OPINION & EDITORIAL
Obama endorsement lacking logic
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Letters to the Editor:
- Editors discharge duties dishonorably (February 17, 2008)
- Cartoon anti-Semitic (February 15, 2008)
- Herald unfair to Mikolajczak (February 14, 2008)
- UW needs dissenting voices (February 14, 2008)
- There will be blood... donations (February 13, 2008)
Related Stories:
- Be a part of history; vote Democratic in this year's elections (February 14, 2008)
- '08 hopefuls test political climate (November 15, 2006)
- Allure of Gore may save Dems, climate (March 2, 2007)
- Voting for a man, not against one (September 1, 2004)
- Dean wrong for chairmanship (January 18, 2005)
by Letters to the Editor
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
There is no question that this presidential election is one
of the most important in recent history. After seven years of failed Bush
policies, it is clear we need a president who can redirect this country and put
our government back on the right track. For Democrats in this primary season,
the decision is a difficult one — both candidates bring unique, impressive
qualities to this election. But after careful consideration and keeping an open
mind until recently, it has become clear to me that Sen. Hillary Clinton has
both the vision and the experience to guide our nation in the right direction.
This is why I was so disappointed in The Badger Herald’s endorsement of Sen.
Barack Obama (“Obama deserves your vote,” Feb. 14) and the troubling logic
behind it.
It cannot be denied that Ms. Clinton has put forth both
practical and innovative policies that will solve many of the problems we face
today. This is why I was surprised at the Herald editorial board’s reasoning in
their endorsement. Their lack of interest in Ms. Clinton’s concrete policies
and their seemingly flippant disregard for the important role of experience
felt inconsistent with their often thoughtful and balanced study of positions.
I found their attack on Ms. Clinton’s Senate record
unwarranted, specifically their critique of the active role she played in the
Family Entertainment Protection Act. FEPA, which was never put to a vote,
simply would have required that the same standards applied to R-rated movies be
applied to “Mature”-rated video games. But whatever your opinion of these
restrictions, it is important to note that in a questionnaire published by
Common Sense Media — an advocacy group for stronger parental controls — Mr.
Obama said that if the video game industry failed to enforce these standards
themselves, “[his] administration would.” To raise FEPA as a criticism of Ms.
Clinton seems strange considering Mr. Obama shares the same view — not to
mention that Illinois is one of a handful of states that had sought to impose
similar restrictions.
The editorial board disparagingly described Ms. Clinton’s
Senate record as a “mixed bag.” Unfortunately, Mr. Obama’s Senate record has
amounted to very little thus far. The unusually high percentage of instances in
which Mr. Obama voted “present” rather than yes or no greatly concerns me. I
also take fault with the editorial board’s characterization of the two
candidate’s health care plans. We know Mr. Obama’s plan would leave 15 million
Americans uninsured. While I understand The Badger Herald’s reservations about
an imposed mandate, the fact of the matter is that completely universal
coverage is the only way to truly reduce the rates of illness and decrease the
cost of health care.
I know who I’m voting for Feb. 19, and I hope the students of this university take a more thoughtful consideration of who to cast their votes for than that of the editorial board.
Josh Freedman
UW senior, political science
freedman@wisc.edu
Anonymous (February 19, 2008 @ 5:51am):
This would have been great to read yesterday!
Anonymous (February 19, 2008 @ 9:18am):
Do you know the reason why Obama's message has caught fire? It's because Clinton's nasty campaign is a perfect example of what Obama is promising to change about this country.
Present votes? Obama's present votes were on inflammatory measures designed to force senators to make embarrassing votes. He voted present not because he couldn't make up his mind but because he wanted to register dissatisfaction with the kind of "gotcha" politics that is poisoning our discourse.
Lack of experience? Obama is 47 years old (older than Bill Clinton was when elected president) and has been a U.S. senator, state senator, and community organizer, all jobs which require bringing people together and building broad coalitions, which is exactly what this country needs and incidentally, is not quite Hillary's strong suit. It's dishonest and low to refer to him as though he were 18.
Voting record? It's real simple: Hillary voted for the war. She now tries to twist and turn and say that it wasn't really a vote to go to war. That's revisionist history; I mean, the name of the bill was "Authorization to use force in Iraq." Plus, she voted for a bankruptcy bill practically written by lobbyists, and then she said she regretted the vote and didn't want it to become law. We need a president who has the judgement to make right decisions.
Look at these candidates' campaigns to see what kind of leaders they would be. Hillary has been mean and nasty and has intentionally used dishonest attacks (such as accusing Obama of being a closet Reaganite, which is beyond absurd and she knows it). Maybe she believes the ends justify the means. Is that the kind of president you want? Vote for Obama!
Anonymous (February 19, 2008 @ 10:35am):
This election, like all others, is between a big douche and a giant turd. Everyone seems to have a blind admiration and devotion to one or the other, yet in the end, it's still a douche or a turd.
Anonymous (February 19, 2008 @ 11:39am):
This guy is just a windbag... he's disingenuous. By mentioning Obama's Senate voting record with relation to "present" votes, he is actually talking about his record in the Illinois State Senate, where voting "present" is a highly common practice. He should have specified about this, rather than imply that this practice was undertaken in the U.S. Senate.
Also, he doesn't specify about Clinton's "practical and innovative policies" and similarly fails to mention that Obama has many specific policy stances as well.
Good for Josh for being a hack.
