When John Edwards bowed out of the presidential race a few weeks ago I was bitterly disappointed. I vowed to vote for him anyhow (and I did), in the hope that any additional delegates that he won, or any additional votes that he received in the primaries would give him more influence at the Democratic National Convention. I continued to cling to the rapidly fading hope of a deadlocked convention, with the view that a deadlocked convention could turn to Edwards, or possibly someone else, such as Al Gore or Wes Clark, whom I much preferred over the two remaining candidates.
But I’ve now come to believe that that would be a very destructive course. For me, the straw that broke the camel’s back was when Hillary Clinton recently came perilously close to suggesting that John McCain would make a better President than Barack Obama, by suggesting that McCain had “more experience” than Obama with regard to Commander-in-Chief responsibilities.
Specifically, Senator Clinton:
Defending her provocative television ad suggesting he was not up to the challenge of answering the White House phone at 3 a.m. in a crisis, she told reporters at a news conference Monday in Toledo: “I have a lifetime of experience I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain (the presumptive Republican nominee) has a lifetime of experience he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he made in 2002″…
Crossing the lineI have always considered unwarranted negativity against fellow Democrats to be a virtual “deal breaker” as far as my Democratic primary vote is concerned. That is because as long as I have been voting for President (since 1972) the Republican nominee has been a catastrophic choice in my opinion. Therefore, unwarranted attacks by Democratic candidates against fellow Democrats suggest to me that the attacker has unbalanced priorities with respect to personal ambitions vs. the welfare of our country. Of course, one could say that that applies to
most presidential candidates to some extent. But I do feel that Senator Clinton’s recent statement crossed a very dangerous line, thereby seriously jeopardizing the welfare of our country.
In the first place, her statement plays right into the hands of the Republican Party. They are almost certain to use that stupid quote of hers if Obama runs against McCain. It plays right along with the only advantage that McCain currently holds – the ability to generate fear over the possibility of a supposedly “inexperienced” President Obama. If Hillary Clinton supports Obama in the general election over McCain she’s going to have a difficult time explaining away those remarks of hers, along with the stupid “3 a.m. White House phone call ad” that preceded those remarks.
Judgment is much more important than so-called experienceSecondly, those remarks of hers give John McCain way too much credit. It is not so-called
experience that counts most in a Commander-in-Chief, but judgment. If experience was really all that important we’d be hoping for another four years of George Bush and Dick Cheney. The very last thing that our country needs now is a President who intends to keep our country on its imperial course – in Iraq or anywhere else. Continued U.S. imperialism of the sort that we’ve seen for the past 7 years will mean the end of our Republic and very possibly the end of world civilization as we know it. Our nation is already at an
historic low with respect to world opinion. Continuing on our imperial course will add to our record low international esteem and unite the world against us.
John McCain’s vow to stay in Iraq for another hundred, thousand, or a million years is not the answer. The contrast on that score with Barack Obama is huge.
Obama was against the Iraq War from the beginning, and
he has vowed to reduce our presence in Iraq as quickly as possible upon becoming President.
Lastly, to imply that the only relevant experience that Obama has for the job is “a speech he made in 2002” is absurd. Besides being a U.S. Senator for four years, he has demonstrated an extensive grasp of foreign policy in his numerous speeches and debates. And again, his statements regarding our involvement in Iraq have consistently demonstrated far superior judgment to that of George Bush, Dick Cheney, or John McCain.
The scenario of a deadlocked ConventionAs it is, the Democrats have an excellent chance of regaining the White House in 2009, and it is absolutely imperative that they do so. But a prolonged bitter fight characterized by repeated unwarranted attacks will erase any advantage that the Democratic presidential candidate now holds. It will not only lower both candidates in the eyes of many American voters, but it will also drain tens or maybe even hundreds of millions of dollars from their campaign chests.
