I'll pray the rest works out. Hillary's symbolism has something going for it too. Half the people in this country will be justifiably heartened to see the ultimate glass ceiling shattered by her elevation to the White House. That alone is almost enough for me to want to vote for her tomorrow-- and I will certainly have no problem whatsoever supporting her if she faces off against the odious McCain in November-- unlike some of the childish and naive Obama supporters who are already threatening to take their bat and ball home and pout. But, for me at least, the Obama symbolism of hope and a new dawn is also powerful and compelling.
Whoever wins the nomination will be the victim of vicious, desperate smears from the far right; count on it. I have a sense they will have a harder time making their case stick with significant numbers of voters with Obama than with Hillary. I feel that any Democrat will beat any Republican in 2008. Americans are fed up with their greed and hatred, their selfish divisiveness and grotesque incompetence. A Democratic landslide at the top of the ticket could help replace hard core fascist-leaning legislators like James Inhofe with Andrew Rice or John Cornyn with Rick Noriega or Mean Jean Schmidt with Victoria Wulsin, Scott Garrett with Dennis Shulman, Robin Hayes with Larry Kissell. Obama is probably the Democrat best-suited to go up against a crabby, brittle reactionary Republican like McCain. He's well-suited to make a case for progressive values and principles and to banish the era of credibility-free divisiveness that has marked the ascendancy of George Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and John McCain.
The politics of the Clinton camp have always looked ugly to me. Hillary has surrounded herself with some of the worst and most corrupted elements of her husband's mediocre administration. I suspect many of them, alas, will find comfortable homes in an Obama administration too-- but hopefully without quite as much influence and power. So tomorrow I'll be up bright and early to walk down the hill and vote in one of my neighbor's garages. I'll look forward to voting for a forward-looking vision for my country. Halfway across the country, there's a vote just as important to me, one I can't take part in because I live in California, not Illinois. I'll be talking about that election later today.
Labels: Barack Obama, Democratic presidential race
18 Comments:
I don't think Bill Richardson endorsed Hillary. NPR had originally reported that he was going to do so, but then retracted their story.
So now your with Obama....make up your mind man! How can we keep up with all this back and forth indecision.....some of us take our marching orders from this blog and now what? Jesus,,,,,,,,let's all go back to the Edwards vote,,,,,he won't win of course..but neither will Obama......and at least we will remain consistant and all on the same page.....so can you re-endorse Edwards.....so I won't feel foolish......let us know oh mighty one.......
Hey, I live in Los Feliz too! But please, don't vote for someone just because of what I'm doing. It's more important that you think for yourself and make your own decision. Like I said, Edwards or Hillary are perfectly good choices. And watch your parking meters.
Ditto on the Edwards to Obama now.
GO JOHN LAESCH! IL14!
A Fresh Face. A Vet for a CHANGE.
Obama really is the best person for the position of prez. Consider all Bush has done, then reflect on these facts: 1. President Bush practically endorsed Hillary over ALL other candidates when he was interviewed by ABC a while back. 2. Bush Sr. is a "chummy pal" of Bill Clinton. 3. Bush Sr. vowed to help Hillary with foreign matters should she become president. Does anyone in their right mind think Hillary should be our democrat nominee?
I'll vote for Hillary against McCain any day, but the biggest reason I'm supporting Obama is that I'll actually be able to get my two teenaged boys to come down to the polls and vote with me!
Until now, they have been convinced that "all politicians are the same" because "they just say whatever they need to say to get elected" and then they "stop listening" to the people they are supposed to be leading.
He won't be perfect, but Obama certainly seems capable of listening, which is not a quality I see in Hillary (despite her photo ops claiming the contrary!)
I'm still voting for Hill. I'm one of those troublesome white woman. This country NEEDS nuturing! The guys have had their chance - what a mess.
go for it e,
AND
I am sure YOU know, but for those who don't- there is a big difference between being female, feminine and nurturing.
Men own some percentage between 0 and 100 of the last two, just like women.
