Withdrawing my endorsement of Barack Obama
He’s made his position clear, and now, so will I. Like Digby and Avedon, I feel there’s more afoot than appears on the surface. And like Avedon, I’ve known all along that Obama would need pushing by progressives throughout his presidency. He’s closer to the cautious 1960 JFK than the 1968 RFK I remember from my teenage years. I knew he wasn’t the economic populist I’ve sought for the 36 years I’ve been voting, while Edwards seemingly was.
I waited till March to endorse Obama. My number one issue, after all, has been stopping the war in Iraq ASAP and it was only when he started talking about communicating directly with hostile governments that I began to respect the fact that Obama was willing to break the CW on foreign policy instead of handing down some nutty new ideology to justify US imperialism.
Oval Office domestic progressivism has never come close to the LBJ years. Carter has halfway decent on energy policy, was strong on human rights, and his Middle East initiatives were the most successful I’ve seen. His economic policies were way too centrist, however, and weren’t up to the task of coping with the convergence of economic crisises that got dumped in his lap.
Clinton was pro-death penalty, and his economics were barely distinguishable from those of a Republican moderate, back when a few of those existed still. He was fine with human rights, though his failure to intervene in Rwanda’s genocide was extremely disheartening. NAFTA has proven to be the disaster I predicted. And the failure of both Clintons to succeed with national healthcare - which 65% wanted back then - was also a serious mark against him.
So I endorsed Obama because of his foreign policy sense. Now, as Avedon notes: “Obama doesn’t understand that the 4th Amendment is national security, and he’s prepared to throw it out for some illusory Republican-defined “toughness” because he hasn’t got the guts to actually be tough in defense of our country.”
I’m made more secure by the liberties in the Bill of Rights. I don’t believe the terrorist threat comes close to what the USSR provided and we made it through the Cold War even while continually fighting to retain and regain our rights against the encroachments of Nixon. It remains utter bullshit that the telecoms require this immunity with our representatives sanctioning their illegality.
Sure, Obama’s better than McCain. I will still have to consider voting for him. But I won’t attach my name and expend any effort on his behalf. I consider not voting to also be a viable option. I’ve never considered it important to be on the winning side, politically. I don’t seek a ‘pure’ candidate that I’ll save my vote for. But Obama has compromised on a key point for me: defending the Constitutional rights of all.
I may influence few, but I’ll be doing the right thing. It’s going to be nothing more than a lesser of two evils year. Which means a yawner.
Wake me when it’s over.
June 26th, 2008 at 7:54 am
Welcome to stupid reality. I’m grateful that I was never taken in by The Precious b/c I know how badly it hurts to wake up from that particular dream. My other personal hell involves believing that even after all this, he won’t get elected. But hey, living conditions are worse in Zimbabwe so I should be grateful. Or so I’m told.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
And America Street has joined the ranks of the stupid.
Too bad, you had potential.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
I see you just had to include some gratuitous Carter and Clinton bashing in your post.
You write of Carter:
What would have been the right policies to resolve the economic crises that were dumped in Carter’s lap? Go ahead, you’ve had twenty-five years of hindsight to come up with a prescription of what Carter should have done.
Let’s see, Carter did call for energy conservation which helped hasten the break-up of the solidarity among the members of OPEC and, along with the inevitable tendency of cartels to fail, that led to the (relative) oil glut of the eighties. What could Carter have done to alleviate the energy crisis during his tenure - oil industry deregulation?
Late 1971 Nixon tapes reveal that President Nixon pressured Fed Chairman Arthur Burns to heat up the economy with loose monetary policy during 1972 election year. Burns’ policy was the primary cause of the ensuing rounds of 1970s stagflation. Carter did put an inflation hawk, Paul Volcker, in charge of the Fed - what should he have done? The great inflation fighting measures of the Reagan era were to work to smash the power of unions and preside over an era of historically high unemployment rates. Should Carter have gone that route?
If I recall correctly, Carter presided over the highest peace time deficits in this country’s history — at least until Reagan became president. The Kennedy wing wanted larger deficits. Should Carter have signed on to that plan?
You criticize President Clinton for failing get a national health care plan through congress despite that policy enjoying a 65% rate of support among the electorate. You seem to think congressional passage of a program should follow popular support for a program as night follows the day. Really?
President Clinton’s party won seats in the 1998 mid-term elections, his approval rating was at 60%, and he got impeached during the ensuing lame duck session of the House to the great satisfaction of the corporate media. Half the incoming Senate then voted for his conviction and his removal from office. Do you think Clinton should have been able to parlay his popularity into avoiding impeachment?
June 26th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Anything other than a vote for Obama, is a vote for McCain.
You already know that.
It isn’t about Obama as much as it’s about rescuing the nation from the republicans.
June 26th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
[…] Kevin Hayden of American Street withdraws his endorsement of Obama over FISA: […]
June 26th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
I am thankful that someone is at least calling this empty suit out on the constitutional disregard that we have come to live with. And to think that this guy is supposedly a constitutional lawyer. Of course, he never tried a case but then again, he has never held a full time job.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
I don’t think I was taken in. So I’m surprised at myself that it still hurts that he’d flat renege on a promise to oppose telcom immunity. Make that an O-promise, I guess.
