Racialicious for Obama


“We could make history by being the first time in a very long time where a grassroots movement of people of all colors — black, white, Hispanic, Asian — rose up, and went up against the princes, the powers, and principalities, and actually won a presidency.”
–Barack Obama, January 13, 2008

It’s official — Racialicious is endorsing Barack Obama as president of the United States. Read on for statements from Carmen Van Kerckhove, Wendi Muse, Fatemeh Fakhraie and Latoya Peterson.

From Carmen

If you’ve been reading Racialicious for any time, you probably know that I have an irrational love for dance movies and an irrational dislike of red bean soup.

One thing you might not know about me, however, is that I’m not a U.S. citizen; I’m only a green card holder. I’ve never been bothered by the fact that I’m not able to vote in this country — until now.

For the first time ever, there’s a candidate whom I really, really want to see elected as president: Barack Obama.

Does Obama appeal to me because he’s multiracial, like myself? Because many of his relatives are Asian? Because in living abroad, he’s had the same international Third Culture Kid (TCK) experiences as me? In part, yes.

But what really excites me about Obama is that he is completely in touch with how race in America is lived in 2008. He understands that race is not just about who’s black and who’s white, or who’s a victim and who’s an oppressor. He’s fearless about addressing institutional racism, but is absolutely uninterested in playing oppression olympics. His message is one of hope and change, yet he doesn’t sugarcoat the realities of racism or insist on engaging in meaningless celebrations of diversity. He proudly identifies as a black man, yet is committed to bringing together people of all races.

In short, Barack Obama epitomizes the core beliefs that drive everything I do.

I believe that this country will fundamentally shift the way it thinks and talks about race if Obama wins the presidency. And I’m filled with excitement and hope when I think about the possibility for that sea change.

From Wendi

I’ve been fairly quiet with regard to my support of Barack Obama as the Democratic Presidential Nominee mainly because I wavered so long between him and Hillary Clinton. I respect them both and would honestly be really happy if either of them gained the nomination. No matter who makes it to the final election (and, hopefully, the White House), history has been made.

However, for me, there are two things that have influenced me to support Obama. Some asked if it had to do with my racial background, understandably, considering that so many Americans for centuries have voted based on their racial background . . . then again, all the last presidents have been white males, if that says anything. No, it wasn’t about race, I assured them, as I fully acknowledge that people of color can make just as great or just as poor leaders as whites; perfect examples of the aforementioned can be observed throughout the “Global South,” where people of color are often in the majority and, save for their respective colonial periods, hold political office.

For me, what compelled me to consider myself an Obama supporter was his approach to foreign policy and his adherence to keeping a clean campaign. The candidates are so similar on certain issues, but these two things are some of the few that really stood out to me as their being strikingly different.

Barack voted against the War in Iraq at a time Obama did not support the war in Iraq at its inception when a substantial portion of America was convinced that going to war was the right thing to do. I greatly respect a leader who can see through the clouds of illusion that politics often create. And when it comes to foreign affairs in the Middle East, there is no better time than now to be incredibly diplomatic and make decisions with our country’s best interests in mind. Bombing additional countries won’t help the damage we’ve already done, nor will building additional military bases (which, as demonstrated in South Korea and Okinawa, can often lead to more problems with regard to security for the host nation’s citizens than before).

I also feel that in considering a candidate, I want someone whom I can trust and who stands by courtesy as an important personality trait, even in the heat of competition and debate. Obama is very much a reflection of the America I want to see in the future, and with that said, I express my support and faith in Barack Obama.

From Fatemeh

Obama has this aura around him: it’s not charisma or his nice smile or anything like that. It’s hope. I feel really hopeful for this country when I think about Obama.

And it just gets better when I look at his stance on the issues: on foreign policy, he’s never supported Iraq. He supports diplomacy with countries that Bush has threatened to bomb. On civil rights, he supports the reinstitution of habeas corpus, shutting down Guantanamo, expanding hate-crime laws, and ending racial profiling.

From Latoya

Simply put, I support Barack Obama in this election for three key reasons:

1. His policies show a unique understanding of what disadvantaged communities need to advance themselves and how helping those communities to succeed will allow our entire society to move forward.

