« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
How did you choose your favoured candidate?
So, I'd say this discussion is quite a simple one: say why you picked the candidacy you support, and discuss your reason and the reasons of others in a polite fashion (except for you, "present" and gotalife. You are allowed to post your reasons and participate in the discussion of your reasons, but I don't have the patience to police you in the discussion of others' reasons, which I know I would have to do if I let you, as I've been here long enough to predict your lack of common courtesy).
I'll start by saying I am an early Obamanaut, having picked him, I believe, before Iowa.
The reason for this is a strange one, being an admittedly niche issue that really doesn't effect (affect? screw it, I'm lazy) me directly.
I picked him over video games.
Obama is the only prominant candidate (as opposed to Mike Gravel [god only knows what he thinks], Kucinich, and, lets face it, Bill Richardson [my secondary choice]) who hasn't villainized them and called for their restriction, as opposed to Clinton, who is one of the most vocal critics of video games on the left.
Now, many of you are probably thinking "video games? He chose his candidate over video games? And he said that it doesn't effect him directly: does that mean he doesn't even play video games?" Well the answers are yes, yes, and my game system is a PS2, my newest game is Kingdom Hearts 2, and I never get around to playing anything anymore, so yes, though the other site I'm active on is Penny Arcade, and I'm somewhat in the culture.
So now the younger among you are probably thinking "omgwtfbbq?" and the older among you are thinking "what the hell does omgwtfbbq mean?" and both young and old are probably thinking "why won't he stop with the question and answer writing?"
The answers are:
1)If you think about it, does the gas tax holiday thing really matter, as it was never going to pass? Of course it did, and the reason it does is the same as why Clinton's rhetoric on video games matter. They both show that Clinton is willing to say or do anything to score political points.
The "harm" of video games is the most vacuous issue in modern politics (and yes, I have been paying attention for the last eight years). Video games are no more harmful than television, movies, punk, graffiti, rock, rock 'n roll, comic books, science fiction, jazz, radio (probably much less that this, as I video games have yet to produce a national panic resulting in people fleeing their towns and Hitler calling it "evidence of the decadence and corrupt condition of democracy."), swing (flappers, anyone?), ragtime, records, minimalism, burlesques, the printed word, writing, or auxiliary verbs. The opposition to them, just like all the things listed above, is pure pander, and a distinctive trait of a person not to be trusted in a position of governance (unless the person is really old and/or stupid, in which case he might actually believe it).
2) ongwtfbbq stands for "oh my god, what the f-ck, barbecue, and is an acronym used in half-serious surprise or perplexity.
3) Because I like this structure.
Comments (148)
Video Games!? Well OK, talk about a generation gap :)
I came to Obama early. I have to be honest Hillary concerned me. I was worried about her high negatives and the Bush, Clinton Bush, Clinton. This could end up being 28 years of the Presidency being held by two families. I digress. So Obama interested me and then I read Andrew Sullivan's article and I was there.
May 11, 2008 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I said, it wasn't so much the games themselves, but the rhetoric about them.
Can you post said article? Was it the one in the NYT over how Obama was going to be a great diplomatic internationalist? (that one started the lean)
May 11, 2008 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
The was in The Atlantic here's the link -
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/obama
Being of the Vietnam generation it really struck me.
May 11, 2008 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks.
May 11, 2008 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your most welcome.
May 11, 2008 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary gave interviews with game magazines and such, here's one interview, and it seems clear she's concerned about hidden sexual content in one interactive game, as well as whether the ratings system is enforced for sales to young kids just like movie theaters enforce ratings.
While I may expose my kids to certain content earlier, it's my choice, and other parents may have different standards - she seems to be asking for credible publication and adherence to standards. She cites studies referring to the effects of visualizing violence by young children - do you have anything specific to contradict this? Do you object to limiting access to Hustler by 9 year olds, and is it beyond the pale to make the sale of Hustler to 9 year olds criminal or at least carry significant fines? Similarly, do you object to parents wanting to limit access to "Henry, Portrait of a Serial Killer" or various Italian cannibal flicks to young children? Is an interactive video game where they can participate in decapitations and disembowlments just a free speech issue for 4th graders, or do parents trying to prevent a Columbine have some say or obligation to pay attention to their children's entertainment selections? Hillary doesn't make a blanket statement that all these games are bad - she notes that it can be individual. Plenty of kids may find that Death Race 2000 is no more behavior affecting than cowboys and indians or watching the Three Stooges, but some kids have trouble distinguishing reality from fantasy. What's your opinion on parental rights and duties, and how they can be effectively upheld for video games?
