Ages ago, I posted that I voted for John Edwards in the New York Democratic presidential primary, and then, after Edwards ended his campaign, I didn't endorse a candidate in the primary. (Well, none in the Democratic primary anyway.)
As promised, now that the primary is over, and everyone in the reality-based community acknowledges that Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee, Mah Rabu is ready to make an endorsement:
BARACK OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT
"We look back on the past [seven and a half] years with hearts nearly breaking." And after all of the destruction that the Bush administration has wrought for America and the world, we have a choice. We can circumvent the 22nd Amendment and extend the Bush administration for another four years by electing a candidate who is indistinguishable from Bush, all the way down to painting himself as a moderate during election season. Or we can elect a progressive who will truly restore honor and dignity to the White House.
Combined with the anticipated massive gains in the House and Senate (with the possibility of a filibuster-proof and even a Lieberman-proof majority in the Senate), electing a Democratic president will provide a window to pass progressive legislation that will shape the country's future for decades, like the New Deal and the Great Society. (And if you're not into government programs, vote for Bob Barr!) John Paul Stevens isn't getting any younger, and electing a Democratic president will ensure that the next generation of Supreme Court justices (and federal judges across the country) will defend our civil liberties; electing McBush to a third term will guarantee more Robertses and Alitos who will sit on the Court for decades to come.
The primary season has been long, but I have to say that I got everything I wished for, along with some things I would have rather done without. I think it's wonderful that voters in all 50 states (and 5 territories) had the opportunity to cast votes that mattered, rather than letting Iowa and New Hampshire decide the nomination for everyone. And it's great that millions of new Democratic voters have registered, and that Democratic infrastructure has been built in all 50 states, including states that the Democratic Party previously ignored. But I do wish the campaign had proceeded with a more productive tone, with each candidate promoting their strengths and aiming the attacks at the Republicans, rather than attacking each other in ways that will be used against them later. With that modification, I'm all in favor of a primary season that reaches as many states as possible before crowning a winner.
The procedures and rules of the Democratic primary will certainly have to be revisited and revised between now and 2012. But I think that's something that we can save for after the election, rather than undermining the legitimacy of the nomination now. But first of all: Smokey, this is not Nam. There are rules. Whatever rules are decided -- superdelegates or no superdelegates, primaries or caucuses, nomination decided by number of delegates or by nationwide popular vote or by rock-paper-scissors-couch -- all of the candidates should be expected to agree in a public forum to the legitimacy of the process, down to all its details, at the beginning of the campaign, and not to challenge the process until it's time to think about 2016. This is a league game. This determines who enters the next round robin. Am I wrong? Furthermore, the dates of the primaries/caucuses/tugs-of-war/whatever should be set from on high by the national party committee (which has members from every state), with individual states having absolutely no say in the timing of their nominating contests (beyond, perhaps, choosing a date from within a very short range of dates dictated to them). This is the only way to avoid anarchy, and an election season that is nasty, brutish, and long. (And I'm not just talking about what happened with Florida and Michigan; I'm also talking about the race for Super Tuesday, and the duopoly of Iowa and New Hampshire.) Any pledged delegates selected at any time outside of the date range decided by the national party will not be seated at the convention, and no appeals will be heard (and all the candidates will agree to this in advance). Mark it zero!
Now that the primary is over, let's unite in supporting our nominee, Barack Obama.
UPDATE: I forgot to mention: This campaign represents a lot of firsts, but among everything else, let's welcome our first president from the South Side of Chicago!!!
Sorry to pour cold water on your enthusiasm, but Obama has ZERO chance to be elected. Obama lost 9 of the last 16 primaries and Hillary got 600,000 more votes than him. Instead of gathering steam as he closed in on garnering the majority of the delegates, he began faltering. I saw a poll in the New York Times of Hillary voters in West Virginia (where Hillary beat Obama something like 2-1) and it said that 50% would not vote for Obama in November. A high percentage also said they were concerned about Obama's relationship with Jeremiah Wright.
