In the summer of 1960, when I was 10, my parents, my brother Johnny, and I drove across country. Part of our trip took us through the still-segregated South. I will never forget the horror I felt as I saw the "Whites Only" signs on restaurants and drinking fountains, the bathrooms labeled "Men," "Women," and "Colored." The harshness of such visible, tangible inequality, bigotry, and hatred marked my view of the world from that time on. How could such a broken world ever be fixed? How could we ever get past such an immense divide between peoples sharing a common land?
Tonight, I am so moved by the momentous occasion in US history as we celebrate the election of Barack Obama as our 44th president. My hope for a healed nation no longer seems frail and naively optimistic. It seems strong and certain. How good it will be to wake up tomorrow in a new America!
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Monday, May 19, 2008
Why Obama? Reason 3
He knows the U.S. can't solve the problems of the world alone.
That sounds like a big duh, but the approach of the current Bush administration seems to base its international policies on exactly the opposite premise. The U.S. helps, the U.S. ignores, or the U.S. punishes, but the U.S. does not work collaboratively. Not with other countries. Not with the U.N. Not with the NGOs. And they've made it seem unpatriotic to want to work with others, including international organizations, to help solve the world's problems.
Barack Obama has taken quite a bit of flack for suggesting that sitting down and talking to the people who oppose the U.S. and its policies—people who even hate the U.S.—is a good place to start. Open the doors. Look to diplomacy. He never said to do that unconditionally, although he's been criticized as if he had said it. Obama has made the point that we can't ask other heads of state to agree unconditionally to become democratically ruled countries, embracing the principles of the U.S. Constitution, before we agree to sit down and talk to them. "Hold democratic elections," our President is supposed to say, "and then we'll talk. With the winner." Yeah, that'll work. Did we do that with the Saudis? I don't think so.
The rules of diplomacy of the last 8 years haven't worked very well, have they? Time for new rules. Obama knows a little about diplomacy. Being a community organizer on Chicago's South Side probably taught him a thing or two about getting people at war with each other to sit down at the table.
Remember, very little progress was made in the search for peace in Northern Ireland until the warring parties sat down at the table together and talked.
Barack will talk. Good for him.
That sounds like a big duh, but the approach of the current Bush administration seems to base its international policies on exactly the opposite premise. The U.S. helps, the U.S. ignores, or the U.S. punishes, but the U.S. does not work collaboratively. Not with other countries. Not with the U.N. Not with the NGOs. And they've made it seem unpatriotic to want to work with others, including international organizations, to help solve the world's problems.
Barack Obama has taken quite a bit of flack for suggesting that sitting down and talking to the people who oppose the U.S. and its policies—people who even hate the U.S.—is a good place to start. Open the doors. Look to diplomacy. He never said to do that unconditionally, although he's been criticized as if he had said it. Obama has made the point that we can't ask other heads of state to agree unconditionally to become democratically ruled countries, embracing the principles of the U.S. Constitution, before we agree to sit down and talk to them. "Hold democratic elections," our President is supposed to say, "and then we'll talk. With the winner." Yeah, that'll work. Did we do that with the Saudis? I don't think so.
The rules of diplomacy of the last 8 years haven't worked very well, have they? Time for new rules. Obama knows a little about diplomacy. Being a community organizer on Chicago's South Side probably taught him a thing or two about getting people at war with each other to sit down at the table.
Remember, very little progress was made in the search for peace in Northern Ireland until the warring parties sat down at the table together and talked.
Barack will talk. Good for him.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Why Obama? Reason 2
He mentions gay people in political speeches.
I wondered if I ever would hear a Presidential candidate say the word gay, let alone in a positive way. When Obama lists the people he looks to as the American people, the people he looks to as part of his constituency, the people he hopes will help build the future, he mentions black, white, hispanic, asian, native american, gay and straight. That last inclusion, in this list of the diverse groups that make up this country, is so important. He doesn't have to include gay people as a category. As a Democrat, he'll get his fair share of the gay vote. But he makes a point to include gay people. He sees all of us as important, and he's not afraid to make that clear. Again, he's a bold man who speaks from his core beliefs. That's not your usual politician.
I wondered if I ever would hear a Presidential candidate say the word gay, let alone in a positive way. When Obama lists the people he looks to as the American people, the people he looks to as part of his constituency, the people he hopes will help build the future, he mentions black, white, hispanic, asian, native american, gay and straight. That last inclusion, in this list of the diverse groups that make up this country, is so important. He doesn't have to include gay people as a category. As a Democrat, he'll get his fair share of the gay vote. But he makes a point to include gay people. He sees all of us as important, and he's not afraid to make that clear. Again, he's a bold man who speaks from his core beliefs. That's not your usual politician.
Why Obama? Reason 1
Why do I support Barack Obama for President?
Let me count the ways.
REASON 1: He doesn't take PAC money.
This is not necessarily the most important reason I support Barack Obama for President, but it's certainly a key one. When Obama became a Presidential candidate, he pledged not to take money from political action committees. This single action—stance? position?—sets Senator Obama apart from most people who have run for President in my lifetime. Hell, it sets him apart from most people who have run for office in my lifetime.
