Sullivan on Obama
Jan 8th, 2008 by jeremy
Andrew Sullivan, a conservative writer for the Atlantic Monthly writes about why he supports Barack Obama, and how Obama may be the person that can help the country become less divided. It’s a great article on who is my current favorite presidential candidate. It also discusses how the country is still divided about the Vietnam war, and how this has changed politics and politicians in a negative way.
Some excerpts from the article.
At its best, the Obama candidacy is about ending a war—not so much the war in Iraq, which now has a momentum that will propel the occupation into the next decade—but the war within America that has prevailed since Vietnam and that shows dangerous signs of intensifying, a nonviolent civil war that has crippled America at the very time the world needs it most. It is a war about war—and about culture and about religion and about race. And in that war, Obama—and Obama alone—offers the possibility of a truce.
A Giuliani-Clinton matchup, favored by the media elite, is a classic intragenerational struggle—with two deeply divisive and ruthless personalities ready to go to the brink. Giuliani represents that Nixonian disgust with anyone asking questions about, let alone actively protesting, a war. Clinton will always be, in the minds of so many, the young woman who gave the commencement address at Wellesley, who sat in on the Nixon implosion and who once disdained baking cookies.
But Obama’s reach outside his own ranks remains striking. Why? It’s a good question: How has a black, urban liberal gained far stronger support among Republicans than the made-over moderate Clinton or the southern charmer Edwards? Perhaps because the Republicans and independents who are open to an Obama candidacy see his primary advantage in prosecuting the war on Islamist terrorism. It isn’t about his policies as such; it is about his person. They are prepared to set their own ideological preferences to one side in favor of what Obama offers America in a critical moment in our dealings with the rest of the world. The war today matters enormously. The war of the last generation? Not so much. If you are an American who yearns to finally get beyond the symbolic battles of the Boomer generation and face today’s actual problems, Obama may be your man.
He is the only major candidate to have clearly opposed it from the start. Whoever is in office in January 2009 will be tasked with redeploying forces in and out of Iraq, negotiating with neighboring states, engaging America’s estranged allies, tamping down regional violence. Obama’s interlocutors in Iraq and the Middle East would know that he never had suspicious motives toward Iraq, has no interest in occupying it indefinitely, and foresaw more clearly than most Americans the baleful consequences of long-term occupation.
I read Obama’s inspiring book, The Audacity of Hope, last year and really loved what he has to say.
I’d have to say that Paul opposed the war from the start. However, if you are only considering candidates that stand a chance at winning the election, you’re right.
I’m quite convinced that Paul would be the best candidate for my generation…
With Paul I wouldn’t have to continue to pay social security for another generation.
I wouldn’t have to pay for everyone’s kids to get a mediochre education.
I wouldn’t have to pay for thousands of services and programs I may never use.
I can rest assured that I won’t have future Patriot Acts and other horrible government programs. I won’t be paying for an illegal war and I won’t see American lives wasted for other pointless wars.
But. I’m realistic. When Paul loses, I’ll be gunning for a democratic candidate. I think you’re right about Obama. Clinton is just scary.
I’m looking at candidates I think can win. The Republican party really seems to hate Paul, and so I don’t see how he’d be able to get a nomination unless he ran as an Independent. So I’ve focused my attention on Obama for now.
It’s possible that I’ll be using some of the donated vinyl for an “Obama for Change” poster if it comes to that.
Oops, I should have gone in calendar order. Do you have The Audacity of Hope? And how do you post the pictures of books on your blog? Do you take them yourself or get them from somewhere? I am very undecided on who to vote for and am looking at all the candidates except Huckabee and Guliani. Unfortunately, “lower tier” candidates like Paul stand no chance.
I just get the pictures from Amazon for the main posts. On the side they are a plugin for Wordpress (what I use for my blog). I have the Audacity of Hope audiobook. Would you like it?
I too will never vote for Guliani - any man who moves his girlfriend into his marital home would never receive my vote inasmuch as I believe that it is an indicator about how he feels about women in general. Besides, I believe he is just riding on the coattails of 9/11.
I also would not vote for Huckabee because he scares me. My friend stated that she would like to invite him to Utah to see that her Mormon neighbors are indeed Christians (but it is not his opposition to Mormonism that bothers me - I believe strongly in the separation of church and state).
Obama’s wife also concerns me (and I do know she is not the one running) - she is very divisive (we need to get blacks out to vote for my husband - shouldn’t they vote for the candidate that is most qualified, not the one who is of their race(or gender)?). That would imply that all women should vote for Hillary, or all Mormons should vote for Romney (what do you do if you are black and Mormon or a woman and a Mormon?). If you don’t think wives matter, think about Mrs. Clinton, Mrs. Carter and Mrs Roosevelt. Personally, and I am sorry to say this, I am not sure that a woman or a black is electable in this country now, qualified or not.
Remember, Josh, you may not want to educate everyone’s children, but I, and my neighbors, will be paying to educate yours (you can’t tell me that your taxes alone would pay for your children’s education), and all citizens benefit from a well educated society. Also, my taxes go to pay for roads I will never drive on and many services which I may never use, or think I may never use, until I suddenly need them (think Caleb). Taking care of those who can not help themselves is a sign of a civilized society. I am not speaking about those who deliberately misuse these services, but those who are truly in need.
I should also mention that Hillary did not disdain making cookies. She was offended, as was I, that when their husbands were campaigning against one another for the pesidency, Barbara Bush and Hillary Clinton were asked to submit their favorite cookie recipe for a vote. How demeaning - is that all they had to offer? It was insulting to women in general.
One more thing - I agree with Greenspan that this war is about oil and nothing else. We are afraid of losing our source of oil. Do you think we would be there if it was in India?
That is my two (or twenty) cents!
The cookie thing with Hillary really makes me mad. People still bring it up fifteen years later to show how little she thinks of housewives. Should they be more upset that the media thinks so little of candidates spouses that they would ask them for nothing more than a cookie recipe?
I think the free market and open competition can do better than the federal government in anything, including schools. State governments can take care of vital services such as roads.
[…] on the positive instead of trying to scare the hell out of us like Romney, Clinton and McCain. Read this […]