Feb 04 2008

Two Futures

NOTE: This is a personal position, and does not in any way constitute a endorsement by Docudharma of a candidate. Though we try to keep DD a candidate diary free zone, this election is too important not to take a stand, or for me to try to hide the stand I am taking, so please forgive me! I promise not to campaign here until the nomination has been decided.

Their policies may look the same, but the vision behind the policies is different.

The promises and platitudes are nearly identical, but the means of achieving them are not.

The possibilities of winning go back and forth in the polls now, but the possibilities of real change are, in my opinion all on of side of the ledger.

Experience vs Hope? Experience means already knowing how things work, and expecting them to keep working in that same way. Working to make them work in the same way, doing the same thing, only better.

Well…. the same way, doesn’t work.

Given a choice between the same way, and some admittedly tenuous new way and hoping it will work, I’ll take even a hope of a new way.

And considering the downside of the old way that has been proven not to work vs. the upside of a new way…ANY new way, I will choose a new way.

Progress is what Progressivism is about, and doing things in the same way, that doesn’t work is not progress. There is risk involved, of course, in trying a new way, but Progress means risk, it IS risk. You cannot have meaningful change without risk.

Do I fully trust Barack Obama? No. And that is where the risk comes in. Anyone who puts their complete trust in a politician, should have their head examined. Especially after the last decade. But now the choice is down to two politicians, and we have to choose one. The two politicians, as politicians are wont to do, have selected policies and positions that are relatively safe, safe enough to get them elected. The differences within their policies will be nullified by trying to get them enacted any way, and so we are left to vote for the person, not the policies.

And since we cannot truly know the person, what we are really voting for is what that person claims to symbolize.

Barack Obama symbolizes a new way.

Not a way that I am in full agreement with, but a new way.

With any politician, as we have all painfully learned after helping elect the 110th Congress, we must do all we can to hold them accountable. This will be our job with whoever is elected. If it is Obama, I will do all I can to prevent him from engaging in what I consider to be the most dangerous thing possible in our current political environment….being nice to Republicans. His rhetoric on this point frankly scares the shit out of me.

But in a way, that doesn’t matter. In a way, whatever I think doesn’t matter. Because this election has a higher purpose than mere politics, or I should say the possibility of a higher purpose, a greater purpose. A greater meaning than determining who sits on the throne of power.

It has the potential to be about The People, instead of the politician. If The People truly do unify behind Obama that will be a real change. If new people are brought in and others are brought back in to the political process that will be real change. If young people are empowered ad inspired by politics that will be a real change.

In looking ahead, if Hillary Clinton is the nominee, she will probably win the White House back for the Democrats and govern competently.

If Barack Obama wins the nomination, there is a chance that it could spark a paradigm shift. A paradigm shift that I have been advocating and hoping for for a long time. The People getting involved in politics…and that could lead to The People getting involved in their government. If his campaign can strike a spark among young People, among People of color, or even among those who are merely captivated by his personality, then that is a potential upside that cannot be ignored, that cannot be dismissed. Especially the passion he inspires in young People, it is their future and not a pretty one. He is their hero, the one they want to choose to lead them into their future, and even though my cynical old eyes may see many faults, who am I to say them nay? Especially when the other choice is Hillary, who like it or not DOES represent the past.

There are two future we can choose, but only one represents a possibility for real change.

That is worth the risk, and that is why I am supporting Obama for President.

95 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. Photobucket

    • Viet71 on February 4, 2008 at 18:23
    • #

    I’m voting for Obama.  Amazing thought, really, casting a vote for a black guy.

    Don’t know quite what to expect from him if he’s elected.

    Do know what to expect from Hillary.  Yuck.

    • pfiore8 on February 4, 2008 at 18:26
    • #

    well said. on all points.

    here’s to a productive and positive paradigm shift.

    in other words::: good luck America.

  4. but I feel ya….

  5. Because he has the best video.

    And that is a paradigm shift even if nothing else pans out.  Seriously.  It’s about how to get people to feel encouragement.  And I’ll vote for that.  

  6. “seduced by hope.”

  7. Beautifully written endorsement.

    Here is my story.

    I’m 14 years old and we need a new future. Paul Wellstone is my political hero. He was a community organizer and his politics and style were like a organizer. Obama too was a organizer and he is running a campaign like one.

    This article summed it up well for me:

    http://www.prospect.org/cs/art…

    When I’m out of collage. I’m going to hit the streets and organize. Even before that I will be organizing. Barack Obama’s campaign has the potential to be about the people. His presidency could be about the people. But that will be up to us.

