reasons to like obama: #327

i'm an obama fanatic, in case you didn't already know. but my primary interest in making him the democratic nominee is something a little meta (as we say in the business), and i didn't really have the language to explain it until now. thanks to this article, i've been able to sort of internally articulate how i feel. and now i'll attempt to externally articulate it.

the main reason for my love affair with obama candidacy isn't necessarily his stance on the issues. as a matter of fact, looking at it entirely quantitatively, clinton actually shares my stance on more issues than obama does. of course so does kucinich, but that's another thing entirely. it's not necessarily because i'd prefer a male president, or a black president, etc., ad nauseum. it's not even because of obama's impressive rhetoric or the fact that clinton is running her campaign like a goddamned ninja assassin instead of a human being (though that helps). the reason i like obama is because he's willing to look beyond the pre-21st century paradigm of "popular" democracy in this country and take the chance on something new. clinton is not. clinton is progressive on the issues ("progressive" being a relative term), just as much as is obama. but what it comes down to is that he is tackling those issues and this nomination in a way that tacitly acknowledges that the system is broken. we've moved on from top-down, quasi-fiefdom democracy if for no other reason than the internet (though there are other good reasons too). no one else seems to realize this. they rant and rave about how the system has failed us, how bush has failed us, and on and on, and yet they embrace the same system and try to use it to their own ends. it's not even a "if it ain't broke..." mentality because it's broke. it was broke in 2000, in 2004, and probably well before then, but we didn't have glaring examples like the florida recount or bush somehow getting reelected a second time staring us in the face yet. how does a president who garners an abysmal approval rating almost immediately after taking office in 2004 get elected to that office? well, it didn't help that the democrats chose to run john "diet bush" kerry, but still. if that election and all the following disgusting flaunting of the law that our government has exercised in the last four years haven't shown you the holes in the bottom of the boat, then you're not paying enough attention. it's not even a stance for far-lefters only nowadays. everybody knows something's wrong. it's just that the vast majority of people think of fixing it by changing the people in charge only (or at least it seems this way). clinton is no different. it's been pretty clear all along she's willing to do whatever it takes to win. i'd be surprised if if/when she does win, she even knows what to do after that. she gets into power, and then what do we have? a democrat version of the type of people who've been running this country for at least the last 100 years. white, rich people with little to no perspective on how little this country resembles the america of the 50s or even the 70s or 80s. they don't have a personal stake (i.e. nothing to gain) by investigating the system that's kept them rich and in power since the early 1900s, and who can blame them?

i think living in a system where democracy, at least to a degree, is a charade or used as a pacification/justification device is frustrating people. but a lot of people are either too cynical or too comfortable (sometimes the same thing) to want to invest in a change. or they conceive of a dramatic change as a change of staff or office. obama and clinton generally stand for the same things when you look at "the issues". but just looking at "the issues" is still filtering each candidate's approach to government through the same lens that we've always used when choosing a president. to me, obama seems to realize this. he seems to realize that there are more dimensions to, say, the war in iraq than either being "for" or "against" it. he's willing to recognize the complexity in issues that clinton and other candidates appear to simply see as checkmarks in a column on a scorecard. clinton wants to play and win the game, mccain wants to play and win the game, obama wants to step back and say "this isn't a game at all for people who aren't in positions of power, so let's stop pretending like it is". i like that. i like the idea of a presidental candidate who is willing to question things that need questioned, even as far as questioning the system by which he got to power in the first place. he seems to genuinely be interested in seeking answers instead of pretending he has them to score brownie points, and as sad of a trip as it's been, i'm glad that we as a country are cynical enough to be able to see this as a positive quality and not "waffling", which was such a huge (and completely asinine) issue in 2004. oh my god! a candidate is reviewing new information and reevaluating his/her stance? impossible! if we had more men and women willing to do this versus trying to exude confidence in the idea of the american world as a black-and-white, right-and-wrong construct, there would likely be thousands less dead americans in the middle east (don't get me started) and we would be in an international relations hole that will likely take decades to dig ourselves out of (if that's even possible). and i don't know that at this point in the 21st century america can afford to turn itself back into an isolationist state, which seems to be the other alternative (see: china).

anyway, that's my $.05. i still think the article above says it better than i. but i just had to get that off my chest/fingers. mmm...chicken fingers.

it's hard being a vegetarian sometimes.