May 12, 2008 1:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for adding that context, Desidero.
May 12, 2008 2:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is that these concerns are covered by existing policies.
May 12, 2008 8:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obviously she felt different. What existing policy?
May 12, 2008 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Keeping track of what your kids do or do not watch is the parents responsibility, not the government or the store. That was the whole point of this blog. To say it is the government's duty to "protect" our kids from video game content because parents won't is a pander. It is speaking to most repressive and reprehensible instincts in our already overly-religious country.
Enforcing the rating system is reasonable, but any kind of censorship, self or otherwise, is ridiculous, Pollyanna and not in keeping with any studies done on the subject. Someone who is going to be adversely affected by video games will have the same affect from Bugs Bunny - it is the individual make-up not the media. There are already warning labels to provide context before a game is purchased. Anything other than that is up to the individual and shouldn't involve the government at all.
If your kid gets his hand on a game that you don't approve of then you take it from him. If you don't care enough to police what your kids watch, then why is that my concern or the government's concern? Just like if your kid sees a movie you find inappropriate. Does that mean we shouldn't make those movies? I agree that there should be more reasonable standards for rated R trailers. They have gotten over the top for where and when they play.
However, to initiate some sort of across the board witch hunt for some mythical enemy to American Families in "Hollywood"
is clearly going overboard.
May 12, 2008 8:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Government regularly censors what's on the airwaves before 10pm. Also ridiculous? Sorry, it's American reality. Government also pushes Hollywood to self-policy (read: self-censor) with MPAA ratings. What's the witch hunt to which you refer? The legislation was simply to say "if the rating says no sales to under 18, don't sell to under 18". We have similar for alcohol and tobacco and porn magazines and handguns. Can't see why this is controversial at all. The parents are responsible, if they don't mind the kid watching it the parents can buy it. Allowing sales to minors and putting the burden on the parents to catch them is a pretty backwards approach - they've already specified content suitable for a specific age, and then you want to require detective work from each and every parent rather than the more obvious point of sale.
May 12, 2008 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
So why are video games pornographic? They already follow the same guidelines as movies.
May 12, 2008 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
If they're rated the equivalent of R or X, then they shouldn't be sold to under-18's without parental permission, not that an R rating is "porn" or even an X necessarily. What exactly are we debating?
May 12, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
"We have similar for alcohol and tobacco and porn magazines and handguns."
Movies do not have these laws. They're followed by convention, but they are only enforced through the civil courts.
May 12, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Theaters are a few chains that police themselves rather well. It is a much better controlled environment than hundreds of thousands of stores that sell video games, and the distributors have a lot at stake in making sure their self-policing works relatively well.
May 13, 2008 12:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
What about movie stores?
May 14, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
No where did I say we should allow sales to minors or that we should have standards, but if somehow a minor gets his hands on an adult rated game, it is up the parents to be aware of what video games their kids play. Period. The only one responsible for this is the parents. You don't need to be a detective to know what your kids are doing.
The witch hunt I refer to is in how you frame your rhetoric.
Somehow "Hollywood" is responsible for ensuring that nothing is produced that could possibly offend a small segment of the population or that they are somehow responsible for some people's piss-poor ability to be parents.
May 12, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I only add that if anyone on TPM knows about the psychic effect of computer imagery, well.....take a look.
May 12, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, Hollywood can produce as much porn as it wants.
It simply can't sell porn to minors. It's the law, and a rather simple and basic one at that.
Yes, parents still have to try to track what their kids do anyway, but they have the right to know that stores are not selling content illegally to their children. As long as the kids are under 18, it's the parent or guardian's decision, not a store clerk's. You can go through the same equation with any other controlled item - why can't a clerk sell a 9-year-old rum? Isn't it the parent's job to watch what the kid does? Why force companies to put fences around large pits in the ground? Isn't it the parents' responsibility to track where their kids go?