I know bil...men can be nuturing - I just haven't seen any evidence of that in the last eight years. I've got to say, I really like Wes Clark, and he's endorsing Hill. That's good enough for me. Bottom line - I just want the republicans OUT OF THERE! If Bar gets the nod, he gets my vote.
I’m glad you’re taking a stand here for Obama instead of doing something “symbolic”.
I’m planning on voting for him tomorrow too, but I have to admit it’s with some misgivings.
Mike McIntire’s front page article in this sundays NY Times about Obama ‘s dealings with nuclear issues in his home state was disheartening to say the least... when it comes to standing up against lobbying groups.
And it seems like we’d have a better shot at universal health care with Hillary.
Despite all that, I think Obama has great intentions, and an ability to inspire and motivate people into action in a way that we haven’t seen in a long time.
... also, as far as that “Nuclear” article goes, the Times had already endorsed Hillary, and when they’re against you, WATCH OUT!
I understand your decision (capitulation?). I almost did so myself.
But I just can't do it. The thought of Obama campaigning with his "praising Jesus" and "working with republicans" lines just turns my stomach.
And that's not to mention his failure to call for Bush's impeachment and prosecution, actions that this country sorely needs.
Tomorrow I will cast a symbolic protest vote. My vote won't mean anything, but then, when did it ever?
H-man,
I'm still going with my Edwards vote on Super Tuesday. Honestly, I never thought he'd have the will to make it all the way through the primary. So, it turned out.
But, I like many of his positions, more so than those of Clinton or Obama. None are my "ideal" candidate. But, Edwards' ideas did help push Clinton and Obama in a better direction. And I still want to see those ideas in play.
My view may be a bit different from some/ many, but I am more concerned with House/ Senate races. Go Blue America!
VG
I'm a white women and an Obama supporter. I too am suspecious of their cozyness with the Bush family. I think the conditions for this are probably that Clinton will drop criminal investigations against the Bush family.
Down with Tyranny?? And yet you think Clinton would be a good choice. What has blinded you so badly? Clinton is the despot of the century! She and Chavez think exactly alike. Government control of everything is her unashamed idea of Democracy! As far as Obama goes...How fast do you want to be in Kenya? Oh, by the way, McCain sucks also.
Just pulled the lever for Obama this morning.
Two things made it easier:
1. He voted against the war from the start
2. Ann Coulter is voting for Hillary
(if McCain is the pigmy nominee)
Obama is the opiate of the people. Anyone that Oprah supports so strongly is as tied up in the corporate money-ocracy as Hillary.Young people love Obama because they haven't lived long enough to balance their idealist views with the real challenges in logistically implementing those ideals.Oh, and don't forget that George W. Bush was elected not based on his experience but based on his idealism and a desire for change - and bringing someone in from outside the beltway. Doesn't this all sound familiar?
I was a delegate to my states democratic convention in 1988 for Jesse Jackson. Now that man at that time was for REAL change and wasn't shy at being explicit about it. I can't believe 20 years later we're faced with this watered down field of choices. But, I appreciate that people are optimistic about thinking that the racist people in America will vote for Obama, I hope you're correct, but I have major doubts.
The Clinton-Obama debate is valuable, but as you wrote, local races shouldn't be ignored. As a voter and active Dem in NJ's 5th Congressional District, where Scott Garrett is our representative, I'm up on the details. Shulman can not beat Garrett. Camille Abate can. She's the right candidate, right place, right time, right skills. Politically active going all the way back to college and Mario Cuomo's election. Civil rights attorney. Right person.
Why did you match Schulman with Scott Garrett, and not mention the experienced civil rights attorney Camille Abate, who already has strong backing from many of the local unions and working class?
What has Schulman offered as qualifications so far except raising money and overcoming life obstacles?
Abate has stated many progressive positions, and has shown that she is genuine by her life's work of protecting civil and constitutional rights. http://blog.abate08.com
Post a Comment
<< Home