I Guess it's Got To be Edwards
Obviously, I was never going to be able to support Hillary Clinton. It's amusing to me that she gets tarred with the "Liberal" tag, as the pundits on the right try to cast her as "out of the mainstream". That's just a joke. Ms. Clinton is a militaristic corporatist plutocrat, with very damn little daylight between her and the Bushies. Can anyone truly believe that a Hillary Clinton presidency would be one marked by an outbreak of peace and justice? It sure doesn't look to me that she would take a single step back from the same discredited policies of the thugs in the current administration. Oh, sure, domestically she'd likely be a (small) improvement, but on foreign policy, where America's biggest challenges exist, she seems hopelessly wedded to military solutions.
All of which led me to Barack Obama. Young, brilliant, charismatic, he seemed to exude a kind of Kennedy-like energy that inspired hope. Hope that he would change the dialog, drive positive change and undo some of the worst of the Bush/Cheney transgressions against America and her Constitution. I was quite ready to support the Obama candidacy. Then came this:
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama told Haaretz in an exclusive interview that the current level of pressure on Iran over its nuclear program is "is not enough."
"Iran continues to be a major threat to the U.S. and its allies," said the Illinois senator.
Obama reiterated his position that the U.S. should engage Iran in direct talks,
but explained that these should be "low level talks" until there's "some sense of progress" such as voluntary freezing on the enrichment of uranium.
Obama expressed a "sense of urgency" in dealing with the matter.
I'm sorry, he said WHAT now? How is it that America, WAY over here on the other side of the globe, you know, that country with the Trillion Dollar "defense" budget, how can we realistically claim that Iran is any kind of a "threat" at all? That's beyond silly, it's certifiably insane. And it's really very simple. To whatever extent they do represent a threat, the best way to defuse that threat would be to develop friendly relations with them. They know if they actually targeted ted the US or Israel they would pay a truly terrible price, so logically the only reason they would ever consider an attack is if they felt threatened on an existential level. Which is what America's saber rattling rhetoric is bringing about. Obama is supposed to be smart enough to recognize a counterproductive course of action when he sees one, and he's supposed to be independent and courageous enough not to pander to American fears in the same way the Bush administration has pandered over this entire decade.
Honestly, this path towards authoritarian militarism has a bad outcome in store. It's not a sustainable model for a 21st century democracy, and it already can be seen systematically destroying everything America has ever meant or tried to be. We have major needs at home, and just pouring a trillion dollars into the ability to make more wars is a tragic waste of resources. Interestingly, while America founders on the shoals of multiple unwinable conflicts, the other powers, the EU, China and India are educating their populations, growing their economies, accumulating billions in hard currency through trade and forming mutually beneficial alliances with other nations, alliances based on economic development rather than military confrontation.
I'm not certain that John Edwards doesn't have these same militaristic tendencies. He seems to be an economic populist, and somebody who will pay attention to American domestic needs. I'll look into his platform and positions further before I make a decision, but with Clinton and Obama disqualified and Gore and Clark not running, he seems to be the default choice.
Don't get me wrong. If the Democratic presidential nominee is Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama I will work tirelessly to help get them elected, because another four years of bloodthirsty madness will certainly destroy this country. McCain or Giuliani would be truly disastrous for America. But somehow, I hope we can do better...
posted by mikey @ 10:50 AM
3 Comments:
Mikey, Couldn't agree with you more. I know he's a long shot, but have you checked out Bill Richardson? I think he even favors legalizing pot. That's enough to get my vote. Another war that's sending billions of dollars down the drain.
I've reached the same conclusion, Mikey. Right now what I'd like to see is Edwards/Richardson. I like Richardson but don't think he can catch up in time. Still, he's got experience and ideas and would make a good president, but he'd also make a great veep.
Sometimes living in Iowa is cool. It certainly is when an important caucus is coming up in less than a year. Obama just opened his new campaign headquarters in the East Village here in Des Moines with great fanfare and verve. His people are assiduously courting Democratic voters, and call me often. I never miss an opportunity to inform them that they can't win without the left, and that we're not stupid enough to just eat up the crumbs they throw our way... not anymore.
I wonder what a 21st century democracy is like. What does it need? We can talk with and trade with others all over the world. It will be more like this. I think that is OK and I don't want war or rules getting in the way. Maybe, my friends and I around the world can get together and work on projects (like the hobbiests who discovered the virus in Vinge's Rainbows End) and encourage others. Who is best for that? Who?
Post a Comment
<< Home