May 12, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
And regarding "you don't need to be a detective to know what your kids are doing", some parents work 70 hours or more a week for survival. That's part of life - I've known a fair number of immigrants running grocery stores in this position, nurses pulling lots of overnight shifts, and other cases of overwork to try to provide for the kids.
May 12, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
None of those examples have artistic or journalistic merit, which you have to say is absent in a product before censoring it (that is how the supreme court struck down laws governing what can be put in film)
May 12, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it's being withheld from children, not censored from the adult market. Plenty of toys have markings to state their intended audience.
May 13, 2008 12:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
But it is still legal for children to buy them.
May 14, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
What about rap?
Obama, the first presidential candidate to call for shock jock Don Imus to be fired for his racist comments about the Rutgers University women's basketball team, has said it's troublesome to condemn Imus' "nappy-headed hos" slur without addressing similar language used by rap and hip-hop musicians.
from Jake Tapper
May 12, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
If this is still about video games, the issue is not to restrict speech of artists, it's to allow parents the choice of restrict that access to their children. Presumably parents should be able to restrict Imus and rappers and other forms of unwanted misogyny if it's over the airwaves or via CDs and games.
May 12, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
That sounds a bit crazy... but I don't think it is.
You're right, Hillary is a panderer extraordinaire. She might want to ban violent movies or violent weapons (you know, guns and stuff) but no, it's video games. Old people don't understand video games and young people don't vote, therefore it's safe to lead the righteous fight against video games.
May 11, 2008 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now your reason.
And yes, I will pop up in other discussions to remind you until you give your reason.
May 11, 2008 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, forgot about that. Dynasties = bad. Pandering = bad. Twisting the truth beyond all recognition = bad. Entitlement = bad. That's Hillary. I never thought she was this horrible, but she did her best to leave no doubt.
I initially didn't pay much attention to Obama, but the more I heard of and from him, the more I liked him. He really is a brilliant orator, he sounds sincere, he takes what he does very, very seriously. He strikes me as someone who might indeed change things, and for the better at that. Someone worth voting for, not just against his opponent. The way he energized young voters is impressive.
Out of Clinton, McCain and Obama, only Obama seems to live in the 21st century. That alone is a good reason to support him.
May 11, 2008 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
And there you have it.
By the way, I liked your vid game comments.
May 11, 2008 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I concur. The dynasty angle had me moderately biased against Senator Clinton's candidacy.
When I was listening to her last fall, though, I was beginning to think I could support her after all, perhaps even enthusiastically. Then the primary campaign started. First, Obama's rhetoric resonated with me more than Clinton's, and I sensed a real charisma that Clinton lacked. She was good on the stump, no doubt, but she wasn't inspirational, and I thought Obama could inspire.
The flap made over Obama's comments about Reagan probably are what convinced me to back him, for multiple reasons:
1. Obama's comments showed he was thinking very strategically, that he believed he could push the country to the left, countering how Reagan pushed it to the right. That vision is important.
2. The flap Clinton made over it distorted what Obama had said: it wasn't an endorsement of Reagan or his policies, but it was an honest recognition that Reagan was an effective politician and leader.
3. Yes, Obama's comments did take a swipe at Bill Clinton's record as president, but, IMO, justifiably so. Clinton was elected in 1992 with control of both houses of congress, but he left with the Democrats in a minority in both Congress and most statehouses. Certainly the country was far better off under Clinton than it has been under Bush, and Bill justifiably deserves credit for that, but where Reagan led the country closer to his own vision, at best Clinton mollfied and perhaps slowed a continuing rightward drift in the American electorate. He was unable to lead it back.
Now it's far from clear that Obama will be able to deliver on his promise, but the more I heard of both candidates, the more it became clear to me that Clinton was running to become president simply to hold the office, to be the first woman president, whereas Obama was running for president to put the country on the right course.
Obama is not perfect, but he's saying (to me) all the right things: he generally uses the first-person plural (yes we can), where Clinton tends to use the singular (when I am president...). Obama is aware he makes mistakes and is willing to admit them, which is a refreshing change from the Bush years.
