My Primary Vote: Barack Obama

Super Tuesday is just around the corner and I, along with voters from 24 states around the country, will be casting my ballot in the 2008 Presidential Primary.

Unfortunately, the person that I was planning to vote for dropped out of the race recently. As it stands, only two candidates remain. Thanks, American Primary System and Mass Media!

Since the two remaining candidates are almost identical to one another in their professed policy concerns and I believe them both willing to "play the game" (even though Obama claims he wouldn't - there is a reason why he is still in the race), I have chosen my candidate based mostly on image and an abhorrence of dynasty.

Yes, I choose Barack Obama - and I have prepared a defense.

As concerns professed policy, like I said, they differ slimly. For instance, neither of their health care policies are truly universal, neither removes the ridiculous link between health care coverage and employer (although they claim to be portable, without expanding the tax exemption on health care premiums to non-employer-provided policies, almost everyone will still be tied to their employer's insurance) and both merely wish to patch up holes in a leaky roof that needs to be replaced - Obama's plan does not include a mandate for adults and has provisions for children's health that Clinton's plan does not mention: more physical activity (as in gym class, because a lot of inner city and poorly performing schools lack this standard) and a healthy cafeteria menu.

Obama is also not hostile to the idea of a single-payer system - he just doesn't have the guts to run on it. His reasons for promoting his plan are pretty much bullshit - he doesn't want people to have their lives disrupted too much? We already have a system, so we are stuck with it and we should just try to improve what we have? That's just private-insurance/pharmaceutical industry propaganda. People should support a single-payer system - they are infiltrated with bull from the media about "lack of choice" Canada didn't always have a single-payer system - they changed their infrastructure to allow for it! Which is what will be necessary in the US. I am hoping that Obama is running a mainline campaign in order to get into the White House and then allow for the "change" he keeps yapping on about. I hope, but I will not hold my breath.

But, like I said, it comes down mostly to image. I do hate to admit favoring someone because of their image, people around the world judge the members of a nation by their leaders. Thus, the image of a President is not necessarily important to those at home; rather, it is a strong signal to the rest of the world, letting them know which way we wish to take our country.

Many nations around the world have already elected women to their highest posts - most of these women were members of dynasties from which male relatives had ruled in the past. Thus is the case with Hillary Clinton. If she is elected, by the end of her first term, two groups of people will have ruled the nation for 32 years - The Reaganites (Bushes, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the like) and the Clintons. I do not like the precedent that this sets.

Barack Obama is a member of a minority class in this country, he has no political ties in his family and he is a master orator. On top of that, his name, Barack, or baarack(a), means "blessing" in Arabic! You must think that would have some impact on the Arabic world's perception of the United States. To elect a fresh-faced, self-made man who has proven inspirational to some would set a new precedent much more attractive than the alternative.

Now, his supposed faults: the popular media has perpetrated the idea that Obama's major faults are his lack of experience, related to that, his ineffectiveness in the Senate and his willingness to talk to leaders of hostile nations.

Let us first tackle the experience question.

I'm amazed that no one brings this up, but Obama's experience is very similar to another former Illinois State legislator turned President - Abraham Lincoln.

While Abe vied for seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate, he won only one bid - for the House of Representatives.

Yes, that's right: before becoming President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln spent one sputtering term - that's two years - in the U.S. House of Representatives - the rest of his political experience was in the Illinois State House of Representatives.

Obama has spent four years as the junior Senator from Illinois - not only has he spent more time in federal office, but he has played a more influential part in the Upper House, mostly because Lincoln shot off his big mouth and made enemies of the big men.

The two have even more in common - they are both great orators, both are progressive thinkers, and both have been viewed as a new face either to a burgeoning political party, in Lincoln's case, or a dying party - and nation - looking for a revival.

I don't mean necessarily to say that Obama will be the modern Lincoln - that has yet to be seen. I mean that he should not be discounted merely on his "lack of experience".

