Sign Up for Logo's
Monthly Newsletter
A Bridge Called Obama

265×360_atlantic_scan.jpg

 

I’m a Clinton girl. We share an alma mater and a pragmatic sense of politics. She’s  impressed me the few times I’ve met her, and I have friends who have worked directly for her and for her campaign who say good things.

Also, as a woman and a feminist, I think it’s important to have a woman in the White House, and I can’t imagine who the next possible woman could be. I don’t think a woman’s politcs are different from a man’s politics, but I think that having women in leadership positions encourages social change. All things being equal - and they are - I’d rather have a woman in the White House than a man who has virtually equal poltical views.

So yeah, for those reasons and others, I’m planning on voting for Clinton in New York’s primary.

And yet.

The gay conservative writer Andrew Sullivan makes a compelling - and interesting - argument for Obama in December’s The Atlantic.

 

He says that Obama is the one candidate who can end the culture wars. Sullivan writes:

“To be black and white, to have belonged to a nonreligious home and a Christian church, to have attended a majority-Muslim school in Indonesia and a black church in urban Chicago, to be more than one thing and sometimes not fully anything - this is an increasingly common experience for Americans, including many racial minorities. Obama expresses such a conflicted but resilient identity before he even utters a word.”

And this complexity, with its internal tensions, contradictions, and moods, may increasingly be the main thing all Americans have in common.”

Sullivan paints a picture of Obama as crabby, as a doubter, as a man whose many contradictions keep him from jumping on anyone’s bandwagon. Obama, Sullivan says, should be the face of America, because Obama IS America -  a muddle of competing identities jostling against each other.

 Obama, Sullivan says, is the candidate who most expresses what America really is.

The article doesn’t make me undecided, exactly. But it gives me something new to weigh. For Americans, a woman in the White House would be a huge change. But the world won’t care - the world is accustomed to women in the highest office. What the world is NOT accustomed to is someone like Barrack Hussein Obama.

 As Sullivan says, if the dark-skinned, Muslim-schooled Obama became President:

If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology, Obama’s face gets close. It proves them wrong about what America is in ways no words can.

Obama, in Sullivan’s words, is a bridge between left and right, between blacks and whites, and between America and the world.

 

You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.
Comments
  1. when hiring a person for an important position, it is crucial to look at the resume. In the case of Hillary Clinton, people seem to read Bill's resume & subsume Hillary in it; thankfully, coverture does not exist in this country anymore (coverture is the public policy that required that a married woman's identity, property, and overall selfhood be subsumed by her husband's identity; women were not permitted to own property, vote, hold public office, etc. through it, women, the weaker sex, were presumed to be kept safe from harm). It is probably true that Bill Clinton benefited from Hillary's advice & presence while he served as president, it is not accurate to attribute his decisions to her - remember, the president is the "decider" (i couldn't resist)

    The odd thing is that Hillary is also accused of being Communist. One cited reason is that she represented members of the Black Panther Party as a young lawyer & belonged to many left of center groups organized for social & political change...
  2. There are seven very important reasons not to vote for Barak Obama:

    FIRST, he’s a Democrat, a political hustler in a right centrist party who’ll say anything to get elected. As Gore Vidal said says “We have one party - we have the party of essentially corporate America. It has two right wings, one called Democratic, one called Republican.” A vote for either party is a wasted vote, and worse, a vote for people whose pigheaded opposition to samesex marriage and the gutting of ENDA make them open opponents of GLBT equality.

    SECOND, like Clinton and the Republicans he openly, arrogantly and unashamedly panders to gay bashing christian bigots.