Anonymous (February 19, 2008 @ 11:45am):
You're misdecribing Obama's Senate record. He has never voted "present" in the Senate. He did that in the Illinois Senate, where there is a long tradition of voting "present" for bills that a senator does not either support or oppose. And we don't "know" that Obama's plan would leave 15 million uninsured. That was the opinion of one group that actively lobbies for forced Hillarycare style health care. Beyond that, it's a misstatement. Obama's plan would provide affordable health insurance to anyone who wanted it. There is some number of people who would choose not to buy health care they can afford. But 15 million comes from a group that wants people to believe that without forced health care, very few will buy in.
In other words, don't be a hypocrite. You've very clearly thought about this no more than the Badger Herald Editorial Board.
Anonymous (February 19, 2008 @ 12:45pm):
10:35, as someone who is a gigantic cynic (I worked in politics in DC for a good bit of time, and doing that makes nearly anyone a cynic), this is actually one of the few times when the choice isn't between a douche and a turd. I'd in fact contend that we have 3 quality candidates (Obama, Clinton and McCain), and have a situation where we have two good choices for the first time since '96. It's simple to just follow Trey and Matt blindly (they are funny, funny people) and say all elections are between a douche and a turd, especially since both elections since South Park came on the air have been between a douche and a turd. Pay closer attention. This one's different.
Anonymous (February 19, 2008 @ 5:54pm):
I'm curious how those of us who worked with Fair Wisconsin might justify voting for Obama, who opposes gay marriage on the grounds of "Jesus."
Though Senator Clinton seems to want to take credit for President Clinton's record, and he was responsible for the Defense of Marriage Act. You can't really trust a Democrat when it comes to matters of civil rights.
Anonymous (February 19, 2008 @ 6:46pm):
12:45-- I stand behind my original comment. What's so different? Let's see how long it really takes Clinton or Obama to get the last G.I. out of Iraq and halt ALL military operations there. They're trying to pick up on the wave of discontent and ride it into the White House. Are either of them going to completely repeal NAFTA and CAFTA, and enact a policy completely cohesive with the UNDHR and ILO standards, while cutting off the supply of sweatshop labor to Nike and adidas? Are they going to not just forgive the debts of the global South, but actually come up with effective solutions to poverty, malaria, AIDS, and ethnic violence? Will either stop funding foreign dictators and funding CIA ops to undermine other foreign governments (e.g. hands off of Cuba, Mexico, Venezuela, Bolivia, Colombia, Argentina, etc... surprisingly Paul was the only one to make this a platform point)? Will either really act to reign in exploitative capitalism? Will either really put in place a health care plan that doesn't exist primarily as a form of HMO welfare? I think many people could agree that these are important issues, completely in the hands of the next president, which could enhance or undermine both the image and the security of the United States in the world community. Yet I think when push comes to shove, neither will be significantly different from McCain--their differences are merely cosmetic, while their promises vary as they pander to different constituencies. Giant douche and turd sandwich it shall be.
Anonymous (February 19, 2008 @ 9:20pm):
Ah, and there's the rub 6:46. You're a populist. Many of us think that all the economic things you are speaking of (leaving CAFTA and NAFTA, etc.), would be a disaster. There's a reason why Dennis Kucinich is the laughing stock of the United States Congress inside the halls of Rayburn, and it's not because he isn't smart. He is quite intelligent. It's because he lives in fantasy land. I hope it's nice there.
Now, here's the problem with cutting off "sweatshop labor" as you so call it. Those jobs are the best jobs that have ever been in those areas of those countries. Are there some terrible things about it? Yes. But every economy that has developed has gone through it. So, let's say you take those jobs away and bring them back to the United States. And let's not make them on Nikes and Adidas. Let's make them on a $10 pair of Wal-Mart jeans that many people depend on to send their kids to school clothed.
Who wins? The American laborer? No, because costs to the consumer increase too much to make up for the fact that they are making relatively higher wages, and that hits the middle and lower classes just as hard as being underemployed. The foreign worker you are aiming at protecting? Well, the industrialization, and those jobs that are the best paying they've ever seen, would stall. Those jobs would disappear. And the people in those countries would be right back where they were: In no safer work conditions out in the fields and making significantly less money.
Labor is a special interest. An extraordinarily dangerous one. Anyone who tries to say otherwise is, in my opinion, the turd sandwich. As for the Iraq issue, we will have to wait and see. I am not a psychic, but at this point I would deem it a political necessity for a Democratic President to remove nearly all, if not all, troops from Iraq.
Let's see, aside from that, I have no problem with the CIA trying to overthrow certain regimes, although I will admit they have overstepped their bounds at times. Both Democratic nominees have outlined health care plans to change health care in a very difficult situation. Most universal health care situations that exist in the country (Britain, Canada, etc.) have made a difficult decision that would not be acceptable in the United States. For example, if you are over age 65 in the UK and need dialysis, the state insurance doesn't cover it. If you can't pay for it yourself, you die. That very simply does not fly here. So we have to find a plan that will work essentially like Germany's, providing both high quality and universal or near universal health care to a much larger and more diverse population that Germany's.
Very simply, my friend, you are a cynic because these people don't agree with you. I am hopeful for Obama and McCain because I see them doing it the right way. I see a shot for bipartisanship to not mean pork passing back and forth from one Congressional District to another, but instead people in Washington, DC, perhaps asking what is best for this country? I have hope for Clinton because I know what we will get from her: Efficient, competent, effective government, especially compared to what we have.
I don't agree with all of their policies. Obama is more economically liberal than me, McCain much more socially conservative, and Clinton I just don't find appealing. But it's not agreeing with them that matters. I'm not looking for a candidate who will do what I want. I want a candidate who will do what is intelligent and just. I have faith that all three of these candidates will, even if I disagree with their individual views on many issues.
Anonymous (April 8, 2008 @ 3:56pm):
This sounds like a university student with a brain. Someone who has not bought the empty hype of the Obama person.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