2. He is willing to radically depart from the politics of fear that various people have used to justify the need for military might and instead work toward global community and understanding.

3. His focus is on community empowerment, which may include government assistance and initiatives. His focus is on service. His focus is on improving America through its citizens.

I love my country, dearly. But I have been sick over the last seven years. America has fallen far short of its own expectations.

Barack Obama’s vision for this country will put us back on track.

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. A wolf in sheep clothing « latin american princesa {LAP} on 05 Feb 2008 at 4:00 pm

    […] Obama is different. His campaign is different. If the biggest problem people can find with him is that he knows someone who knows someone that is questionable in his beliefs, then guess what? He’s just like all the rest of us. We all know someone, who knows someone that has views we don’t agree with. Obama is hard to define and perhaps that is also what makes the most conservative from all walks of life so nervous. It also makes it easier to come up with vague reasons to smear him. […]

  2. The Alacrity of Hope. « PostBourgie on 13 Feb 2008 at 10:15 am

    […] rest of the gang over at Racialicious, endorsed Obama for president. In Muse’s explanation, she cited Obama’s vote against the Iraq war — that oft-repeated nugget that happens to be completely untrue. (How does a man vote against […]

  3. What’s the Deal with the Green Party? at Racialicious - the intersection of race and pop culture on 03 Nov 2008 at 4:19 pm

    […] vote, I can hear some people freaking out behind their screens. Obviously, Racialicious has been officially pro-Obama since Super Tuesday. And throughout the campaigning, the revelations, all of that, none of our positions have […]

Comments

  1. Paul wrote:

    This’ great! Glad to see more people not falling for Clinton’s historical revisionism. The only bad thing is that she controls the vast majority superdelegates and the party machinery in machine states such as NY and NJ. Thus, is almost assured of the nomination. I can only hope that people go for the third party in a McCain-Clinton general election. No reason to vote for Bush-lite.

  2. Autonym wrote:

    Thanks for sharing this with us. My sons (8 and 12) are HUGE Barack Obama fans, and they convinced me to vote for him instead of a third party candidate (or sitting it out this time, which after the last election I was sorely tempted to do). I’m looking forward to casting my vote for him in our primary (although technically we here in WI aren’t determining anything).

    I think the multicultural aspect of Sen. Obama’s experience is a huge asset for him as a statesman and a leader, but I’m not sure if it will be used against him (maybe he’ll start being called “canadian”?) by opponents. Oh, of course it will, when hasn’t that happened?

    Thanks again for sharing why you are choosing Obama.

  3. Lloyd Webber wrote:

    Its a testament to the man that you all have such varied reasons for supporting him and yet came to the same conclusion. I’m Canadian, and I’ve never wanted to be American so badly, just so I could vote for him, especially considering the sad state of Canadian politics vis a vis POC

  4. Carmen Van Kerckhove wrote:

    Eh actually we’re only doing it because Oprah told us to.

    Just kidding. ;)

  5. Colin wrote:

    Now, this is a semi-dissent, but I will do whatever I can to stay respectful.

    I supported Obama tenuously up until NH, when I began to support John Edwards because of Edwards’ strong support and advocacy for poverty issues from the get-go, his honesty on his mistaken centrism, and his strong criticism of right-wing ideology even when it crept into the mouths of other Democrats. John

    Edwards did play the white male card, so that most definitely hurt but he would’ve made the best president out of the Democratic top four given the situation we’re in as a country, where the national debate is ideologically one-sided and given the history of political realignment in America, he would’ve been the best general election candidate just on ideological grounds alone, as he would’ve given a much clearer and more critical alternative to the corporate welfare party than either Clinton or Obama will and that’s the way an opposition party wins realigning elections with mandates for sweeping changes; that’s how Reagan won, with divisive, anti-liberal rhetoric, (not to mention with racism) and that’s how the Democrats in 2006 won, they said the GOP started a culture of corruption and that stuck. That’s what we need, someone who can draw a contrast and a stark one. Kerry couldn’t. Gore didn’t. We MUST.

    That said, Obama is the one of the two frontrunners left in the Democratic Party that can better draw that distinction. His rhetoric leaves much to be desired and he often hits much more vicious hits against fellow progressives, the activist progressives, than he does against Republicans.

