It’s like my good friend at Bring It On! said over here. Another reminder why this election is so important. And it’s kind of sad we have to still be going down this road. After all, with record debts, a failing economy, energy concerns, environmental concerns, wars abroad and the whole lot of corruption and internal destruction Bush has done to our country and government, the GOP is STILL stuck up on abortion?

Well folks, take a good look at this video. Is this what you want for the women in your life?

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

I’ve got an idea though, and it’s something that I’ve said before. There is a fundamental difference between the campaign of Clinton and Obama, but you have to listen carefully to really hear it. It’s not so much in their policy ideas- both want to help average Americans with health care and the economy; they both talk about developing energy independence and protecting the environment; they both talk about schools and jobs and retirement concerns. And with some minor detail differences, it’s tough to distinguish one message from the other. But there is an overriding difference, and that difference could make all the difference in the world.

The difference is simple- in speech after speech, Clinton’s main focus is what she will do for you. Take a look at her pre-State of the Union remarks today and you will find a whole lot of “I believe this” and “I will do that.” Clinton is so ensconced in the politics of one doing it all for the many that she is missing the driving force behind the Obama candidacy, and the force that is energizing voters in ways not seen in decades. That force is the simple inclusion of us all.

Obama, after his win in South Carollina took some time to thank supporters and stump for the next big contest. Take a peek– notice the almost near absense of the word “I”? Instead, Obama talks about what WE can do, things WE can fix, change WE can make. Obama knows that America is tired of the special interests that tie politicians to corporations, leaving out the American people. We are tired of politics that make the politician and their sinuous ties to corporate money the most important piece of the puzzle. We are finished with the pay to play mentality that all of DC is immersed in. We are ready for a real change, and Obama alone is talking the talk that puts average Americans at the front of that change.

Look, I’m no fool. I know that the kind of change Obama presents won’t magically occur when Obama take the oath of office. That would be but the start. Once elected, he would still face the same intransigent system he is railing against. But is he used his office effectively, and the bully pulpit as well, he could ask the American people to continue the change they began and turn out all the politicians who won’t evolve. He could energize the voters to put new people in place who would feel the need to change the corruption so endemic to our national politics. And to do that, he needs all of us- the “we” he speaks of so much.

Change will not come to American politics unless American voters fight for it and toss the bums out who insist on keeping things as they are. Hillary Clinton’s campaign focus on herself and her abilities is just more of the same- big brother politics that say Americans can’t handle the tasks of government without the “pro’s” running the show. Well Hillary- we’ve seen how badly the “pro’s” have screwed things up. It’s time for a change. And Obama is the only one offering the kind of change we really want and need. The difference between old politics and new politics is easy to spot when you know what to look for. See if you can tell the difference yourself…

From Hillary:

“If you will stand with me, if you here in Connecticut will support me on
February 5th, I promise you that I will get up every single day and wage a
winning campaign against whomever the Republicans nominate.I’ve been up against
Republicans for a very long time now. I was thinking the other day, wouldn’t it
be nice if they just announced that they were embarrassed about what happened to
the country and they weren’t going to run for the White House again? Somehow I
don’t think that is going to happen. I think we will have to wage a vigorous and
winning campaign. Since I have been on the receiving end of their incoming fire
for all of these years and much to their dismay, I am still standing here, I
think I know how to take us to victory in November.”

From Obama:

“Yes, we can heal this nation. Yes, we can seize our future. And as we leave
this great state with a new wind at our backs, and we take this journey across
this great country, a country we love, with the message we’ve carried from the
plains of Iowa to the hills of New Hampshire, from the Nevada desert to the
South Carolina coast, the same message we had when we were up and when we were
down, that out of many we are one, that while we breathe we will hope, and where
we are met with cynicism and doubt and fear and those who tell us that we can’t,
we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of the American
people in three simple words: Yes, we can. “

Now ask yourself this question: Do you want a government that views you as a partner or one that views you as a dependent. Because that is the real difference between these two candidates. And that is what you need to think about.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

For the record, I’m an “independent voter,” meaning I have no official registered political affiliation. (I must be one of those folks that the pundits like to deride- just not partisan enough for their liking it seems.) My regular readers know that I lean liberal-progressive on social issues, moderately conservative on fiscal matters, and try to take a rational approach to foreign affairs. I vote mostly Democrat, but have voted for Republicans more than once. More often than not, the choice of candidates given leaves me holding my nose with one hand while marking the ballot with the other. I am weary of the stink that is American politics, but am even more loathe to succumb to apathy as so many across this land have. Yet it is apathy that Barack Obama and his candidacy seem to be taking on headfirst. So while the pundits and political foes take turns telling us why Obama shouldn’t be America’s next president, I want to move beyond the “professional king makers” and their opinions and really try to understand the dynamics that have led this little known former state legislator to seek the highest office in the land. Even more, to decide for myself whether his message of hope and change can become reality under his leadership or if his is just a well polished message, taking advantage of the disappointment in American government to get one man elected who will ultimately be like so many before him- full of promise and short on delivery.

