Some thoughts...

As we get closer and closer to the first primary several things cross my mind that I feel I should be honest about. Readers of this blog know that I deeply distrust Hillary Clinton. I have also openly stated my recent decision to support Barack Obama. But I feel that I need to qualify these sentiments so as to stay honest.

So, while I truly and sincerely believe that Hillary Clinton has become far too calculating as a politician, leading her to vote in support of a number of things I vehemently oppose, including the use of cluster bombs, authorization for the war in Iraq, the resolution that has paved the way for war with Iran in labeling the Iranian Revolutionary guard a terrorist organization, being the last Democrat to support a troop withdrawal, her willingness to accept money from Washington lobbyists, her support for No Child Left Behind and the released memo that she would try to run for President as a conservative Democrat--a Goldwater Girl if you will--I would STILL vote for her were she to be the Democratic nominee. This is because the Republicans--led by bomb-everything-in-my-way Guiliani--are so militaristic in their foreign policy that the world absolutely cannot afford another George Bush at the helm. I also believe that on several key issues, including Health Care and/or civil unions for gay couples, all the Democrats are still infinitely better than the Republicans (Though, again, Clinton is conspicuously lacking in the anti-corporate, anti-lobbyist rhetoric that one sees from Edwards and Obama).

Now, as for Edwards goes, he has talked a great game, but that doesn't change the fact that he didn't act when he had the chance. He supported the Iraq war, the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, and Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. At least he now is openly against all of these decisions, and speaks a truly populist message, but we don't have to trouble over questioning whether he is or is not being sincere since the Obama option is there. For afterall, how do we know that he would not sacrifice his morals for political expediency on other important issues if the opportunity were to rise again.

Now we come to Obama. Obama was long considered a champion of progressive values for his time as an Illinois state senator. During his tenure, he worked with both Democrats and Republicans in drafting successful legislation on health care reform. He sponsored a law enhancing tax credits for low-income workers, and promoted increased subsidies for child care. Obama also led the passage of legislation mandating videotaping of homicide interrogations, and a law to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they stopped. He helped write one of the rare ethics laws in Illinois, which the Washington Post described as "the most ambitious campaign reform in nearly 25 years, making Illinois one of the best in the nation on campaign finance disclosure." He sponsored legislation to bar job and housing discrimination against gays, and he received a "100 percent rating from the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council for his support of abortion rights, family planning services and health insurance coverage for female contraceptive." Knowing this there's is little reason to doubt that he is a progressive through and through, with deep convictions that he acts on even when having had to work with a Republican controlled senate for several years as a state legislator. With this record, AND with his outspoken and activist stand against the Iraq War at a time when close to 2/3 of Americans supported it, I feel confident that he's the real deal.

Having said that I was disappointed to see that he--like both Clinton and Edwards--was openly supportive of the indiscriminate collective punishment Israel waged on the Lebanese people during the 33-day war (the same war which was one of the main reasons I started this blog). Readers of this blog know how vital I think it is that America take a more even-handed approach as regards to the Middle East, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in particular. The reason for that, beyond the obvious humanity of the situation, is that our image in the Middle East will not change for the better until we show that we are honestly interested in the people of the region, in other words terrorism simply will NOT stop until we show that we are interested in more than just oil and geopolitical allies. Jimmy Carter and others have written about how pressure from AIPAC and other right-wing groups has created an environment whereby any criticism of Israel leads to you being called an anti-semite. Obama, like Clinton and Edwards, disappointed me in caving into this pressure. Nonetheless, the way Obama frames his discussions of foreign policy and terrorism, leads me to believe that he is the candidate who provides the best hope for a different approach. Whilst Clinton has moved exceedingly to the right on hardline foreign policy issues regarding the Middle East (claiming that her husband was too soft on the Palestinians, and attacking Obama for being willing to have direct dialog even with our enemies), Obama speaks of the need to battle poverty in the region so as to prevent terrorism, framing the issue in a wholly different way. Also, his criticism of our blind support for the brutal dictatorships of Pakistan's Musharraf and the Saudi's is another indication that he realizes the importance of seeking to gain the trust of the people of the region. He disappointed greatly in the summer during the Israel/Lebanon 33-Day War, but which of the candidates didn't? Having said that, there is no doubt in my mind that relative to the other candidates, he is the one with the most potential to take America in a different direction. Just listen to his criticism of the standard approaches to foreign policy and you'll see that he's the only one making this a central aspect of his campaign. For all these reasons, I strongly urge you to vote for him in the primaries.

All My Best...And Merry Christmas!

-O.