An EXCELLENT READ from
MyDD:
by arkansasdemocrat, Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:17:03 AM EST
For months, I have been alarmed at the vitriol leveled against Democrats who aren't supporting Barack Obama on this and other blogs. I have been as snarky as anyone else, but as the Iowa vote nears I feel somewhat compelled to lay out in a dispassionate way why I am not voting for Obama, and I hope that it might even change a few minds among other members of this community.
1. Iraq / Opportunism
Obama has been as cynical as anyone else on Iraq. We have all heard, ad nauseum, ad infinitum during the year that Barack Obama opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning, thus proving that he possesses judgement that Clinton, Edwards, Dodd, and Biden lack. However, let's look at a few Obama quotes from before the campaign:
...when asked by the New York Times in July 2004 how he would have voted in 2002, he said, "What would I have done? I don't know."
Source:
http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/20 07/04/when-it-comes-to-his.php
I think what people might point to is our different assessments of the war in Iraq, although I'm always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn't have the benefit of U.S. intelligence. And, for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices.
Source:
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/Clearly, this is a Barack Obama that is divorced in some way from his rhetoric of 2007- constantly chastising his fellow candidates for their vote. I find this kind of contrived digust on the part of Obama pure political opportunism. It is repugnant. Obama wasn't in the Senate in 2002, we don't know how he would have voted, and apparently, neither does he.
I want as my President someone who has the intellectual consistency to carry a thought from non-campaign year to campaign year without flip-flopping on issues of core importance. He is playing on the emotions of Democrats without providing an honest accounting of his opinions.
2. Those Pesky "Present" Votes
I am aware that as often as not, these votes were a part of a strategy to protect vulnerable Democrats, but not always.
A few examples:
In 1999, Obama voted "present" on SB 759, a bill that required mandatory adult prosecution for firing a gun on or near school grounds. The bill passed the state Senate 52-1. Also in 1999, Obama voted "present" on HB 854 that protected the privacy of sex-abuse victims by allowing petitions to have the trial records sealed. He was the only member to not support the bill.
Source:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation feature?id=110009664
Why, you might ask, did Obama oppose these measures? Because he was about to oppose Bobby Rush in Chicago for a House seat, and apparently these bills weren't as popular in that district as they were with every one of his Illinois Senate colleagues. Again, this is pure political opportunism. But don't take my word for it:
An examination of Illinois records shows at least 36 times when Obama was either the only state senator to vote present or was part of a group of six or fewer to vote that way..."If you are worried about your next election, the present vote gives you political cover," said Kent Redfield, a professor of political studies at the University of Illinois at Springfield.
Source:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/20/a merica/20obama.php
What a gutless approach to being a legislator! This is not Presidential quality behavior, in my book.
3. Health Care
I'm one of the lucky ones. I have health care insurance, but I am concerned about those who don't. In a vacuum, Barack Obama certainly shares this concern. But his plan falls about 15 million people short of solving the problem. When confronted with this fact, Obama could have admitted it and moved on. Instead, he went on the attack- from the right. Our "liberal" choice in this primary chose to borrow from Harry and Louise (circa 1993) and bash mandated coverage. Mandates sound worse than they are, and I am sure that if enacted roughly 6 people somewhere without health insurance will be incensed. But, as of now, almost every serious health care expert agrees that it's the only way. And, as Paul Krugman argues:
But lately Mr. Obama has been stressing his differences with his rivals by attacking their plans from the right - which means that he has been giving credence to false talking points that will be used against any Democratic health care plan a couple of years from now.
Source:
http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/120707 HA.shtml
I agree with Krugman. Rhetoric like Obama's could shut the door of access to health care for the uninsured for another decade. That is irresponsible, and it dimishes my estimation of Obama.
4. Social Security
My criticism of Obama here is nearly the same as on health care. He is furthering a crisis mentality on Social Security, which is currently solvent. It's not in great shape but is not facing the same crisis situation as, for example, Medicare. What does Sen. Obama propose?
A tax hike that would purportedly
...raise more than $1 trillion over 10 years.
Source:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id= 3638710&page=1
That proposal, coupled with Obama's outright mocking of Sen. Clinton's more modest proposal in the Vegas debate, smacks of a crisis situation. Where does that lead? Well, if Obama is the nominee it means the following: 1. he is going to be hit hard from the right in the general about his Social Security tax hike. ($1 trillion!) That is not going to play well among swing voters, I imagine. 2. It gives a potential Republican president increased currency to go the privatization route. After all- Social Security is in crisis, right?
5. An Ugly Campaign
We've heard alot about Bill Shaheen and Bob Kerrey, but Obama has gotten a pass on his abhorrent campaign from the mainstream media.
*Axelrod's comments linking Clinton to the Bhutto assassination were heartless and irrational.
*Obama's "tea party" comments on Friday might not have been sexism, but it was close enough to make a lot of people, including this male very uncomfortable.
*The (D-Punjab) incident last spring was an absolute embarrassment to our party.
*His constant diatribe against his opponents as insiders who are part of a broken system is offensive. I am exhausted with politicians that disingenuously debase public service. John Edwards has been fighting for the poor for a decade. Hillary Clinton has been actively working for three decades on women and childrens' issues and for the last six on defense and foreign policy. Joe Biden probably saved Roe v. Wade by leading the fight against Bork. Etc. etc. These are good people, who deserve better from a neophyte opponent than having their judgement and dedication to our issues questioned.
6. Electability...That Old Hat
I have made this point several times on this blog, and others as well. Barack Obama is at his apex right now. He is an unknown quantity with loads of room for definitiion by the GOP filth machine. They are better at this than we are. If he is the nominee, by the time they get done with them we could very well be the victims of a landslide, not in our direction.
He's given them plenty of material. Between the proposed $1 trillion tax hike and his willingness to meet with "rogue" leaders as President of the United States and his weird comments about Pakistan last summer, there is already a lot of material for them to work with. Couple that with direct mail and 527 spending about past drug use (I'm sorry...it's out there) not to mention some of those present votes, and that's the election. (That "present" vote on trying people who fire weapons on school grounds as adults alone is a gift to the GOP.)
Believe me- Hillary Clinton and John Edwards have been downright polite to Obama compared to the Republicans. Rhetoric about "hope" and "a different kind of politics" won't cut it.
At the beginning of the campaign, I was enthusiastic about Obama. In the year since his campaign began I have become alarmed at the prospect of him as our nominee. He could still win Iowa, New Hampshire, and the nomination, but I doubt he'll be elected President.
We are lucky enough to have candidates in the race who don't leave room for definition, who ooze competence, and have been more courageous throughout their public careers. I recommend that we avail ourselves of one of those public servants and revisit Obama in eight years.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/12/31/0173/3785
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
