First, like I said earlier, this place has made me into a fighter. And that's something I look for in a candidate. I mean, I get to proudly vote for Henry Waxman as my Congressman. He's one of the few people in Congress with real cojones. I loved it when my Senator Barbara Boxer introduced that resolution to condemn Rush Limbaugh in response to the GOP's circle-jerk condemning MoveOn.org for the Petraeus ad. Yeah, it failed, but it showed them that she wasn't going to go down without a fight. Some of her Democratic colleagues... not so much.
The person I am now versus the person I was before I discovered DailyKos were two different people. I was, well, a weakling, a pushover, back then. Very shy, never really asserted myself. And then this blog helped me find my voice. I learned to speak up for myself, and stand up for myself. I stopped letting people push and bully me around. And whaddaya know, I actually got results and added respect from people!
When people see you passionately fight for what you believe in, it almost certainly commands respect. Funny thing, I'm still a pacifist by nature. But I will fight for what I believe in.
The Timeline of My Decision
(Yeah, yeah, I stole that line from karateexplosions)
I started out on the fence but leaning towards Obama around the beginning of 2007. Having remembered his speech from the 2004 DNC, I thought he could have been that transformational candidate. I was e-mailing friends and family who weren't as engaged as I was about the massive numbers he was pulling in in various cities. 20,000 in Texas? Unreal!
Then came March, and the CPAC conference. Ann Coulter called Edwards a "faggot". Just days later, Edwards came to UCLA for a rally. I helped the Bruin Democrats set up for it, but even then I still wasn't in the Edwards camp. Though we did get a special bird's eye view of his speech.
Then came Elizabeth Edwards' cancer announcement, and Rush Limbaugh's disgusting comments on it. That, combined with Coulter's sick comments, got me thinking that Edwards really did seem to give the right-wing palpitations. And that's a good thing.
I got to see all of our frontrunners in person when the Bruin Dems went to San Diego for the California Democratic Party convention in April. What I remembered most from that weekend was listening to Obama talk about getting the votes to end the war in Iraq, and if Bush vetoed it, then getting 67 votes to override the veto. Loved it. I still have the Gore/Obama '08 pamphlets from the convention in my room.
And in the next couple months, we saw the Senate Republicans obstruct, obstruct, and obstruct some more. And we weren't getting those votes. For all that Obama was saying, he wasn't getting anywhere near enough Republicans to cross over and help us end the war. We needed tougher tactics. I had actually believed in Obama enough that I thought we would actually get the votes needed to stop Bush on Iraq later in 2007. How sorely disappointed I was when that turned out not to be the case. I still cheered for the all-night filibuster in July, but that only got Susan Collins to switch. We needed to do much more than just one night.
But going back a bit, two events in June finally made me switch from Obama to Edwards.
First, as an environmentalist first and foremost, it was his stuff on liquid coal. That to me was a punch in the gut. That was visceral; and given his environmental record, he should have known better. Environmental groups howled in response; Al Gore called it a "horrible mistake". That pushed me into the neutral camp.
Then, Elizabeth Edwards confronted Ann Coulter on Hardball, and even got all the young Republicans in the crowd to applaud her (Elizabeth) by the end of the phone call. I was at the Calitics blograiser that night saying that what Elizabeth did was crucial. She fought back. I promised them I would write a diary (which I never did) on how we should fight back with our wallets every time Coulter made a statement like that. When the right-wing sees that she's actually helping raise money for their opponents, they'll MAKE her shut the hell up. And she won't matter anymore. :-) The next day, I gave my first donation of the 2008 cycle to John Edwards, and I was no longer on the fence.
A Critical Look
Since then, I've had my Obama friends in the Bruin Dems try to persuade me to come back to the fold. But I just can't reconcile the rhetoric of bringing together Republicans to get the 67 votes, and political reality. Since that time, I've gone back to take a closer look at his record.
Now, as Obama supporters like NeuvoLiberal have pointed out to me, he has since backed off from the liquid coal idea. But it still left a mark. The problem now is that I still have yet to see a good explanation of why he co-sponsored that horrid bill in the first place. Was it simply just pandering to the coal industry? Edwards admitted his war vote was wrong, and a political calculation. OK, fine, I don't like that, but I can accept it. But I have yet to see a similar explanation from Obama about this. Ever since then, I've been more cautious when it came to Obama, since he didn't explicitly admit he was wrong to support it. And no, responding to my liquid coal question by saying it's a Naderist attack and that Edwards' vote killed untold numbers of Iraqi civilians doesn't help make the case for Obama.
Look, man up the courage to admit you're wrong when you're wrong, and you'll have my respect. I see this too as the main reason Hillary refuses to apologize for her war vote, and instead makes all these contorted statements to justify her actions. I think she's afraid of admitting she was wrong, for fear of being labeled "weak" by people she shouldn't fear in the first place.
But we cannot afford to live in fear anymore.
But since he at least backed off of the liquid coal idea, maybe I should forgive him and move on, and believe in him. But... I can't. Not yet. And it hurts, because like Fox Mulder's poster says, "I Want to Believe". I want to believe he'll be the candidate his great supporters on DailyKos say he will be. I want to believe he'll be that champion of progressive causes that he's shown as a state senator in Illinois. I want to believe he'll be that person who unites this country and moves us forward. I want to believe he's the one that can... "un-fuck" up the things Bush and his cohorts have done to this country.
But every time I try to believe that, something just doesn't click in the back of my mind. And so I remain skeptical. But I want to be convinced. I want to believe. I want to know that when I cast my ballot in November, the person I'm voting for will truly champion progressive causes (or as occams hatchet calls it, a human-centric agenda).
