Tomorrow starts today...or something sort of cheesy like that
Tomorrow, Barack Obama is expected to announce his candidacy for President of the United States. Today, I got an e-mail from him (I'm sure it was actually him and not some mass e-mail sent through a listserve by one of his staffers) with this video preview of tomorrow:
There are a lot of people that are swooning over Barack Obama. I'm one of them. It has been a long time since I was this excited about a candidate for any office (maybe Gary Coleman for governor was the last time). I know that he is inexperienced in politics. I know that he's inexperienced in dealing with international issues. However, we have had 6+ years of complete crap and at least 12+ years of government based on partisanship, exclusion, and flat-out corruption. In Obama I see a candidate that understands when we need compromise and when we need to make tough sacrifices. I see a guy that is open with his own weaknesses and does not prey on those of his opponents. In short, I see this as an opportunity for this country to get back some of the integrity that we have slowly given up since World War II.
If you really want to see why Barack Obama gives me such a strong feeling of hope, please read his book Audacity of Hope. His views are so common sense that they defy the current political environment that calls for blindly voting with/for your party.
In any case, tomorrow I look forward to the beginning of some positive change for our country.
Posts
8 comments:
I am not sure I get your complaint about the partisanship and corruption. We have had government based on partisanship and exclusion for over 200+ years. And at least the current administration, for all its faults, is not corrupt. Unfortunately the same can not be said for many congressmen of both parties.
Not to rain on your parade too much, but I am not impressed with Obama and find his views rather naive and facile, although I think he would make a better president than either Clinton or Edwards. He seems like a nice, sincere, and honest guy, but I actually disagree with a lot of his policy ideas and his constant harping on partisanship is not encouraging. It’s also one of the things I disliked about Bush 8 years ago and why Obama actually reminds me of Bush a lot. Bush is genuine person, with realatively moderate ideas, who was also going to end partisanship in Washington, but ending partisanship can never be a one way deal as the party out of power always wants to regain power. I am betting 8 years from now we will have another candidate who promises to end partisanship in Washington. The only chance I see for seriously reducing partisanship is for one party to get a huge landside in an election, but that has not happened for over 20 years and I do not see it happening anytime soon.
See this example of Obama on partisanship being why we do not have cheap, universal health care. The reason we have partisanship is that we live in a world where there are competing ideas, competing rights, and limited resources. There is no easy way around that problem.
There is a huge difference between competing ideas and outright nastiness. Even members of Congress have noted the lack of collgiality (sp?) that has increased over the last 12-16 years. The mood goes beyond the halls of Congress and into popular opinion. The right media lies about liberal politicians and the left media vice-versa. I don't think that is a 200-year tradition.
You say he's naive, I say he's hopeful. I want to think that we don't need to rail on eachother as a country anymore - and that is something that I see from Obama
I read that link. Where does that person actually present an argument? I mean, all he basically does is tear down Obama's plan with some smart-ass arguments backed by nothing empirical. I'm sorry, you'll have to do better than an article that includes "Hey, Kids" as the start of a paragraph.
the Bush administration not corrupt? Seriously? What about the Libby trial? what abut illegal wiretapping? Manipulated intelligence? Signing statements?
I am very serious about the Bush admiunistration not being corrupt. Just because you do not like a policy does not make it corrupt. And note that the Libby trial is the only indictment of anyone in the Bush adminstration after over six years and the best the prosecuter could do there so far is point out that people have differerent recolections about when certain conversations took place, conversations that turned out not to be criminal conversations in the first place.
If you point out signing statements as an example of "corruption" I suggest you might actually go look up "corruption" in a dictionary to find out what it means. I suggest looking to the Clinton adminstration as an example of actual corruption where for instance cabinet members were caught bribing people, multiple members of the administration lied under oath and to federal investigators, and pardons were sold left and right to help out family members and to secure funding for the Clinton library.
Isn't Libby, a member of the Bush Administration, on trial for perjury? Doesn't the case involve members of the Bush Administration revealing the identity of a CIA agent? Oh, and if there is no corruption in the Bush Admin, why did they try so hard to keep pics of Bush with Abramoff out of the press? I know you want to defend him Peter, but c'mon. Maybe signing statements aren't "corrupt" per se, but ethical and democratic they are not either.
Yes Jeff, he is on trial for perjury for an instance when the husband of a CIA agent (who was not a covert agent and who was deeply involved in an assignment that he was now publicly announcing), wrote an article in the New York Times that had about a half dozen major lies about the Bush administration in it. This included a lie that Cheney had sent him to Nigeria, when it was in fact his wife, the aforementioned CIA employee. Note Libby is not on trial for revealing an agent as that was not a crime and there is no conclusive evidence he even thought he was doing something illegal. He is on trial because an out of control prosecutor could not find any evidence that any Bush administration figure had done anything criminal and is stuck with prosecuting a low level figure about conflicting dates that happened years ago in testimony. That is the best any of Bush's critics can do to show that any crime was ever actually committed by anyone in the administration. Compare that to any other recent administration and that is a pretty impressive lack of corruption.
They tried hard to keep the Abramoff pictures out because Abramoff actually was corrupt and they did not want to be associated with him when they found this out. What honest politician would do otherwise?
I think you need to start living out Obama's advice: just because you disagree with a politician does not make them corrupt or evil. You talk about wanting to end partisanship, but then go on to say it is the other party that is corrupt and present scant evidence of it. There are plenty of liberals out there that are not corrupt and some conservatives who are corrupt, but I judge their integrity based on there actions not just their beliefs. The Bush administration is many things I do not like, but corrupt is one of the last words I would use to describe them.
First of all, it seems very clear that Libby was made a scapegoat for higher-ups in the administration, most likely Karl Rove. Just because the prosecutor can't convict them, doesn't mean they didn't do it (see Simpson, O.J.)
Second, one of the definitions of corrupt (from dictionary.com) includes "lacking integrity" and "debased in character", two descriptions that I think fit Bush and his administration very well. Consider false eveidence to get us into the war, changing the reasons for going into said war, going around laws in the wiretapping program - all of which show a lack of integrity. Look at the approval ratings - shows that he is debased in character.
Finally, please don't lecture me on living out Obama's advice. I don't think the administration's views are evil and corrupt because I disagree with them. I think we have brought the death of over 3,000 of our own people along with the death of tens of thousands of Iraqis. That, to me, is evil. I hold not only the Bush Administration guilty for this evil, but also Democrats like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry for voting for it. My problem lies with the current nature of our partisan political system. There is very little compromise and people vote with their party or for whatever will let them keep their job. Having opposing ideas is vital to an open government, but our current system is designed to crush all consideration of that system. The Republican majority did it to the Democratic minority, and now the Republican minority is getting a taste of theie own medicine. That is why I support Obama's ideas and that is also the reason why I am not registered as part of either the Democratic or Republican parties.
Post a Comment