There are a number of different reasons why someone like myself would end up choosing Obama in this 2008 Democratic primary (and the 2008 general election). He’s the choice of young people. He’s a new generation of politician. He is my generation’s JFK. He’s an outsider. He’s socially liberal, but he doesn’t wear it on his sleeve. He speaks in a post-partisan tone. He’s looking to get moved past the “partisan gridlock” in Washington. These are some of the popular one-liners and clichés that have become popular in the press for defining Obama and his candidacy. And these may be some of the reasons young people support Obama, but I think there is so much more to it than that.
I should probably have prefaced this with a little background. I don’t think I am your typical, 27 year-old political animal. While I was too young to truly know what was going on in the political fights of the early 90’s, I certainly was quite aware of what was happening in 1998, with the Clinton impeachment. I have always been extremely politically aware and active. I volunteered for the Gore campaign in 2000, while in college. I’ve been reading blogs since 2003 (though only came to political blogs in the summer of 2004). I took a day off from work in 2006 to volunteer for Ned Lamont’s campaign in CT (for the general, not the primary). Needless to say, I’m pretty liberal/progressive and extremely partisan.
That said, I work in the financial services world. I believe that free trade and free markets can be forces for good. I don’t like corporate social responsibility. I don’t like the idea of penalizing China for “currency manipulation.” I don’t like the idea of private social security accounts or school vouchers. Ok, before I continue off on a complete tangent, I’m just saying you can’t put me in a box. My main point is this, my beliefs actually match up quite substantively with Obama and Clinton, both of whom are not classic Bernie Sanders socialists. But I think there really is a difference in the details of those beliefs and how to most effectively implement them in policy.
While I think a lot of people like to complain about the bitter partisanship in Washington, something that Obama effectively campaigns against, I actually think it’s ok. I’m only 27, so my memory is short, but I’m not sure when there was a time that everything was super-duper peachy in the government. Pundits and people like Unit ’08 (now draft Bloomberg) like to claim that only way to do good things for the American people is by being nice and agreeing on stuff. Really? That’s how things get done? These guys served in government, right?
See, I believe that people fundamentally disagree on things. This is perfectly ok. Why is it bad that some of my friends believe in a national sales tax, some of them believe in a flat income tax and I believe in a progressive income tax? We argue the merits of our beliefs. We all believe strongly in things and want to fight to make them become a reality. Was there wonderful unity surrounding the passing of the Civil Rights Act? How about the New Deal? Abolition? No, difficult things that people believe in deeply, from different angles, tend to require a fight. Tell me why this is bad?
Recent examples of bipartisanship in Washington include:
Leave No Child Behind Act
USA PATRIOT ACT
Iraq War AUMF
Confirmation of Samuel Alito
Gang of 14 judicial filibuster compromise
Non-existant investigations of Iraq War intelligence, missing billions in Iraq and Katrina
The list goes on. Is bipartisanship really this awesome? There’s a fight going on over FISA legislation right now. Those who don’t seem to understand what is at stake in terms of the destruction of civil liberties say, “don’t let partisanship get in the way of protecting us from terrorists.” But what they are really pushing for is retroactive immunity for telecom services companies, warrantless wiretapping of US citizens and the inability of US citizens to seek justice for violations of their 4th Amendment rights in court. Yea bipartisanship (thanks goodness for Chris Dodd and his purely partisan beliefs that the Constitution, and not the President, is the highest law in the land).
Why am I rambling on about bipartisanship? Isn’t this an argument against the message that Obama is campaigning on? No, and here is why:
Obama’s ability to bring people together isn’t simply to come up with a compromise solution for the sake of agreement/compromise. Obama is pitching his ability to bring Independents and Republicans into the Democratic coalition to pass legislation that reflect his core beliefs. With a Democrat in the White House and Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, there is an opportunity of transformative legislation to be passed. Obama is a committed progressive and he is not campaigning as anything but. He isn’t out there tacking to the middle or the left on issues like Iraq, the economy, immigration or anything else. Independents and disgruntled Republicans hear his positions now, know what he stands for and still find themselves drawn to him: his soaring rhetoric and powerful personal story are almost intoxicating.
If the Democratic coalition is likely to grow with him at the head of the ticket, possibly increasing margins in both houses of Congress, helping down ticket candidates in Red States and driving countless new voters to the polls, isn’t that a major reason to support his candidacy? Forget about the fluffy feel good part; if you share many of the same core principles of the Democratic party, shouldn’t you want someone at the top of it most likely to convince other people of the same?
