Dear Friends and those of the wider Blogosphere.
I write today to formally announce my support for one of our great Democratic Presidential Candidates. I am heading to New Hampshire as part of Barack Obama’s massive canvass day. Let me begin with an extremely important statement that I wish all who are engaged in this debate would honor. Of the six major Democratic Candidates, All would be good presidents, all are electable, all generally share our values. We are blessed with many good choices. But I believe Barack Obama would be the best nominee for our party and the best president for our country.
What Kind of Change
There can be doubt that George Bush and his policies have been some of the worst that could be frankly imagined but as Molly Ivins always told us, the key to figuring out a man is too look at the record. George Bush life before he was President gave us a clue as to what he would prioritize as President.
It is with same lens that we should judge the Presidential candidates. Even before Barack Obama ran for State Senate, he had already built a life that showed the kind of values that progressive like to see. Barack Obama could have chosen a life of riches both out of Columbia University and then later out of Harvard Law. Instead both times Senator Obama chose a life of service. Community organizing is fantastic training for how to make decisions, how to deal with people. It is that experience that makes Barack Obama different from the other candidates in the field.
Senator Obama’s Harvard Law education particularly as Head of Law Review shows a deep intellect. Heading the Law review is quite simply a job that most be earned. When community leadership is combined with intellect it is hard not to be impressed. This obviously compares favorably to George Bush. Taking these two very important skills together, it is not surprising that SenatorObama was generally considered to be a very good State Senator. I will be honest that I am not as well versed in this part of his career as I would wish to be, but I do know that his State Senate career put him in a position to run for the United States Senate in 2004. At the outset of this campaign, at a speech opposing the War in Iraq , he made the following statement .
“I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda”
Can anyone cast doubt on his judgment in important matters of War and Peace with such forsight already on display. Senator Obama was also endorsed by many of the most progressive groups in Illinois in 2004 primary race for the United States Senate. There can be no doubt Barack Obama is a progressive either.
A community minded ,intelligent, wise, progressive. We are indeed lucky and no one could compare more favorably to George Bush.
The Politics
On the Merits, Barack Obama compares well against any of the major Democratic Presidential candidates but it is the power of the political argument that should sway those who might otherwise doubt the need to support Barack Obama. Put another way, if you don’t support Barack Obama at this point, you are really supporting Hillary Clinton. I want the record to at this point to show tha I have nothing against Hillary Clinton. If she is the Nominee of our Party, I will work as hard for her as I would for any Democrat. I just believe that she is slightly less electable than other Democratic candidates but even more importantly that the Clintons have been on the whole bad for the Democratic Party. To any lurking Hillary supporters, I have but one question, please name one progressive accomplishment of the Clinton Administration that was not basically undone by President George W. Bush. I am sure there are some but for the most part, for big progressive ideas, the Clinton Administration was a failure. On many other grounds it was a success but when looking at the even bigger problems that now need solving to clean up after George W. Bush. I just have tremendous doubts in bringing back the same team that I feel failed for eight years for another eight.
If you share my doubts about either Hillary’s electability as compared to other candidates or also share general doubts about a return to the Clinton’s style of politics but are supporting any of the other Democratic candidates ask yourself seriously can your candidate beat Hillary Clinton on February 5th. a simple survey of polling, money and endorsements/institutional support shows Hillary Clinton with advantages that No 04 Democratic candidate had in the primary . It is hard to imagine a situation in which Hillary Clinton is seriously out of the race before February 5th. Barack Obama also is clearly in 2nd place in all of these measures.
Before, I particularly address John Edwards supporters, to those supporting any of the other three major candidates, why even allowing for an early state miracle or two. How will the money or organization or argument be potentially strong enough to defeat Hillary Clinton on February 5th. Hillary is not likely to finish below Second in any early state but Iowa. It is also hard to imagine Hillary Clinton getting less than 25% of the vote in any of the contest she enters in any state in the country. It is difficult to imagine, Dodd, Richardson or Biden being able to put together the right combination of factors to really win the nomination on February 5th against Hillary Clinton.
I now wish to speak directly to much of the Blogosphere that is currently supporting John Edwards. Is John Edwards so much more right and more progressive than Barack Obama that it is worth risking Hillary Clinton? The following statement I believe now to be certainly true, John Edwards can not win the nomination without winning in Iowa, and yet he is already in a statistical three way die according to the two most recent polls. John Edwards might still win Iowa but even a win there just allows Edwards to continue it, may even buy him a win in Nevada but it is unlikely to buy him a win in New Hampshire and with what would be more likely than not be a Clinton in New Hampshire, and at best a split with Edwards winning South Carolina and Hillary Clinton winning Florida. Given this best case scenario it is hard to imagine John Edwards winning the nomination on February 5th. Hillary Clinton’s advantages would more likely than not swamp him.
There is no doubt where Hillary Clinton’s Achilles Heel is and that is Iowa. I believe firmly that Tom Villsack got in the race initially to allow Hillary Clinton to skip Iowa, the same way Bill Clinton did in the 1992. When this strategy failed, Villsack was quickly brought on board to give Hillary a chance in Iowa. At this point, a Hillary win in Iowa could come dangerously close to handing her the nomination. However a Barack Obama win in Iowa would give him a fighting chance at winning on February 5th. Obama is simply more likely to beat Hillary Clinton.
