The original genesis of this diary was an exchange on my perception that Obama's campaign of radical change was not an honest platform. I was accused of being an extremist blocking America's path to the Promised Land.
First off I appreciate exchanging opinions, and I don't mean to offend. I am just trying to share my knowledge and my viewpoint. If you disagree that is certainly your valid right, and I welcome comment.
The enemy is anyone that puts party, region, religion, or personal ambition above the nation's interest. I will not back down from that statement. The enemy is also people too ignorant to acknowlede what they don't know. I find ignorance of American history and American politics to be damaging. Ignorant voters will pick ignorant leaders.
We Can't Repeat the Mistakes of the Past 8 Years
In 2000, I told everyone I met that Bush was a dangerous incompetent, that he was lying his way to the WH. The press rarely pointed out his exagerations of his accomplishments. It was too busy making up stories that showed what a big phony and liar Gore was. Well we paid the price for that bias. In 2004, I thought Dean was the best leader for the Democratic Pary, not because I thought he would destroy the Republican Party, but he would be a forceful representative of alternatives to Bush's policies. Perhaps, I was wrong and in the long run things worked out for the best with Dean taking over as DNC leader instead of being the Presidential nominee.
Now, in 2008 everyone is so sick of partisan bickering. Bill Richardson tried to use this fatigue to score a cheap political point during last Saturday's New Hampshire debate.
RICHARDSON: You know, this is the kind of Washington bickering that the public turns off to. And, you know, with all due respect, as a governor, I'm frustrated every time you guys and the president get nothing done because then the burden is on us.
http://abcnews.go.com/...
A Uniter Not A Divider 2.0
I see Obama running on the same ignorance that allowed Bush to sneak into office. There will always be partisan bickering because the parties have different ideologies. The Republicans think government is the problem, the Democrats think it can be part of the solution. Republicans think the wealthiest people deserve their interests protected, the Democrats think all citizens deserve to have their interests protected. The idea that Obama or Bloomberg can just wave his wand hand and all the differences will disappear is not only naive, but dangerous. Ron Paul is another variant, in that complex problems can have simple solutions, but it is still another dangerous form of voter ignorance. It is what gave us Bush.
In 2000, Bush ran as a "Uniter not a Divider", then when he took office he did everything in his power to shut the Democrats out of the political process. Obama is running on a similiar theme which is just plain dishonest. Now I don't believe, Obama will shut the Republicans out of the political process. However, I do believe he will not protect the Democratic Party's interest, he will give up too much of our interests like a Joe Lieberman (who is a Obama's Senate Mentor). I don't want Bipartisian support if it is everything the Republicans want and little of what the Democrats want.
Obama states that he is a different type of politician, but he is not. He uses Right Wing smears that the Republicans have been using for years to attack Hillary. I love honest and serious disagreement on the issues, but I don't like lies. Obama even contradicted himself when he tried to use the politics of fear on the Social Security issue back in October. This is the same thing Bill Bradley did in 2000 in his primary debates with Gore. Have a solid record supporting Social Security and its solvency for years. Then for political expediency change your views and accuse your oppenent who has the same views you have always had of being dangerous. Paul Krugman was the only major columnist that called him out on his lies and Obama tried to smear Krugman.
Then yesterday, Jesse Jackson Jr., who has gotten where he is just like George W. Bush, Obama's national campaign co-chair, tried to play the racial card when implying that Clinton "cried" over superficial matters, but didn't over Katrina. Obama is supposed to be above all this, he is supposed to be a uniting figure. The politics of race are over accoring to his campaign, but he is not above above playing the race card for his gain in these partisan squabbles. Anyone that buys into Obama's spin is being played for a fool.
Another Bush tactic was to disparage candidates for having ambition. It used to be admirable that someone had dreamed of being President in grade school. Now due to voter cynicism fueled by media manipulation it is considered a negative quality.
Obama himself has been using this line of attack.
"I have not been planning to run for president for however number of years some of the other candidates have been planning for."
Clinton's campaign argued that Obama was guilty of being just as ambitious and being hypocritical in the process.
http://facts.hillaryhub.com/...
Now we can argue if they were too zealous in their research, but this line of thinking in choosing our President has got to stop. If I heard my doctor had watned to become a doctor since he or she was five, I would be pleased, because it would show on some level committment and passion. Now that sort of ambition is seen as some sinister character flaw. Voting for stupid and ambivalent for President has got to end.
Foreign Policy
In regards to Obama's foreign policy views, I think he again shares too many of Bush's traits to make him the Democratic choice. Obama's Pakastani policy was described in his insane remarks of attacking Al Queda in Pakistan if Musharaff won't during Saturday's debate. This is absurd with the US military bogged down in Iraq. An invasion into Pakistan at this moment would be disasterous. The US is perceived by Pakistan as a bigger threat than India at this time.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/... ... 008_01.php
What do we do if our actions topple the government in Pakistan? As has been seen in our occupation of Iraq, we can't control events even with 100,000+ troops on the ground. Pakistan has nuclear weapons.
I will state I thought Obama got unfair criticism from both Clinton and Edwards for his remarks on meeting with Iranian leaders. I think all diplomatic options must be used and they were just using Beltway conventional wisdom to buttress what I think are misguided views.
Experience
Obama strikes me as unprepared, much as Bush did when running for office. I am not stating they have the same intellect or experience, but unprepared for the power of the office. Bush hid his ignorance (with the help of a compliant press) Obama's slips up from time to time to expose his, but the media does little to highlight it (at leat until he gets the nomination).
Secondly, Kennedy and Clinton, who were around the same age as Obama is now, had served in Congress and been Governor for 12 years (both) made numerous mistakes their first term. Is Obama who has less experience going to buck that trend?
Issue of Electablity in a General Election
Do any of you actually watch the debates? Obama is not a good debater (at least so far), he is great at speeches, but how many people will see his speeches during the general campaign?
Lastly, Obama has admitted to using cocaine and Marijuana up until his college years. Bush got a pass, because the cocaine use was never admitted and the media was too busy smearing Gore. I don't think Obama will get that luxury. Even if the media does not make it an issue, I don't have any doubt the Republicans will even if it is an underground smear campaign.
Obama being the Democrtatic nominee will not get a free pass like Bush.
Obama is a politician and damn good one, but he needs to be judged just like any other politician.
He has not magically changed the rules of the game.