While I had already decided to support Obama, as Senator Clinton and her surrogates increasingly sought to portray Obama as the "black" candidate, I was increasingly repulsed. I have an odd mixture of admiration and contempt for the strategy. Clinton has done an excellent job at dictating the "issues" the media discuss: Rev. Wright, "bitter-gate", Obama the elitist, the gas tax holiday, etc. Also, at first the attacks were vague or subtle enough to provide plausible deniability that race-baiting was a conscious strategy. Bill Clinton's mentioning Jesse Jackson was to me a case in point: his words were nothing but complimentary to both Rev. Jackson and Senator Obama, but they did achieve the goal of equating the two in the minds of many listeners.
Trying to use race to marginalize Obama is, in my opinion, terribly wrong. I thought at first it was also bad tactics in a Democratic primary (although I thought it might be effective in a general election). Senator Clinton's relative strength in many recent primaries has me questioning whether it has been much of a negative for her among rank-and-file Democrats. But I do think the tactics have hurt her significantly among superdelegates, who, ironically, may be serving their intended purpose well.
To me, Senator Clinton never really made a strong, positive case why she should be president. Her campaign ran on its "inevitability", and it stressed her experience, but it didn't really emphasize why she wanted to be president or what she hoped to accomplish. And later her campaign morphed into an almost total negative one: vote for me because Obama is too inexperienced, or too black, or is simply unable to win the general election.
Obama wants to bring "change" (leaving open that different people may expect different types of "change"). He wants to end our costly occupation in Iraq. He wants to bring improved (albet, as Paul Krugman constantly reminds us, not universal) access to health care to our country. He is concerned that our economy is not benefiting most Americans, and he hopes to improve that.
On policy grounds, there is still little difference between the two, and either would be a significant improvement over Bush or McCain. But on style grounds, and potential, I find Obama far more appealing. He truly does send a new message to the world, that America is not simply George Bush and his "with us or against us" brand of unilateralism. But based on the tone and handling of their campaigns, I trust Obama far more to make a cleaner break from the policies of Bush. I believe he can inspire more Americans towards a shared purpose, and we can make America a better place.
May 12, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
In Obama, we have the first highly charismatic liberal politician since John Kennedy. This is a chance to finally elect a liberal President, after a very long dry spell filled with Republicans and pandering centrist Democrats. With President Obama working together with a Democratic congress, this country might finally embrace compassion as part of our public policy. Maybe we can put behind us the ugly Republican ethic of selfishness. It will be a difficult election this fall, but the potential rewards are immense.
May 11, 2008 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Slightly off topic, but remember that:
JFK didn't want to deal with Civil Rights, it was forced on him.
JFK had a rather hawkish view on geo-politics, one of the reasons he widened the war in Vietnam.
JFK cut taxes on the upper brackets.
Jimmy Carter had a Dem Congress and was very frustrated by it.
Just trying to keep the historical record and analogies straight...
May 11, 2008 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then he's better than JFK! JFK 2.o.
May 11, 2008 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Before you jump for joy, this was yet another calibration point for me on your posts.
May 11, 2008 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The difference between Carter's dem Congress and this one is eight years of Bush and an American public that has woken up, at least a little bit, the manipulations by those in power.
Obama will only be as successful as we are at convincing our Congressional representatives that they will lose their jobs if they don't change the way they do business.
With an involved American electorate, which is one of Barack's cornerstones, many of the past historical "realities" about our government can change dramatically.
Otherwise, your comments are spot on. JFK is far more myth these days with regards to his actual politics. He was far from progressive.
Though, I hope he would have changed, as did Bobby, had he lived long enough.
May 12, 2008 8:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
There was a column in Entertainment Weekly by Mark Harris about a speech Obama gave to some Hollywood types. It was about censorship and how we shouldn't, standard Dem stuff, lots of applause. But then Obama went on to say that Hollywood needed to start taking some responsibility for itself, that his girls shouldn't see commercials for Hostel VII during American Idol. And Harris said there was a lot of silence in the auditorium. This is very Obama, a belief in what government should and shouldn't do, and a believe in personal responsibility, and not in the code Reaganite way. He calls for people to meet him halfway, and this is unusual and one of the things I really respect about him. (This was the column writer's moment where he chose his candidate.)