So, like I said, enough of the fluff. What about the issues. Thursday night’s debate in Los Angeles was shockingly full of policy for something moderated on a cable news network (though to Wolf Blitzer’s lack of credit, he did throw out a number of Russert-isms, including trying to get Obama to call Clinton “naïve” over her vote for the Iraq war resolution). I think it gave people (who are not losers who spend time reading the policy details on candidate’s websites like some other people) a chance to see actual policy differences between the two, despite extremely similar beliefs. Maybe we should run through them here so I can illustrate why I believe Obama to be the better candidate, no just on the process, but on the issues:
Iraq/Foreign Policy: This is the easiest one, I think, by far. Democrats need to go into the general election with a clear contrast on the war. While Clinton has clearly come out against the war and wants to end it, she did support it in the beginning. She voted for it. She voted against the Levin Amendment. She (though like Obama) has voted to continue funding it every time. She has proposed what I think is a Constitutionally dubious “de-authorization” of the war. She voted for the awful Kyl-Lieberman Iran war mongering bill (though Obama missed that vote, so he doesn’t get 100% credit). She won’t admit her vote for the war was a mistake (maybe because she doesn’t believe it was). She says that she won’t meet with the leaders of opposition countries in the first year of her presidency, because she doesn’t want to give up the prestige of the presidency to countries that haven’t earned it. While HRC says she wants to bring troops home as soon as possible (and I believe her), how can she run a credible campaign on it?
Obama opposed the war from the beginning. From a contrast perspective, that’s almost enough right there. While I wish he would have voted against funding the war (the only constitutionally feasible way for Congress to end any war, really), I understand that our political and legislative process has become so perverted, that it’s nearly impossible. Additionally, Obama has a much more common sense foreign policy. You don’t need to be hawkish to keep America safe. You need to be smart. Do people honestly think we didn’t talk to the Soviets during the Cold War? Why shouldn’t we be talking to the Iranians, Syrians or North Koreans? Additionally, Obama is more likely to move us away from a foreign policy that idiotically groups countries like Iran, Iraq, North Korea and Syria together into some kind of axis. He’ll move us away from talking about the Muslim Brotherhood, Hizbullah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Taliban, Al Qaeda, Sunni Insurgency, etc. as one group of terrorists that “want to destroy us.” Can HRC do that? She voted for Kyl-Lieberman, which essentially calls out Iran for meddling in Iraq and pursuing nuclear weapons, when all published reports say that their influence in Iraq isn’t as dramatic as perceived and they halted their weapons program in 2003. Democrats suffered the 2004 election without a contrast on the War, they shouldn’t do it again.
Economy: Now, I know that Presidential candidates tend to not have the deepest fundamental understanding of how the economy works. They are generally very wealthy, they are heavily influenced by headline risk. They talk about the stock market or bond market like it is the entire US market (ok, maybe only Romney does that). HRC pitches herself as a sleeve rolling, nuts and bolts policy wonk who is willing to get dirty to get things done: it’s a big part of her experience pitch. Without going off on too much of a tangent, I have mixed feelings about her experience campaign. I do think that experience matters and I think life experience is part of that. HRC has experience as a big time lawyer. She has proposed legislation from the White House and in the Senate. Having been the target of Republican/Conservative venom for 16 years, she’s definitely battle tested. Additionally, as she is about 12 or 13 years older than Obama, she has more life experience. I think these are all fair characterizations of her advantages over Obama (though I’m not sure experience is the number one strength is she then ran against McCain, but I digress from my digression). But this while this experience might make her understand the current process better than Obama, it does not necessarily make her better understand what the right solutions are. When pressed on the current sub-prime crisis, HRC said she wants to put $600 in everyone’s pocket and invest in things like clean-tech jobs. Specifically, she wants to freeze interest rates for five years. She wants to work out a negotiating window to help people work out a deal with their lender to prevent foreclosure. I believe she wants to extend unemployment benefits and food stamps as well.
