Why I Prefer Obama To Clinton: Ending the Causes of War

by: Chris Bowers

Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 14:40


Last month, I wrote a piece listing seven key policy areas that would tackle the causes of the Iraq war, and prevent future disasters of the same type. Despite Obama's weakness on health care and continuing habit of reinforcing right-wing narratives, it now seems to me that he has a clear advantage over Clinton when it comes to tackling the causes of war:

So, that makes four clear advantages to Obama, one to Clinton, and two areas that are about even. Overall, that is a very strong advantage for Obama. While I have issues with Obama's rhetoric and health care proposals, on balance this list outweighs those negatives. Further, that Obama opposed the war from the beginning, while Clinton has not only refused to admit a mistake and her advisers boast of her hawkishness, matters quite a bit, too. Also, I admit that I simply have a cultural preference for Obama, probably because I fall into the most of the demographic groups where he performs well.  So, if at any point this becomes a two person campaign, I will support Obama over Clinton.

Right now, I still prefer John Edwards, and I have explained why on several occasions (see here, here and here for starters). However, if he finishes third in Nevada, I will probably begin rethinking my preferences.

Chris Bowers :: Why I Prefer Obama To Clinton: Ending the Causes of War

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Why I Prefer Obama To Clinton: Ending the Causes of War | 37 comments
I prefer Edwards too (0.00 / 0)
And I think he has a chance to win it.  I find the more I know about Obama the less inclined I am to support him.  I am coming of the view that he goes with the pressure and so am not confident that he will support the views he now says he holds.

Frankly I think the progressives need to support Edwards more vigorously and our issues will be heard much more clearly. 

I wanted Obama and Clinton fighting for our votes not reaching out to the conservatives.

Join other progressives at EENRblog

Edwards aka I am sorry I voted that way (4.00 / 1)
I realize every candidate has their ups and downs, strengths and weaknesses.

But I don't get people's loyalty to Edwards given his constant apologies for so many of his votes.

I guess the reason Edwards never had much draw for me is that I am not sold on his liberal conversion. I guess I just don't see Edwards as a Dean or a Nader in the way some people (not necessarily here at Open Left) view him.

Thoughts on this?

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  

Nevermind... I am looking at your third linked post - on his conversion (0.00 / 0)


We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  
[ Parent ]
Switching my Support Again (and it is soft....so could switch again) (0.00 / 0)
I do have a problem with Obama's Energy plan. Well, two problems with Obama and Energy...first he did vote for Cheney's Energy Bill and the reason he gave is it went further than anything had before in regard to 'clean energy.' I feel this is a REALLY WEAK arguement.

This says nothing about the fact that much of that 'clean' in the bill was invested in coal...which is not 'clean' no matter what they tell you (cleaner than it used to be - or still is in many cases - does not equal clean). It also relies on a renewed focus on nuclear energy which, until the waste can be disposed of safely and we can make the plants more secure and safe is a VERY BIG PROBLEM for me.

Energy and the Environment is one of my biggest issues as it will impact our Economy, our National Security, our Health Care costs and our general standard of living. This is why I'm having a really hard time making a final commitment to Obama...
 

Edwards on Obama's bizarre comments on Regan (4.00 / 3)
This is quoting Jerome Armstrong on mydd.com (in bold italics) he quotes John Edwards on Obama's odd 'comments' about ex-President Regan.

Barack Obama found some positive things to say about Ronald Reagan, and John Edwards replies:


"When you think about what Ronald Reagan did to the American people, to the middle class to the working people," said Edwards.

"He was openly - openly - intolerant of unions and the right to organize. He openly fought against the union and the organized labor movement in this country. He openly did extraordinary damage to the middle class and working people, created a tax structure that favored the very wealthiest Americans and caused the middle class and working people to struggle every single day. The destruction of the environment, you know, eliminating regulation of companies that were polluting and doing extraordinary damage to the environment."

"I can promise you this: this president will never use Ronald Reagan as an example for change."

This is the comment from a mydd.com poster I agree with


new] Re: Edwards lays into Obama (none / 0)

I am so proud of Edwards. This is exactly the right thing to say, and the right time to say it. The somewhat stunned response from the blog'o'spherium to Obama's statement now has a context. Regan hurt labor and hurt working people badly, there is nothing admirable in his tenure. "If you have seen one redwood, you have seen them all," was his response to protests about clear cutting the forests of California. His attacks on democratic countries in south and central America match Bush's, to say nothing of the Iran(!) weapons scandal.

