A response to a question on another thread as to why I support Obama: 

1. Health care - I actually like his health care proposal better. I think it has a much better chance of getting passed as is, or as close to "as is" as possible. I think there's not a chance in hell of getting a mandate passed, as seems to be backed up by the latest article from The Hill, so it seems to me, to be better to focus our energy on ensuring portability, cutting costs, and getting rid of the ridiculous "pre-existing condition" crap. Both plans have plans to do this, but I think all the talk of a mandate is really just political-speak b/c I have serious doubts we'll ever get there. Same goes for his mandate on children. In any event, if I was voting only on health care I'd be voting for Nadar, as I think single payer is better than either Obama or Clinton's proposals.


2. Foreign policy - I think the approach of talking to world leaders is the right one to take now. It really bothers me how America is looked on by the rest of the world. I don't think talking about nuclear obliteration and insulting world leaders is the way to fix that. I think he has continually shown better judgement and more understanding of foreign policy nuance. For example, his statement about acting on actionable intelligence in Pakistan that was jumped on by his opponents? He was absolutely right. Actually, I'd like to just direct you to this article, if you haven't read it. It touches on every single reason why I think his foreign policy is superior. And, I might add, his foreign policy is probably the one area where I agree with him on just about every single point.


3. Government Ethics Reform - I think his proposals in this area are much more specific, targeted, and likely to be more effective than Senator Clinton's. I think that using technology to open up government is the only path to take. His proposals include creating databases to shine the light on lobbyists, campaign finance, contracts, earmarks and corporate tax breaks. I have only seen Senator Clinton propose a similar database for contracts only. In an extension of government transparency, he'll open up communications in the WH, release records, require earmarks to be public for 3 days before approval. I really love the idea of putting all non-emergency legislation online and allowing the public to read and comment on it before it is voted on. I think opening up government is the only way to restore any sense of trust in it after what Bush has done. I think Senator Obama's proposals on this area are much more far-reaching and comprehensive than Senator Clinton's, and his legislative record backs up this priority.


4. Government effectiveness - Okay, this gets a little more vague, but you asked why, so this is part of the answer. I think the only way government is going to stop spending so much time on bullshit is if the American people start breathing down their necks. His ethics reform proposals are part of this, but the other part is about those speeches and "inspiration" that his opponents like to criticize. Inspiration motivates. This is not a guarantee. I have no way of knowing for certain whether he can keep the American people involved for the next four years. But I think a great factor in his success has been the simple use of the pronoun "we". I think keeping Americans involved in the political process is a delicate recipe that includes the use of technology and inspiration. It seems to me that he is the candidate most capable of doing this. As Joe Trippi said: 

"Imagine, he says, the next Inaugural Address: The new president “lays down his agenda and says, ‘I need you to be with me.’ ” Millions of the president’s supporters not only watch the speech but also communicate with each other online and join (or launch) efforts to mobilize support for the proposals. The network amplifies the president’s voice, connects and energizes his supporters, and focuses pressure on Congress.“It is possible that … years from now we will look back and say that this was the first interactive president and the change of an era,” Trippi says. “You now have more and more people who understand that they can affect other people by using these tools. That’s growing. And it’s not going to go back into a bottle.”


5. Finally, this is in reference to a trait, which you may find vague, but it is also part of the reason. Senator Obama seems to me to be a person who has the rare ability to actually understand two sides of an argument. This has been a quality that Bush has adamantly not displayed, much to my chagrin. I want a President who is willing to surround themselves with opposing opinions and actually take in what everyone has to say. Here are some of the examples in which I think he has displayed this:


Apparently, in Chicago, police abuse was a big problem, resulting in false confessions by some who were later found to be innocent. He proposed a bill to address the problem, by videotaping the confessions. It was opposed by the police, the prosecutors, most of the state senate and the Governor. Through weekly negotiations with each of these groups, they were able to find common ground and the bill passed unanimously.  

He also helped me to understand the other side on an issue I suppose I had been taking a stubborn view on: gun control. I couldn't understand why anyone would not agree to these measures. In one of his books somewhere, he made a cultural comparison that made me look at it in a new light. He talked about how some views laws restricting guns the way others view laws restricting books. I brought this up with my brother. We were born and raised in Western Pennsylvania, and most of his friends are hunters and gun owners. I told him that I was looking at it in a new light, and he made the point that he didn't think the government had any right to restrict gun ownership. To which I said, "Well, I just want my son to be able to go to school without worrying whether he's going to get shot." My brother then said, "Well, when you put it like that, I guess it's reasonable." Such a simple exchange, I know, but it makes the point that diametrical views can often have some common ground.


An article on Obama and affirmative action that I think again demonstrates this.

I have seen story after story that solidifies this opinion, on everything from abortion to education reform.  

Nothing drives me more crazy than when GW acts like he's standing by his principles while refusing to take in any new information. As far as I'm concerned, refusing to even be willing to change your mind in light of new information doesn't mean he's principled, it means he's an idiot. Conversely, changing your mind does not make you a flip-flopper if you have changed your mind for good reason out of new information. It means you have an open mind.


Also, when I voted for him on Super Tuesday, electability was a factor in my decision. Not only did I find him a better candidate, but I thought he was far and away more electable. The Rev. Wright story has put a major dent in that argument, I acknowledge. I still think he remains more electable than Clinton. But to be sure, there was always some risk in putting either a black man or a woman at the top of the ticket, regardless of who they are. Either way, I think both are far better choices than McCain, and I think the Democrats have the issues on our side for this election. I will vote for Clinton in a heartbeat if she is the nominee. Will I be disappointed? Absolutely. But not to the extent that I am willing to sacrifice my Democratic ideals and perhaps most importantly, any Supreme Court seats.