Godheval

Read More »

.

It is a common cliche but also an obvious truism that “the youth are our future”. We look positively upon an electorate that is increasingly incorporating young people, upon the fact that they are willing to get involved in this process that affects them just as much as everyone else – if not more, since they will have longer to live with the consequences. At the very least, the involvement of more young people in the political process represents an increasing wealth of different perspectives, an increase in new perspectives. Is not the more temporally diverse electorate one that is more representative of the country as a whole? Does it not capture the image of a better America for the future?

Liberal

“Liberal” as we use the term today – albeit practically a derogatory term in some circles – seems to me to represent people who are more caring, more understanding, more in favor of changes that help rather than hurt people. The only legitimate criticism that anyone has of a liberal, really, is that they are too idealistic, perhaps even recklessly or dangerously so. But give social liberalism some grounding, some focus, and it would be the sociopolitical undercurrent of the America that I’d like to see in the future.

Diverse

Ethnic diversity, at least in the mainstream memetic climate, is the recipe of the day. Actually, it’s always been one of the things that Americans have held aloft as a characteristic that makes their country great. “We are a nation of immigrants”, you’ll hear people say. In the early days of this nation, before the disparate ethnic groups like Irish, Italian, Polish, Dutch, German, and British all confederated under the pretext of being “white”, that is, decidedly not black, this country was diverse. Now, with a steady influx of other ethnic groups over the past several hundred years, it’s become more diverse still. Although the only thing more American than diversity is, ironically, racism, I’d like to think that we still take pride in this unique social experiment. The America of the future, observing the running trend, is one that will be more diverse still. And as I see it, that only makes America better.

Educated

There is a gap between people who have gone further in their formal education and those who haven’t. I hesitate to make any qualitative distinction between the two, as there are many different and equally useful kinds of education, but at least we can say that being “highly educated” is seen as a virtue in our society, and throughout the world. Being “more educated”, whatever that means in any given situation, is never something looked upon negatively, except where it engenders elitism. But that has nothing to do with education itself, but with social stratification. Most, if not all of us, would look positively upon a country where every citizen has the opportunity to pursue their education to the desired end, rather than abandoning it due to the demands of everyday living and with it, financial constraints. That is to say, again, that being “more educated” is a good thing, and more representative of the American citizenry that we aspire to be.

Wealthy

Is not the “American dream” to be wealthy? Or to at least be financially secure? Do not most of us toil away at jobs or careers, or attend years and years of college, or invest anxiously towards that end? Are not our very lives built around the premise of acquiring a certain quality of life, and is not quality of life inexorably tied to wealth in our society? We – and by that I mean the majority of us who are not wealthy – mostly look at the wealthy with disdain because of the selfishness, recklessness, or carelessness which characterize how they use the money that they have and we do not. But just like how elitism is no strike against a person’s level of education, but against their socialization, their character, there is nothing wrong with wealth in itself. Indeed we scorn the wealthy under the pretext that if only we were wealthy, we would be predisposed to a different sort of behavior. Wishful thinking for most people, I imagine.

To sum things up, the qualities that characterize Barack Obama’s supporters are youth, wealth, education, diversity, and liberality – all things that we admire, respect, desire, aspire towards, or cherish. Demographically, the sector of the electorate that support Barack Obama represent those qualities that most, if not all of us, wish to see embodied in America as a whole.

There is hardly a stronger case for his candidacy. Ironically, though, this has less to do with the man himself than what he represents for people, what they project upon him – whether he realizes it or not, whether he lives up to it or not. Here I am not talking about policy or about the changes he claims he will make or about whether or not he can or will make them. I am talking about the fact that his candidacy – by virtue of those who support it – represents the ideals that made the very concept of this nation awesome, and that are vital to ensuring that it lives up to its prospects. And it is for this reason that I emphatically give my support to his bid for President of the United States.

«

Read More »

.

In trying not to be so biased, I really wonder what Clinton supporters see that I do not. Do they really buy all of her fluff? As an Obama supporter I am not so enamored with him that I forget that he, as President, would not have the power alone to bring about all the “change” he claims he will. After all, lest we forget, it is not the President who makes public policy. At best, he will stop blocking the progressive legislation that has tried to pass in recent years.

In spite of the likelihood that not too much will change even after 4 years of an Obama presidency, the reason I support him really is about things as simple and idealistic as “hope” and “change”. If he can get millions of people who were disillusioned with American politics to become interested again, or for the first time, then perhaps things could – by virtue of our power as citizens – truly change. Barack Obama becoming President would suggest to many people that things don’t have to remain the same, that our sustained hopes for something better for this country are not necessarily for naught.

«

Read More »

. Given only a sound byte to react to, and the necessity of counteracting media spin, it is understandable why Obama denounced those decontextualized remarks. In his follow-up speech, he explained that the sound byte was taken out of context, and that the beliefs of Reverend Wright were not represented by it. It was because of the man he knew as Reverend Wright that Obama could not divorce himself. It was a noble stand, one that gained him my utmost respect.

But today his noble side gave in to the pressure of his political side. While I am disappointed, I am also ambivalent. Barack Obama wants to be President of the United States, and for reasons I hope are as noble as he has demonstrated he can be. As Jeremiah Wright said, I think Obama did what he did today as a political manuever, as counterspin, as an appeal to those in America who cannot and/or simply do not want to hear anything that challenges their sensibilities, even if it is the truth. But if he divorces his politics from his integrity here, where will the gap be mended? After he is President? Perhaps, but what if he loses? Would he then continue to make strides towards the middle like Hillary Clinton, continue to do “whatever it takes” to win, even if means undermining his integrity and thereby his credibility? I suppose time will tell.