ReplyDeleteI also heard the results of a poll that said 19% of white respondents would not vote for a black candidate. Considering that elections often are decided by a 1 or 2% shift, this is an immense handicap to operating under.
I am puzzled why you progressives think he is going to be the Messiah. He has little experience, his voting record is super liberal and he is out of touch with most American opinion. You may imagine that there is going to be a renewal of the New Deal atmosphere, but I don't think this is what the American people want. Instead of governmental handouts, America's structural economic problems leading to problems like the massive trade deficit and weak dollar are going to demand belt-tightening, so he is going to have to disappoint the progressives who are backing him.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
Obama lost 9 of the last 16 primaries and Hillary got 600,000 more votes than him.
ReplyDeleteLuckily for Obama, Clinton won't be on the ballot in December. And if we're going to carry the "losing primaries means losing the general election" argument to its (il)logical conclusion, then we should note that McCain got crushed by an 85% margin in the Utah primary. And Utah is usually a Republican stronghold, so if McCain can't even win there, how will he have any hope in the rest of the country?
As for the primary "popular vote", the only way Obama loses is if you count all of Clinton's votes in Michigan and give Obama zero votes.
his voting record is super liberal and he is out of touch with most American opinion
A "super liberal" voting record represents the mainstream of American opinion these days. Solid majorities want universal health care and an end to the war in Iraq.
America's structural economic problems leading to problems like the massive trade deficit and weak dollar are going to demand belt-tightening
Like the belt-tightening we saw under "fiscal conservative" George W. Bush, who squandered the Clinton surplus to give tax cuts to billionaires?
I also heard the results of a poll that said 19% of white respondents would not vote for a black candidate. Considering that elections often are decided by a 1 or 2% shift, this is an immense handicap to operating under.
ReplyDeleteCONCERN TROLL!!!
The Utah example is not instructive - Utah's Republican voters are overwhelmingly Mormon, and thus voted for Mitt Romney out of loyalty - its a special case and not instructive of McCain's ability or lack thereof (although he does have such a problem) to win among conservative Republicans. Obama's trouble among conservative, blue collar, older, and white Democrats - which was partially reflected in Hillary's wins in "swing" states with large groups of those populations - is a legitimate problem, and one which Obama supporters such as myself would do much better to admit to and deal with, rather than deny, in order to secure victory in November.
ReplyDeleteBZ-I wrote the same piece on another liberal Jewish blogger's site that also is pro-Obama and he reacted the same way you did to my comment....that it is blasphemy even to suggest that Obama the Messiah might lose.
ReplyDeleteI don't know what a "concern troll" is, but I am not "concerned" for him to win, I, like most Israelis, I want him to lose, but I was not twisting facts to fit my preferred outcome, I was just stating the situation as it now exists, regardless of my preference. As you must have noticed, Jewtah essentially agreed with my analysis. You are the one twisting facts trying to interpret McCain's loss in Utah as somehow indicating that Republican's don't support him. Well, if that is the case, how did he manage to easily win the Republican nomination?
Your statement that a "superliberal" ideology is what most Americans want today is laughable. The last time a liberal Democrat won the Presidency was in 1964, and the last time before that was Truman in 1948. Kennedy did NOT run as a liberal, he ran as a tough cold-warrior whose main claim was that the Eisenhower Administration was allowing the US to fall behind the USSR.
Both Democrats who won after 1964, Carter and Clinton portrayed themselves as moderate Southern Democrats. I don't even know if Obama is really portraying himself as as liberal...it seems you restrict "liberalism" to opposing the war in Iraq (which Obama is not going to be able to easily run away from if he is elected) and from what I heard he is NOT proposing a national health insurance plan. The economic situation is not going to allow a new "New Deal"-type Administration.
