Answering Chuck from NY's question on a related post.
Chuck asked:
1) Why do you see your candidate being better suited to be President if elected?
2) What makes you think your candidate has what it takes to successfully lead our country?
3) Why do you think your candidate can beat the GOP nominee in November?
All right, Chuck, you asked, I'll give you my personal answer. I am sure other supporters of Senator Obama could do better. Hopefully, they will respond to you.
After eight years of an administration that has been deceptive and ruined the trust Americans (and friends of America) have in the U.S. government, we need a President with integrity, good judgment, and leadership ability.
INTEGRITY
Senator Obama clearly outshines his opponent here. He has campaigned cleanly and honestly. He does not misrepresent his opponents' records for political gain. Rather, he spends his time convincing voters to suport his candidacy because he realizes that to succeed in office he will need the popular will of the people to accomplish the substantive changes in policy that we need. You can only get such a popular mandate only by appealing to the best in people, gaining their collective and determined commitment.
Obama co-wrote landmark ethics bills that have passed in Illinois and in Washington, DC, to reduce the influence of corporate money in shaping our policies. He recognizes that too many decisions made by government have been influenced by (selfish) corporations.
EXPERIENCE
For all the chatter about "experience" and "inspiration", please note that Clinton has been in elected office for 7 years, while Obama has been in elected office for 11 years. Thus he's been writing and sponsoring legislation and working with both Parties longer than she has.
For that matter, the value of experience may be suspect, given what Clinton has posited. She has claimed on several occasions that she has "35 years of experience". That would mathematically mean, however, that she had 20 years of experience when she embarked on the 1993 plan now termed "HillaryCare", which basically died on arrival, and that she had 29 years of experience in 2002 when she voted to give W the authorization to start the Iraq War.
These two issues are the ones for which she is best known. Despite her stated years of experience, both were terrible mistakes that have hurt our troops, our economic situation, and our reputation.
Meanwhile, Obama has co-sponsored several bills that have passed in the Illinois Senate and in the U.S. Senate, addressing issues from health care, crime, immigration, ethics, etc.-- he's covered a great deal of policy ground. He may be rightly painted as the candidate with lesser experience, but he certainly has sufficient experience, and that is what matters.
JUDGMENT and LEADERSHIP
More importantly, he has exhibited superior judgment, both on the Iraq War, and on what really matters to the American people. That is why he has been so successful in combating the Clinton incumbency. I attribute his skillful campaign to his life experience and political savvy. Hillary Clinton was way, way ahead in December, with leads in the teens and twenties in every state but Illinois. Just one month later, Obama has done rather well. He beat Clinton in IA by 9%, narrowly lost to her in NH by 2%, lost to her in NV by 6%, and trounced her in SC by 28%, receiving more than double her votes in the most recent contested primary. His ability to command the respect of voters in such a short timeframe demonstrates his leadership.
True leaders inspire. Obama is a true leader.
WINNING the GENERAL ELECTION
Which brings us to the notion of electability. It is unquestioned that Clinton and her husband are polarizing figures. For all the good feelings that the Clinton administration engenders among Democrats, we should remember that the shenanigans in Clinton's second term (scandals galore) hobbled Al Gore in 2000. He had to run away from the taint (yes, unfortunately, it's true) of the Clinton administration, and as a consequence voters elected W. Yes, voters voted for W to "clean up" after the Clintons.
Clinton's campaign has tried to diminish the importance of Clinton's electability, but here again is a huge contrast between her and Senator Obama. Republicans will be engaged if she is the nominee and will be able to raise large sums of money from people, threatening the Democrats' chances in the general election.
Meanwhile, it is well-known that independents and (moderate) Republicans have been flocking to Obama's campaign. I know this is true from talking with people, and you can confirm, if you wish, by checking polls. Obama is not simply obtaining support from Democrats, he's getting support from everybody. Witness that 650,000 of us hoi polloi have donated to his campaign. This presages well for his winning in November.
It should have been easy for Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Claire McCaskill, Janet Napolitano, etc. to back Clinton-- she should have been a shoe-in. Instead they decided to support the future of the Party.
So, Chuck, the question is not whether you should pick Obama or Clinton, but only at what time will you decide that Obama is the right choice for you and for the American people.
Sincerely,
Jerry
PS: I have tried my best to give you correct facts. Feel free to respond if you have any questions.
Nicely done, Mr. Tsai.
1 February 2008
No comments:
Post a Comment