    Once he turns his deceptive mailers and innuendo machine on the conservatives then it’ll be a good fight.

    Until that switch occurs, if Obama is nominated, count on having another white male in the White House.

    Otherwise, it’s great to hear you’ve endorsed someone and I hope you all get involved by telling the people you know to vote tomorrow for your guy, and good luck. To me, I’m getting hyped for supporting either candidate no matter who’s nominated, and I hope as many people as possible here do as well.

  6. Colin wrote:

    Here’s a great post that I think in light of your endorsement, highlights part of what I’m thinking about on the subject of politics.

    http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/speaking-truth-without-power/index.html?ref=opinion

    Please remember that we fight for policies, and politicians should ONLY be vehicles for them. If we let the vehicles drive us around on auto-pilot, we’re going to crash into a wall.

  7. Oprah wrote:

    Hi,
    This is Oprah. Carmen, thanks for obeying me. Here’s your reward: YOU GET A CAR! NO NO, YOU GET THREE CARS!!! EVERYONE ONE HERE GETS THREE CARS!!!!!! WOOOOOOOOO!

  8. regina wrote:

    Awesome post! Tomorrow brings a ground breaking day for democrats either way. But it may also turn into a very bad day for America…
    Who ever prays may want to hit those knees extra hard tonight.

  9. Paul wrote:

    Colin,
    Do you really think that HRC stands a better chance than Obama against McCain? The Republican Party will be loathe to use their Atwaterian codewords for fear of being castigated as racists by a POC. That fear will evaporate if HRC is the nominee. Plus, the Clintons have more dirty was than almost anyone in the business. Did you just read about Bill’s shady deal with a uranium concern? If I were the Rs, I’d run McCain as a war hero with the ability to work on both sides of the aisle and contrast that with the Clintonian divide and conquer strategies. Then, I’d use talk radio and Fox News to hammer them on corruption and secret, foreign donors. She’s got no chance against their noise machinery.

  10. Colin wrote:

    Paul,

    I have no opinion on who would stand up better between Obama and Clinton. I believe I even said I liked Obama more. Please though, understand that Sen. Obama could stand to do a lot more to fight back against the Republicans without corrupting his overall message.

    And the idea that the GOP will not want to use code words against Obama, well, I don’t buy it. Do you honestly think the GOP cares if people call them racist? You don’t think they use the term “politically correct” for a reason? This may be the perfect time to see that term over and over and over. The last time I can remember a Republican candidate benefiting from a controversial attack that people saw as racist…the Republican candidate won a Senate seat in 06 from Tenneessee, so I don’t think the GOP really gives a damn about being called racist.

    The press will just say the Obama camp is race-baiting, just as many of them have over the course of the primary, and it’ll make Obama look thin-skinned, even if it’s not his fault.

    Now, please do not think that me criticizing Obama AUTOMATICALLY means I support Hillary. I’m no one’s shill, tarnation, I am a free man who thinks critically about politics and wants to hold these politicians’ feet to the fire, not be their cheerleaders.

  11. Claire wrote:

    Barack voted against the War in Iraq

    O RLY?

  12. Eric Daniels wrote:

    I will not be voting for Clinton or Obama nor the racist right wing for that matter. I don’t see how Obama getting elected solves anything , Obama is running as a black man who transcends race by not talking about it and I don’t believe that whites and blacks will ever get along in peace and brotherhood. I will be voting for “none of the above” because it states my feeling of the US. Government and it’s citzens at the moment.

  13. Laretta Jackson wrote:

    LaToya,

    You just reminded me why I voted for Obama. Thank you!

  14. Colin wrote:

    Eric,

    Go ahead and vote for no one. It’s your right as a citizen of this government. I hope you’ll get on board the bandwagon when idiotic citizens like me fight for universal healthcare, the eradication of poverty, an end to the war in Iraq and a more progressive and ethical tax code.

  15. Michelle wrote:

    I was on the fence for a very long time. I have made up my mind to vote for a candidate that inspires us as Americans to be who we say we are, who we can be if we have the courage to stand up and be it! We can be better than this war, this economy and this crippling complacency. Okay, sorry, I am coming down off the box now.