Above all, more than any disappointment I feel towards Barack Obama, I feel contempt for the country, the people, and the media that pushes a man to have to choose between his integrity and his mission in the first place.

«

Read More »

.

His remarks were inflammatory, anti-patriotic, and arguably racist, but as Obama himself would explain in his speech, they stem from a long history of pain and resentment that swells within the African-American community as a whole. Only people who have a political agenda, and/or people who have never felt the pang of disenfranchisement can criticize Reverend Wright out of hand, without bothering to try to understand the complexities – cultural and psychological – behind them. But I suppose taking the time to understand a subject, rather than judging it through the lens of existing preconceptions, would be a “liberal” exercise, and therefore not worth a conservative’s time.

2. Jeremiah Wright was a minister for 30 years. The negative sentiments lasted all of a minute.

The point here – and this is very important – is that conservative ideologues and even the so-called “liberal media” have honed in on the words of Reverend Wright that they do not like, all the while ignoring the fact that those words were framed in a larger sermon, in one isolated instance, under specific circumstances – all of that within a 30 year history of preaching.

As Obama himself admits, these were not the only comments that Wright made that could be considered “controversial”, but without proper context, we may completely miss the point he was trying to make. Instead we make the point for him, the point that we presume he was trying to make, or the point that we project upon him in order to further a smear campaign against Barack Obama. Conservative spinsters, and media execs vying for ratings through controversy, I am talking to you here.

Barack Obama is mostly a clean slate. Not simply because he is a newcomer on the scene, but because he is essentially that good of a person. Dig and dig into his past as his detractors might, the only things they find to throw at him come off as petty or desperate. Hillary Clinton and your campaign staff, I am talking to you here. Americans watch NASCAR highlights to see the crashes, just as they cause traffic jams by slowing their cars to stare at accidents. They love controversy, whether it is the immoral escapades of a state governor, or sound bytes from an angry preacher.

And whatever Americans like, that’s what the media plays, because that is what returns high ratings. It’s a strange sort of paradox how Americans expect people to be good, but revel in any news about people being bad. As long as the only news about Obama is about him being a squeaky clean senator from Illinois, people pay less attention. But as soon as anything negative emerges that can be pinned to him – legitimately or not – heads turn, eyes open, and mouths drop open in a collective gasp.

And that’s fine. Let’s dig up all the baggage we can. Let’s get it out of the way. Let’s sigh and gasp and frown and cry moral outrage. Then let’s get over it, because we’ll probably find that the sum of Barack Obama’s noteable transgressions are not enough to undermine his viability as a presidential candidate. We will probably find that all of his transgressions do not amount to even half of what we’ve tolerated from politicians in the past, and continue to tolerate from other politicians today.

If you don’t support Barack Obama, that’s fine, but I hope that your reasons are well-researched, and not due to political spin by his opponents, or whatever small qualm you’ve brought to bear against him merely to justify your own opposition to him. Is it too much to ask for people to be objective, or to at least be thorough in their examination of a candidate, their examination of a man? The disgraceful media spin and partitioning of a few of Reverend Wright’s words from a long history of ministry and public service suggests that it must be. And that is a truly a shame.

«

Read More »

.

The only reasonable solution would seem to be to conduct the primaries a second time. Hillary Clinton isn’t in favor of this, of course, because she already “won” both primaries, and as because this election has continued, many people have jumped ship to support Obama. A second run could – and most likely would yield completely different results.

If things weren’t bad enough, it has recently come out that conducting second primaries in both states would cost millions of dollars. The state democratic parties are suggesting that the DNC pay for it, which is ironic given that they were the ones responsible for this whole mess. Dean has categorically refused to pay, saying that the DNC’s funds are reserved for the general election. The state democratic parties claim that they do not have the money to pay for it. The governor of Florida has rightfully said that the taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay for it, either, as it was not their fault that events played out the way that they did. Officials in Michigan likely share those sentiments.

To sum it all up, we now have a situation where either one candidate – Obama – is severely disadvantaged by the allocation of delegates to Clinton, as the result of elections in which neither truly participated. So is Obama to suffer due to the mistakes of the state democratic parties? That certainly would not be fair. Additionally, in order to have the recounts, someone will have to pay for it, but all potential parties are passing the buck. Finally, if no second primaries are held, and the delegates aren’t seated, then the national party risks alienating Michigan and Florida voters in the general election.

Lest we forget, the elections of 2000 and 2004 were predicted by many analysts to be sure-wins for the democrats, but because of various circumstances we saw an eight-year Bush presidency. Temporarily putting aside any thoughts about corrupt voting procedures, miscounts, and the utter failure that is the electoral college, the democrats in both elections made grievous errors in judgment that cost them elections that by all means they should’ve won.

Gore, in 2000, distanced himself from the wildly popular Bill Clinton, because of the whole impeachment fiasco. He seemed to ignore the fact that most democrats – his would-be constituents – supported Clinton in that whole mess. Given how close the election was, Clinton’s support probably would’ve made the difference. Kerry failed for reasons I don’t even fully understand, but not the least of which I’d say was his utter lack of charisma and presence on the national stage. He just failed to inspire. Those – like me – who voted for him, did so mostly because he wasn’t Bush. The idea of going to the polls to vote against the opposition candidate moreso than to vote for your party’s candidate probably kept a good number of people at home.

And their mistakes in those situations echo into the present. Again the democrats are favored to win the White House in 2008. But if Florida and Michigan democrats and independents were to vote for McCain out of retaliation, or simply not to vote at all, a two-state swing in favor of the Republicans could very well change the outcome of the election. How much of a travesty would it be for the democrats to lose three consecutive elections due to political fumbling? It would only further speak to their ineptitude, and in the process cost America at least another four years of economic downspiraling and diminishing reputation worldwide.

«