But I'm saddened to see so many Democrats and Liberals attacking him for it. Why?
Because we are finally in power, and when we sharpen the knives and cry havoc over even the smaller decisions, we are acting like the Right Wing Haters whom we've resented for so long. Is that really all we see of our future in this country? That the leadership must volley between haters of one side or haters of the other? Or is there even the chance to do what Obama promised, and help CHANGE the way this country is run? No, not by changing every person--that really would be impossible enough to justify Hillary Clinton's "clouds will part and angels will sing" mockery from the primaries. All we have to do is change the majority of the country, and we do that by, in Ghandi's words, being the change we want to see in this world.
The argument that the Republicans and Conservatives acted that way when THEY were in power is a childish one. It's no more imaginative than an eye for an eye (leaving everyone blind) or fighting fire with fire.
How about believing that there are better options which, as the party in power, we can attempt to enact?
How about thinking outside the box--and inventing fire extinguishers?
]]>"But you are a Republican."
McCain keeps trying to wear the mantle of change. He keeps talking about being a maverick. But he is a Republican. He is taking money and support from the RNC. He got to have that big speech at the end of the Republican Convention. He supports the Republican platform.
No, McCain. You are not Bush. But neither did you choose to run as an Independent, or to start your own party--the Maverick Party.
You are a Republican.
Own it.
]]>It's better than leading with the "but," isn't it?
You may have noticed Democrats seriously attacking Obama, since the General Election got underway. At first I thought it was an oversensitive minority, the PUMA's of progressive politics. But enough riled liberals are crying out to fill a lot of inches--and minutes--in our mainstream media.
Examples: Netroots break with Obama over FISA compromise. Pro-choice groups decry Obama for third-trimester limitations. Separation of Church and State advocates recoil at proposed continuance of Faith-Based initiatives. Who knew Justice Scalia and Obama would agree on so much? And did you see--he's even wearing a flag pin now! (The sell-out)
Also? Just as many Democrats worry that these attacks weaken America's chances for a Democrat into the White House to change at least some of Bush's overstayed course. They call on the malcontents to shut up, at least until November, lest they undermining what progress we've made. Support Obama or else! Not very diversity friendly, perhaps, but pragmatic.
It hasn't been pretty. Or inspiring. Or particularly useful.
So how's this? Do both!
QUESTION #1: Do liberals have the right to voice their outrage, even their sense of betrayal?
Absolutely! Obama himself said as much regarding supporters on his website who reject his FISA compromise. He says: "when citizens join their voices together, they can hold their leaders accountable. I'm not exempt from that. I'm certainly not perfect, and expect to be held accountable too. I cannot promise to agree with you on every issue."
He says: "I understand why some of you feel differently about the current bill, and I'm happy to take my lumps on this side and elsewhere" and that "Democracy cannot exist without strong differences. And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker."
Most importantly, he says: "that is the kind of White House that I intend to run as President of the United States -- a White House that takes the Constitution seriously, conducts the peoples' business out in the open, welcomes and listens to dissenting views, and asks you to play your part in shaping our country’s destiny."
QUESTION #2: Is an Obama who compromises on FISA, limits third-term abortions, reaches out to the Christian right, favors some gun ownership and doesn't reject the death penalty for non-capital crimes--an Obama who might even (omigod) shift his position on certain issues--still a better candidate than John McCain?
Abso-freakin-lutely! Those people who say "I cannot support a man who would [condone the FISA compromise/accept the death-penalty/flip-flop/whatever]" are lying to themselves, much less the rest of us. Because what reasonable choice do they have? Where do they plan on finding a candidate who has consistently held positions better than these?
Obama is in a race against John McCain. One of them will win.
Of course you have the right to feel betrayed--especially if you didn't realize that even the most transcendent of politicians is going to come with some sticky clay feet. But this election is damned important, probably, hopefully, the most important in our lifetime.
But consider this: On his worst, flippiest floppiest day, Obama's positions remain significantly better than those of John McCain III.
Is McCain talking even about criminal liability for the telecoms? How long has it been since McCain was pro-choice, even for the first two trimesters? McCain courts the religious right far more aggressively, and he's not even particularly religious! McCain called the Supreme Court's recent ruling on Habeas Corpus "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country." And you want to talk flip flops? How about the issue of torture? How about that business about the US being greeted as liberators?
No matter how angry you are at Obama--and I'm not denying your right to be so--can we at least agree that Obama is better than McCain?
If not, go back and read those quotes from his website.
Can you really imagine McCain encouraging dissent? Do you honestly think McCain will seriously ask people to hold him accountable?
I've got to believe that, in this light, you do support the Democratic candidate, at least marginally, no matter how grudgingly, over the Republican. So how about including that little tidbit in your critiques of him? Just to be clear to the MSM vultures who keep looking for reasons to downplay Obama's electibility.
"I wholly support Barack Obama for president. But I think he could do better, and I hope that he does. I intend to do my part to ensure that he gets elected, and that he therefore gets more chances to do better."
That is how we will continue to unite, as a party.
That is how we'll win this election.
]]>I was listening to the Rachel Maddow show. I love her work. She's been calling for the superdelegates to make a freakin' decision for longer than almost anybody, and said more of the same, but then she added something else familiar to any of her listeners: "I honestly don't care who wins, just pick someone."
And I thought: How the hell do you not care who wins? And aren't you sending out mixed signals, here?
Rachel herself mentioned that more significant differences have emerged between the Obama and Clinton platforms on the issues of a gas-tax holiday, and one's openness to perhaps prosecuting members of the Bush administration. The candidates also differ on whether to "obliterate" Iran should it attack any non-nuclear Middle Eastern country or talk to adversarial leaders, and what kind of voters they've brought to the race, and how they've run their campaign. It would be one thing for her to say "I have my own opinions and do not feel that, as a news commentator, it is my place to voice them." But to actively not care?
Then I realized: Almost nobody who has been calling for superdelegates to come out with a decision has come out with a decision of their own! It's all Frederick Burr Opper ("After you, my dear Alphonse." "No, after YOU my dear Gaston.")
Howard Dean has publicly called on the superdelegates to start making a decision. Has Howard Dean publicly made a decision? Has Nancy Pelosi, or Harry Reid? Is not one important step of being a leader having the guts to go first?
And how about the pundits? My dear Rachel is but a drop in a much larger bucket-o-punditry, after all. And at least she really doesn't seem to care, as long as some nameless, faceless Democrat rises to the top for the rank and file to support... whether they're supportable or not. But what about the scores of commentators who obviously have a favorite and yet have never come out and admitted it?
Sure, yes, journalists should be objective. But these are commentators, not journalists. They are the spoken-word op-ed page. In what world is it more honorable to pretend objectivity while actually pushing one's point of view through the bias of one's coverage? I'm talking to all the Keith Olbermanns and Arianna Huffingtons and Chris Matthewses and even my most beloved Jon Stewart. Have most of them not voted already?
Judges need to stay impartial. Journalists should probably struggle for impartiality. But everyone else?
I challenge you.
If you want the Superdelegates to square their shoulders and speak up, then YOU FIRST. Afraid you'll be wrong? Well welcome to politics. Heaven knows that more Democratic voters have taken that risk already.
Me? I voted for Obama, and I'm behind him all the way.
Everyone else? Stop being such cowards and speak up. You want to be our leaders? It's time to freakin' LEAD.
Who knows. Your voice might be the tipping point that ends this thing.
]]>