    But I will say that I want to take my hat off to this website. For the first time in my adult life, I was able to really look at each candidate and what they stood for. Your post on their policies on poverty was truly excellent. And I thank you.

  16. Bashir wrote:

    you guys rock. this site rocks.

    that is all.

  17. drydock wrote:

    On Slate today:

    “How Obama can win over white working class voters?”

    Switch affirmative action from race to class based.

    http://www.slate.com/id/2183591/

    excerpt:
    When asked by George Stephanopoulos whether he thought his own daughters should receive a preference in college admissions, Obama replied, “I think that my daughters should probably be treated by any admissions officer as folks who are pretty advantaged. …” Then, he went further, “I think that we should take into account white kids who have been disadvantaged and have grown up in poverty and shown themselves to have what it takes to succeed.”

  18. Rev wrote:

    Now that you’ve chosen. You might be interested in this. The Yes We Can Song

  19. Rob Schmidt wrote:

    I like Obama too, but there are at least three issues here:

    1) Can he get elected?

    2) Can he implement policies and thus govern effectively?

    3) Can he provide elevated moral leadership–i.e., be a leader and a statesman rather than a panderer and a politician?

    Most of the comments here address only the third point. But points 1) and 2) are also major considerations. In the real world, they may trump point 3).

  20. Nathan wrote:

    You can’t lie and say he ran a “clean” campaign when the man hired Axelrod and Gibbs–two of the dirtiest players in politics. Everything from Jesse Jackson, Jr. in NH, to the UNITE-HERE ads, to sabotaging universal health care for personal political gain. Just because the corporate media doesn’t report the nonsense coming straight out of his campaign doesn’t mean he’s not doing it.

    And he *didn’t* vote against the war because he didn’t become a senator until 2005. He spoke against the war, which was politically advantageous at the time considering he was appealing to his liberal, anti-war district. His voting record on Iraq is identical to Clinton’s. So much for “judgment.” Not to mention that his biracial background doesn’t excuse his inflammatory rhetoric towards Pakistan this summer–threatening to invade the country, a Muslim, nuclear powder keg, and promising to move troops from Iraq to Pakistan with or without permission.

    Do any of you even bother reading his damn foreign policy? He embraces unilateral action, aggressive war; he calls for increased military spending, increased troops, military intervention, and “nation building.”

    His domestic policies were the least progressive of the three top Democrats. His economic advisors are absolute reactionaries and you’re still voting for him because he makes you feel good? Wake up. He’s playing you as fools.

    He’ll win–no doubt, but I’m not blind to the blatant game he’s playing. How anyone can be so foolish to think the corporate media would truly embrace a “change” agent is beyond me.

    Wake up!

  21. kd wrote:

    I’m sorry I cannot vote for Obama, he’s to tepid, mediocre and weak

  22. Gregory A. Butler wrote:

    For all those who are supporting Obama, I just suggest you read these two articles:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/obama

    and

    http://www.revcom.us/a/118/obama-en.html

    And, if Obama wins the nomination, and more important if he goes on to win the presidency in November, remember what these two articles, from very different perspectives, had to say about the realities of being the leader of the world’s last great imperialist power.

  23. Fiqah wrote:

    Alright, I Barack-ed the vote today. Not because I’m a fan; his foreign policy really is atrocious. Clinton’s stance on the war and some social issues made her an undesirable choice as well. The candidate I wanted, the only one who moved me (Kucinich), is not an option. And so this morning, in the final analysis, it came down to simply this: which one of these remaining Dem candidates, if elected, will piss me off the LEAST? He won by default.

  24. Keiko wrote:

    I agree, Fiqah. The only candidate who inspired me was good ol’ Denny Kucinich. I’ve lost all pride in being American in the last few years. An Obama win would certainly bring back some of that pride, because electing a black president would be a wonderful step forward. But unfortunately, I think a lot of the magical change that we’re searching for would end there. I hope I’m wrong, though.

  25. hbsoul wrote:

    I’m from Illinois, and I voted for Obama as Senator. But right now I’m not living in the United States, I’m in Venezuela. I agree with Fiqah. When I’m asked, I can’t sit here and tell my friends that Obama is going to back policies and practices toward their country that are any different. I also feel that elites like Obama for PR reasons.