    Tomorrow I will make up for my lack of a vote for bringing 10 people to the pools.

    I’m doing that because I want to elect a organizer-in-chief.  

    • Edger on February 4, 2008 at 19:07
    • #

    If Obama unifies behind the people that would even be a real-er change?

  9. I am rolling the dice, for change. Could be just pocket change could be a big jarful, at least we the people are being invited into the process. A competent HRC scares the crap out of me. The campaign she’s running makes me think she would take the unitary exec power thing up to the next level.

    Obama like you say is a pol, but he seems to want to open the process back up. As a Democratic county grass roots worker, he would bring people who are dissolutioned  with the machine politics, to the polls. When I campaigned for Kerry I carried a photo of him from his anti war days, standing next to John Lennon. The young voters were not impressed as they saw nothing of that young man man left.  

    The young are not as fearful. This oldster is glad to have a candidate who instead of telling me that democracy and peace are a fairytale, wants to put the people back into the equation. With Obama it almost feels like progressives and liberals would not be shunned as purists and the enemy of the possible. So I say roll those dice! If nothing else it’s  breaking the pattern of Clinton/Bush rule.      

  10. … my view on endorsements.

  11. hope train myself because it feels too quixotic but at least it appears Americans are interested for a moment. Nothing wrong with that.

    Joins NPK at bar and clinks her glass…

    • RiaD on February 4, 2008 at 19:45
    • #

    he bowed out 🙁

    • Edger on February 4, 2008 at 19:48
    • #

    that we don’t get fooled again. And I’m not overly hopeful on that score.

    George W. Obama? Or Hillary R. Bush?

    Foreign Policy in a post-Bush America

    On January 20th, 2009 America’s new President will face a new era of foreign policy with challenges and options different than those faced by prior administrations.  Many of these new challenges have been brewing for decades, but most were created or exacerbated by mistakes made since the turn of the century.

    …

    If American wants to maintain its position of influence over world affairs, and the privileges which that influence brings, we need to dramatically change our approach to foreign policy.  As popular as Clinton is overseas, a return to 90’s style diplomacy in a post 3/20/2003 world will not be enough.  A clear rejection of the Bush Doctrine of Preemptive Strike and a return to coalition building is certainly a good start but we need to go beyond that.  We can no longer expect to world to accept that our intentions are in good when they see negative consequences of our actions.

    We can no longer use our military might to protect our access to resources such as oil without expecting repercussions in the form international anger and angst which expresses itself as protests, or much worse, terror.  We cannot continue to negotiate trade agreements which favor our corporate interests and neglect the rights of workers abroad and needs of workers at home.  As we select a new face to govern America, we must also choose a leader who is able to reevaluate America’s approach to foreign affairs and establish a new doctrine of policies which can carry us forward, repairing the damage from our mistakes and building a strong foundation for our relationships with nations around the globe.

    Katrina Vanden Heuvel, The Nation

    End the War (On Terror)

    With the 2008 elections looming, it is unlikely that the Democrats (with a few honorable exceptions) will rethink their official national security strategy in any significant way. But citizens committed to a vision of real security can launch a debate framed by our own concerns and values. If we have learned anything in the past six years, it is that even overwhelming military power is ill suited to dealing with the central challenges of the 21st century: climate crisis, the worst pandemic in human history (AIDS), the spread of weapons of mass destruction, stateless terrorists with global reach, genocidal conflict and starvation afflicting Africa, and a global economy that is generating greater instability and inequality.

    A real security plan would widen the definition to include all threats to human life, whether they stem from terrorism, disease, environmental degradation, natural disasters or global poverty–a definition that makes it clear that the military is only one of many tools that can be used to address urgent threats. A last resort. This alternative security strategy would also reconfigure the US presence in the world – reducing the footprint of American military power, pulling back the forward deployments drastically and reducing the bloated Pentagon budget by as much as half.

    Yes, at home, all this will take time and have to overcome the fiercest kind of political resistance. Yet this is not an impossible political goal, now that Americans have seen where the military option leads. Dealing intelligently with reality is not retreat. It is the first wise step toward restoring real national security.

     

  14. before i vote.  neither one of them really deserves my vote.

    • OPOL on February 4, 2008 at 20:51
    • #

    but at least we’ll have an African-American President.  That’s something…though considerably less than what we need or deserve.  Just my 2 cents.

  16. Nurses Association, the best thing happening in this sorry country, politically!

    http://www.guaranteedhealthcar…

    If only those women could run this show…

Comments have been disabled.