Please -it's time to commit to a progressive Democratic Party candidate. It is time to stop waiting for Obama to prove himself an agaent of change. It is time for activists to act to insure JRE is nominated.

What else could you possibly be waiting for? If you had asked for a sign, so you could make up your mind, this is it. If you have been; just coasting along, being "reportorial," or thought you could get involved later - the time is now to work your ass off.

Obama's statement, and JRE';s response is The defining moment of the campaign for the Democratic Party's nomination.

by inexile on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 02:42:39 PM EST



Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.
I am hopeful... (0.00 / 0)
that Edwards can come in 2nd in NV. This would at least, for another few days, make the corporate-owned media at least acknowledge his presence in the race.  If he beats Hillary again, even better since he would have beaten her in 2 of 3 states.  So then shouldn't the race be between Edwards and Obama?  I jest, in part, but it would be a fair argument to consider. 

Since the start, I have thought Edwards could play kingmaker and make Clinton/Obama commit to something - I'd like Edwards as AG.  Now that would be fun to watch unfold!  Taking his fight to corporate power with the might of the Justice Dept. behind him.

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. -- Martin Luther King, Jr

Open and shut. (0.00 / 1)
For me Obama was an open and shut case when he campaigned for and praised Lieberman. He went so far as to say that Lieberman was working in "our behalf".

This is not a man that I wish to trust.

His little flirtation with Donnie McClurkin should also make people wonder what the hell he is thinking about. Being contemptuous of a minority is not a quality I am looking for in a President.

Lately, I have come to feel a dislike for the man.
He exudes a kind of pomposity that repels me.

The way that the media, both mainstream and liberal, savage Clinton or ignore her has made me feel some empathy for her. In the debates she comes across as more intelligent, more passionate and much more mature as a person.
I have begun to feel that we would be lucky to get her as President.

Of the issues you list, the issues that matter most to me are a draw for you.  On the war, you give it to Obama, but I simply don't trust him based on everything he has said or done since the war started.

As for restoring our civil liberties, Clinton is favored. This really matters to me. As you said, Obama isn't very good on Habeas Corpus, to say the least.
This is no small matter. I'd run to Clinton's corner on this alone if it were to come down to Obama and Clinton.

You mention "Obama's weakness on health care and continuing habit of reinforcing right-wing narratives". This is no small group of issues either.
Pretty hair-raising in fact.

Then you conclude that you would favor Obama over Clinton because you admit that you "simply have a cultural preference for Obama, probably because I fall into the most of the demographic groups where he performs well." I really don't know what you're talking about. But "cultural preference" seems like code for "a person of color". If that is what you in fact mean, it is pretty chilling.

Chilling (4.00 / 2)
"I really don't know what you're talking about. But "cultural preference" seems like code for "a person of color". If that is what you in fact mean, it is pretty chilling."

Yes, because the only thing about Obama is that he is a person of color. Culture, certainly, does apply to being a law professor, growing up in an urban area, being younger, being a unitarian, or working as a community organizer. Surely, none these characteristics can be considered cultural, or explain Obama's strength among Democrats with post-graduate degrees, younger Democrats, Democrats who live in urban areas, or Democrats who do not self-identify as either Catholic or Protestant.

I think what is chilling is your narrow view of culture, and the implication that someone who is African-American couldn't possibly have a stronger cultural connection to many white Democrats than the other candidates in the campaign. As a young, urban-dwelling, post-graduate degree holding, community organizing former college professor, yeah, I clearly have a much stronger cultural connection to Barack Obama than any other candidate in the campaign. Too bad you couldn't see that because  I am white and Obama is black.
[ Parent ]
Just a second. (0.00 / 0)
What you wrote, and did not quote in your rather insulting reply to my post, was: " I admit that I simply have a cultural preference for Obama, probably because I fall into the most of the demographic groups where he performs well.  So, if at any point this becomes a two person campaign, I will support Obama over Clinton."

I said, rather compassionately I thought, that I didn't know what you were talking about. Saying that you had a "cultural preference" for Obama without any explanation is pretty vague and leaves it open for the reader to try to interpret what you are expressing.

What I said was that if by "cultural preference" you were referring to "race", it was pretty chilling.