    **And Obama DID NOT VOTE AGAINST THE WAR.** How could he? He was in Chicago, not Washington. He did speak out against it at time as a IL-State Representative, one reason why he’s so popular in Illinois. Once he won his US Senate he voted yes twice on unconditional funding for the war, voted yes to reconfirm Condoleeza Rice as Secretary of State, and voted no to a proposal for a timetable to withdraw US troops. He’s changed his tune on a number of things from the time he just got started in politics. I expect we’ll see a lot more changes from him as time goes on, especially if he’s actually elected.

  26. Wendi Muse wrote:

    my apologies for the error. correction noted

  27. Kai wrote:

    Obama inspires passionate hope for change and taps into a longing for progress and unity. He’s riding a magical wave at this moment in history. He’s the best orator in the race and his speeches are by far the best-written. There’s a powerful buzz fueling his campaign, and it’s a beautiful thing. I think it’s great that a new generation is awakening to the intoxicating power of politics, and that an older generation is awakening to the power of a new generation.

    But I’m not comfortable overstating the change which an Obama administration would represent. Simply put, the change precipitated by an Obama presidency would likely be more socio-culturally symbollic than institutionally substantive.

    Would Obama challenge US imperialist policy in the Middle East and South America? Would he cancel NAFTA and challenge the corporatist hustle of the WTO-IMF-World Bank international order? Would he slow down the machinery of the military-industrial complex or put a dent in the community-shattering racism of the prison-industrial complex? Would he undermine the ravages of corporatist neo-colonialism in sub-saharan Africa? Obama has not even come out against the corporatist Kibaki administration’s bloody theft of an election from the populist Odinga challenge in Kenya, where he still has relatives. Indeed Obama is on the record advocating pre-emptive military action against Iran and Pakistan.

    Obama is backed by the Council on Foreign Relations, the intellectual mountaintop of US imperialist geopolitical strategy (and publisher of Foreign Affairs). He’s backed by Big Corporate Money, from Archer Daniels Midland to Goldman Sachs, supra-national conglomorates whose astronomical profiteering on the backs on the global poor rely on the maintenance of US military hegemony and aircraft-carrier diplomacy.

    I’m not saying that any other major-party candidate is better than Obama on any of these issues. I’m just saying, he might be represent quite as much fundamental change as we might hope for; though I, like everyone, want to believe.

    Given the current landscape, I do hope Obama wins the nomination and the presidency. It would be a dizzying milestone in US history, and I’d probably have tears rolling down my face all night after his victory speech and his inauguration. But then the White House would get rolling, and I want to be careful about stating what we should expect from that point forward.

    Peace.

  28. Colin wrote:

    Dennis Kucinich said good things, but from way behind. When I saw him talk about how the President lied us into war, and then same day apologize after a Republican congressman rebuked him, well I got the idea right quick that Denny Kucinich wasn’t serious from the get-go.

    Nathan,

    David Axelrod is one of the dirtiest players in politics? He’s up there with Atwater and Rove? David Axelrod, advisor to the Edwards 2004 campaign of Two Americas and kittens and nice haircuts, that David Axelrod, he’s dirty?

    On foreign policy, despite being an Obama cultist, I can’t help but agree. Reading the facts on what he said and reactions in Pakistan, his comments and proposals about striking Pakistan, a sometimes-ally to US interests sounds FLAT DUMB. Just please don’t act like Clinton’s policies and record are ANY better. I’d take McKinney over any of the Democratic fools on this front.

    On domestic policy, you’re off and on. Hillary Clinton is talking more progressive about universal healthcare, as opposed to Obama’s affordable healthcare, but her idea that we just cannot talk about making Social Security solvent, even by raising the ceiling on taxable incomes, is moronic.

    Something I read on Open Left changed the way I look at this election, however. Instead of getting behind candidates, it’s much more important to get behind issues, if we are going to be activists for a better America, that is. If we believe in certain core values and issues, then we need to elect the person who we can most easily push in the desired direction on those issues. I think out of the Democrats, it’s more of a gamble with Obama, but Hillary’s known quantity is not appetizing, and that’s what it comes down to for me.

