Why Barack Obama MUST Be the Nominee

Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton. Is that what America is now? A pseudo-monarchy? Is that seriously what a America wishes to perpetuate? Is it logical that by some godawful coincidence that the son of a former president became president because he was the best person for the job, and now a spouse of a former president is supposed to be the next president because she is the best person for the job? I think not. I think it is unamerican. Hillary Clinton and those who rabidly support her candidacy for president are no different from those who rabidly supported George W. Bush for president. They are people who, rather than realizing that America maintains its great status in the world and its fluidity through change. Electing the same people from the same families over and over again does not by any stretch of the imagination represent change any more than hereditary assignment of regency represents change in a monarchy.

The only true change we will see in this election will come from Barack Obama. Those who believe that John McCain in all his pandering antics will be much of a change from the Bush continuum are wearing blinders. Those who believe that Hillary Clinton represents a radical change from her husband's scandal-ridden terminus are wearing even larger blinders.

Logic dictates reality clearly once we take off the blinders. The Republican Party is enjoying the fight going on between Obama and Clinton because it is tearing down the Democratic Party and giving a boost to the Republican Party. The Republicans clearly want Hillary Clinton to win the nomination of the Democrats. Rush Limbaugh exhorts his minions to vote for her. Rupert Murdoch endorses her in his newspapers and gives speeches that favor her. Richard Mellon Scaife is following the lead of Rupert Murdoch and also endorsing Clinton. Most of Fox News coverage of Hillary Clinton has a positive bent hinting that she couls and should win the nomination. While all of this is happening, we see Fox strongly attacking Obama. Newsmax, a vey right wing website, came out with the clips of Rev. Wright and now are bringing out some clips of a vote Obama took regarding gang violence. The right wing has had an eager ally in Hillary Clinton, who's latest ad with pictures of the Wall Street Crash and Osama Bin Laden and other images meant to strike fear into the hearts of Americans looks like something directly out of a Karl Rove strategy session. Hillary knows the Republicans want her to win the nomination and she has made appearances on Fox News and has met with Rupert Murdoch and Richard Mellon Scaife and has actually attacked MoveOn.org to urge the Republicans on and to relish their support. She wishes to destroy Obama just as much as the Republicans do. Her motive is that she simply wants to be the nominee. The Republicans' motive is simply that they know they can tear her apart in a general election and are drooling at the mouth with the thought of a Hillary Clinton candidacy. No single person in American politics can get Republicans and right-leaning Independents of all stripes to come out in droves to vote for the Republican candidate for president as much as Hillary Clinton. If she becomes the Democratic nominee, it will spell disaster for the Democratic Party in November and you can bet everything you own that the Republicans know this. It is pure logic. It is staring us in the face.

Conversely, the Republicans know that if Barack Obama is the nominee of the Democratic Party, they will have a very rough time of it. They have maybe one-tenth the dirt on him that they have on Hillary Clinton. He is much more of a uniting force and a force of hope and inspiration than Hillary Clinton is. He is a hugely sharp contrast with their candidate, John McCain. Independents, including right-leaning Independents such as myself (a former Republican) will vote for him over John McCain. Voters who are against the war in Iraq will see a much greater difference between Obama and McCain than they would between Clinton and McCain and they will vote for Obama. After all, those of us who are against the Iraq war clearly know that no matter how she tries to spin it, Hillary Clinton voted for the resolution to give the president the power to use military force against Iraq while Obama was against this ill-begotten war from the start. Most Americans are against the Iraq war and they who are strongly against it will vote for Obama. This will give him the swing states that Hillary Clinton apparently thinks are her exclusive territory, because while there is a great difference between Obama and Clinton regarding the Iraq war issue, there is little difference between Obama and Clinton regarding the other huge issue, the economy. This will cause swing voters to vote for Obama over McCain, but not necessarily to vote for Clinton over McCain.

Finally, the math is clear. The only way Hillary Clinton can be the nominee of the Democratic Party is if it is handed to her by the "Superdelegates". This would have one effect and only one effect: it will destroy the Democratic Party and it will cause the Democratic Party to lose not only the White House, but also not gains as many seats in the House and Senate as they could were they to have picked Obama.

The conclusion is clear: Barack Obama represents the future of the Democratic Party. They can swim with him, or they can drown with Hillary.

To Geraldine Ferraro - Why I Support Barack Obama

Geraldine Ferraro has said that Barack Obama is lucky to be where he is, and that if he were white or were a woman he more than likely would not be where he is. I must disagree with this.