You have explained in your salty reply that you were referring to yourself having been "a young, urban-dwelling, post-graduate degree holding, community organizing former college professor" and that is what you meant by a "cultural preference". You are saying that you identify with Obama's having been a young, urban-dwelling, post-graduate degree holding community organizing former college professor. OK. Thanks for the clarification.

But I do think you went off the deep end when you infer that my asking what you were talking about means that I have a "narrow view of culture" or, worse, that I didn't know what you were talking about in your rather convoluted sentence because I "couldn't see that because (you) are white and Obama is black". Somebody is getting defensive, to quote Malcolm X.

[ Parent ]
I don't like people implying that I am a racist (0.00 / 0)
"But "cultural preference" seems like code for "a person of color". If that is what you in fact mean, it is pretty chilling."

Calling my statement "chilling" and that I was making my decision based on racial preference doesn't strike me as "compassionate." Rather, implying that I was a racist pissed me off quite a bit.

Look, I said that I fell into most of the demograhpic groups where Obama performed well. That meant men, liberals, urban dwellers, the highly educated, etc. And together, that is what I meant by culture.

I'm sorry about the tone of my response. But to show up and imply that I am a racist isn't going to get many nice comments in return.
[ Parent ]
Oy. (0.00 / 0)
You wrote:

1) "I admit that I simply have a cultural preference for Obama, probably because I fall into the most of the demographic groups where he performs well.  So, if at any point this becomes a two person campaign, I will support Obama over Clinton."

2) "Look, I said that I fell into most of the demograhpic groups where Obama performed well. That meant men, liberals, urban dwellers, the highly educated, etc."

[ Parent ]
OT ... (0.00 / 0)
Chris and Matt both got a Michael Moore award today from Andrew Sullivan ... I suppose you two will now wear it like a badge of honor.  ;-)
[ Parent ]
Badge of Honor (0.00 / 0)
Good lord of course. Who wouldn't. Has Michael Moore been proven roght how many times? About Iraq, about the Iraq lies, about the lieing President, about Health Care, about the Insurance industry, about fighting back, about demanding your rights, about demanding healthcare, etc -et-blooming-c.

Who can claim to love America more?

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
ned lamont (4.00 / 1)

Obama donated to every Democratic Senator running for reelection and then contributed to Ned Lamont after he won the primary. Harper's takes exception to Obama's decision to donate money to Senator Lieberman, but fails to note that Obama endorsed Ned Lamont and gave him $5,000 the day after Lamont won the nomination. Obama also donated money to every Senate Democrat up for reelection and to every Democratic challenger in a closely contested Senate race, including Sherrod Brown, Claire McCaskill, Sheldon Whitehouse, and Amy Klobuchar.

http://obama.senate....

also note, ned lamont has come out and endorsed obama.

[ Parent ]
I noticed that too (0.00 / 0)
and was saddened by it.  Edwards went and campaigned for Lamont.  Obama wouldn't do that.  Interesting how quickly people seem to close ranks.  Lamont didn't need the $5,000, but I guess going along with his new buddies seems to be the way.  Obama was very careful not to appear to support Lamont too much.

I do know that Obama is no progressive and perhaps Lamont is not either, he just was anti-war. 

Join other progressives at EENRblog

[ Parent ]
<i>I do know that Obama is no progressive</i> (0.00 / 0)

go through the issues listed. click on the title headings for more detail.

http://obama.senate....

now tell me what's not progressive about obama's record?

[ Parent ]
Clinton for civil liberties?? really?? (4.00 / 2)
It's certainly possible that she would go after Republicans more aggressively.

But in terms of the trend towards a monolithic, centralized authority, run completely out of the Executive branch (and the mutant 4th Branch of the VP), with Congress relegated to a ceremonial advisory role, my impression is that Clinton doesn't have any problems with all of that. Unchecked arbitrary executive power is fine as long as she's the one using it.

not everything worth doing is profitable. not everything profitable is worth doing.

Based on what? (0.00 / 0)
Clinton has explicitly talked about restoring balance in the branches. 
[ Parent ]
Impression vs. Evidence (0.00 / 0)
If Clinton is so awful, in spite of the information listed in the post, then what about Obama's stance on the matter?
[ Parent ]
Here are the FIVE reasons I support Obama over Hillary: (4.00 / 2)
1.  Mark Penn

2.  Terry McAuliffe

3.  Lee Feinstein

4.  Harold Ford

5.  Bill Clinton

'nuff said.

For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.