    I have no hope that the US will find Osama bin Laden but I also have no worries that Obama will do more than surgical strikes on any nation unless under a UN banner. That is NOT something I know, but something I am guessing will happen.

    Clinton, IMO, seems to not only be linked to a husband that took the “Saddam’s got nukes, let’s bomb ‘im” meme to heart, but also didn’t intervene when warranted. (Rwanda) Add her horrid AUMF vote, the stupid IRGC = terrorists vote and I don’t see a person whose future actions are that hard to decipher; Hillary Clinton will go to war with some nation, a nation we are not yet at war with.

    So to me, it’s do you want to vote for someone who you know will go to war, or someone who MIGHT not? It’s not easy, and hey not voting is a right of yours as well. Just remember that both voting and not voting have consequences.

  29. jmn wrote:

    Annabel Park really expressed a lot of what I was thinking in terms of choosing Obama over Clinton: http://youtube.com/watch?v=b1v2aG-QMls

  30. Colin wrote:

    Kai,

    I agree that Obama really doesn’t seem to involve substantive change, but that gets me to a really simplistic but I think yet unanswered question which is: What sorts of things can we do to make this government one that does really shake the system?

    I mean, look at how the media (watch Norah O’Donnell on MSNBC talk about Obama) fawns and falls over themselves to show Obama love…it gives me the eerie feeling that despite my hope and at times blind defensive nature toward Obama, he’s not going to be much but a rhetorically gifted flash-in-the-pan, or worse he’ll be a LieberDem, an all too-trusting, all too-willing-to-negotiate Democrat who’ll sell the house to buy some yarn, but oh what pretty yarn it’ll be. Maybe I’m late to the party, but I have both hope and passion for him and sad, sad worries and doubts about his chances.

    Kai, do you think Obama would be the sort of president who would hear progressive activists out? A president at least more likely to listen to the pleas of the people for a better, saner trade policy or a peaceful, humble foreign policy? I am as confused about this as Missouri was about who to choose yesterday.

  31. Michelle wrote:

    According to the NYTimes Obama has been heavily involved in trying to quell the fighting in Kenya. The last thing I read, he was trying to get Kibaki on the phone in an effort to further negogiate peace.

    For a long time I thought to myself, “Anybody who is really serious about changing America will never have a shot at the presidency.” I had a more than healthy distrust of the media and the fact that they like Obama was more than enough reason for me to dislike him.

    Then I got to thinking about it…what about a little faith? Instead of my conspiracy minded thoughts, what about believing in people, and having hope that change can happen in America? And while I still believe in conspiracies, maybe they are not as big and all powerful as I once thought.

  32. Jennifer Greenlee wrote:

    This is for Carmen’s comment:

    “He’s fearless about addressing institutional racism, but is absolutely uninterested in playing oppression olympics.”

    Well if this land wasn’t stolen from my people nor built on the backs of my ancestors than I guess I wouldn’t be either. But then maybe I could easily slam a question from an African American and treat her like she’s just ignorant like Obama did during the CNN debate.

    If I were a member of a minority group that has a higher average household income than whites I guess I’d be excited about him not playing oppression olympics either.

  33. Josh wrote:

    um…this is american politics, which means that the candidates pretend to have strong personal beliefs, but are in effect slaves to their campaign donors. obama - or anyone else for that matter - could never become president with views of radical change. since the states is a two-party country (does anyone even realize how problematic this is?), his (radical) policies would always be compromised by the opposition in congress and eventually he wouldnt be able to implement very much.

    i have serious doubts whether he has any chance for the following reasons:
    1. the democrats are pretty much destroying themselves with their clinton-obama war, which makes the republicans seem more stable (their conservative opinions all being more or less the same.
    2. is the american public ready for a president of color?
    3. the voting system is flawed. even the most simple-minded american should realize that low-population states like montana are overrepresented. this is an even bigger problem than the two-party-situation. why doesnt anyone try to tackle that? its not even in the public discourse, even though we had the bush-disaster in 2000.
    4. the republicans are known for their manipulation of elections. does any democrat even stand a chance)

    personally, i couldnt care less who wins the election, as i dont believe anything is ever going to change in america as long as our political system is screwed up as it is. if obama won, however, AND did a good job in office, that would be a priceless victory in the war against racism.