I was an Edwards person. I believed he wanted to be president because he wanted to help poor people. And after the depredations of the last 8 years, that seemed to be the real moral task of the next administration.
Then Obama won Iowa, and I sensed, suddenly, that the world had changed. I had thought he was a DLC-er, a Clintonian, too eager to be a centrist, and a bit too religious for my tastes. But I watched his speech after Iowa and was moved--by the man and his words. And so I started to pay attention to him. I asked my friends who supported him why. Many had read his books when they came out and knew then that this man should be president. I looked at his positions and watched him on the trail and came to believe that he was the exact person we need at this moment in time. I thought he could change the country, fundamentally. And that he would crush the Republicans.
May 11, 2008 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
2/3 of Black households have single parents. While grandparents, relatives and friends often pick up the slack, there can be quite a bit of time unsupervised. Let's see, Grand Auto IV, the sequel to the game Hillary referred to with hidden sexual content, has killing policemen and picking up hookers as part of its game sequences. With over a million Blacks incarcerated, maybe Blacks have a good deal of interest in making sure their kids don't get sucked into foolish macho game playing that can turn into more than foolish behavior confronting the police.
Now, what does Obama do if Hollywood doesn't self-censor and still shows Hostel VII previews? Will every game producer self-censor as well?
May 12, 2008 2:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Somehow, I see the problem here being with the overabundance of single parent families, not the fact that kids may or may not play a video game in which they have the opportunity to shoot a cop.
May 12, 2008 6:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would agree, but careful who you bring this up around - it's a politically sensitive subject, and has been for 2 decades at least.
May 12, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I know. And I understand the issue people have with this. I just personally don't think it is the biggest problem facing us, or that it is worth the shrill anger and airtime it seems to use.
But, I am young and grew up around this stuff, so, it seems normal to me. I'm not saying that makes it okay, just trying to illustrate why I personally believe it's not a problem.
May 15, 2008 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Erm, I was talking about the video games, not single parents. The latter is an issue I definitely feel is a bit too rough to productively bring up currently.
May 15, 2008 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is like saying the problem with automobile accidents is not that there are too few ambulances but that there are too many accidents.
Sure you have to drain the swamp but meanwhile its a good idea to have a strategy for alligators.
May 12, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it's like saying there are too many untrained drivers out there.
May 12, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can get movies containing the killing of police during prime time, so I don't see why video games should get special status.
May 12, 2008 8:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
You can set video lock on your settop box, and there are limits as to how graphic a police killing will be during 6am-10pm viewing hours on non-cable TV. DVD rentals also should follow age ratings. Additionally, there's an extra element to interactive video games that allow the player to kill the cop, not just watch. Some parents may find this participation a bit disturbing, especially if they happen to be in law enforcement.
May 12, 2008 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
"some parents" I think this phrase is key. Some parents think that teaching evolution is going to make children violent.
And who doesn't have at least basic cable these days?
May 12, 2008 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Parents who care can put cable lock on the programming. If they don't care, that's their choice. Get it yet? Parents' choice, not the kids'.
May 12, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I care and do not use a cabel lock. I prefer to parent. Besides the lock is useless to me. The programing I really object to comes right on in and some that I approve of is blocked. That leaves me with the tools of actualy supervising my child.
May 12, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's perfectly fine - use the tools available as you wish. Similarly, if your kids want the controversial video games and it's fine by you, buy them for them.
Though I would say there are many styles of "parenting", and those that don't match up with yours might be quite valid as well. Some people don't even have TV or video games. Fancy that.
May 12, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stores do not controll what my children buy. I do. If you do not there is no amount of regulation that can put you in controll. I do not expect retailers to enforce the ratings. They are a tool for me to use.
As for adult content hidden in a mature rated game, I could care less. I think that the policy of treating sexual content as adult and violence as mature is rediculous. Once a game is rated mature or adult that is just a clue that I need to investigate the game more before giving or withholding my approval.
May 12, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Posted in the wrong place my bad.