The real gamble in this election is playing the same Washington game with the
same Washington players and expecting a different result. And that’s a risk we
can’t take. Not this year. Not when the stakes are this high. – Barack
Obama, Des Moines, IA- 12/27/07

No man (or woman for that matter) is one-dimensional. By this I mean, that certain qualities can be possessed by multiple individuals, but when combined with other attributes, these qualities create either positive or negative outcomes. For instance, political inexperience is frequently thrown onto the list of Obama negatives. But how negative is it really? After all, being a “Washington outsider” was considered a plus for George W. Bush, remember? Clearly, labels can be both objective and subjective. Objectively here because both men have had a relatively short political career before heading towards the Big Chair®. But subjectively because what the Republicans once saw as a positive they now seek to portray as a negative in another. Obama’s Democratic opponents portray his lack of political experience in a slightly different way, but with a similar result. In their case, other candidates do have longer government careers on the resume, and more varied experience at that. But when one takes into account the totality of Obama’s message of hope and change, it is just this kind of entrenched experience that perpetuates the problems with government. As they paint him to be a novice, he paints them all as jaded sell-outs.

For my money, I already know what the status-quo politicos have to offer, no matter what color lipstick they put on the pig. Obama’s political inexperience doesn’t bother me much. He has the kinds of life experiences that build empathy, tolerance, and realistic understanding of the plights of average folks that our current presidential novice never had or will have. Were Obama more Bush-like with regards to his background, I’d never have given him another look. As it is, the lack of political experience is about the only trait they share. In Bush’s case, lack of political experience coupled with arrogance and disinterest to create a maelstrom of mayhem around the world and across this country. In Obama’s case the lack of political experience may be the will that could break the chains of bondage that our democracy has been bound with, reminding Americans that this country is ours to guide into the future, not just for ourselves, but for our children and grandchildren and their future generations.

(But) this is about more than George Bush. He’s just the beginning of the change
that we need. These problems didn’t start when he came to office and they won’t
end just because he’s leaving. We’re not going to reclaim that dream unless we
put an end to the politics of polarization and division that is holding this
country back; unless we stand up to the corporate lobbyists that have stood in
the way of progress; unless we have leadership that doesn’t just tell people
what they want to hear – but tells everyone what they need to know. That’s the
change we need.- Barack
Obama, Bettendorf, IA- 11/7/07

Hope and Change. Not all that original when it comes to campaign slogans. Every politician says they’ll make a change. They all offer hope in one form or another. What does Obama mean when he talks about hope and change. Surely he knows that one man can’t change the whole course of a country by himself. Even Bush couldn’t have so drastically changed American politics and world standing without a compliant Congress and battered public. Obama isn’t an idiot, so either his message is just typical political rhetoric or it isn’t. But how to tell the difference? Again, this is the crux of the matter.

But wait a minute…Obama isn’t telling us that HE is going to do all the changing, but that WE need to work together to change. He is saying that we need to put down our petty partisanship to solve the things that need to be solved now, today, things that can’t afford to be ignored any longer. He is telling us that we need to change our outlook from one of fear to one of action. He is reminding us that American’s have more in common that not, more shared goals than not, and a larger sense of justice than most. Obama isn’t offering us change in a Magic Eight Ball, he’s telling us that change comes from within. He knows it won’t happen overnight, but he also knows that until the halls of Congress are filled with a new breed of American politician- a generation of leaders empowered by necessity, forced to make tough decisions to benefit the many over the few, left to clean up the mess of their elders- that change is just a word. At this moment in time, Obama is a mere cheerleader for change, and he must know it. But if elected to the office of president, he could be a bullhorn for change, forcing politicians to adapt or depart. This still sounds like rhetoric, but it’s a far cry more hopeful than most rhetoric I hear. And in this case, if the electorate elected like-minded members to Congress, the rhetoric could transform into reality. This is the message- change is possible. He wants to lead it. But we have to want it.