Obama has a similar plan, though I believe his tax rebate is smaller. The key difference is the interest rate freeze, which Obama does not support. Freezing interest rates for five years is possibly the worst idea to try and loosen credit, save homes and reboot the housing market. It belies a fundamental misunderstanding of how the economy works and what kind of solutions will helps it when it founders. Obama opposes the interest rate freeze. He understands (as he stated in the debate) that a freeze of interest rates would probably make banks less likely to lend, rather than the opposite. An independent central bank, and a regulated banking system below it, have are the corner stone of our market based economy, whether through home lending, corporate lending, interbank lending, etc. Over-regulating the banks could further drive the economy to a halt. Certainly a lot of fraudulent mortgage applications were submitted in the last 5 years and there was a tremendous amount of predatory lending. But those mortgages were packaged up, structured, sold-off, restructured, repackaged, etc. The global financial market exposure to these mortgages is in the trillions of dollars. There have already been $250b of write-downs of these assets with more to come. I believe we may be on the brink of a major global financial crisis that would make 1997-1998 look like peanuts.
If this is the case, who do you want as the figure-head of US policy (the President has advisors and think-tanks that come up with the actual policy)? I want someone who understands the way that the economy works, who’s experiences haven’t led him to believe that the best response to a crisis is more regulation, per se. Sure, Obama (and Clinton) wants to crack down on predatory lending and does not want to bail out speculators. There is nothing wrong with that. But again, for me, an interest rate freeze shows a fundamental lack of understanding how the economy/markets work and a set of experiences that say protectionism is the solution to a crisis.
HRC has had similar responses to individual free-trade agreements and China. The solution to economic problems is not necessarily more regulation. Short-term fixes should not create long term problems. Anyone with 20+ years in government should know that. And so it comes back to experience vs. judgement: maybe she can roll her sleeves higher and get her hands dirtier, but would the outcome be better?
Immigration: Either of them are better than the nativists who have taken over the Republican party. I think Obama has the advantage of being the son of an immigrant who lived in different parts of the world and grew-up in Hawaii. But really, I see this purely as a campaign narrative advantage Obama would have over McCain or Romney, not any real policy difference from Clinton.
Healthcare: The US spends more on healthcare than any other country in the world and yet has nowhere near the best care. That is insane considering there are a lot of countries with some form of universal coverage. I’m always amazed by claims that a single-payer system in the US would be a disaster, but I’m not really sure how it could be any worse than our current system that leaves 45mm+ uninsured. Only in America could a major manufacturer on the scale of GM be at risk from healthcare related expenses (though I guess some of it is pension related and union related as well). I wish both candidates were proposing single-payer systems, but that would have been highly unlikely from the get-go. So what are the options.
HRC is proposing a mandate driven system, similar to what is in place in Massachusetts. Everyone has to have insurance. It will be subsidized for those who can’t afford it. The system will be modernized with electronic records, etc. to save costs. Children will be covered. I think on this issue, HRC has a much better grasp of the mechanics and policy. I think, for her, it might be the most important domestic policy issue. I think that she learned from her experience in 1993 that single payer would be very difficult to pass, considering the influence of the insurance lobby. That said, how do you penalize those who don’t follow the mandate, a fine? While the MA plan was lauded when passed, it is still unclear if it actually works.
Obama’s plan has no mandate. He believes in a simple premise: people lack healthcare, not because they think they don’t need it or don’t want it, but because they can’t afford it. He has proposed a system without a mandate that seeks to heavily subsidize healthcare for those who need it the most. He has also proposed modernizing the system to save costs.
To be honest, I’m not really clear on the details of these plans, nor the overall mechanics of healthcare purchasing, coverage and service. I do know our current system does not work. Do I think that there are people out there that really want healthcare and were it affordable, would buy it? Yes. Do I also think there are probably people out there who think they are young and healthy and don’t need healthcare because it’s a waste of money (or some such nonsense)? Yes, thought probably not the 15mm people HRC claims Obama’s plan will leave uncovered.
For me, without someone proposing single payer, I look to who is more likely to get their proposal enacted into law. I’m not really sure who that is, but going back to who will increase the Democratic coalition and potentially increase majorities in the houses to pass tough, transformative legislation? I think the only answer there is Obama.