    THIRD, like Clinton and the Republicans he’s a candidate bought and paid for by corporate interests; his contributors are a virtual rogue’s gallery of parasites including:
    Goldman Sachs $430,578
    JP Morgan Chase & Co $273,359
    Exelon Corp $269,100
    Kirkland & Ellis $256,089
    Sidley Austin LLP $241,525
    Lehman Brothers $241,090
    Citigroup Inc $207,500
    Skadden, Arps et al $206,271
    Jenner & Block $186,629
    Mayer, Brown et al $168,056
    Citadel Investment Group $166,600
    Time Warner $162,218
    Jones Day $158,400
    UBS AG $155,150
    Morgan Stanley $127,675
    Credit Suisse Group $125,950
    (For the record, these companies don’t donate in their own name. They set up PACS and ask employees to donate by giving them an offer they can’t refuse. As in all things political it’s wise to take Deepthroat’s advice and “Follow the Money.”)

    FOURTH, Obama was the first presidential candidate to support the NAFTA Peru extension bill before Congress. Look at his list of donors above and his stand makes perfect sense.
    According to MSNBC "Obama said he would vote for a Peruvian trade agreement next week…: in response to a questioner who called NAFTA and CAFTA a disaster for American workers.” The AFL-CIO, all Peruvian unions and most environmental and anti-poverty organizations oppose NAFTA because it’s used to pauperize workers, bust unions and is an environmental disaster. Obama, Clinton and most Republicans support NAFTA. They have to if they want corporate money.

    FIFTH, in spite of all his hype about the war one thing remains crystal clear, neither he, Edwards, Clinton or the Republican candidates can end the war. A victory by the Iraqis will end it, just like the war in Vietnam was ended.

    The Democrats in Congress have voted to fund the war at every turn. The awful result of their cowardice is that it enabled Bush to dug the US in so deeply and created so much hatred in the Middle East that if they pull out oil imports will virtually dry up. The US will be dependent on the good will of the anti-American governments of socialist Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, ex NKVD chief Putin in Russia, and the leftist Lula in Brazil. That’s why Obama and the all the leading Democratic and Republican candidates flatly refuse to promise withdrawal before 2013. They want that oil in for US petroleum companies.

    The cost of that oil is not measured at the pump, it’s measured in the lives of the 650,000 Iraqi murdered because of the US invasion, and by the cost of the 3,878 GI killed as of Wednesday, November 28th 2007.

    SIXTH, like Clinton and the Republicans, Obama is a hand puppet for the HMO, pharmaceutical and insurance industries. Don’t get sick if one of them wins, or if you do planning on flying to the EU for treatment. If it’s a life threatening emergency hightail it to Canada or Cuba.

    The National Nurses Organizing Committee, AFL-CIO condemns Obama, saying “There are two basic options for healthcare reform: increase the role of health insurance companies or replace them. Obama has chosen to give more customers and more public funds to the for-profit insurance corporations. It’s an expensive gift and one that allows them to continue meddling in medical decision-making while raking in obscene blood-money profits.”

    SEVENTH, and most important, if enough people vote for him he might win.
    donal1944@msn.com

    ...............................................

    http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/allcontrib.asp?CID=N00009638

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/17/AR2007041701688.html

    http://www.guaranteedhealthcare.org/blog/shum-preston/2007/05/29/barack-obama-needs-see-sicko

    http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/10/09/403888.aspx

    http://www.alternet.org/workplace/67680/
    http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3383532
  3. All things being equal - and they are - I’d rather have a woman in the White House than a man who has virtually equal poltical views.


    That view is fine, but the reality is that the Presidential nominees are NOT all the same in their political views. That is misleading at best and a lie at worst. Hillary is by far the most conservative of the Democratic nominees.

    I agree that when voting we should give those that bring diversity to the table extra points, but that shouldn't be the lone deciding factor as it seems to be for you here.
Leave a Comment

*
To prove that you're not a bot, enter this code
Anti-Spam Image

The Visible Vote ’08 Widget
Post our headlines on your blog


Customize/resize this widget

Disclaimer:
The opinions expressed on the blog are the personal opinions of our bloggers, and in no way reflect the opinions of Logo, MTV Networks or Viacom.

Warning:
Some blogs or websites linked from this site may contain objectionable or uncensored content. Logo is not affiliated with these websites and makes no representations or warranties as to their content.