Wednesday, February 06, 2008

Barack and a hard place

I agree with everything Blake Fleetwood says -- except for his conclusions.
After being impressed by Biden, flirting with Richardson, loving Edwards, agreeing with Kucinich, I am now ready to make an adult decision.
He has decided against Obama, for these reasons:
When did he take on the banking interests, as they made bankruptcy more difficult for the poor and middle class? When did he stand up and courageously vote for a woman's right to choose? When did he take on the Health Care Establishment? Why did he register a "present" vote in the Senate when the Republicans and conservatives voted to censure Moveon.org?
For example, yesterday there was an investigative story in the New York Times about how Obama watered down his Nuclear Power Spill Disclose Bill under pressure from a $250,000 donation from Exelon Corp., the owner of the plant. Also noted was Obama's campaign manager David Axelrod's connection to the very same nuclear power company.
I cannot agree with Fleetwood's assessment of Obama as a "poet" and a great orator. He ain't all that. He's a Rorschach test, onto which each Democrat projects a personal dream (JFK lives again!), and onto which each Republican will project a personal nightmare (a Muslim in the White House!). Democrats want a grand and inspiring speaker, and so he seems to be one -- even though his rhetorical gifts are actually pedestrian.

Hillary, argues Fleetwood, is pre-disastered: The worst to be said about her has been said already. Unlike Obama, Hillary inspires true hate -- and that's a good thing:
Hillary has many enemies because the right wing instinctively understands that she is a real threat to their interests. In today's Times, Paul Krugman compared Hillary and Obama's Health Care bills. He concludes: If Clinton wins, "there is some chance we'll get universal health care in the next administration. If Obama gets the nomination, it just won't happen."
That's why the progshit rap against the Clintons -- "They're both Republicans! They're worse than Bush! The 90s were the Nightmare Years!" -- has always bugged me. If the Clintons are so damned conservative, then why do real conservatives despise them with such psychotic vehemence? I want to vote for a candidate loathed by the people I loathe.

Yet I didn't.

I voted for a chocolate Easter bunny, cute and brown and hollow. I did so because Barack Obama stands a better chance of winning in the general, and that, god help us, is that.

Unless...

This Guardian story takes a closer look at the Tony Rezko business. We had best look into every cranny of this affair now (and by "now" I mean NOW), while we still have another horse in the race.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

For God's sake Joe, how could someone as smart as you fall into the "we'd better vote for someone clean" trap? The Republicans will try to smear and destroy anyone who opposes them. Whether they are actually clean or not is irrelevant - remember John Kerry and Max Cleveland? We need to give up the fantasy of nominating a smear-proof figure and start nominating a fighter. Kerry's problem (apart from the rigged voting machines) was that he wasn't a fighter. Frankly Obama doesn't strike me as one either.

Whatever Obama looks like now, if he gets the nomination he will look much worse in November when the Republicans get through with him. He has never been vetted and will not be by either Hillary or the press (for different reasons both too obvious to go into). Why not vote for someone who genuinely represents your interests and has as good a chance as anyone to beat the Republican machine - better because she has already withstood all that this country can throw at her from both sides of the aisle?

I agree with everything you said in this post about Hillary, though in fairness, I read the story about Obama and it does not sound that bad to me - but then Whitewater wasn't anything either.

Anonymous said...

Somewhere in the night it dawned on me that Obama to Democrats may be the equivalent of the 2000 Bush to Republicans. Reaching across the aisle, all the feel-good stuff, motivational, not very experienced. I'm hoping we don't fall into that trap like they did. I think these are hard times and I think we need a hard president. I don't want or need to "feel good" while the country goes down the tubes.

Miss P.

Citizen K said...

Lawrence Lessig speaks for twenty minutes on why he is for Obama. Can't argue with the facts!

http://lessig.org/blog/
2008/02/20_minutes
_or_so_on_why_i_am_4.html

Anonymous said...

Joe, This post from looseheadprop on firedoglake makes the case for Obama's Achilles heel with far more clarity and depth than the Guardian piece. You may want to check it out: http://firedoglake.com/2008/02/06/nobodys-hands-are-perfectly-clean-in-politics/#

Anonymous said...

I voted for Hillary Clinton because I am sick of hearing Obama's "we are all the same" schtick. I do not want someone who will work with Republicans, we've already seen how that bipartisan stuff works. I want a Democrat who is will stand up to Republicans. I want someone who Republicans hate, because she will not bother trying to buddy up to them.

She does not "speak to my soul". But she has a well-earned reputation for being a hard worker. She is smart and well versed in every issue. She gives a straight answer when she is asked a question. Obama taks a lot, but he doesn't say much of substance as far as I can hear.
And this whole notion that Hillary has thrown everything she can dig up at Obama, I think is wrong. Hillary has been really quite nice to Obama. Republicans will not be nice. Also, maybe he is not aware of it, but Republicans are not constrained by the truth. They will have a field day with him. Hillary has been accused of some vile things and she keeps on smiling. I think after 15 years of being demonized she is ready for a little payback. I mean she invented the term "vast right wing conspiracy". Remember how that term was ridiculed?