An argument for Obama
From Rottenchester of Fighting29th:
Why I Support Barack Obama
There are many things I admire about Barack Obama, and you’ve probably seen or read about most of them. His history as a grassroots community organizer in one of the toughest neighborhoods in this country puts some substance behind his message of hope. His experience as a teacher of constitutional law ensures that he will bring back respect for the rule of law in the executive branch. And his ability to run a campaign fueled in large part by small donors is solid evidence that he’s a great organizer and a true advocate of campaign finance reform.
These are all important, positive traits, but I expect more from Obama: I think he’s the one candidate in any party who will be able to move us away from the current standstill in Congress.
We’ve all been watching, with frustration, as the Democratic Congress is continually thwarted in its efforts to end the war in Iraq, to bring health care to more children, and to enact a sensible energy policy. We know that there are a core set of issues where the majority of the country and our party are in agreement. Yet Republicans have been able to stop Democrats in their tracks, and our country is the worse for it.
I think Obama can change this, and I base this judgment on his history as a legislator in Illinois.
For eight years, Obama represented one of the safest Democratic seats in Illinois. He could have comfortably settled into the role of reliable back-bencher, playing the “shut up to move up” game. Instead, Obama chose to proactively work with both sides of the aisle.
One good example is a law requiring the video recording of all police interrogations. It was vehemently opposed by the police, and they were willing to use the same scare tactics that have been used so effectively by the Bush administration. Obama blunted those tactics by dealing directly with the police lobby. He also leveraged his carefully cultivated relationships with both sides of the aisle to get the law passed. You can read more about his work in the Illinois legislature here and here. To see how his “present” votes were actually an attempt to provide cover and influence more conservative Democrats, check this out.
Obama’s success here is especially notable because he passed up opportunities to grandstand and speechify. Instead, he treated the legislature like a problem to be solved, and he modified his behavior and approach to bring about change while working from within the institution.
This is the kind of pragmatism, informed by principle, that we need in a President. Obama has the potential to “change the game” in Washington by breaking off a few centrist Republicans to create a durable coalition that will advance the Democrats’ agenda. If you’re skeptical, I highly recommend this piece which lays out the difference between split-the-difference compromise and negotiation that neutralizes bad faith actors.
All the “rock star” press that Obama gets tends to obscure his ability to listen to and work with others, so I wanted to emphasize that facet of his character. Of course, his ability to give a great speech is like a breath of fresh air compared to the current bumbler-in-chief. If you haven’t seen him speak, I suggest the video of his South Carolina victory speech, or his address last week at Ebenezer Baptist. As for substance, check out his Blueprint for Change [pdf].
(Thanks to one of the readers of my blog, Vincent, who sent the American Prospect links that appear above.)
Related posts:
Unfortunately, Obama will not get my vote. This is a time in this country for someone that can get things done, not just speak about getting things done. I cannot ignore his 126 “present” votes in the Illinois legislature and the fact he has only been in the Senate for 4 years. Don’t get me wrong, he would make a great VP and in 4-8 years he may make a good President. His time is not now.
I respect your decision, but I hope you don’t buy the spin on the “present” votes. Use of “present” votes is part of the way that legislature works. Legislators who served with Obama have defended his use of those votes:
http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=274863
An AP fact check agrees:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/24/fact_check_obamas_present_votes/
The votes that were part of the original Clinton spin piece were pro-choice votes. Obama’s got a 100% pro-choice rating in Illinois. There’s no real issue here.
Hey Rotten - thanks for playing in our sandbox.
Question - what do you mean by this?
The Dems will retain and likely expand control of Congress. I mean he will change the current circumstances only because a Dem will be President. I get the can working across the aisle buildiong coalitions point later on what point am I missing or am I hung up on writing style?
Good question, because that para doesn’t make it clear.
You’re right that Democrats will probably expand control of Congress. Dems will gain in the House, big time, so even a few Blue Dog defections won’t derail a Democratic President’s agenda.
The issue is the Senate, where it takes 60 votes to get something done. Democrats probably won’t get to 60, and if we do, there are still problems with folks like Lieberman. So the question is whether Obama can fracture off a few moderate Republicans there and work with them to pass an agenda that is generally in line with the program he’s promoting on the stump. I think his history in Illinois shows he can.
I can’t articulate this as well as the Prospect article here:
http://www.prospect.org//cs/articles;jsessionid=abjCqbnRBPHastQOjD?article=the_theory_of_change_primary
Money quote:
Could HIllary do this? Absolutely. But I think Obama’s experience and temprament are more suited to the task.
Thanks
Something to consider.
News reports out of Idaho, one of the reddest states in the union, Obama got 14,000 people to attend one rally. Most were independents. At the next rally he drew over 20,000.
Clinton draws a few thousand at rallies in favorable states.
What conclusion should we reach about who can beat McCain?
Where’d they all go in NH and FL?
So we all know that Florida was a non-issue.
And Clinton will more than likely win New York. But the general election comes down to who is going to be able to beat the Republicans who are still reeling from their congressional losses?
Who can get not only the undecided middle to believe in America’s potential again, but also draw support from many of the Republicans dissatisfied with the extreme right direction their party has taken in the last few years?
Th election is about who can take us, all of us, into a progressive direction.
Is it Obama or the Clintons?
With McCain predicting the war will last another 30-100 years, I think that the GOP will receive about 37,432 votes nationally.
Electability is a non-issue. So the question begs: Which candidate has the experience and the resources and the staff to best resolve all of the complicated issues we will deal with for the next 16 years - because my money says the Democrats will own the White House for at least that long.
And I’m still voting for Hillary Clinton.