You have to read my last diary first to understand this diary. I sent out the Obama viral email to a lot of folks. I got that reply from a friend - directing me to the Chicago Trib's op-ed on Obama, a glowing one IMHO.
So she replied back again. And I wrote yet another long reply myself. I think it's a pretty good analysis of being a left winger, but willing to work the system in the way Obama espouses. Enjoy the read again.
FIRST, my friend's reply to my reply:
I see Obama as weak, willing to give in on issues that should not be compromised! And I fear he will be another 'nice guy" in a close election and give in for the "sake of the nation" as Gore and Kerry did.
If he happens to win, there will be no health insurance reform because as Krugman has said, without universal participation, the principle of any insurance, coverage of some (including my daughter and her family) will be unaffordable. A good excuse for no more coverage!
What I'm saying is that Obama offers little possibility for real change. Sure it would be great to have a thoughtful intellectual in the White House, but not if nothing changes, if everything is compromised away.As Hillary has said, of the health insurance/medical industries, sometimes you just have to stand and fight!
(Without Tom Edwards, PDC would have had its way in Peoria!)
Yes, our opponents can be nice guys. That's their spin! Then they get their way! So-- watch out -- it will be interesting to see whether either of us is right. I guess that a year from now we'll have the answers.
Somehow I thought you were more left than center. Guess I was wrong.
Now my reply to the reply to the reply:
I've thought a lot about this reply.
I don't see Obama as too nice a guy, though. I think he can and will be tough when necessary. To survive in Illinois politics alone is a monumental task - it's vicious here, more than I've seen in any other state I've lived in (NY, NJ, WA and FL).
And I don't think I'm a centrist or a moderate, really. I am pro choice to the death. I do believe universal health care a la Sweden, England or Canada would be the best thing for the US. I do believe in larger government, or govt regulation of more things than less. I'm rather a socialist about plenty of things.
But I don't see Obama's willingness to work with all stripes or both sides of the aisle as "compromise" or as a softness on issues. I'm confident about what he believes in. I'm confident he's pretty far left with me.
But the simple fact is that this country is made up of left AND right, black AND white, poor AND rich, capitalist AND socialist AND libertarian AND anarchist, Christian AND Jewish AND Muslim AND Scientologist. There are so many shades of so many colors. And I ABSOLUTELY believe that not a single one of those ideals or paradigms should be prioritized or preferred over the other.
Government, for me, is about something that works for everyone. That stays out of our private lives to a large degree, except when we come asking for help. That prioritizes a workable solution for all citizens. Banning abortion is NOT a workable solution for all citizens. It's a medical decision that needs to be made in private by a family and a doctor/doctors, and whoever else said family chooses to involve. Not the government.
I am very confident that Obama sees government in this light as well.
I also think Obama, like me and so many of his supporters, knows that this is the way our government needs to go. That most people, including many moderate Republicans and Independents too, want to see our government go.
The last twenty years of government in the US, maybe more, have been rife with bitter and more importantly, NASTY, partisanship. The Right Wing Christians and hawks and neo-cons - and the current Bush obviously - have made it painfully more so in the past 8 years. Clinton didn't help the cause too much either. Like I said in my last email, my Dad is a Republican/Libertarian. I disagree with so much of what he believes politically, but I don't want to hate him. I have a friend and coworker here at BU who is a longtime Republican, but moderate. She voted for Obama in the primary.
And I think (this is just my theory) that this attitude trickles down from the top, to quote Reagan a bit. But seriously. Bush and Rove and Cheney have run this country with callous and selfish disregard. I know on this we can agree. Rove and Cheney (Bush is just a puppet/parrot) have crafted the politics of hate and divisiveness, mostly to get themselves into power.
Do you want Rove and Cheney's divisive, bitter, hateful tactics to become standard politics? Historically, politics has been corrupt and "mudslinging" is certainly nothing new - but did it ever divide the country as much as we are divided today? Even if it has, hasn't politics always swung back to the center? Or to a less divisive, nasty mode of operations? Or at least closer to this?
I don't think Obama is any kind of "gold standard." I certainly don't think he's a messiah. I think, and very passionately believe, he is what this country needs right now. You cannot deny that there is a vocal faction in this country that talks ABH - anyone but Hillary. Rush Limbaugh is leading that charge, we both know. So much so that many Republicans are actually going out to vote for her, at Limbaugh's encouragement, to skew the votes. They KNOW that McCain can beat Hillary. They aren't sure he can beat Obama.
Why would you want to continue this kind of divisiveness? This kind of bitter hatred that drives people to fuck with the system, essentially cheating to win. Sure, we become impatient with politics. Loads of people can't stand the process at all. Lots of days, I don't blame them. It's a nasty game. But it doesn't have to be dirty and corrupt. It doesn't have to be me against you. It doesn't have to be party and partisan winner-take-all. It should be about an efficient system that serves the people. Sure that's utopia, but again, Obama gets pretty damn close to this sentiment.
And mostly what I see Hillary doing is following in the divisive steps of Rove and Cheney's anything to win strategies. She's even taken to saying things that aren't necessarily true, because once the horse is out of the barn and into a newsbyte, it's what most folks will hear. Winning Texas for example. She didn't win Texas. Obama beat her by about 3 or 4 delegates total. And recently, she tried to contest the Texas caucus results, saying there were reports of bad counting via the caucus system. And trying to have MI and FL delegates seated as is, despite that everyone, including her, agreed to the rules last summer and then they broke them. This is tinkering with the rules of the game midround. No one should be allowed to do this, and it impresses me as entirely disingenuous and dishonest.
She let loose Geraldine Ferraro to spew her hateful comments, because once it's out there - it can't be retrieved. Doesn't matter that she's playing to the worst liberal flaw, an imagined and selfish reverse racism concept. Does she seriously think it's a picnic to be black in the US? I don't know either, but I certainly wouldn't claim that I've had a hard time as a white girl. Hell no.
So if my willingness to swing to the center if called for, or my willingness to hear out both sides and meet at the table to discuss compromise makes me more moderate than left - well, so be it. But this is actually the one quality that made me register as a Green Party member in this state. One of their ten central tenets is "Feminism". Not Gloria Steinem, ERA and bra burning. But the quality generally placed in the Feminine spectrum as the willingness to talk to all sides of an issue and figure out the best solution.
We will get nowhere continuing to throw stones and hateful words at the other side. Compromise is the best solution is so many ways, marriage, friendship, and more often than not, government. Compromise is not a dirty word. And with as many differing opinions as you can find in any town from Peoria to San Francisco to NYC to DC - it's one of the best ways to get things done. IMHO anyway. It's always worked for me, and quite well at that.