I will be the first person to say that presidential hopeful Barack Obama has poise, charisma, charm, and intelligence (which can't be under appreciated considering the assumed single digit I.Q. of our current Cammander-in-Chief.) To many he represents a radical change in American politics. He is not a Washington insider and he is not what just about all save one president have been: a Christian Southern white man. Of course, he is Christian nevertheless, one who supports gay civil unions, but, does not support gay marriage, which, as far as I am concerned, is sill a way of creating "separate but equal" legislation. We can see from history how good that separate but equal policy turned out. For me, a straight black man, a candidate who does not recognize that gays should have all the rights that straight people have, is simply not good enough. That is one of the many reason why I did not vote for Obama yesterday.
Lest you think I was swayed to support Clinton or any of the Republicans (I'm not going to lie, I was closer to supporting Ron Paul than Clinton, Edwards, or Obama), I instead opted to vote non-partisan and thus, only voted on California initiatives.
I lost my love for Hillary after I heard how she threatened to boycott a debate in New York when she was running for Senate if the Green Party candidate was allowed in. That's when I realized she was part of the power that wanted to simultaneously project this image of radical change while doing everything possible to maintain the status quo. When I heard her speak about the Iraq war, she reminded me of Kerry in '04, when I surmised that his ultimate message to the American public was, " I am going to do uphold our standing as the world's major Imperial force like the Republicans want to do, only I think I can do it much better." I was suckered then into voting for this man, considered the "lesser of two evils." It was only after he "lost" seemingly overnight and oh so quickly delivered his concession speech to Bush that I realized that I did not vote my conscience, nor my ideals. I voted out of fear; fear of another Bush term. And that is exactly what I got. Never again will I vote for someone who does not believe what I believe.
Which now brings me to Obama. Now I do not disagree with everything that Obama stands for. For example he believes in stiffer penalties than voter fraud. However, he does believe in paper ballots replacing electronic voting machines made by companies that overtly support one candidate over another. What about giving every American a receipt for their vote as proof? As the late, great comedian Mitch Hedberg would state in his standup routine, we get a receipt when we buy a donut, which in itself seems unnecessary.
Obama believes in securing borders with more personnel, helping Mexico to develop an economic infrastructure to deter Mexicans from coming here in the first place, and fix NAFTA. Will he help stop the flooding of Mexico with cheap goods from China? Or will he only seem on the surface to be the supporter of a more radical vision of U.S. international commerce policy that unfortunately yet perpetually leaves the impoverished communities of less developed nations without the promised infrastructure and out in the cold to starve or be forced to come here illegally? And does he really think that by simply telling illegals that they will be fined and made to go through the long, arduous process of legalization, that this will bring them out into the open? Is he really that naïve?
Obama promises to have 25% of the country's electricity come from renewable energy by 2025. Why so far away? Why play the "I want to appear revolutionary by setting a goal that may or may not be attained years after I am out of office" game? He says he wants to conduct more research into solar and wind energy. Isn't "conducting research" the politicians' code for not doing a damn thing? I was using a solar calculator in the 80's. Haven't we progressed beyond that point by now? What's more, he wants to auction polluter credits and use that money for the research. So the polluters get to still pollute (???) while he promises that by 2050, the U.S will be below the 1990 carbon emissions levels. Someone please tell me how that's supposed to work in a world where our biggest trade partner, China, is poised to rival if not surpass our carbon emissions with the introduction of millions of automobiles replacing bicycles among other things? Shouldn't our zero carbon emissions goal be more, well... radical? And by radical, I mean, sooner rather than later. I dare to think that it is not that we as a nation are incapable of cutting down our carbon emissions substantially in far less time, but that we lack the will to simply do so, that will being subverted to the greedy interests of those who benefit from the current way of doing things.
As for the Iraq war, I know he was against it from the beginning. I've been told a million times already. He says he does not want any permanent U.S. military bases there. Will he dismantle the ones already being built? He says he wants to keep some U.S. soldiers there to guard the U.S. embassy. Has he perhaps considered that the humongous embassy will stand as an eyesore to those who object to the U.S. Imperial presence? Maybe scaling that down a bit would be a smart thing to do as well.
Obama wants to expand the military with about 7,000 new troops. The majority of our national budget is already earmarked for the military, so this will be just more of the same as far as continuing the U.S. global domination with military might and more military bases on the globe than any other country, indeed more bases than all other countries combined.
On the other hand, Obama does talk of global nuclear non-proliferation, where everyone, including the U.S. will be given incentives to stop creating new nuclear weapons. Does that mean he will sign the Kyoto Treaty? I would hope so, as I and those of many other nations see the blatant hypocrisy of the U.S. demanding and punishing other countries for wanting the same things it has at it's disposal. As if we were not the only nation on earth that has actually used these powerful weapons of mass destruction on a country that had already shown signs of giving up in WW II.
Obama believes in making medical care affordable for all Americans, offering them the same plan that Congresspeople have (the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program). Although he supports abolishing the pre-existing conditions criteria, does he not realize that not all Americans make what Congresspeople may and may still not be able to afford his idea of "affordable" premiums, co-pays, and deductibles? Can Obama please tell me why he thinks it's a good idea to maintain the U.S. status as being the only first world country that does not offer it's citizens free health care?
Under Obama, tax breaks for corporations will be made public on the internet. How about making tax breaks for corporations non existent? And for anyone who thinks that will hurt the economy and in the trickle down theory, hurt U.S. citizens, I say you are talking about the economy with a capital "E", the one that we are told rises and falls with the supposed prosperity of our nation. The economy with the lower case "e" pertains to the personal financial situations of the average American. What hurts our pocket books is the continual removal of U.S. manufacturing infrastructure by U.S. corporations to other countries where oversight and business regulations are non-existent and the man power is practically slave labor. These companies continue to receive tax breaks and subsidies while actually draining the U.S. economy. Will Obama end corporate welfare or will he simply make their welfare public information, as he has promised?
As you can see, there are too many areas where Obama does not stand for what I believe in. Although I would agree that his presidency would be a radical shift in the cosmetic appearance of U.S. politics and may even be a bit more radical when compared to the policies of the current administration, I do not believe that he will radically shift away from how things are done in Washington, which is with a lot of promises passionately delivered during the campaign season, with goals conveniently projected to be reached far off in the murky future. He may be the best Democrat, but he is still a Democrat, which means he represents the impossibility of candidates from other parties, no matter the color or sex, actually attaining the highest public offices. In the larger context, Obama simply is not radical enough for me and many others. So we will vote our ideals and our conscience. If that means not voting for a seemingly popular candidate who just may be the first black person to reside in the Oval Office, than so be it.