So convince me. Don't do it by simply slamming Edwards; tearing down Edwards in order to build up Obama is not going to win Obama any brownie points in my book. Make the case for Obama. After a great deal of thought as to the reasons I remain skeptical, here are some of the problems I haven't quite resolved about Obama.
1. Kerry-Feingold
One of my friends in Bruin Dems is particularly adamant about his support for Obama stemming from Obama "getting it right" on Iraq. It was a litmus test for him. He was right on the war from the beginning. Yes, and for that he deserves major props. But given that, that's what makes it all the more puzzling and frustrating that Obama voted (as did Hillary) AGAINST the Kerry-Feingold amendment in June 2006. I've racked my brain wondering why he voted the way he did on this. I've done Google searches trying to find a statement by him. Can anyone explain what was his reasoning for voting the way he did on this?
2. The Mythical Center & the Overton Window
The recent stories of his subtle slams of Democratic groups and ideals troubled me, but OK, I could brush those off as him trying to appeal to independents and Republicans. But I'd still disagree that the method in which he did that was the best way to appeal to them. I heard a brief explanation from hekebolos on this, but I'd like some more discussion on how Obama's message helps move the Overton window. By inserting those tiny bits of right-wing talking points, how does that help us shift it back to the left? It seems anti-thetical to what the whole point of the Overton window is. From what I remember, he said Obama's message took it in a new direction. So hekebolos, if you're reading this, could you please expound on that, because I didn't quite get what you were saying that night. (Plus I could barely hear you because of all the noise in the bar too.)
(Update: hekebolos responds here. Interesting POV, I'm just not sure I trust Obama's tactic to work better than Edwards' tactic at this point.)
One of the things the Bush/Cheney team discovered after 2000 was that the "center" didn't really exist in this country anymore, at least not to the extent that you could win elections by resting your laurels on pulling in enough people from the "center". It's mythical, propagated by the Beltway pundits who orgasm when they hear the word "compromise". People are either on one side or the other. Those who really aren't sure, are those that never bother to vote anyway. They're probably part of that 31% of Americans who don't even know Dick Cheney is the Vice President.
This is why Bush dropped the "compassionate conservative" pretense in 2004 and ran to the hard right, courting his base. You win by getting the base fired up and to the polls. And after almost 8 years of Bush, people have made their minds up about Bush and the GOP. Democrats like those in the DLC who try to court that mythical center will generally lose, or scrape by but not help build the Democratic Party in the process. So please, Mr. Obama, stop with the right-wing talking points and talk like a true progressive. It will actually help you get MORE votes, not less. So from a strategic point of view, courting the independent vote is not a winning proposition.
Look at the Iowa results. In 2004, 19% of the Democratic caucus-goers were Independents. Last week, it was 20%. Republicans made up 1% in 2004, and 3% this time around. Those aren't really significant increases. The big turnout that overwhelmed things came among young people. But as we've seen in multiple polls the blogosphere has been touting in the last couple years, the youth in this country are sharply lining up to become Democrats rather than Republicans, thanks in large part to Bush and his cronies. This was already shown to be the case in 2004, and even more so in 2006. The young people that came out were already predisposed to become loyal Democrats. IMO, THEY are who we should be working on bringing out, rather than courting Independents and Republicans. Court the Democratic vote.
My worry is when Obama starts moving towards that mushy middle center. And given his progressive record as a legislator, he's the LAST person who should be doing any such thing.
3. Post-partisanship
The theme we've all heard from the Obama campaign is one of "post-partisanship". Bringing Republicans, Democrats, and Independents together. But regardless of who our nominee is, unless we can actually get 60 Senate seats, you can bet your ass the remaining Senate Republicans will hunker down even more and filibuster like crazy on crucial legislation on energy, Iraq, etc. And one of the problems with running on hope is that once parts of his agenda are filibustered to death, and we don't get the progress we need thanks to 41 Republicans, that hope can turn into disillusionment.
That's one of the problems with "post-partisanship". How does Obama go to CT-04 and tell the voters there that they should vote out Chris Shays, when he has all the appearances of a moderate? How does Obama make the case against Norm Coleman or Gordon Smith or Susan Collins, when they've been voting with us on Iraq lately?
How can Obama go to Kentucky to tell the people there they should vote out Mitch McConnell, who wields quite a bit of power (some of it undeservedly so, thanks to Harry Reid) and brings home the bacon, when a central theme of his campaign is working with Republicans and bringing us together? Can he simply say that, well, McConnell hasn't been willing to help, so let's kick him out? Will that kind of message really jibe with the voters?
And even if it does, how will that message work in open seat races, where the Republican nominee will not be an incumbent? Can he say he knows he won't be able to work with that person, when they don't yet have a record in Congress?
It's a disconnect I haven't seen addressed yet.
So there you have it. Those are the reasons why I'm not on the Obama bandwagon. But if you can make the case for Obama on the issues I've raised, then I'll reconsider. I'm not so inflexible that I won't change my mind when confronted with new evidence. Call me a flip-flopper if you so choose.
And let me end with saying that all along, I've been saying that I feel whoever our nominee is among the top three (sorry, Richardson supporters), that person will win the White House come 2008. Yes, even against McCain. So it's not like I think Obama would lose the White House. Far from it. But I want to be sure that he will fight for the things we need the next President to implement.
And yes, since someone's bound to ask, if Obama is our nominee in November, of course I'm voting for him.