In Conclusion
I am convinced Barack Obama would make the President because his broad range of experiences and his intellect are the best possible preparation to be President. I think that he represents the cleanest break with the Rove style of politics and the Bush style of policies. I feel he has most connected with the Youth of America and I think he is a hopeful leader. I also have read the political landscape and believe that even if one were to believe John Edwards is the better progressive, which I clearly do not, the odds of his or any candidate named Hillary Clinton being nominated are too long to take such a risk. I also wish to keep my focus primarily on the House and Senate races so that whoever our next President is, they will have the majorities they need to pass the laws we need, but I felt it important to share the reasoning behind my Presidential Endorsement decision.
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
End the War, Elect Jim Marlow to Congress in Georgia’s 10th district.
The Netroots community has been drifting. In many ways the unity of purpose and mission that comes from an election cycle has been lost in the ruckus surrounding both the Presidential Primaries and the duels over contrasting strategies on how to best end the War in Iraq. However there is clearly no better way to force the President to change course than to override his veto. Already the Republican Minority Leader John Boehner is discussing the possibility of re-evaluating the issue come September. He should not be allowed to wait. But how can we tie Republican hands.. We can force them by electing Jim Marlow to Congress on June 19th or in the subsequent runoff election.
The vote to override the President failed by roughly 70 House votes. The Republicans in Congress, so far with rare exception, have looked at Iraq in primarily political terms. Stick with the President, paint the Democrats as abandoning the War on Terror, and other such calculations. They tend not to see the 2006 Election as a repudiation of the War in Iraq, but as primarily about corruption or spending or other transient or fixable things. Although Iraq may have been the dagger in the Northeast, this was a region Republican members of Congress had been considering abandoning for some time. “Safe” Republicans need to know they are vulnerable too. To gain the 70 House votes we need to override this President, we need to pick up 60 Republican votes. However there are only 49 Republicans who represent districts in which George Bush got 55% of the vote or less in 2004. Right now roughly 2/3 of the Republican Caucus is sitting pretty, thinking my seat could never belong to a Democrat. Therefore why risk alienating my President and, judging from Thursday’s debate, the next Nominee, by admitting that the Democrats are right about Iraq. This is where Georgia 10 comes in. More Republican members of Congress, particularly Southern members of Congress need to feel Iraq could be the issue that costs them their seat. Of the 49 swing districts held by Republicans, only 6 are in the South. If business as usual prevails in GA 10, i.e. a safe Republican seat just returns to the Republican Party, then no national polling, or debate or rally or phone call will come close to forcing Republican Members of Congress to accept the Political reality of Iraq, let alone the policy reality. However, were this seat, in the one state in 06 to trend slightly GOP., lost to the Democrats or even if Jim Marlow were to come close, the political foundation for folks such as Mitch McConnell or any of the other Southern Republicans Leadership would crumble. Now there’s no doubt that we could lose this race in catastrophic fashion and the Democrats could lose three more Georgia House Seats, and still merrily expand our House and Senate Majorities and capture the White House. But in the meantime nothing will create the divide between the White House and Republicans in Congress needed to End the War, like a loss in Georgia Ten. Let’s get it done.
On the Web
http://marlowforgeorgia.com/
http://brandeis.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2261487274&ref=mf
The vote to override the President failed by roughly 70 House votes. The Republicans in Congress, so far with rare exception, have looked at Iraq in primarily political terms. Stick with the President, paint the Democrats as abandoning the War on Terror, and other such calculations. They tend not to see the 2006 Election as a repudiation of the War in Iraq, but as primarily about corruption or spending or other transient or fixable things. Although Iraq may have been the dagger in the Northeast, this was a region Republican members of Congress had been considering abandoning for some time. “Safe” Republicans need to know they are vulnerable too. To gain the 70 House votes we need to override this President, we need to pick up 60 Republican votes. However there are only 49 Republicans who represent districts in which George Bush got 55% of the vote or less in 2004. Right now roughly 2/3 of the Republican Caucus is sitting pretty, thinking my seat could never belong to a Democrat. Therefore why risk alienating my President and, judging from Thursday’s debate, the next Nominee, by admitting that the Democrats are right about Iraq. This is where Georgia 10 comes in. More Republican members of Congress, particularly Southern members of Congress need to feel Iraq could be the issue that costs them their seat. Of the 49 swing districts held by Republicans, only 6 are in the South. If business as usual prevails in GA 10, i.e. a safe Republican seat just returns to the Republican Party, then no national polling, or debate or rally or phone call will come close to forcing Republican Members of Congress to accept the Political reality of Iraq, let alone the policy reality. However, were this seat, in the one state in 06 to trend slightly GOP., lost to the Democrats or even if Jim Marlow were to come close, the political foundation for folks such as Mitch McConnell or any of the other Southern Republicans Leadership would crumble. Now there’s no doubt that we could lose this race in catastrophic fashion and the Democrats could lose three more Georgia House Seats, and still merrily expand our House and Senate Majorities and capture the White House. But in the meantime nothing will create the divide between the White House and Republicans in Congress needed to End the War, like a loss in Georgia Ten. Let’s get it done.
On the Web
http://marlowforgeorgia.com/
http://brandeis.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2261487274&ref=mf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)