Dear friends,
When I first wrote about the messianic connections with Obama it was more a joke than anything to me. However, as Obama hype continues to rise (surely the bubble will break eventually, but when?), I grow increasingly uneasy towards many things happening in his campaign. The following blog sums up pretty well all of the messianic and obsessive-compulsive tendencies among many (though certainly not all) of his supporters, something that completely disgusts me (it's pretty funny to read about though!):
"Is Barack Obama the Messiah?"
However, far more so than that, I'm concerned by the very things that Obama is doing and saying and what he stands for as a politician. Now, I for one will be the first to admit that Hillary Clinton has practiced power politics in the past and is far from perfect, but at least that is out in the open, as it is with most other politicians. What I can't stand about Barack Obama is the way in which he has somehow convinced so many that he is taking the "high road" this election cycle when there are countless actions and statements that point to the contrary.
The guy is not a saint but rather a walking hypocrite who I sincerely believe will probably be more corporate and conservative over all than Hillary Clinton (just look at his economic advisers), yet strangely enough, countless numbers of people, including many in the progressive netroots movement, think he is their bastion of hope. In fact, one of the best blogposts out there shows in detail how the Obama campaign has duped the netroots progressives into ironically backing a candidate of Lieberman-esque centrist quality that they would have cringed at and fought hard against several years ago. I highly recommend reading this post, as it points out a number of his weaknesses that have yet to be given much attention in the media or by many of his supporters:
"Who Represents the Progressive Movement?"
Ultimately, I suppose all I can say is that I don't think Barack is what he appears to be, so please carefully consider things before giving him your vote. That being said, I'm probably ultimately going to vote for Ralph Nader in the general election, so perhaps my input here won't matter much to you. Whatever the case, I do plan to vote for Hillary Clinton over Obama in the Ohio primary and I encourage you all to do the same (in Ohio or in your own home state).
There, I've come out and said it: Go Hillary! (for now, at least)
Feel free to question and criticize my present decision (which as always, is open to the possibility of change in the future).
p.s. I realized after writing this that I should have emphasized how I don't think Obama is a terrible candidate. McCain is much worse. I just happen to think that Hillary is better than both of them. Of course, I also think Ralph Nader tops them all. And of course, none of this takes into consideration who might be more "popular", but is simply an assessment of who I think is more right for president according to my views and beliefs regarding what would be best for our country at this time.
6 comments:
I can't agree about Hillary, but I do plan to support Ralph...who in a way, gives me an uncompromisable option.
I did bring this up with you, but for the fun of getting it out, I was somewhat disappointed with a few things that was said (and done) during the Obama rally I attended. It is true, as you claim: Obama is a cult-like figure.
I admire him still, but I can't say I was ever that enthusiastic about him.
I added a postscript before seeing this comment that sort of contributes to the discussion here. I don't mean to totally denigrate Obama. He's certainly done good things and I respect him for that. I just don't like the nature of his campaign and also think that he's not as progressive as many people might think.
Also, keep in mind, Hillary only has my vote for the primary.
Just throwing out a thought, but do you find the Obama campaign generating the "holier-than-thou" thing, or is it really the media?
Considering that Obama has been voted the most progressive voter in the Senate, I think he is pretty liberal--that said, all liberals run conservatively--they really have to.
Good questions and if I have time I think I'll try to address one or both of them more in depth in a post.
Briefly though, I think the "holier than thou" or "high road" attitude has been generated by both the Obama campaign and the media. The fact that Obama and his campaign have played an important role in propagating this idea is shown pretty clearly in that linked article "Who Represents the Progressive Movement?"
Now, you say that "Obama has been voted the most progressive voter in the Senate," but I think this claim is a bit dubious. It comes from a calculated study released by the National Journal on January 1st, 2008, analyzing the voting records from 2007:
"National Journal's 2007 Vote Rankings"
However, there are several questions that should be asked about National Journal. First, they are the same group that labeled Kerry as the most liberal voting senator prior to the 2004 elections, yet more recently they've admitted that their ranking system was flawed back then:
"Promoting its Senate ratings, National Journal Group email now touts 2003 "most liberal" rating of Kerry that NJ found flawed"
Needless to say, several articles over at Media Matters show that National Journal is not necessarily the "non-partisan" fair and balanced resource that they claim to be. Yet the Republicans were quick to spread the "facts" about Kerry back in '04 and they were quick to do the same about Obama this year, touting the so-called "non-partisan" credentials too.
However, if you go to what I believe is a much more reliable source, ProgressivePunch.org, you'll see that Clinton is ranked as a more progressive voter than Obama, both in the most recent year and over their entire lifetimes in the Senate. Neither of them, however, are even close to being ranked the #1 progressive or liberal voter.
Now, why would National Journal try to smear Obama with the "#1 voting liberal" label just like it did to Kerry (as well as Edwards) back in 2004, and also release this back at the end of January when the Democratic primary race was much more contested? Why didn't they go after Hillary? Well, as you and I both know, Hillary's already been strongly vilified in the minds of Republicans and conservatives, so I have a feeling they didn't consider her a threat from that angle. Barack, however, with his "unity" and centrist language, probably sounds much more threatening and so they wanted to clearly push him as far as possible to the left in the minds of the people. They tried to do the same with Kerry back then, because who wants to vote for an "ultra liberal", despite (to give some further perspective) Kerry being ranked by Progressive Punch as less progressive than both Barack and Hillary.
So, that being said, I don't think Barack is more progressive than Hillary Clinton. And as I suggested by my link to a blogpost on his economic advisers, I think he's economically lining up with less progressive thinking, something that shows in his healthcare plan and his plan to address the subprime mortgage crisis, just to name a few things. See Max Fraser's "Subprime Obama" over at The Nation to get a decent introduction to his moderate economic policies.
Of course, Hillary's voting record is not much better (it's only a matter of a few percentage points at progressive punch), just as their policy proposals are not that different (though again, I tend to think Hillary is overall a little bit better here as well).
Does that answer your questions?
Okay, obviously, the second one probably doesn't need addressed in a post anymore.
Sorry about the lengthy response!
Incidentally, Obama last night criticized the National Journal at the debate for his rating, which must verify that he at least wants to be seen as centrist, rather than progressive.
If I were him, though, I wouldn't be trying to line up similarly to John McCain, who seems to be having trouble because of his "all-over-the-place" record.
Post a Comment