Why is his decision to eschew money from political action committees so significant? PACs are popular whipping boys, although there are certainly well-intentioned PACs. Not all of them exist solely to rip off the unsuspecting public. Yes, there are PACs that use their money to keep the insurance industry private and rich, at the expense of the ill and under- or uninsured. But there are also PACs that support teachers, those who dedicate their lives to educating our children.
Why shouldn't Presidential candidates, who rely on money to fuel their campaigns in primaries across the country, take money from those groups that support them? Because they will then owe those groups something. Remember, there's no free lunch. Big money begets big demands. If one woman donates $25 to a candidate, she may expect the candidate to act according to stances taken and promises made, but she's unlikely to wield power to pressure the candidate to act a certain way. A political action committee, on the other hand is likely to do exactly that.
In all fairness to Senator Clinton, according to FactCheck.org, only 1.1 percent of her money comes from PACs and lobbyists. But she didn't take the pledge. And she did take this money. She has even taken money in the past from key groups within the health insurance industry (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/12/nyregion/12donate.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)*. Some might say that it's because she's learned how to talk to them, and I have no doubt that she's very knowledgeable about this subject. My fear, though, is a fear I have about her stance on other issues: she's gotten too good at modifying her position in order to find common ground with her opposition. I don't want her getting chummy with the insurance industry. What are they going to ask in return for their support?
But I digress. This is about Barack Obama's pledge not to take money from PACs, and his sticking to that pledge. In case you've heard or read things that suggest he hasn't stuck to this pledge, check out what FactCheck.org (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/pac-ing_heat.htm) has to say about this. This Web site gives me agita sometimes, but it really does cut through a lot of the rhetoric, and it holds both candidates' feet to the fire.
Obama's pledge was a watershed moment in American politics. This is a bold man who is not afraid to defy the established rules of politics. But that's just one reason to vote for him. Stay tuned for the next one.
Mary McClellan
May 3, 2008
* From the NY Times, July 12, 2006:
...As [Hillary Clinton] runs for re-election to the Senate from New York this year and lays the groundwork for a possible presidential bid in 2008, Mrs. Clinton is receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from doctors, hospitals, drug manufacturers and insurers. Nationwide, she is the No. 2 recipient of donations from the industry, trailing only Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, a member of the Republican leadership.
Let me count the ways.
REASON 1: He doesn't take PAC money.
This is not necessarily the most important reason I support Barack Obama for President, but it's certainly a key one. When Obama became a Presidential candidate, he pledged not to take money from political action committees. This single action—stance? position?—sets Senator Obama apart from most people who have run for President in my lifetime. Hell, it sets him apart from most people who have run for office in my lifetime.
Why is his decision to eschew money from political action committees so significant? PACs are popular whipping boys, although there are certainly well-intentioned PACs. Not all of them exist solely to rip off the unsuspecting public. Yes, there are PACs that use their money to keep the insurance industry private and rich, at the expense of the ill and under- or uninsured. But there are also PACs that support teachers, those who dedicate their lives to educating our children.
Why shouldn't Presidential candidates, who rely on money to fuel their campaigns in primaries across the country, take money from those groups that support them? Because they will then owe those groups something. Remember, there's no free lunch. Big money begets big demands. If one woman donates $25 to a candidate, she may expect the candidate to act according to stances taken and promises made, but she's unlikely to wield power to pressure the candidate to act a certain way. A political action committee, on the other hand is likely to do exactly that.
In all fairness to Senator Clinton, according to FactCheck.org, only 1.1 percent of her money comes from PACs and lobbyists. But she didn't take the pledge. And she did take this money. She has even taken money in the past from key groups within the health insurance industry (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/12/nyregion/12donate.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)*. Some might say that it's because she's learned how to talk to them, and I have no doubt that she's very knowledgeable about this subject. My fear, though, is a fear I have about her stance on other issues: she's gotten too good at modifying her position in order to find common ground with her opposition. I don't want her getting chummy with the insurance industry. What are they going to ask in return for their support?
But I digress. This is about Barack Obama's pledge not to take money from PACs, and his sticking to that pledge. In case you've heard or read things that suggest he hasn't stuck to this pledge, check out what FactCheck.org (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/pac-ing_heat.htm) has to say about this. This Web site gives me agita sometimes, but it really does cut through a lot of the rhetoric, and it holds both candidates' feet to the fire.
Obama's pledge was a watershed moment in American politics. This is a bold man who is not afraid to defy the established rules of politics. But that's just one reason to vote for him. Stay tuned for the next one.
Mary McClellan
May 3, 2008
* From the NY Times, July 12, 2006:
...As [Hillary Clinton] runs for re-election to the Senate from New York this year and lays the groundwork for a possible presidential bid in 2008, Mrs. Clinton is receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from doctors, hospitals, drug manufacturers and insurers. Nationwide, she is the No. 2 recipient of donations from the industry, trailing only Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, a member of the Republican leadership.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