I find it fascinating how so many liberal Jews have gone bananas over Obama. He has very little political record to speak of, he has flip-flopped on Israel (according to the New York Times he used to be very pro-Palestinian, then when he realized the power of the Jews in Chicago, he changed his tune), he keeps bad company like Jeremiah Wright and the ex-Weatherman radical. One Jewish "progressive", Phil Weiss (Mondoweiss) says he loves Obama because Obama was "struggling with his identity" just like so many "progressive" Jews do and that since Obama has supposedly "transcended race" (did his mentor Wright do this?), he will teach us "parochial Zionist Jews" to do the same (Weiss is an anti-Zionist).
It takes much more than giving nice speeches and gladhandling people to make a statesman, and I doubt Obama has the qualities of a statesman.
I'm sorry it took you this long to endorse Obama. Edwards ran a great campaign, but as Russ Feingold said of Edwards, "he's running on my senate record - not his own." (That's a paraphrase - but I think it's close to what he said).
ReplyDeleteI think he has an excellent chance of winning. It's not hard to find solid polling and analysis to counter Ben-David's arguments. Intrade.com has him currently trading at 62 cents to the dollar. That's encouraging.
that it is blasphemy even to suggest that Obama the Messiah might lose.
ReplyDeleteIf I believed that Obama was the messiah, would I have waited until June to endorse him?
You are the one twisting facts trying to interpret McCain's loss in Utah as somehow indicating that Republican's don't support him.
I'm not making that claim at all. Rather, my point was that just as it is absurd to extrapolate anything from McCain's devastating defeat in the Utah primary to his chances in Utah in the general election, it is also absurd to make projections about Obama's general election chances based on his primary losses.
The Utah example is not instructive - Utah's Republican voters are overwhelmingly Mormon, and thus voted for Mitt Romney out of loyalty
ReplyDeleteMcCain also lost by more than 20 percentage points in Iowa, Nevada, Maine, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, West Virginia, and Kansas. Arkansas is Huckabee's home state, but none of the others have this excuse. Again, I don't think this means that McCain has no chance in those states; I think it means that the primary results are not instructive about the general election.
Obama's trouble among conservative, blue collar, older, and white Democrats - which was partially reflected in Hillary's wins in "swing" states with large groups of those populations - is a legitimate problem, and one which Obama supporters such as myself would do much better to admit to and deal with, rather than deny, in order to secure victory in November.
Numerous analyses have shown that this "trouble" is restricted to Appalachia (which includes a number of the late primary states), and is not reflected in the nation as a whole.
Here's another one for your "concern troll" comment (whatever that means).
ReplyDeleteThe New York Times reported today that Obama has been keeping American Muslim groups at arm's length and they are offended that he keeps vehemently denying that he is a Muslim, instead of calmy denying it. Well, the article quoted a "PEW" poll that said 10% of American voters believe the rumors that he is a Muslim. Again, considering how close many elections are, this is another major handicap to be operating under, (assuming that most of these people don't want a Muslim as President-of course some might be Muslims themselves who hope that it is true).
I think you are mistaken if you think Republicans who didn't vote for McCain are going to line up for Obama. You agreed with my assertion that he is a super liberal and you claimed that most Americans want a candidate like this, but do you really believe that the Republicans who voted for Romney or Huckabee want a superliberal like Obama as President. I repeat that I think Republicans who are disatisfied with Bush's policied will largely vote for McCain for President a their local Democratic candidate for the House and Senate for balance.
In any event, your assertion that a "super liberal record is mainstream American opinion today" is way off-base. Many conservatives (e.g. Pat Buchanan) oppose the war in Iraq. It is not a "liberal/conservative" issue.
Y. Ben-David writes:
ReplyDeleteSorry to pour cold water on your enthusiasm, but Obama has ZERO chance to be elected.
Let's just look at that again:
Sorry to pour cold water on your enthusiasm, but Obama has ZERO chance to be elected.
WHEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!