Concerning his effectiveness in the Senate, I must admit, he is a bit lacking, though not in comparison to his rival - Hillary Clinton.

Senator Obama sponsored 66 bills and 86 amendments in the 109th Congress and he has, so far, sponsored 63 bills and 50 amendments in the 110th Congress for a grand total of 129 bills and 136 amendments. 120 bills did not make it past committee, six were enacted and only one is actually effective. For a good laugh, here are 5/6 of the bills Obama has been able to get passed:

S.RES.133 - A resolution celebrating the life of Bishop Gilbert Earl Patterson.
S.RES.268 - A resolution designating July 12, 2007, as "National Summer Learning Day".
S.RES.291 - A resolution to congratulate the Chicago White Sox on winning the 2005 World Series Championship.
S.RES.516 - A resolution recognizing the historical significance of Juneteenth Independence Day and expressing the sense of the Senate that history should be regarded as a means for understanding the past and solving the challenges of the future.
S.RES.529 - A resolution designating July 13, 2006, as "National Summer Learning Day".

Apparently, National Summer Learning Day is a cause close to Senator Obama's heart.

This is the policy-oriented bill that passed:

S.2125 - A bill to promote relief, security, and democracy in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Senator Clinton, meanwhile, has sponsored 354 bills since Jan 22, 2001, of which 307 haven't made it out of committee, and only 2 effective ones have been enacted. That's one more than Senator Obama, plus she has served four more years than him in Congress. GovTrack even gives Senator Obama a better same effectiveness rating relative to peers than Senator Clinton- so why is Senator Obama's effectiveness constantly brought us as an issue in comparison to Senator Clintons? There seems to be no reason beyond libel and propaganda.

Senator Obama has also able to get passed 21 amendments in the 109th Congress and 18 so far in the 110th - almost all of them actually affecting policy. He even managed to get six of his amendments ruled out of order by the chair - two when trying to hinder former congressmen's ability to obtain lobbyist positions, and four when trying to regulate hurricane contracts. That's promising.

What I think is important here is not his success rate - obviously his bill success rate is nothing special, although his amendment pass rate is pretty good - but what sort of bills and amendments he is sponsoring. He has been willing to push the envelope in the past, as is proven with the out of order rulings. He has also sponsored bills concerning the same issues he has been campaigning for: energy efficiency, government transparency and anti-corruption, implementation of Information Technology for the sake of health administration efficiency, etc.

The final major "problem" with Obama's candidacy is his desire to convene a meeting of leaders of the Middle East to ask the question: what is your problem with the United States and what can we do to aid our relations?

Many people think that the president needs to be strong and resolute and, thus, not speak to leaders of countries that want to hurt us unless they are willing to submit. Well, let's see: that's been our policy for the last half-century or so and look at what it's got us!

Ever since September 11th, we have been told that Muslims attack us because they hate our freedoms. That has always sounded a bit illogical and chaotic to me - if they merely hate us, then they will never stop killing us until either they kill all of us or we kill all of them. That, of course, is what the current administration wants us to think - it makes an everlasting war on the Middle East necessary.

But the people of the Middle East do have valid grievances against the United States - hell, 90% of the world does! Western Europe has been ravaging the rest of the world ever since they were able to jump on ships and travel huge distances with relative ease. The US was a late-comer to the imperialist party - by that time imperialism had to dissemble itself in the raiments of economic development, free trade and democracy promotion - but I believe the country has made up for its tardiness with the intensity of its avarice. Constant medaling and a need to control everything has made the US - and, unfortunately, common Americans who don't realize the extent of the atrocities of its leaders over the past half-century - hated around the world. It is time to try to rectify the situation and showing that we are willing to listen to others is a step in the right direction.

Thus, I have made my decision to back Barack Obama. While Clinton will surely perpetuate the status quo, Obama offers a fresh-face to American politics abroad and a new, more attractive precedent.