Experience vs. Judgement: To be honest, I only came to my final decision about a week ago. I spent much of this (way too long) primary season trying to evaluate all of the candidates, though I knew there were only ever three contenders. Dodd was my initial first choice, but he had little to no chance. Once he dropped out after Iowa, I was forced to start over again. I have been truly undecided until recently. Unlike many people, I quite like HRC. I think she is smart, personable, driven and intellectually curious. She has been a great Senator for the state of New York and has continued to fight for causes that are important to her. I have mixed feelings about whom she surrounds herself with, which certainly gives me pause. I love WJC, but can’t stand the likes of Mark Penn and James Carville. I don’t think I could take four or eight years of those types in the White House, poll driving HRC into oblivion. I have some issues with the dynastic nature of HRC’s candidacy, which wouldn’t have been as concerning had GWB not spent the last 7 years dramatically expanding the power of the executive. But, at the end of the day, I do think HRC would make a very good President. I think Thursday’s debate couldn’t have made it any clearer. She is a formidable campaigner and a formidable person. That said, I just don’t think she is the best candidate for the Deomcratic party in 2008.
For me, it really came down to the central theme of Obama’s campaign: judgement vs. experience. I don’t discount the value of experience. Certainly my parents, my colleagues, my friends, all of whom have the benefit of greater/different/longer experiences, have a larger pool to draw upon when making decisions. Certainly, my parents have been driving cars for a long time. They’ve been on the road in diverse conditions. They have driven in different countries. They have driven many different cars. Does this make them better drivers than me (they would certainly say yes)? Does it mean they have the best sense of direction? Does it mean they respond better in an emergency? Maybe it’s not a good analogy, as it’s pretty abstract. The point I’m trying to make is that life, and the experiences of making decisions all through out it, does not necessarily make one the best qualified to make the right decision in any given situation. Two people with the exact same knowledge base, when faced with the same situation, might make drastically different decisions. It is someone’s judgment that determines the final outcome.
I think this is a pretty difficult argument for Obama to have been making all of this time, though I do think it’s starting to resonate a little. The questions about the Iraq war at the debate crystallized it for some. As HRC tried to, somewhat torturously, explain her vote for the AUMF, what she learned from it, how she had been mislead, etc. something became clear to me: despite that experience, she still didn’t have the right judgment to stop giving the administration the benefit of the doubt by voting no on Kyl-Lieberman, to stop conflating the different threats emanating from the Middle East or to know that admitting a mistake was probably the best way to move past her vote.
Obama simply pointed out that he opposed the war from the beginning and that the name of the bill “The Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq” was a vote that authorized a war. Didn’t matter that he had only been a civil rights attorney or a state senator until that point. His “experience” told him that a vote for a war is a vote for war, not a vote to put inspectors in or something else. Experience is only an asset when it gives you the skillset to make the right decision. Whether that’s about war, foreign policy, farm subisidies, immigration, the economy, whatever, I believe the person who can best channels those experiences into the best decisions should be my choice. And I think it’s pretty clear that person is Barack Obama.
He's conflicted and confused by his love for these things and his desire to write about them honestly. He's voice of sanity is an insane music writer (my favorite Philip Seymour Hoffman performance). He goes on the road, exploring all of these relationships, with his story (and his actual experiences) narrated by a rich mix of music of the era: Elton John, The Beach Boys, The Who, Simon and Garfunkel, Led Zeppelin and Rod Stewart. The music mixes well together in the film and the film doesn't work without the mix of music. Every male who sees the movie can empathize with William's heartache, earnestness and desire to score Goldie Hawn's daughter. Credit to Frances McDormand for playing every Jewish mother ever without actually playing a Jewish lady.
never feeling quite satisfied that everyone in a relationship is just as perfect as it could/should/might be, never feeling like you have any control of the relationship and, most common, overthinking all of the possible things that your girlfriend/wife/significant other might be thinking/doing/enjoying after you have a fight? I think Cusack (who originally optioned the book rights) and Director Stephen Frears did a really job staying true to the "RoMENce" aspect of the book while translating it for American audiences. They left certain music the same and made some appropriate changes to help make it more relatable to American audiences. The story is told entirely from the point of view of Rob Gordon (Cusack), a record store owner who is just trying not to get in the way of his own happiness. He's honest about things that are his fault, both before and after the fact (we often know when we are being idiots...well, sometimes). Watching this, I cringe at the awkward scenes/interactions, not just because they are awkward, but because I can specifically remember doing similarly awkward things. Special props to Tim Robbins for his role as "Ray" the upstairs neighbor and potential love interest for Rob's ex/current/on-again/off-again girlfriend.