May 12, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do not object to others parenting method unless their method involves having the government get involved in making our parenting choices for us. If you object to the content of games don't buy them for your children. Do not expect the government to prevent them from doing what you are incapable of preventing them from doing. That is not the job of the state.
May 12, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Parents' choice, not the government's, thank you...
May 12, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
My point exactly. Thank you for wording it more plainly than I am capable of.
May 12, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a lazy writer, can't waste words :)
May 12, 2008 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you don't mind if I give your kids smut or drugs or whatever outside the schoolyard, because you're the parent and you'll be able to control them. No need to bring the government in, you're the parents here, all powerful, all seeing.
The points of the issue was that self-policing wasn't working, games companies were emboldened enough to slip more and more controversial material into games, kids had easy access to this, clerks in stores paid no attention to ratings whatsoever, the Entertainment Software Ratings Board was not working, and not every parent is a super-parent able to keep track of all kids' movements 24x7 so they asked for assistance.
What progressives seem to forget is that issues like these are important for some people and ignoring them or laughing at them is one of the reasons Republicans have such an easy time staying in power. You can read Hillary's interview here and background here and here including a study noting significantly higher rates of classroom problems with kids who played more violent games.
Of course it might have been the legislation was designed to make the games industry know she was serious so that they could take their self-policing more seriously.
May 13, 2008 12:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
People are not giving these games away they cost upwards of $50.00 apeice. If your kids have that kind of walking arround cash to freely spend on things you do not approve of I would argue that you should be more woried about the drugs they are buying than the video games and government regulation has done nothing to help with that. You and the people who are anxious to be pandered to on this matter are willing to give up your freedom for no gain in helping to parrent your children.
May 13, 2008 3:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Those studies always lack a control, which is necessary because violent games are a good way to let off steam.
May 14, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I knew during the 2004 speech that I wanted a President Obama someday. For anyone else who remembers the line, he had me at the word "Awesome." To me, that was the signal that I'd spotted a Democrat who could actively resist culture war divisions.
And yet, I dithered a bit about experience and electability and whether this was the right year. But on Martin Luther King's birthday, I realized that we were coming up on the 40th anniversary of Dr. King's death, and I realized who I wanted to have as the voice of the Democratic party for that event. In that moment, it wasn't about being sure about electability. It was about being sure who I wanted to fight for.
Only after that did I look into the organizational strength of the campaign and become quite sure that we're looking not only at electability but at the opportunity to realign the country for a generation.
May 11, 2008 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I came to Obama slowly, as an "anyone but Hillary" voter. She's my Senator, and I think she's a corrupt panderer. I'm a Democrat who's inclined to agree with Dennis Kucinich, so Obama was a big leap of faith for me. But watching how he's run his campaign, I truly believe he has the kind of character and moral fortitude of someone I feel good about supporting. I don't have to agree with him on every issue, I trust he's a good man. I think that's why old power (like the Clintons) have such issue with him.
May 11, 2008 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh yeah, I should note that my reaction against Clinton wasn't as strong as I wrote here.
I guess you could say that my opinion after that point was "Clinton's policies are pretty good, as far as I know."
She was third after Richardson (I admit that I thought about electability when ruling out Edwards).
May 11, 2008 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I knew generally what it was---I remember the schoolmarmish voice of senator clinton scolding Obama for being naive and inexperienced---I googled and this guy's account seems as good as any.
This scenario is once again running is course in Pakistan even as we speak. The Musharraf regime is on the brink of going the way of its predecessors. There is nothing new about this in the compass of Pakistan's past history. Like his predecessors, Musharraf is flailing about trying to retain his mandate by tampering with the country's judiciary, pursuing 'Great Game' stratagems in Waziristan, Afghanistan and Kashmir, and seeking ways either to rig the impending national elections or, if that fails, employing the gimmick of 'emergency rule' to prevent them from taking place.
The last resort of this latest attempt to govern Pakistan in the same old manner, unfortunately with the United State government, as usual, acting as an enabler, seems to be what Obama senses must come to an end.