I would not care if Obama were white, brown, yellow, red, female or gay. I have not decided to support him based on any of these parameters. I read of women who support Hillary because she is a woman...that is not a good reason to support a candidate. I read of blacks who support Obama because he is black...that is not a good reason to support a candidate. I am a Republican who recently changed my registration to Unaffiliated because finally, after all these years, I have grown disgusted with the policies of the Republican Party. Lately, I have also seen little to like about the Democratic Party. I have decided to support Barack Obama, and I have contributed to his campaign, for several reasons, some of which I list here:

I support him because I believe that he is level-headed under pressure...the kind of level-headedness it takes when crucial decisions of great import that require clear and proper judgement are to be made...the kind of judgement and level-headed demeanor that I, as a Vietnam Veteran, would want to see in my Commander-in Chief. I do not see this kind of level-headedness or proper judgement in his opponents, Hillary Clinton and John McCain.

I support him because I believe he has the leadership skills and the oratorical skills it takes to change the direction of this country. The way he has led his campaign is outstanding and reflects on how he would lead the country. His gift of oratory not only makes complex issues easy for all Americans to understand, but also he uses it in a positive way to express a powerful vision of hope that provides the kind of inspiration it takes to effect great change.

I support him because he is very intelligent, yet he is down to earth.

I support him because he impresses me as being honest...more so than most of the politicians we have seen and heard over the years.

I support him because he has led a campaign that takes its roots from the ground up and its money from the masses, rather than the priviledged few.

I support him because his vision is that of a United States that can strive to heal its divisions rather than a United States that must further fan the fires of division. I do not see this in his opponents, Hillary Clinton and John McCain.

I support him because he wishes to do away with and rise above the politics of old and he wishes to fundamentally change a government that is clearly out of touch with the common man.

I support him because he wishes to nourish a middle class that has been squeezed and is so important to this great machine of progress.

I support him because he talks to me and not at me.

I support him because I can see that he has true greatness in him, and I have not seen true greatness in an American president in far too many years.

I support him because in 2002 he had the judgement to recognize that invading iraq was a war of choice and not a war of necessity that would eventually become not only a major distraction from our true goals, but also a major recruiting poster for Osama Bin Laden that would make this world more dangerous, not safer, even though at the time he was going against the political grain and the waves of patriotic fervor that so many of our politicians and countrymen were swept up in...this took courage.

I support him because he is courageous in the face of the division, the old politics, the racism...all of it. He stands above this and says we can heal it and that we can hope again. The last courageous American leader to do these things was assassinated. Obama knows this, yet he perseveres. That takes tremendous courage.

I support him because I believe that his policies will truly change not only the course of our nation to the right direction, but also the fundamental way our government is run. He will make government transparent so that the people may know what their leaders are doing.

I support him because he will stand face to face with our enemies and will communicate directly to them that they may know our position and that they may see that we do not fear them, yet we are willing to reason with them. He will restore our place and reputation in this world. His opponents scoff at this notion. They forget that we are America. We need not fear to negotiate face to face with our enemies. John Kennedy knew this. Ronald Reagan knew this. Barack Obama's opponents believe that we must not talk to our enemies unless they quit being our enemies first. This is not the way things happen in the real world. They think that we are above all nations. Barack Obama knows that for America to be great in the eyes of the world, America must not look down at the world.

I support him because he has promised that by the end of his first term as president, this country will have universal health care, thereby removing from us the dubious distinction of being the only industrialized nation in the world that does not have universal health care. Being an older man with pre-existing medical conditions, I know that as it is today in this country, any of the big health insurance companies can and probably will turn me down, though I have worked hard all my life, and have tried to be a good American, just as they did to Barack Obama's mother who later died of cancer.

I support him because he will fight to make it possible for any American child, no matter their place in society, to have the opportunity for a strong, well-rounded education not only for the first 12 years, but also in college. Additionally, at the college level, he offers students a $4000 per year tuition credit in return for community service.

I support him because he will treat our troops as they should be treated. He will not send them out on extended and repeated tours of duty. He will not send them out to fight unnecessary wars. He will not use them as if they were toy soldiers. He respects them as he does all of his fellow Americans. He knows that "support the troops" does not mean "abuse the troops". He will put an end to the current abuse.

I support him because he will treat our veterans right. He will keep the promise that our nation has made and broken so many times. He respects them, as he does all of his fellow Americans.

There are many more reasons why I support Barack Obama for president, but suffice it to say that race and gender and luck have nothing to do with it. And that is why I must respectfully disagree with Geraldine Ferraro.

The Swiftboats Must Be Sunk

What the Clintons used to call the "Politics of Personal Destruction" has become a mantel they have draped over their own shoulders. In a blog on the Huffington Post on February 18th, 2008, Taylor Marsh, apparently a strong Hillary Clinton supporter, in referring to the "plagiarism" accusations the Clinton camp has been making against Barack Obama, says:

Barack Obama isn't an original. He's the first 21st century L. Ron Hubbard of politics, Elmer Gantry, name your huckster.