Who is Lee Feinstein? ... (4.00 / 1)
And I agree with you about 1,2 & 4
[ Parent ]
Her (4.00 / 2)
National Security Director and one of the leading hawks in the Democratic Party.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power
[ Parent ]
Thanks (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Same here (4.00 / 1)
if it wasn't for the regressive, shameless idiots she surrounds herself with, I'd probably favor her over Obama (albeit reluctantly).
[ Parent ]
you can add (4.00 / 2)
rupert murdoch to that list.
[ Parent ]
Restoring civil liberties and constitutional checks and balances. (0.00 / 0)
There are indications, including a Wesley Clark interview for Open Left, that Clinton would continue the investigations into Bush administration wrongdoing. I seriously doubt we will see anything from Obama on this front, giving at least his desire for unity, post-partisanship and leaving the past behind.

This is an area where I think you are seriously mistaken.

This has been an unspoken topic in the primary by all campaigns, and for good reason.  When a new president takes office in 2009, the very somber process of unraveling of the abuses of process that took place during the Bush administration will begin.  These are serious abuses committed by the very highest officials, the scope of which is likely unprecedented in American history.

The single most important factor in exposing these misdeeds, prosecuting the offenders, and healing the wounds will be the perception by the public that the investigation is conducted in an absolutely non-partisan atmosphere.  The only Democratic candidate that can credibly achieve that is Obama.  It stretches my imagination beyond the breaking point to imagine a scenario where Clinton could pull this off.

Other Thoughts (0.00 / 0)
Agree on Media Reform, Election Reform,  and Ending Military Privatization.

I would definitely strongly object to Harold Ford as DNC chair (big negative). To the best of my knowledge, there is no way to know if Obama's choice for DNC chair would be better or if he/she would continue the 50 state strategy. So not sure of the weight to assign to this.

I would give Clinton an edge on Global Warming and Energy Policy due to past actions by Obama. I agree completely with ehofteig's assessment on Obama on energy. Voted for Cheney's Energy Bill and in January, 07, he personally introduced legislation in support of liquified coal (Gore completely against) and only removed his support in June 07, when it became obvious that this would cost him votes in the primaries.

Since entering the Senate, there has been no difference between Clinton and Obama. Neither has shown courage or leadership. His not playing "chicken with the lives of our troops" and perpetuating the myth of the "magical September" were actually harmful. No points for either from me.

On domestic proposals such as health care, stimulating the economy etc., Clinton has a definite edge. Obama has consistently had the least progressive agendas on domestic policies. IMO all of his initial policies have been weak and only have moved into the acceptable range because of pressure from Edwards and even Clinton nipping at his heals. What happens when he doesn't have to compete with Edwards or Clinton?

I definitely give more weight to Obama's rhetoric than Chris. I, also, have major problems with Obama's willingness to have McClurkin campaign for him.  In this instance, political advantage definitely outweighed any commitment to gay rights. Same feelings about his Reagan rhetoric. Obama made a calculated decision to include a one sided view of Reagan's presidency into more than one media interview. In order to garner votes, he is more than willing to  perpetuate the myth of Reagan's presidency and ignore the fact that a large part of Reagan's support came from white voters intent on rolling back all the gains of the Civil Rights acts. In fact, had Reagan been as successful as Obama implies,  the extension of the Voting Rights Act (the sequel to the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed a year later and focused on election participation) would not have been passed. Major negative points for me.

Restoring civil liberties and constitutional checks and balances is one of my top issues. I agree that Obama would bush this all under the rug. Habeas Corpus is not a small insignificant thing it is foundation of a democracy.. Letting the precedent  that the President Is Above The Law so that it can be taken up again by the next Republican president is extremely dangerous. Major negative points for me.

Don't want either Clinton or Obama to be our nominee and have no idea who I would vote for if I had to make a choice between the two.

clintons are good friends with the bushes. (4.00 / 1)
There are indications, including a Wesley Clark interview for Open Left, that Clinton would continue the investigations into Bush administration wrongdoing.

history suggests otherwise:

In his 2004 memoir, My Life, Clinton wrote that he "disagreed with the [Iran-Contra] pardons and could have made more of them but didn't." Clinton cited several reasons for giving his predecessor a pass.

http://www.consortiu...

would you get the same answer from hillary that you got from wes clark? i doubt it.

and let's not forget that (0.00 / 0)
Bill Clinton recently promised that Hillary's first act as President will be to enlist both Bill and poppy Bush in a world wide tour to clean up the mess Jr made? What kind of deal did Bill have to make to secure this promise?

http://consortiumnew...

