The Problem With Obama...

And this coming from a guy who voted for him in the New York primary. (the cliff notes version is that I think he would make an o.k. president, but I don't believe in his transcendental candidate sales pitch, I don't agree with his positions on the three issues i think are most important, and I think at the end of the day he's not ready for the office - for the full version, read on).

The main thread in the articles I linked to earlier and a back-and-forth I have had with a very well-informed Massachusetts liberal concerns Obama's ability to inspire - here and abroad. This is after all, a man who sounds like JFK. And I can't deny at least the superficial pull of the idea that a US president named "Barack Hussein Obama" may cause an 18 year old Palestinian considering a short career in suicide to think twice before seeking out his 72 virgins.

And of course, he is extremely intelligent (Harvard Law) and accomplished (community organizer, big law firm associate, ILL state senator for 8 years, freshman senator) and has the most interesting personal history of any presidential candidate I can remember (well, Bill Clinton was pretty interesting too). And contrary to poor Texas State Sen. Kirk Watson's faulty memory (see below), Obama has a few legislative accomplishments to his name (co-sponsoring a nuclear nonproliferation bill with one of my favorites, Sen. Dick Lugar, and passing ethics reform). And most of his work has involved working with republicans, or other interested interest groups.

All of this said, on the issues I care about the most, (1) health care, (2) economic policy and (3) Iraq, I am farthest away from his positions and I believe his positions are the least well thought out among the folks left (well, except for McCain on #2). Obama's health care plan is, for a Democrat running in 2008, simply unacceptable. His argument, that universal health care can only be achieved piecemeal, runs absolutely contrary to the rest of his rhetoric. His plan, unlike Clinton's, would clearly not cover all of the uninsured and his line "well, if we were starting from scratch, I'd choose single-payer" belies a lack of courage that he has in other policy areas (see his waffling over school vouchers in different conversations with teachers unions and other groups).

On economic policy, damned if I can tell what his plan, or even belief, is. His website presents a hodgepodge of ideas that have no real rational tie to them. His approach on taxes is backwards - instead of providing an income tax to offset poor peoples' payroll taxes, he should propose indexing payroll taxes to income, or removing the cap on the Social Security tax (social security tax - the 6.25% tax we pay is only on the first $95K or so of income - if the cap were lifted, (i) social security would immediately be protected and (ii) the rate could likely be reduced to lessen the burden on the poor). Doing taxes in less than 5 minutes? WTF? Who cares? And who doesn't use turbotax at this point?

On Iraq, well this one is complicated for me. I was for the Iraq war when it was launched, for numerous reasons, only one of which was the search for the ever-elusive WMDs. I was in the what was then called the "I can't believe I'm a hawk" camp. It was absolutely a 'war of choice' inasmuch as the intelligence on Iraq's nuclear capability was criminally overstated. All of that said, it's an extremely complex issue that cannot under any circumstances be reduced to a "Get The Troops Out Now" banality. Neither Obama nor Clinton has truly grappled with what is really necessary to end the war in Iraq (in fact, of the three, only McCain has really acknowledged the complexity and difficulty we are in - his desire to actually prosecute the war and win it evinces a fuller understanding of how hard it is to get out than either Dem running). But I challenge any Obama supporter to explain to me how Obama would do a better job managing the inevitable withdrawal than Clinton:

From Obama's website: Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months [emphasis added]. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda. Obama will launch the most aggressive diplomatic effort in recent American history to reach a new compact on the stability of Iraq and the Middle East. This effort will include all of Iraq’s neighbors — including Iran and Syria. This compact will aim to secure Iraq’s borders; keep neighboring countries from meddling inside Iraq; isolate al Qaeda; support reconciliation among Iraq’s sectarian groups; and provide financial support for Iraq’s reconstruction.