"I have a dream" just became "I have a con."

This blog by Taylor Marsh is a perfect example of the Clinton/Bush politics of tearing down your opponent. It has nothing to do with issues. And, as I read the comments made here and on other blogs by Clinton supporters, it saddens me.

This is a perfect example of why Clintons and Bushes are and have been so divisive, in case you have ever wondered why so many people say that Clintons or Bushes are divisive. We have seen this kind of thing for 20 years now! It basically started with George H. W. Bush's "Willie Horton" ad against Michael Dukakis in, oh, I think it was 1988. This kind of politics, these negative attacks, this style of "tearing down" or "smearing" one's opponent, is just the thing that most Americans, especially young Americans, have grown weary of.

This is why so many young Americans are excited by the Obama campaign. This is why Barack Obama has just won 11 states in a row. He does not try to tear down his opponents. He will answer their charges, but he will not try to smear them. That is a breath of fresh air on the political stage! That is just one of the reasons why Barack Obama will not only win the Democratic nomination, but will also soundly defeat John McCain in November.

Get a clue, Hillary supporters: you are upholding, promoting, and supporting a style of politics that most Americans, especially young Americans who have seen it their whole adult life, are fed up with...it not only hurts Hillary, it not only hurts the Democractic party, it hurts America. It is something best left to the Republicans. Over the past seven years, under the tutelage of Karl Rove, they have made this kind of sleaze descend into a a kind of political art form...and I am talking about the dark arts here. Let the Democratic party rise above it, and Democrats everywhere will win seats this November.

The swiftboats are sinking in their own morass, and our nation will be the better for it. It is the spark that will enable Barack Obama to make the sweeping, positive changes our country so desperately needs.

The Sound and Fury of Hillary

The Clinton team's new strategy of attacking Obama for making speeches is one that should give anyone pause. Michael Seitzman has written an interesting blog on February 14th, 2008 dealing with this. You will find it here - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-seitzman/speeches-do-matter_b_86745.html. In it he says:

"...there is the assertion that speechmaking is irrelevant. I'm wondering where this country would be without great oratory, without great communicators, without those who have been able to articulate a vision and move a nation.
Where would we be without Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech? Is there a single piece of oratory that defined a moment more than that speech did for the civil rights movement? That speech is a cry for freedom and equality that changed the world. Yes, the marches and the political wrangling with various presidents (yes, including Johnson) mattered. But, it was that speech which encapsulated the simple humanity that was at stake. That speech galvanized a movement, electrified a nation, and embarrassed a government into action.
What about Robert Kennedy's, "Some men see things as they are and ask, 'Why?' I dream of things that never were and ask, 'Why not?"
Or JFK's, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
Churchill's, "Never in the history of mankind have so many owed so much to so few."
Roosevelt's, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."
Lincoln's, "Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it."
And, now we have Senator Clinton's, "Talk is cheap." Boy, she really knows how a move a nation."

The responses of Clinton supporters to his blog in which they defend the new Clinton strategy are very interesting, and here is my take on those responses:

I am an older guy...a Vietnam vet. The responses of the Clinton supporters to this incisive and spot on blog by Mr. Seitzman remind me so much of the criticisms that were leveled at Senator John F. Kennedy when he ran for president. This is so much "deja vu all over again". Obama's "irrelevant" speeches remind me so much of King, JFK and RFK because they galvanize, inspire and are quite uplifting and full of vision for the future of our country. Does he have specific plans addressing specific issues? Of course he does. They are listed in detail on his website, and he has discussed them many times in many debates. I read the posts written by those who oppose Obama (and I have no problem with people opposing any politician...that is what America is all about) and they keep saying that Obama has no specific proposals. That is simply not true. If you are going to oppose a politician, please be truthful. Now, the Clintons, and I say that plurally because they are both saying the same thing, are saying that Obama is delivering speeches while Hillary is delivering proposals. No. Hillary is delivering speeches, too. It's just that her speeches are not as inspiring and uplifting as Obama's. They are the same old tired elocutions that we have heard for decades, ever since the first Bush was in office. Now, the second Clinton, trying to appear to be a fresh new face, is confronted with her own image: that of politics as usual; that of the past. Obama is right. This election is about the future, and the future shines bright when embraced through the vision embodied in his wonderful speeches. Meanwhile, Senator Clinton continues to sound like so much "sound and fury, signifying nothing", to quote another great elocutor of speeches, William Shakespeare.