Furthermore, although I have often hoped that a different candidate would be drafted at the convention, I can see negative consequences from that too. Though I don’t share the views of those who have supported Obama or Clinton from the beginning, there are tens of millions of those supporters out there, and I imagine that a good proportion of them might be bitterly disappointed if the Convention swings to a third candidate. What kind of dynamics that would have on the general election, I’m not sure, but I see a lot of negative potential there.
Furthermore, Obama seems to have some sort of magic touch with his ability to raise money. I doubt that any other candidate chosen at the convention will be able to equal that.
The need for a Democratic victoryI’ve already mentioned the dire need for our nation to reject the imperialism that has characterized it over the past 7 years. World-wide terrorist attacks are at an
all time high under George Bush’s rule, and the Iraq War continues to (justifiably) stir up anti-American hatred and provide a
recruiting tool for al-Qaeda. It will only get worse if we elect another imperialist-minded president.
Perhaps the future of our Supreme Court poses the most important reason for electing a Democratic President. In a
recent post, I discussed the changes that John Dean and others believe will occur if one more radical right wing justice is appointed to the USSC. These include:
The
overturning of Roe v. Wade
The total
extinction of affirmative action
The enabling of our states to
overturn (page 68) our entire Bill of Rights without federal interference
Radical
curtailing of civil rights for women, homosexuals, and minority racial groups
The
declaring of environmental protection laws to be unconstitutional
The widespread
disappearance of habeas corpus
The virtual
creation of Christianity as a national religion
The
Dismantling of the Voting Rights Act of 1965
And then there’s a whole host of domestic issues. Many of us may have our differences with both Senators Obama and Clinton, but unlike John McCain they definitely do believe that government should be seen and used as a means to improve the lives of the American people. If you doubt that, see what Obama has to say about such domestic issues as
health care,
poverty, and
education. You won’t find anything like that on John McCain’s website. McCain’s idea of good domestic policy is the
continuation of Bush tax cuts for the rich, the
overturning of
Roe v. Wade, and
in health care “Families should be in charge of their health care dollars” (Gee, why hasn’t that been tried before?), without provision of government assistance.
Some final words about Barack ObamaI’ve criticized Obama in previous posts
for not being liberal enough in my view (especially in comparison with Kucinich and Edwards), especially for rhetoric which I found to be too harsh towards historic Democratic principles and
too conciliatory towards the likes of Ronald Reagan. I have to say that I had a very negative visceral reaction to that kind of thing (and I still do). But never did any of that ever cause me to lose sight of the fact that Obama (and Clinton too) would make a far better President than any of the Republican candidates.
The Nation is one of our country’s most liberal/progressive news magazines, and it too has expressed a lot of concern over Obama’s candidacy for much the same reasons that I have. But since Edwards pulled out of the race, it
had this to say about Obama's candidacy:
This magazine has been critical of the senator from Illinois… But… Obama has also exhibited a more humane and wise approach to foreign policy, opposing the Iraq War while Hillary Clinton voted for it, and has been a reliable progressive ally over the course of his career. While his rhetoric about "unity" can be troubling, it also embodies a savvy strategy to redefine the center of American politics… Most important, we feel his candidacy, in its demonstrated investment in organizing and grassroots activism as well as his personal appeal, represents the best chance to forge a new progressive majority. For these reasons we support Obama for President.
Obama's brand of grassroots politics should serve him well in the coming weeks. He has already galvanized a new class of supporters, delivered on the promise of turning out new voters and raised an astonishing amount of money from hundreds of thousands of small donors…
But the Obama coalition is relatively weak among Latino voters, as well as among the core Democratic constituencies of the elderly and the working class, who are most focused on bread-and-butter basics: making the economy work for the non-rich. As a moral and political imperative, he would do well to seize the mantle of equitable redistribution and broad economic security for those who live their lives on the precipice of bankruptcy and disaster.
While the GOP appears to be on the verge of nominating old war (mongering) horse John McCain… as we move toward November, we'll need all the energy we can get.
Yes indeed we will. I just hope that too much of that energy is not drained off in a fight between two Democrats.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