His declaration that the Pakistani junta will no longer be given carte blanche to stonewall further on dislodging Al Qaeda from Waziristan cannot, therefore, be dismissed as the ranting of a politically immature novice, as his detractors aver; it is the right thing to say and should be seen as another instance of Obama once again getting ahead of the pack, as he did when he voted from the outset against the Bush administration's Iraq fiasco.
It indicates that Obama has thought more deeply about the Pakistan conundrum than have his fellow candidates in both political camps.
One hopes that he sticks to his guns and does not allow his detractors to erode his resolve. A sane political solution for Pakistan hangs in the balance.
Harold A Gould is a visiting scholar in the Centre for South Asian Studies at the University of Virginia, United States.
Other issues are more important to me---but this was the one that sold me on Obama. The rest fell into place.
May 11, 2008 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama felt that we should be hands off on Pakistan regarding the Bhutto assassination, that they're well able to police themselves:
Clinton also called for an independent, international investigation into Bhutto's death, "perhaps along the lines of what the United Nations have been doing with respect to the assassination of Prime Minister Hariri in Lebanon." Obama said he doesn't share that view. "It is important to us to not give the idea that Pakistan is unable to handle its own affairs," he said.
Of course the same day his Foreign Policy adviser stated “Senator Clinton’s view has been closer to Bush’s, which is to see Musharraf as the linchpin but democracy as something that is desirable, but not necessarily essential to our security interests,” said Rice, “Whereas Obama feels that democracy and human rights in the context of Pakistan are essential to our security.” so it's hard to say what role Obama actually advocates.
May 12, 2008 3:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
No it isn't. He wants to stop propping governments up and interfering in internal affairs.
You know, 14 points and all that.
May 12, 2008 8:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
A year ago my position was:
1) I didn't support an HRC candidacy, because
a) she f'd up the healthcare assignment, her one official job for the administration of her husband;
b) her high negatives made me believe she would be unelectable, bringing out the GOP base in a way no other candidate would;
c) I disliked the idea of caroming dynasties--Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton; and
d) I had very little faith that she stood for anything but personal gain.
2) I was agnostic on the other mainstream candidates. At one point I took one of these online quizzes and found my political positions lined up most closely with those of Christopher Dodd. Having attended high school in Delaware I was intrigued by the prospect of Joe Biden. I laughed in nodding agreement with a Salon article that said the vast majority of progressive Dems probably should be backing Kucinich (whom my dear sister supported in the 2004 primaries) but of course we won't because we believe he has no chance. I liked what Edwards was saying about poverty and other elements of his populist message.
3) But I was also very, very interested in Obama. Despite my sympathies with Edwards' populism I consider myself a pragmatist and tend to dislike messages of polarization and us/them discourse. His message of trying to forge a new national consensus touched me very deeply. I had appreciated Obama's 2004 convention speech, and I read Obama's speech to evangelicals (I think it was back in 2006) and marveled at what he had to say there, too. (And found myself highly irritated at folks on the left who trashed him for that speech.) I thought remarks he made in Milwaukee the night of the Va. Tech massacre were sensitive and well put. His biracial status was a plus--it would have gotten him nothing in my mind if he hadn't demonstrated a basic sensibility and temperament that spoke to my highest political ideals, but considering that he had done so already, his race was, frankly, a plus.
In time my support for Obama congealed, although at that point it was cloaked in a fundamental assumption that, "it would be cool if he won, but he probably can't pull it off" and that by the time the Wisconsin primary arrived I'd have to choose between Edwards and Hillary (no difficulty there). Foremost, I wanted to be sure we picked someone who could win.
Then Obama won Iowa, and I signed on emotionally as I had not yet done up to that time. Only after that time did I get around to reading the Sullivan piece in the Atlantic (although I'm a regular reader of his blog) and found that the arguments he made for BHO resonated very strongly with me.
May 11, 2008 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was one of those disengaged people that didn't used to bother voting because I didn't really see the point. I don't really know when I started to pay attention to what was taking place but I started to become really disturbed by some of Bush's policies. Abroad as well as at home. It also bothered me that things could never get done in DC because the Democrats and Republicans were always at a deadlock and it didn't really make a difference when the Democrats had the majority. Obama got my attention when he declared that he would be willing to talk to Iran. Finally, someone willing to talk with America's enemies. Then, I was drawn in further when he used inclusive language for Republicans. And he showed that he was more than willing to work with Republicans and that he has worked with Republicans to get stuff passed. It was just really refreshing to see someone who is willing to work with others that don't necessarily have the same point of view but is open. So, I've been volunteering and donating my time and money ever since to try to get him elected.