What’s stupid about asking a candidate to keep his promises, Ken?
June 26th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
Potential? Fuck, Ken, stop with the condescending. After freelance writing for two decades and blogging for nearly 6 years, if all this blog represents is ‘potential’, I’d better shoot myself now.
If you mean “it had the potential to be yet one more House of Obama Worship, it’s never had that potential. Obama merely impressed me with his organizational skills and some new ideas to foreign policy that are badly overdue. But I see his commitment to principle is becoming eerily like Bill Clinton’s.
I don’t flex on my constitutional privacy rights nor on giving a free pass to lawbreakers who donate big bucks to politicians.
Obama showed some ‘potential’ but he just blew one of the biggest questions on the test.
And I gotta say, Bob Barr is looking better on that point now. Which is a pretty sad commentary about Obama’s abandonment of principle and the Bill of Rights.
June 27th, 2008 at 12:05 am
CMike: there was nothing gratuitous about it. I said he was the most progressive president I’ve had since I could vote. And I didn’t say there was a magic solution that Carter could have done. But he could have been more pro-labor to maintain the Dem Party’s economic base for electoral reasons, even though it would have had no practical impact on the economy.
Carter didn’t get stuck with OPEC alone. The bills of Vietnam came due as well. It was an impossible weight for any president to handle, so all he could aim for was the rhetoric the base wanted to hear.
As for Clinton, you ignore the fact that it was a flawed plan, badly handled, as it was Congressional Dems that killed it, not the partisan divide.
June 27th, 2008 at 12:14 am
Buzzcook: sorry, I disagree. For one thing, I fully expect Obama will win, easily. Should I decide to vote for a third party candidate, my vote will be for that person.
And Pat J: I wholly disagree with your points. Obama worked outside of government at difficult work. Fulltime. He’s way more substantive than the ‘empty suit’ you called him. Like every politician, he’s made some mistakes. My endorsement withdrawal is based on a policy position change, not on any perceived personal weakness. Your issues are not mine; I think there’s a lot of substance to the man.
June 27th, 2008 at 12:20 am
Don’t look now…..but
June 27th, 2008 at 9:33 am
[…] I share Nell’s, Avedon’s, eRobin’s, Mick’s, Paul’s, Kevin’s, Glenn Greenwald’s and many others’ anger and/or disappointment re the “express train to Nixonland“ FISA capitulation by the Democratic Party and Obama. […]
June 27th, 2008 at 9:48 am
I think there’s a lot of substance to the man.
I hope (see, I’m on the O-train!) that there is a lot of substance to the man. It’s that hope that keeps me planning not only to vote for him but also to make calls and knock on doors for him. It’s a tenuous hope for sure, but I am willing to suspend my disbelief until he’s in the White House. Then we’ll see what happens.
And here’s some good news: A la Dean’s dream, I hear that Obama is planning to keep the election ground teams on the ground and active even after he wins. Imagine the maintenance of post-campaign networks of largely progressive people, ready to work for not-completely-horrible policies starting November 5 - and working to elect not-always-completely-horrible candidates in 2010. It’s not heaven but isn’t completely horrible, which is the alternative. p>>
June 27th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Would that be an easy win like Gore’s or Kerry’s? The third party candidate? Would that be one that has never bothered to run for a lower political office in order to be taken seriously (President or nothing - no stinking Congressman for me) or would that be the one that thought a sexual lie was worth focusing the time and money of the government, people and the media.
Anyone paying attention to the Constitution would realize how important it is to get a Democrat in office if they saw how close the habeas corpus (!!!!) ruling was: 5 judges to 4 right wing partisan puppets…
WE are the ones who voted Obama the Democratic choice (yes, I wanted Edwards but, my next choice was Obama) so there is no use sulking over it. Think of a constructive way to get your point across without doing damage to one of the few advantages Democrats have had in years. Someone on onegoodmove.org recommended NO DONATION day on the 7th. That to me is useful political activism.
June 27th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Not voting communicates nothing. However, a vote for a third party or independent communicates the policy you want and what the other candidates will have to do in order to earn your vote. You have a good selection, just look.
July 2nd, 2008 at 6:11 pm
[…] And that’s why I withdrew my endorsement for Obama and am registering as an independent. It’s called ‘consequences for inappropriate behavior’, a tenet of behavior modification. […]
November 19th, 2008 at 12:49 am
[…] On June 25th, because of his vote approving telecom immunity, I withdrew my endorsement of Obama and took a lot of heat for doing so. An excerpt: I’m made more secure by the liberties in the Bill of Rights. I don’t believe the terrorist threat comes close to what the USSR provided and we made it through the Cold War even while continually fighting to retain and regain our rights against the encroachments of Nixon. It remains utter bullshit that the telecoms require this immunity with our representatives sanctioning their illegality. […]