Reply #9: How about if I try to convince you of the opposite?

[readmoreoften]

Obama's irrational exuberance, coupled with his religious rhetoric, his incessant scolding of the left, his absenteeism, and his jaw-dropping inability to admit wrong (i.e.: his votes to fund the war are nothing more than votes to support the troops, McClurkin) have left me baffled for months now. I came into this season with Clinton as the least-trusted candidate (when she was my senator I voted against her in the primary) but something about Barack Obama has chilled me to the core. Maybe it's because at least Clinton is unliked by the Republican party even if she rubs elbows with them too much for my tastes.

I didn't understand why Obama disturbs me so (his position papers and promises seemed similar enough to most of the other candidates.) I chalked it up to both his use of the Religious Right's rhetoric (faith/family/etc.) against our own party and his insistent appeals to bipartisanship.

Any Democrat who's half paid attention over the past 8 years knows we've been trying to cajole this obstinate right wing bloque for almost a decade now. We've tried bipartisanship. The only thing we haven't tried is actually opposing the bastards. So, the big questions is: how could this guy be so goddamned thick?

These two posts clarified things for me:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/550eztvl.asp
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702027.html

Obama is talking about bipartisanship with the neoconservative movement, not just the 'reasonable Republicans' like Olympia Snowe. If you read his Council on Foreign Relations' speech, you'll see that his goal is to expand America's global reach in order to 'protect America's vital assets.' His so-called opposition to Iraq is only because he didn't particularly think going into Iraq was the right way to go about it. It has nothing to do with him opposing wars of expansion on ethical grounds. Listen, maybe the guy is some warm-hearted do-gooder, but I've had enough of 'humanitarian campaigns' for the benefit of Halliburton. I don't want to see the neoconservative movement infiltrate our party.

The only defense of Kagan and Kristol's support for Obama that I've read so far is some blather about 'not wanting to appear racist.' Yes, and I suppose that's why they were behind Al Sharpton's run. :sarcasm: The neoconservatives aren't afraid of looking racist. This is not the reason they are supporting his candidacy. If he was overtly progressive I might say that they are trying to sabotage his campaign by their support. But he runs in their circle, he talks their language, and his ideas mesh with theirs. That tells me that their support for him is possibly real. And that tells me all I need to know about Obama.

At first I was leaning Kucinich--full well knowing he has no chance. Now I'm in the Edwards camp although I admit I'm wary: I don't like his past voting record on the IWR or his current hedge fund investments (not that Obama & Clinton didn't take cash from hedge funds for their campaigns.) My thoughts are: at least he admitted his mistakes, at least he's attaching himself to a rhetoric for which we can hold him accountable. He has stated that there is no military solution in Iraq and that we need to begin removing all troops, with the goal of all troops removed in 9 months. Do I trust him completely? No--he's a politician. But I'd find it hard to believe he'd ever cozy up to the neoconservatives or brook fanatical religious nonsense.

Unless the right bends to our ideas for a change, bipartisanship will moving our party further to the right. Any nonsense rhetoric about how we're not going "left or right" with Obama but "in a new direction" is millenarian dreaming of the worst kind.

"Change" and "Hope" don't just happen through nice words and wishful thinking. You're right to be suspicious of it. I sure am.