May 11, 2008 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama: willing to talk to The Islamic Republic and The republican Party
May 11, 2008 11:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
my reason is a little closer to my heart than video games, i have two children a son and a daughter, and they are biracial like Obama. So at first i have to say it was that, the idea that i could show my children that finally in america the saying you can grow up to be president of the USA included them. then as the campaign went on my choice was reinforced by the absolute brilliance of this man and his vision of America. i wish sen. clinton had run a more honorable campaign so that my daughter would have had a better role model but i know that day is also coming.
May 11, 2008 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I chose Obama the first week of November, two months before the voting began, and I chose him because I saw a speech of his on Youtube and I realized, wow, a conscious and sentient person finally is running for President. I thought - he hasn't got a prayer against the do-or-die Clintons and their insider advantage, but I would stick by him until disillusionment set in and vote for Hillary when she inevitably swept the primaries.
And then something funny happened in Iowa...
May 11, 2008 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I flippped a coin. Hillary lost that is why I am supporting her.
May 11, 2008 10:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're being flippant. Ha! Sorry.
May 11, 2008 11:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has been my state senator for many years then subsequently my US senator.
Two specific incidents started my support for Obama.
His Call to Renewal speech given in 2006 showed how he can bridge the divide between democrat and republican, secular and religious, and shows he has a deeper understanding of the American psyche which will allow us all to heal.
Transcript here:
http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal/
Video Here:
http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid463869411/bctid416343938
His ethical standards, not only in his own life, but in his public life as well, has led him to fight tirelessly for sunshine and accountability.
If anyone has been reading TPM long enough, you know that corruption, cronyism and corporate influence will be America's downfall if it is not exposed and pushed out of "our" government.
http://obama.senate.gov/issues/ethics_and_lobbying_reform/
There are very few decent people willing to get into politics, still less are able to navigate the sea of Washington. It would be a great loss to America if he is not given the chance to serve us as President.
May 11, 2008 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL many? How long is many to you?
May 11, 2008 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
That would be seven or eight years as state senator. And I do believe that's longer than Hillary has been in elected office.
May 11, 2008 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eight, apparently.
I think the Bush administration has proven just how long eight years can be.
May 11, 2008 11:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jinx!
Now you owe me a soda. Luckily I don't like soda, so now you owe you a soda.
May 11, 2008 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's really strange. I'm not a big fan of soda either.
May 12, 2008 12:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Longer than Hillary has held elected public office. 8 Years as a state senator before he was elected to the US senate. And he got elected with no connections and an unusual name. He was elected on merit alone, not a "brand name".
May 12, 2008 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Got elected on merit? Didnt the Republicans run Alan Keyes against him? I could have beaten Alan Keyes!
No slight against Senator Obama, I think with the right people around him, he will make a good president, but to say his election was somehow meritous, not hardly.
May 12, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
That he got the democratic nomination for the senate was the "on merit" part. He was a long-shot at best well before Keyes came into the picture. See balheadeddork's comment below.
May 12, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am an American living in Japan. When I looked at the info on wikipedia, it was August of 2007. I wasn't paying much attention to the news, and was not at the time in any way involved in politics. I looked at the wikipedia pages for the three frontrunners at the time, Clinton, Edwards and Obama.
Choosing Obama seemed obvious. I think it was a combination of his bio and his voting record. And a quote about how he came to the Christian church. I am an atheist, but the quote got me thinking, and I liked that. So I became an Obama supporter, and got more involved in politics, and started following the news alot more closely.
I have been really impressed with Obama's conduct throughout the campaign. I trust him to tell the American people the truth, even when it is difficult, and that is rare in a polititian.
I am puzzled by those who characterise him as a smooth talking car salesman, 'cause that is not my impression of Obama at all.
May 11, 2008 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Take a look at the NYTimes article on Nuclear Leaks.
May 12, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink