Worldview Politics

Obama is much better than Hillary or McCain
8 February 2008

Just a brief note to remind myself when and why I shifted from Ron Paul to Obama. Of course, Ron Paul is by far the most sincere antiwar candidate still in the race, but we always knew he couldn't win, unless some dramatic surge of grass-roots pro-Paul antiwar fervor were to well up in the bosom of the American public. So far this hasn't happened, but something quite ominous has happened: McCain is now the Republican candidate. As I said before, McCain is nuts. He is unabashedly militaristic in a way that makes 'Cheney look like Gandhi', to use Pat Buchanan's recent memorable phrase. You may think that singing 'Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran' to a Beach Boys tune is a bit of 'levity', but I consider it appalling taste in an American presidential candidate at this time in history. As I said, he's nuts.

What is particularly amazing is that many 'independents' who call themselves 'antiwar' have apparently gone for McCain. This was widely reported during the New Hampshire primary and is no doubt a national phenomenon. This merely confirms what I have long suspected, namely, that most voters haven't a clue about the real issues and judge candidates instead according to superficial impressions based on personal identification. Many of these independents are probably just guys with a robust and individualistic temperament, who may not be particularly aggressive, but who simply like McCain's swaggering image. At least, that's the best theory I can come up with. It parallels the antiwar but woefully uninformed women who favor Hillary simply because she's a woman. Winning the American presidency is evidently a slick and sick game of smoke and mirrors and manipulative impressions. And to think that Armageddon, even nuclear Armageddon, could hang in the balance. Who needs Satan when sheer idiocy can get the job done?

The bottom line: Obama opposed the Iraq war

This clearly leaves Obama as the lesser, indeed much lesser, of evils. Sure, he is vague on the issues, but there is one solid fact to remember: he opposed the Iraq war from the beginning. Unlike Hillary, who voted for the war, he was not yet in the Senate to vote. Nevertheless, it is generally accepted that he opposed it verbally from the beginning, when it mattered. And true, he has tried to sound like JFK by saying that he might invade Pakistan to keep Al Qaeda from getting nukes. To tell the truth, if he had serious, credible evidence that Al Qaeda was closing in on Pakistani nukes, then perhaps some desperate commando raid might be necessary. Being antiwar and noninterventionist, as a matter of policy, doesn't mean being dogmatic and blind when faced with actual and extreme realities. It is precisely the possibility of very dangerous emergencies, backed by solid evidence, that makes the job of American president extremely important. The Bush administration claimed to have such an emergency with Iraqi WMD, but they grossly abused the tenuous evidence, while ignoring strong evidence to the contrary (e.g. the IAEA reports). They did this because of how a militaristic mentality distorts the brain, much like a dangerous drug, and that is why a McCain presidency would be a disaster. And a Clinton presidency wouldn't be much better, due to Hillary's Clintonian duplicity and her strong ties to neocons and AIPAC.

The JFK analogy does frighten me; JFK was the one who plunged us into the Vietnam War in a big way. But most things in life are relative, and compared to the other two remaining frontrunners, Obama is beginning to look very good indeed. He may be vague on the issues, but let us be honest and admit that vagueness may be a prerequisite to winning the American presidency. What is becoming increasingly evident is that he seems to have a rather mature, decent and sane personality. This is actually very important in a president and a good reason to become enthusiastic about Obama. An American president can wreak untold damage in the world by having a rash, aggressive, unbalanced or paranoid personality. We have witnessed these pathological traits in many of our presidents, and we now see them in McCain. Yes, even paranoia, or how else to explain his record of wanting to attack just about every country in the world that looks at us crosswise? Obama may not be perfect, and it may be difficult to predict how he will behave as president, but one thing seems clear: he is a less dangerous choice than cold-blooded, ambitious Hillary, and much less dangerous than hot-blooded, war-loving McCain.

Obama's brains and buddies

UPDATE (8 Feb 08): Something else about Obama: He is very smart. Not only did he attend Harvard Law School but he was editor of the review, a coveted post. This is very important. Mainstream Americans may resent elitist attacks on Bush's lack of brains, but look where it got us! A perusal of Obama's foreign policy advisors may not be entirely reassuring, but they are not neocons like Hillary's. Brzezinski may have been a cold warrior in his day, but recent interviews on television reveal that he now understands that the days of superpower colonialism are over. Ted Kennedy's endorsement is also reassuring; Ted was one of the few Democratic senators principled enough to vote against the Iraq war. So Obama is surrounded by some good voices. And frankly, I'm hoping his middle name might give him an ounce of genuine sympathy for the Palestinians. That could be very good, not just for the Palestinians, but for the entire world. The dangerous Middle Eastern mess cannot be cleaned up until the Palestinian problem is dealt with. We cannot expect Muslims to be indifferent to the suffering of their brothers. It's an open sore in a volatile region.

The popularity of the military with less educated Americans

UPDATE (8 Feb 08): William J. Astore is a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF), whose article below on American militarism provides insights rarely discussed in educated circles. Many antiwar progressives criticize 'militarism', without fully understanding why the military remains so popular with ordinary Americans. This is due to the widening social gulf between highly educated progressives and those ordinary Americans, who may not even have finished high school, let alone college. Even community colleges are becoming ever more expensive and out of the reach of lower-income people. By contrast, the military remains accessible to everybody, and promotion is according to merit rather than personal connections. Progressives, in common with many intellectuals, also fail to appreciate that many young men still strive for the ancient virtues of courage, honor, heroism, self-respect, and so on. This kind of romanticism did not die out with Homer! It is a common theme in human history and seems to be built into the male brain, at least until mollified by education. Similarly, there seems to be a widespread disdain for mommy-state values among young men who, while they may be poor, are also proud. None of this helps the progressive cause. (At the same time, let us not forget the pronounced socialistic aspects of the military. As long as you stay in, you're pretty much taken care of, with room, board, medical treatment, recreation, and permanent employment. Some of our humongous foreign bases are more like a futuristic space station than the damp tents of previous wars.) The important point is that progressives and other antiwar activists must be careful to criticize militarism as a government policy, without denigrating military honor itself. It is certainly honorable to expose yourself to risk in order to protect society. The question is whether politicians are assessing the risks properly. Similarly, progressives must be careful to criticize greedy, ruthless mega-corporations without antagonizing small and medium-sized businesses.

Obama sounded pretty good on Charlie Rose

UPDATE (9 Feb 08): Hmmmm. I just watched this late 2006 video of Obama talking to Charlie Rose. It took about 45 minutes of inspirational happy-talk to get the Iraq war, but when they finally got there, Obama's message didn't seem so bad. He opposed the war in the beginning, as we all know. He said he opposes 'rash' and 'ideological' wars, which is a big improvement over nutty neocons. As president, he would sit down with his Joint Chiefs and tell them to draw up a plan for a 'phased withdrawal' — no timeline given, though the reduction of troops would begin 'next year'. He would sit down with the Iraqis and tell them that their future was their choice to make. (Right!) There is 'no military solution', and we are 'not going to be able to police your civil war'. (Right again!) And he would talk to Iraq's neighbors and remind them of their 'stake in stability' and in avoiding a refugee crisis. (Right again!) Currently, Iran and Syria have 'the luxury of sitting back and watching us flail around'. (Yes indeed!) He goes on to explain that by beginning a withdrawal of troops, we 'send a signal' and 'provide a space' for other countries and international entities to play a responsible role. (Very reasonable!) We have 'no good solutions, only bad options and worse options', and we have 'reached a stage where our presence is making the situation worse rather than better' and is 'preventing Iraqis and the international community from taking responsibility'. There 'is a risk of the civil war getting worse', but 'our presence is not preventing that civil war', only forestalling it.

Well, this all sounds a lot better than I expected. Then again, JFK could sound quite mature and reasonable in his foreign policy speeches, but he still plunged us into the Vietnam quagmire. Furthermore, the surge has changed the situation in Iraq in some ways, so Obama's interview may be a bit dated. All things considered, Obama is the best of the current frontrunners, and he now looks a bit better to me. His mature and presidential attitude, which charms even some Republicans, can only help with the difficult politics, domestic and international, of getting out of Iraq. Of course, nobody can ever be sure how any politician will behave, once in office. I really expected more antiwar activity from 'San Francisco liberal' Nancy Pelosi. Weren't the San Franciscans, with all their education, smart enough to figure out what a flop she would be?

Democratic war games

UPDATE (9 Feb 08): Matt Taibi makes the simple but depressing point that Democrats can always play the game of being the 'antiwar choice' without really doing anything about the war. That way, someone like Hillary, who gets more campaign contributions from defense firms and AIPAC than anyone else, can play both sides of the fence. Talk about 'career politicians'! This travesty of democracy happens whenever we have, effectively, a one-party system, with each party being a slightly different shade of the Big Business party. This is all greatly helped along with the fog machines of the Corporate Media. Still, Obama is sane and McCain is nuts. That's a fact. Even Hillary's mind is probably a bit twisted, the inevitable result of a lifetime of fierce ambition combined with shameless duplicity. (That probably describes most members of the establishment.) It's our duty as responsible citizens to vote for the least insane corporate shill.

Obama on 60 Minutes

UPDATE (11 Feb 08): I watched Obama on 60 Minutes last night, and I was impressed. Steve Kroft made the dumb comment that there was not much difference between Obama and Hillary on policy, conveniently forgetting that Hillary is a triangulating hawk, while Obama may just be the man to get us out of Iraq. Obama admitted that there was a reduction in casualties, due to the surge, but the Iraqis were still showing no signs of a political reconciliation. He 'completely rejected' McCain's idea that we might be there 50 to 100 years, which is a bit of a relief, even though we are talking about a time period long after his presidency. It was symbolically significant that he said 'yes' to timetables for getting out, even if he was not specific, and he gave an explicit 'no' to permanent bases, which was also music to my ears. Above all, we must send a 'clear signal' that the Iraqis are going to have to solve their problems, he said, and I heartily agree. Of course, as Commander in Chief, he always reserves the right to reassess the situation, if there is an explosion in violence. He could hardly say otherwise. The question is one of trust, that he is basically on the antiwar side, and I think he is. He reminded us of the $2 trillion lost in the war that can't be spent on domestic needs. Truly appalling. And he confirmed his genuine presidential gravitas, which is important, as it generates respect with other leaders. I'll go out on a limb and predict that he'll probably win and might even be Mt. Rushmore material. (But Alex Cockburn in CounterPunch is warning me to guess again.)

Surprise! Obama's website is specific on the Iraq war!

UPDATE (11 Feb 08): I went over to check Obama's website on the Iraq War, and noticed this quote from a recent debate:

"But conventional thinking in Washington lined up for war. The pundits judged the political winds to be blowing in the direction of the President. Despite — or perhaps because of how much experience they had in Washington, too many politicians feared looking weak and failed to ask hard questions. Too many took the President at his word instead of reading the intelligence for themselves. Congress gave the President the authority to go to war. Our only opportunity to stop the war was lost.
I made a different judgment. I thought our priority had to be finishing the fight in Afghanistan. I spoke out against what I called "a rash war' in Iraq. I worried about, 'an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences'. The full accounting of those costs and consequences will only be known to history. But the picture is beginning to come into focus."
—Barack Obama, Clinton, Iowa, September 12, 2007

Damn! That's almost as good as Bill Moyers! And he's correct to say that he put his political career on the line, by opposing the war in 2002, as Americans just love a victory, no matter whether the war was justified or how many foreigners died. Here is what he says about troop removal:

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. 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.

That's about as clear as you can get in this business. Hillary might be saying something similar now, but only fools believe her. There is no reason to doubt Obama's sincerity at this point. However, once in office, it can be very difficult to resist various establishment pressures, or simply to 'lose'. Perhaps the real reason it's so difficult to get out of a futile war is that presidents just hate to lose. But Obama may be different. He seems to have a certain detachment that might just portend true wisdom, something almost unimaginable in an American president.

He also confirms that leaving would put pressure on the Iraqis to reconcile. He'll try to work with all parties, including the UN (which should have been brought in shortly after the invasion). He wants to launch a comprehensive diplomatic initiative for regional stability, but doesn't mention the Palestinian issue. Perhaps that's smart, perhaps it isn't. Frankly, I doubt most Muslim leaders really care about the Palestinians, but the angry masses do, and this stimulates terrorism.

All in all, what Obama says sounds about as good as one could realistically expect from an American presidential candidate. I am even wondering, perhaps a bit wishfully, whether Obama isn't pulling off a neat trick, namely, that he is in fact a genuine liberal who has so far managed to dodge the dreaded L-word. That would be a welcome contrast with the cynical, corrupt, self-serving, triangulating Clintons.

Two articles critical of Obama

UPDATE (14 Feb 08): Let me mention two new articles critical of Obama: (i) John V. Walsh on how 'he was against the war before he was for it'; and (ii) Justin Elliott on 'Obama's Israel Shuffle', showing that Obama is as afraid of the Israel Lobby as any American politician. Well, maybe he's doing what he must to get elected, but once in office he will show his true progressive colors! Maybe. He's still a much better choice that Hillary or McCain. My title for this post stands, regardless of how our Obama dreams may become punctured by reality. Let not the good be the enemy of the least bad.

Justin Raimondo likes Obama!

UPDATE (15 Feb 08): But today, arch cynic Justin Raimondo has something positive to say about Obama! Now Raimondo is no Democrat! It's Obama or despair. Unfortunately, the imperial establishment will probably find a way to kill him, perhaps literally. Raimondo provides detailed quotes from Obama showing that he is specific on the Iraq war, and his views are not the same as Hillary's. Even antiwar pundits get this wrong! Furthermore, his specific statements prior to the invasion showed precisely the informed judgment one would want in a president, at a time when Hillary and most other politicians were being swept — or allowing themselves to be swept — by the patriotic fervor. So much for Hillary's 'experience'.

Obama's Wall Street connections

UPDATE (19 Feb 08): Uh-oh! CounterPunch has a new article out on how close Obama is to Wall Street. Sounds like Bill Clinton all over again — a populist message masking giveaways to the rich. Unfortunately, the article is in their subscription-only newsletter (Vol. 15, No. 3), so you'll have to support them by sending a mere $35 a year. With all the lefty sites I could support, I bit the bullet and sent a few bucks to Alex Cockburn, because I like his contrarian spirit, in which he questions global warming and other sacred cows, while remaining a bonafide progressive, or whatever you want to call it.

Doug Bandow: Election 2008: What's a Peacenik to Do?