From Clinton's website: The most important part of Hillary's plan is the first: to end our military engagement in Iraq's civil war and immediately start bringing our troops home. As president, one of Hillary's first official actions would be to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, her Secretary of Defense, and her National Security Council. She would direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration. She would also direct the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs to prepare a comprehensive plan to provide the highest quality health care and benefits to every service member -- including every member of the National Guard and Reserves -- and their families. In her first days in office, Hillary would convene a regional stabilization group composed of key allies, other global powers, and all of the states bordering Iraq. The- mission of this group would be to develop and implement a strategy to create a stable Iraq. It would have three specific goals:

* Non-interference. Working with the U.N. representative, the group would work to convince Iraq's neighbors to refrain from getting involved in the civil war.
* Mediation. The group would attempt to mediate among the different sectarian groups in Iraq with the goal of attaining compromises on fundamental points of disputes.
* Reconstruction funding. The members of the group would hold themselves and other countries to their past pledges to provide funding to Iraq and will encourage additional contributions to meet Iraq's extensive needs.

Obama's is full of "if, if, if". I can guarantee that all of those "ifs" will take place. So it's a promise of a rapid withdrawal completely gutted by the realities on the ground that, yes, the translators and intermediaries we have worked with will need protection, yes, the oilfields in the south that stand to be seized by Iranian proxies will need to be secured, yes, Al Qaeda will most certainly establish a presence in the country, which will require a significant number of troops to stay. So, again, the rhetoric is nice: "all troops out in 16 months! Ice cream for everyone!", but the reality will clearly be something different.

Clinton, on the other hand, does not commit (I guess to her detriment) to a timeline, and contemplates (horrors!) consulting with people who know what the fuck they're doing. That is what a Commander in Chief does. Now, I have no illusion that at the end of the day their approaches would be substantively different, but the approach says a lot.

[A word on McCain - the "100 years" soundbite has been irresponsibly used by both Clinton and Obama - he was acknowledging the reality that we are there, in substantial numbers, and may be there for a long time, as we are in Germany and Korea. Are we currently at war in Korea or Germany? No. (well, technically we are in a cessation of hostilities in Korea...). We do, however, have bases in those countries, as we have bases in many friendly countries in the middle east - Turkey, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to name a few - why not Iraq?) As much as I hate the "straight talk" meme, he's really giving it to us here.]

In response to attacks that he is too generic in his speeches, Obama has referred people to his websites where he has "ten point plans all over [the website]". It's just not true. In a battle of substance, he loses to Hillary. It's plain and simple.

But many voters don't care about substance; they want to be inspired. They believe that the era of partisan politics is, or should be, over. As a democrat, why would I want the era of partisan politics to be over? Why, when Democrats stand to gain seats in the House and the Senate in 2008 (possibly a filibuster-proof majority) would I want necessarily to vote for a candidate who promises to transcend politics? When the selfsame candidate is someone who has said the most important thing to him is to wait and listen, rather than to take action? I truly believe that Clinton has in her mind exactly what she wants to accomplish in her first 100 days in office - she's someone who is absolutely chomping at the bit to get a health care bill enacted (not have the negotiations shown on C-Span), pass small, but important measures, to increase access to college education (critically important in this age of retraining workers) and intelligently, and cautiously, end the war in Iraq.

Finally (if you're still reading), I can't let this post end without mentioning Obama's hollywood and otherwise star-struck supporters. It's frustrating for someone like me who has voted in every election since he turned 18 to see a sudden outpouring of support from people who have never participated -- maybe this is just cynical and I should be happy to see increased participation whatever the reason, but can I at least expect that these newly enfranchised voters would at least know what their candidate stands for?



Or maybe I should just sit back and take in the lyrical stylings of the execrable Will.i.am?



nope. I just died inside a little after watching that (Scarlett, call me!)

Comments welcome.

[Edited 2/21 at 7:30: I should have explained after all that why I voted for Obama in the primary - I actually think he is more electable than Clinton - especially if McCain is the candidate. The conservative wing of the Republican party is dispirited that McCain is the candidate and is likely not particularly motivated to vote - Hillary could change that as she is catnip to the wingnut right wing of their party. Lastly, I should emphasize that I'll vote for either Clinton or Obama, whoever is the nominee and have no doubt that they'll both make competent presidents - I just believe that Hillary has a better grasp of what a president does and a stronger vision of what she wants to get done than Barack]