But his message, while popular, doesn’t strike me as populist in nature. While exciting and inspiring, telling Americans they need to be the ones to change politics (of all thi
ngs) isn’t exactly a crowd pleaser. Americans are lazy, apathetical, and ignorant of their government. In a country where more people are incensed by seeing Janet Jackson’s nipple than they are by a senseless war, asking folks to find and elect people who will really turn America around isn’t likely to make you popular. At least not when they realize you really want them to get involved. Obama is a great speaker, and may indeed get more people involved in politics, but for most folks, they need to see results before jumping on board. In this aspect, there certainly seems to be an aura of naïveté about the message.

So there is rhetoric. And there is naïveté. But there is also the promise of something else, something that if realized would turn naïve into common sense. Something that if achieved would turn rhetoric into reality. I guess the answer is “all of the above.” But no other candidate in either party holds the kind of promise, the kind of vision that Obama professes to have. No other candidate is as far from the entrapments of political entrenchment as Obama is, and thus none can truly wish to dismantle that which gives them such power. No other candidate has been able to generate such a cross section of excitement. And no other candidate has had their loyalty to America called into question in the way he has and been able to maintain the dignity to ignore it.

Barack Obama isn’t a saint. He isn’t a hero. He isn’t the next best thing since sliced bread. But he does seem to be something unique in American politics, something we don’t get to see all that often- a candidate that has bright visions for America and the ability to energize the public to act.

Could Obama really bridge the partisan divide? Consider this: Two of America’s greatest presidents were related. One was a Republican and the other was a Democrat. The Republican fought for environmental protection and against big corporations. The Democrat fought against world tyranny and economic depression. Funny how things turn, isn’t it. Americans aren’t really that far apart on most things they want and value, just in how they get or keep them. As you can see, history shows the parties themselves flip-flopping more than once.

Hope and change. Just words? Or words with meaning? I think that in this case, the messages of hope and change represent what could be as well as what will be, if only enough of us remember what kind of government we have. One that is of the people, by the people, and for the people.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

For the last year, the MSM has been non-stop in promoting its version of the general election: Clinton vs. Guiliani. Sure, other candidates have gotten their face time and exposure, but by and large, ever since they announced their candidacies, Clinton and Guiliani have “been the ones to beat,” at least so far as the media has been concerned. In Iowa at least, the media and the people are not necessarily of the same mind.

Selecting Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee in their primary caucus, Iowa pushed Clinton into 3rd place on the Democrat side of things and Guiliani down to 6th, after Ron Paul even, on the Republican ticket. Perhaps the days of media crowned politicians may finally be coming to an end? Too early to tell, but the signs from Iowa are encouraging.

For Democrats, Iowans chose Obama with 38% of the votes, followed by Edwards with 30% and Hillary with 29%. Republicans gave Huckabee a similar margin with 34% of the votes over Romney’s 25% and McCain and Thompson tying with 13% each.

These returns hold some promise for me personally. Promise in that Americans are finally seeming to come out of their self-induced apathy and are taking an active role in their government. If the 2006 mid-term elections were meant to be a wake-up call to the GOP and the president, then 2008 may well be a wake-up call to all the politicians. Clearly voters are less than happy with the path taken by the Democratic majority in Congress, at least as unhappy as with the GOP led debacle of the last 6 years. Their demand for change has gone unheard and unmet by the politicians and this primary makes it more clear than ever that status quo doesn’t cut it anymore.

Clinton and Guiliani are of the same mold as all the leadership in place now. Obama, Edwards, Huckabee and Romney at least appear to Iowans to show promise of a new direction for America, and voters of both parties are grabbing at that chance.

I like Obama and Edwards, much more than I do Clinton. So from a liberal perspective, I agree with Iowans tonight. And while I think that Huckabee is too religiously oriented for my taste, the last time we had an Arkansan in the White House, things weren’t all that bad.

Of course, one primary does not make a nomination, but already Dodd and Biden are throwing in the towel, and more are sure to follow in the coming days and weeks. The battle is just beginning, and with New Hampshire just ahead, this thing is wide open. But I’m glad to see that the first official contest wasn’t a coronation of media frontrunners or politicians who think they are entitled to and deserve the top job just because “it’s their turn and they’ve earned it.”

(cross posted at Bring It On!)