  34. Elton wrote:

    Dear friends,

    At this point in my continuing evaluation of the 2008 presidential candidates, I have decided to support Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton. My ideal candidate would be Mike Gravel, since I happen to agree with his stances on every major issue, but for whatever reason, he hasn’t gained enough public recognition to make an impact on the Democratic Party.

    I’m not restricting my choices to Democrats, but I would strongly oppose another Republican president, since in my lifetime, Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II have blatantly abused American military power to fuck over brown people worldwide. Republicans continue to espouse the paranoid neoconservative ideology, which dictates blind faith in the “state” of Israel based on a comically literal interpretation of the Book of Revelation. I will not be supporting any candidate who dares affiliate himself with the party that planned and executed the War on Terror.

    I’ve yet to make my final decision on which candidate best represents my views on all the issues, but between the two leading Democratic candidates, Barack outshines Hillary on two issues: the Iraq War and personal identity.

    The war in Iraq, as part of the larger War on Terror, is the most decisive political issue for me because it has had such severe consequences for the psyche of America and the world, and it’s such a clear-cut example of an avoidable disaster.

    George W. Bush was a presidential candidate when I was 15 years old and in tenth grade. Even then, I stated emphatically that if Bush was elected, we would soon be going to war against Saddam Hussein. Was I clairvoyant? How did I predict such an event? It was blatantly obvious it was going to happen, and when it finally did, thanks in part to misguided hate from the unrelated September 11 attacks, it was like watching a trainwreck happen in slow motion.

    Regardless of what her plans may be to get us out of this mess, Hillary Clinton voted for the war, and for that, I will never forgive. Obama, on the other hand, wasn’t a senator at the time, but spoke out against the war, and I believe he would have voted against it. That’s good enough for me.

    I think a candidate’s demonstrated record of where he stands on the issues is more important than bullshit like charisma and image. Reluctantly, I admit that like most Americans, I do make decisions about candidates based in part on what they symbolize as people.

    As an Arkansan, I’ve always been inspired by our native son Bill Clinton’s ability to earn his way from humble beginnings to the heights of power by studying hard. However, our former First Lady does not deserve such loyalty. I see Hillary as a power-hungry opportunist - just remember how she snatched up that Senate seat in 2000 on name recognition, without any particular connection to the people of New York.

    Whatever he may actually stand for politically, I can identify with Obama as a person who grew up a racial minority in the United States. While never whitewashing over race or using it as a crutch, he’s proud of who he is and of his multiracial family. He’s young - a year younger than my dad, two years younger than my mom - and ambitious. After 43 white guys, he’s poised to change the American presidency forever.

    When I was born, Ronald Reagan was president. I never knew the optimism of the 1960s - a time when JFK, RFK, and MLK were alive. I never knew a time before wars were fought at the whim of the commander-in-chief, and barely remember a time before wars were fought against emotions. I never knew the National Guard guarded OUR nation in OUR times of need, like, you know, in the aftermath of a hurricane, instead of taking over other countries for no reason. I grew up the child of immigrants, helping my mom pass the US Citizenship Exam when I was five years old, but came to realize that many hypocrites in American society hate immigrants, the backbone of working-class America and honored forefathers to the majority to us.

    I will continue to examine where he stands on the issues, but Obama represents change, and for the first time in my life, my cynical heart skips a beat at what may be to come.

  35. donna darko wrote:

    It would be a dizzying milestone in US history, and I’d probably have tears rolling down my face all night after his victory speech and his inauguration.

    I’ll have tears rolling down my face if either of them win. They’re both terrible centrists but that’s how it’s set up these days.

  36. Vanessa wrote:

    Josh@33,

    Obama’s campaign is 99% financed by individual contributions:

    http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N00009638

    Thus, if he is a slave to his campaign donors, he is a servant of the people (including me, with my occasional $25). This is as it should be.

  37. celeste w wrote:

    Thanks for this good overview.

    celeste w
    kids for obama, co-editor
    http://inprogress.typepad.com/kidsforobama

  38. Globalistgirl wrote:

    I realize this is somewhat off-topic and late, but… Carmen, you’re a TCK too? That’s wonderful! <3 We will take over the world one day!

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.