I spent the evening watching Obama’s historic speech in a packed hotel room in downtown San Francisco. I got home to find close to 100 posts piled up in the “Politics” section of my feed reader. With that amount of text flying, it’s virtually impossible to find anything to say that’s truly original, and there are far better writers than me who will turn out much more lyrical paeans to Obama’s speech.
So I’ll just share one part of the speech, that made my jaw drop amidst all the cheers and even a couple of tears:
….part of what has been lost these past eight years can’t just be measured by lost wages or bigger trade deficits. What has also been lost is our sense of common purpose, and that’s what we have to restore.
We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country.
The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than they are for those plagued by gang violence in Cleveland, but don’t tell me we can’t uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals.
I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in a hospital and to live lives free of discrimination.
You know, passions may fly on immigration, but I don’t know anyone who benefits when a mother is separated from her infant child or an employer undercuts American wages by hiring illegal workers.
But this, too, is part of America’s promise, the promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort.
Obama called out what are arguably the four most divisive issues in American domestic policy, and talked about trying to find common ground on them.
A less gutsy politician wouldn’t have done that. And in fact the speech could have been just fine without that section. But no, Obama went the extra mile and took all four of them head on.
Election Day is less than 70 days away. Bring it on. We’re ready.
I was too tired to write about the end of the Democratic primaries, and Obama’s clinching of the nomination last night. A day later, though, I’ve had time to read the blogs (Steve Benen has a noteworthy post) and get a few thoughts down.
I am deeply proud of my party and of my country. Come what may — and Obama’s election is by no means certain — a black man is a major party candidate for President in this country. I’m not old enough to have any real memories of the civil rights movement. But I’ve seen and heard racism in action, and it’s ugly. That Obama could face it, and still win the nomination against some of the biggest names in politics, is amazing. Truly a milestone to feel good about.
Now, the hard part starts — the general election campaign. This is going to be good.
It’s closing in on 10 PM and I’ve been watching the returns for almost 5 hours now. As I write this, Obama took 13 states to Clinton’s 8 (New Mexico has not yet been declared), and MSNBC has the two of them within 20 delegates of each other.
Of course, I would have liked to see Obama take California and/or New York in a resounding victory, but all in all, tonight was a good night. This race isn’t even close to being over.
In November of 2004, I donned a black zip-up hoodie and walked out into a grey, foggy San Francisco morning to go vote. I was scared, angry, and stressed out. We all know what happened.
Today, I’m wearing purple and the sun is shining after a week of rain. I’ll be leaving to go vote as soon as I finish this post.
I fear hope — it has let me down bitterly in the past — but right now, I’m cautiously hopeful about the outcome of today. Tonight, I could be looking at this post and wishing I’d never written it, but right now, I’m going to indulge in the luxury of hope for a better, brighter future. And now I’m going to go do something about it.
Get out there and vote today if you live in a primary state!
I think I’ve mentioned in passing that Obama is my candidate, but with Super Tuesday approaching, it’s time I came out and said so in no uncertain terms. There’s a lot of reasons why, but essentially it boils down to something Obama himself said in a speech today:
It’s not enough to say you’ll be ready from Day One — you have to be right from Day One.
I support Barack Obama for President, and if you’re voting in one of the upcoming Democratic primaries, I strongly urge you to vote for him as well.
Frankly, Hillary Clinton and Obama do not differ all that much in many aspects of their platforms and their voting records — except for one glaring difference. Obama was right about the disastrous war Bush got us into, and Hillary was not. All the experience in the world will not help you if you make the wrong choices on key issues like whether or not to go to war, and Hillary got it wrong.
And even more than that, Obama is one of those uniquely gifted leaders who can, despite how rough the last 8 years have been, make people feel good about being an America, make us feel confident about our future, and make us feel that yes, we can get this ship of state back on course.
An America with Barack Obama as its President is an America I’d very much like to see. Whether we’ll get there, I don’t know, but I’ll be doing my part next Tuesday to try to bring it about.
Barack Obama is getting support for a lot of reasons, but his new set of proposals for integrating technology into government is another good reason for folks in this neck of the woods to pay attention to his candidacy.
VentureBeat has a rundown on Obama’s “technology platform”. Here’s a few takeaways:
Obama wants to open more of the governmental process. For example, the public should able to comment on the White House website before legislation is signed.
He calls more aggressive government support of broadband access.
He supports network neutrality.
He want to open the wireless spectrum so that winners of the 700 MHz band auction don’t just camp the spectrum in a bid to lock out competition.
Slightly less praiseworthy is his proposal to raise sanctions against companies offering “indecent” content. Fining networks $250,000 for dropping an f-bomb on TV is not going to make a more child-friendly society. Still, on balance, it’s a solid plan.
I don’t read Andrew Sullivan regularly, but Ezra called this piece on Clinton and Obama to my attention today, and it’s quite interesting, especially this bit:
Clinton has internalized to her bones the 1990s sense that conservatism is ascendant, that what she really believes is unpopular, that the Republicans have structural, latent power of having a majority of Americans on their side. Hence the fact that she reeks of fear, of calculation, of focus groups, of triangulation. She might once have had ideals keenly felt; she might once have actually relished fighting for them and arguing in their defense. But she has not been like that for a very long time. She has political post-traumatic stress disorder. She saw her view of feminism gutted in the 1992 campaign; she saw her healthcare plan destroyed by what she saw as a VRWC; she remains among the most risk-averse of Democrats on foreign policy and in the culture wars.
It’s an insightful take on Clinton and who know, Sullivan might even be right. He goes on to compare her with Obama:
The traumatized Democrats fear the majority of Americans are bigoted, know-nothing, racist rubes from whom they need to conceal their true feelings and views. The non-traumatized Democrats are able to say what they think, make their case to potential supporters and act, well, like Republicans acted in the 1980s and 1990s. The choice between Clinton and Obama is the choice between a defensive crouch and a confident engagement. It is the choice between someone who lost their beliefs in a welter of fear; and someone who has faith that his worldview can persuade a majority.
Traumatic events will have an impact, that’s a given. The real question is, what lessons do you learn from the past, and how do you choose to respond to it as you move on in life? I understand Clinton’s risk-aversion, but given that significant repair job that the next President is going to have on their hands, I’m not sure that someone whose impulse response is to be cautious is necessarily the right person for the job at this point in time.
Kevin Drum has a good post up today about the difference between a potential Obama foreign policy as compared to a Clinton foreign policy. I agree with his take, and even better, he has a nice summation of why all this actually matters:
It’s rare to have a discussion about foreign policy that actually revolves around a concrete point, and by foreign policy standards this one counts as at least a mud brick point. Basically, do you think the United States should, as a routine part of its foreign policy, say that it’s willing to talk to any country that’s willing to talk to us? That the mere act of talking isn’t a tacit capitulation to a rogue regime’s demands?
I sure think so, and not just for the obvious reason that talking can sometimes lead to actual results. The bigger reason is that if you talk routinely, then the mere act of talking isn’t a tacit capitulation to a rogue regime’s demands and can’t possibly be spun that way. It’s just something we do.
Entries (RSS)