[ Parent ]
Edwards will continue to drive the conversation (4.00 / 2)
Just as the bloggers are doing.  We should go with what our guts tell us, not just the polls and finishes.  I still think Edwards' campaign will bring Chris' political junkie dream of a brokered convention.

I encourage Chris to think about the tune from the late nineties by the New Radicals... "You Get What You Give..."

http://video.google....

Don't give up the ideology, and more important, the dream of a real democracy.


After all, he does not have to do very much more ... (4.00 / 2)
... than win 200 delegates on Feb. 5 and win Ohio, and its a brokered convention, given the way that New York and Illinois delegations are going to end up substantially offsetting each other.

And given The Two Senator's support for extending NAFTA ... most recently to Peru ... winning in Ohio would be a straightforward matter of driving his frigging bus up here right after Feb. 5 and starting to barn storm the state. Its not that geographically big that you cannot criss cross it a number of times in four weeks on a big bus.

[ Parent ]
Sigh (4.00 / 1)
I know, I'm a lunatic left-winger for feeling depressed at having to choose between these two.  The more I learn about both, the less I like either.  Sure, I'll fight and donate in the general election ... but gee, do I really have to enjoy voting for someone who appears to be .001 to the left of the current status quo?  Yeay, they're both much better than Bush.  But they both dislike liberals, liberalism, and doing anything significant to fix what's systematically wrong in America.  It's stupid to say "what's the difference between democrats and republicans" -- we've learned our lesson on that.  But how bad is it to feel "what's the difference" between these two?
Is this a troll? (4.00 / 2)
Between? You don't have to. Choose the progressive of the three, John Edwards.

Hope that helped.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
Sorry to be unclear. (4.00 / 1)
Sure, Edwards; I'll vote for him, though since he won't win, I might as well vote for Kucinich. (I know, I know, vote for Edwards since he might have some power in a brokered convention, or might get the VP nod again, though I doubt that.  For many of us on the left, even Edwards is a compromise, pragmatic choice.)  In any case, I was responding to what I took to be the main thrust of Bowers's post, that we have to start deciding between Obama and Clinton now, regardless of who else we might prefer.  And that decision I find to be uninspiring.

(And in passing, please be careful with the "troll" accusation, it's basically calling someone a liar.)

[ Parent ]
HOPE IS NOT A PLAN (4.00 / 1)
The only place where he has an edge is Telecom stuff

1.  Telecom
I know this matters a lot and in particualr to you. His policy does seem better.

2.  Election Reform
The edge goes to Hillary here hands down. Have you read her voting and voting rights bills called Count Every Vote?  It is the gold, diamond and platinum standard when it comes to voting reform

http://www.govtrack....

http://www.govtrack....

His work doesn't hold a candle to hers. You must read it to see how comprehensive her changes are

3. In no way is she for privatization in the military.  Obama cares about, that doesn't mean she doesn't care just as much and actually come up with a better, more comprehensive bill and actually make sure that its provisions are carried out. Do you think Obama, the non COO president would carry it out.

4.  He mentioned it and that's enough to make you think he will EXECUTE IT.  It seems that's not his strong suit, he admits it himself.

You don't mention health care.  Health care is absolutely crucial in creating an environment for Democratic party ascendency. Lack of universality may severly undermine the ability of Obama's plan to succeed, that is , if he doesn't compromise it away before its enacted.

How about a stimulus plan that mimics George Bush.  He proposes across the board tax cuts....The way stimulus works as proposed by its inventor John Maynard Keynes,  is that you actually spend money out of the treasury to areas, places and persons in the economy who both need help and will actually spend it.  Obama's plan does not do that.

I am sorry these are hopes on yur part and if you look at his plans, they don't come up to snuff.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

Yeah - I prefer the guy who (0.00 / 0)
co-sponsored the blank check to go to war too...

oh wait...

no I don't. Why? Because that's absurd.

Instead, I support the candidate who was against the war from day one.

Now come on (0.00 / 0)
Edwards apologized for that vote!  And he apologized for bankruptcy bill and for Yucca Mountain and all those other votes when he was in the senate.  Sheesh, give the guy a break.  He got at least half his votes right, that should count for something.  We are grading on a curve, right?
[ Parent ]
Why I Prefer Obama To Clinton: Ending the Causes of War | 37 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox