Multiple Enthusiasms

Infinite jest. Excellent fancy. Flashes of merriment.

What Obama signifies to me

Yesterday, I posted about the viability of a McCain/Clinton ticket versus an Obama/Edwards ticket. Which shows you just about how I feel about their ideologies; Clinton, to me, does not feel like change–she feels like more of the same-old, same-old that has tirelessly run this country into the ground.

But to be serious about it:

What I’m tired of is Clinton’s attacking people, because it seems to me more a sign of weakness than her crying gimmick (which is what I believe her tears are). I don’t know any of her issues, nor her platforms, because it seems like she spends all her time talking about what terrible shape this country is in, how much she cares about it, and how everyone else would suck at fixing it. What the hell does her hypothetical phone call at 3 in the morning have to do with any valid current issue?

Nothing. Because it’s silly. It’s an appeal to the pathos of the red phone in the Oval office (does that even exist any more?).

She calls Obama inexperienced. I don’t know, maybe my math is off, but it looks for every intent and purpose like she only has four more years experience as a senator (Obama ran and won in 2004; Clinton ran and won in 2000). I don’t think that’s a great deal of time. Sure, she had some experience as a First Lady, but last time I checked, First Lady is not an elected office. That she spearheaded a failed reform to healthcare in 1994 doesn’t impress me, though her child insurance work does.

Really, while First Lady, she only ever had the power her husband (who stepped out on her numerous times [and I note that because doesn’t seem a particularly strong or assertive thing for a woman to do]) gave her. While senator, her record speaks for itself: vote yes for authorizing invasion of Iraq, vote yes for the PATRIOT Act, etc.

But in enumerating, I’m very nearly engaging in the very thing I’m speaking against, while avoiding what I mean to speak to, which is that Obama, to me, signifies change. Obama, to me, signifies that something important in this country can turn toward hope, and peace. Obama has worked with Republicans to effect change: this, to me, signifies that he’s willing to work far and wide across party lines (he’s even sponsored one particular bill with McCain). Obama, to me, signifies that we’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore, and we’re going to do something about it, dammit, to really make a difference.

Obama, to me, is part of the change I want to see in the world.

Obama & Edwards: Yes We Can


  1. “Obama has worked with Republicans to effect change”

    I would like to see at least ONE example where Obama worked to create a consensus with Republicans on a single CRITICAL or DIVISIVE issue.

  2. In ’05, he co-sponsored, with McCain, the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act; expanded the Nunn-Lugar cooperative threat reduction; and provided, via the Coburn-Obama Transparency Act, which enumerates breakdowns of federal spending.

    So there’s three.

  3. Well, I know Obama has his fingerprints on some legislation, but my question goes to Critical or Divisive issues. Compared to McCain, I think McCain reaches out on significant issues to create a consensus much more than Obama, a.k.a. most liberal Senator. Don’t jump on that Obama bandwagon just yet, because people will realize that they are being taken for a ride.

  4. Immigration, secure borders, and federal spending aren’t “critical” and/or “divisive” issues? Where the Hell do you live, Jay?

  5. I don’t think you can call legislation regarding anti-personnel mines non-‘critical’ unless you’ve actually stepped on one and thought it no big deal. And Obama didn’t just have his “fingerprints” on that SAOI act (which I notice is a subject in which you’re interested); he co-sponsored it. With your darling McCain.

  6. Maybe I’m not being clear. When has Obama ever done anything that went against the Dem party establishment because it was the right thing to do for this country? (I think we can concede that the Dems have always been against the war in Iraq by the way.) McCain puts this coutry before party politics, and that’s why I admire him.

  7. I think Obama’s “lack of experience” could mean that he hasn’t been ruined yet by the political machine of this country. He seems down to earth and easy to relate to. Hillary looks like she has constipation. Hey, did you know the little girl in that Hillary phone call add is now 17 and a avid Obama fan?

    All three canidates voted for that stupid 700 foot wall that is both a waste of money and inaffective. However, the very very conservative hate McCain just as much as Obama. I think this is a good thing as the very very conservative scare me. I like both canidates. This is the first time in a long while that either canidate would be a good choice. If Hillary gets the democratic ticket though, it would be the first time in a long time that a republican was running against some one that had the ability to cause the appocalipse.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: