February
2008
Endorsement: Obama Wins Our Hearts and Inspires Hope
The buzz of energy you might have felt in the air this morning wasn’t another snowstorm. Today the Barack Obama for president campaign swoops into Milwaukee for a big rally at the Midwest Express Center. The event is beginning to feel less and less like a campaign stop and more like a coronation for the 46-year-old senator from Chicago.
Obama will win Wisconsin, a state whose delegates went to John Edwards four years ago — and Wisconsinites are going to feel pretty damn good about it. So will we, here at Watchdog Milwaukee.
Americans don’t know what a president looks like until we elect one. Then, with sudden realization, we know. Talk about Barack Obama’s presidential chances began after his stirring speech at the 2004 Democratic convention. It was easy to shrug off then.
Many of us began looking for reasons why, despite the passion and inspiration he brought to that speech, he would not run for the presidency. Too soon. He hadn’t even begun his first term. America’s not yet ready for an African-American president. It was a pipedream. Looking back, these were all excuses that have since evaporated.
But then we looked back at one of the speakers from the 1988 Democratic convention – an impassioned governor from the state of Arkansas presented a 32-minute address to delegates. That man was Bill Clinton, and he not only won the presidency but he went on to win a second term. Sixteen years later, a young senator from Illinois took the podium and wow’ed us.
The comparisons between Obama and the former president don’t end there. Like Bill Clinton, who had the courage to tell displaced workers that their jobs were gone but he would fight for retraining money for new, better jobs, Obama recently said, “we need somebody who is going to tell the American people not just what they want to hear, but what they need to hear.” It is this courage and honesty that we need at a time when eight years of Republican reign have thrown us into the morass of war, to a crippling national debt and to the brink of recession.
To be president is to be a dream, and Obama is living a dream before our very eyes. He envisions a different America, where anyone can achieve anything if one puts the heart, mind and some shoulder grease into it. We remember this place — it’s the America we heard about when we were kids, before we knew that factories rust in the snow and jobs disappear overseas. It’s the place where a community organizer working in impoverished neighborhoods on the south side of Chicago can go to law school, get elected to the statehouse, win a U.S. Senate seat and lay claim to the presidency.
It’s a story of inspiration and fighting for one’s passion. Now is the time that America, that Americans, need that inspiration. Now is a time we all need that hope. We need change and we need someone willing to fight for change.
Obama says he wants a different debate, not the same old arguments about big government and the free economy that Democrats and Republicans have been having since the late 1960’s. He believes America is going to be a better place, a different place. We believe him more than other candidates because he exudes this vision.
Obama’s primary opponent, Senator and former first lady Hillary Clinton, for all of her past work on health care, schools and womens’ issues, doesn’t bring the passion or the charisma that Obama exudes. While Clinton can legitimately argue that she has a better healthcare plan, she continues to be too hawkish on the war. We have no doubt that Clinton would make a great president, and Americans are fortunate to finally have a choice between two supremely qualified individuals. But it is Obama that sparks our imagination.
Factor in Obama’s surprising strong showing in Iowa and convincing win in Minnesota, and the choice is easy for Wisconsin. Democrats can’t win the presidency without flexing their muscles in the upper Midwest and in Mideast states like Pennsylvania, where the economy has long been the number one issue. Winning Ohio this time around would certainly help. It is in these states where Obama is proving strongest.
And why shouldn’t Obama succeed in the Midwest? He spent most of his working life in Chicago, the city of big shoulders, before its people sent him to the Illinois senate and to Washington as their representative. For Milwaukeeans and other denizens of the nation’s rust belt, Obama offers the rarest of presidential election opportunities: The chance to elect one of our own. It hasn’t happened in more than a century.
Imagine that.
Jim McGuigan
Endorsements, Jim McGuigan, John-David Morgan
RSS feed
Link
Obama is a great speaker and appears to be a trailblazer, which is something we need. He wants to change the face and perception of politicians in Washington………….but………He is Pro-Abortion, Pro-same sex marriage. He has repeatedly voted against school choice, prayer and Bible reading in public schools. He supports Judges that continually rip away our religious freedoms. I (personally) can’t ignore those things. I know not everyone shares my relisious views, but they are important to me. I wish Obama did as well.
sorry - I meant “religious”
Bill, I agree with you on the first sentence but after that what you speak of is the rhetoric of absolutes that Obama points out has crippled America.
I would no more consider Obama to be “pro-abortion” than I would George W. Bush. The difference is that Obama would work to end ignorance and poverty which will reduce unplanned pregnancies and reduce abortions.
You also state he is pro-same sex marriage — an insinuation that he is against man-woman marriage. Again, this is not true. Obama is married to a woman and hasn’t said he would change that.
As a catholic I can tell you that I don’t want other religions in public schools but I recognize that it would be inappropriate to put my religion in pubic schools also as people of other faiths would not want my beliefs crammed down their throats. Also as a catholic I believe religion is something that is highly personal and the candidates who have put their faith on their sleeves intentionally are clearly hiding something. At the risk of being preachy myself, check out Matthew 6:5 — When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men.
Thank you Watchdog Milwaukee for endorsing Barack Obama! It shows that your really get it.
I totally agree with you on the Matthew 6:5 passage, and I assume you are referring to many politicians who get the right-wing Christian vote, but are hypocritical. That is something that conservative voters like myself run the risk of getting burned on, (and we have many times). *Check out Romans 1:24-32, and you will understand why I have such a problem with voting records on these very issues.
Yes Bill, Obama is a great speaker. That alone doesn’t qualify him to be president so I’ve looked further. Our country definately does need someone like him in the White House.
One of the reasons I myself support Obama is because of his long standing position against uteral regulation. I believe that government plays a very important but also LIMITED role in the every day lives of citizens. To me government regulation should end someplace before the entrance to a woman’s uterus. If half of the energy that went into trying to regulate the reproductive organs of women were channeled to giving responsible family planning education this discussion would be irrelevant. Abortion is not the problem. It is only a symptom.
What’s the problem with gay marriage? I’ve yet to hear even one decent argument against it. How does including more people into the institution of marriage weaken it? I say if they want to be as miserable as heterosexual married couples then let them. Is the fear that while trying to book a wedding it’ll be more difficult to find a place that isn’t full? Perhaps we’d have to add another month to “Wedding Season” or something. I mean there are solutions to things like this. If marriage is a religious based institution then am I left out as an Athiest? If the argument is that if gays are allowed to be married there’s nothing to stop people from trying to marry other things, then I suppose there’s not much else for us to talk about. Saying something like that is an insult to the intelligence of humanity as a whole.
I don’t mix religion and government. I know what happens with that. The same as everything else. If religion takes a more active role in government then government will take a more active role in religion. History has proven that time and time again.
School choice is just an effort to privatize education, spend government money on religious education, or both.
I don’t believe a judge should rip away at anyone’s religious freedoms. I do believe they should protect mine as well as your’s though. As a matter of fact I don’t like that the current president has ONLY appointed judges based on his religious litmus test. Hopefully we will get a president that has some respect for the Constitution. Right now I’d settle for a president that is willing to acknowledge it exists.
There was a time when religion ruled the world. It is known as the Dark Ages.
Come on Jim, be real…do you honestly think that Obama, if he becomes President, would choose Supreme Court judges who are pro-life??? Not a chance in hell.
As a former constitutional law professor, I would wager Obama will propose judges that will uphold, to it’s highest standards, the constitution.
And mind you, he can only propose nominees. Congress is the one that actually seats judges.
I believe Obama at the least gives us a chance at reclaiming our government from
a continuation of my above post…don’t know what happened, but all the sudden it was submitted!
Anyway, I believe Obama will give us the best shot at rescuing our government from the grips of lobbyists and special interests. He may not succeed, but I know none of the others will.
Besides, it feels really good to think about being inspired about my country again…the hope of being able to trust my government again.
Dear Barack
It is not that we dislike you. It is not that we oppose your optimism or your call for change. It is not even that we would not vote for you some time down the road. Instead, we stand proudly for Hillary because, while you may represent our hope for the future, she represents our hope for the present. While you talk about unity and change, our houses are being foreclosed, our families are getting sick, and our jobs are going overseas. Although we understand the sentiment of bringing people together, we know that some groups will always oppose the changes we seek.
Hillary Clinton, believe it or not, used to be like you. She may not have had your rhetorical skills, but she did share your unbounded optimism. When she entered Washington as First Lady, she already knew that providing health insurance to all Americans was the right thing to do. In 1992, she boldly fought insurance companies, lobbyists, Republicans, and even the conventional wisdom that health insurance for all could never be done in America. She did not waver because she could not compromise on what she believed was right. She did not beat Washington back then but it did not defeat her either; she was able to get health insurance coverage for many children and her dream lives on today. If we vote for her on February 19th and again in November, we may soon be able to say that every American, regardless of income, race, or pre-existing medical conditions, will have quality health insurance. You see Senator Obama, Hillary still has her dreams intact but she has realized, as you soon will, that achieving dreams is hard work.
Our neighboring states of Iowa, Illinois, and Minnesota, may have voted for you because of your words or your charisma. But a rally at the Kohl Center or loads of TV ads are not good enough for us; Wisconsin demands more. Hillary may not be an amazing speaker like you. She does not try to sell us a vision of hope or change. She does not tell us that partisan politics will end if she is elected or compare herself to Martin Luther King Jr. or JFK. She is more interested in talking about the policies that will help bring affordable health care to all Americans, revive the economic fortunes of the middle class, and restore American foreign policy. In debate after debate, she shows her mastery of the various issues, from the sub-prime lending crisis to the situation in Pakistan. You share similar policies, but the 14 years she has spent in Washington fighting on our behalf has given her the policy expertise that you, with your 2 years of national policy experience, lack.
For us, being President of the United States is the most important position in the world. Hillary has the knowledge, skills, and passion essential for a successful President. She has spent her life listening to Americans’ concerns, studying the issues, and learning about the political process. On February 19th, we will be forced to choose between two appealing candidates, yourself and Senator Clinton. And, although we love to hear your words and want to believe your promises, we will not allow these things to overshadow a lifetime of public service. Ultimately, we will decide to vote for the candidate of the present instead of the candidate of the future. Someday you may even thank us.
Now seems like a good time to remind our readers that Watchdog Milwaukee is an independent site not affiliated with any of the campaigns, local or presidential. The Clinton campaign (see post above) seems to have us confused with the Obama campaign, and is ready to do battle in the blogosphere.
Journal Sentinel endorsed Obama today (it’s Saturday), a day after we did. I’m sure they got a few of these letters, too.
Click the link below to read the JS Obama endorsement.
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=718696
Thank you Mr. Morgan. Endorsements are tricky business, huh? ;0
Kathy…there’s so much in your post to respond to, but the one most important to my heart is health care which has been a public issue long before the 1990’s. You say Senator Clinton fought for her program back then…that’s also what set back public health care access for a decade…that she FOUGHT everyone concerned with the issue. Her hardline stance back then made any plan unpassable. You go on to say she is more interested in affordable health care to all, which is just flat wrong.
To get to the real heart of any health care insurance plan, we need to seperate INSURANCE from CARE firmly in our minds.
Mandated health care INSURANCE, based on the for-profit INSURANCE industry of today, is not universal. It is called near-universal by virtually anyone involved in any aspect of the health industry because they know not everyone will ever sign up.
The Clintons plan says we all must buy (mandates) for-profit INSURANCE so the INSURANCE companies can even out their risk pool. This assumes that healthier people will use their INSURANCE less than sicker people. That allows the INSURANCE companies to make money off the healthier folks to keep their profit margins up even though they are paying out more for the sicker folks.
So they are saying we all have to buy a product that some private company will make money off of without guaranteeing us the cost will stay the same, the product will stay the same, just so these companies can still make their money?
They also say if we DON’T buy into their plan, they will fine us or even garnish our wages to force us to buy it.
I’m sorry about the all caps above, but it is essential we understand what is being discussed. The Clinton plan does not address health CARE at all. What is does is try to force us to INSURE ourselves in case we need health CARE.
They base their plan on the Massachusetts plan which has shown it doesn’t work. Less than half of the previously uninsured have signed up, the cost of the mandated for-profit plans have skyrocketed making it more difficult for those that did sign up. The costs to the state and federal government have skyrocketed making it more difficult for the government to project and contain budgets.
Various articles outlining the Mass plan and how it’s working or not.
Costs to state and federal government doubling:
http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2008/02/03/subsidized_care_plans_cost_to_double/
Costs to everyone except the private for-profit insurance industry are rising:
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/january/doctors_give_massach.php
Now these are just two looks at the program…there are thousands on the internet and google is a handy tool.
There is some discussion about whether forcing people to buy for-profit products is even constitutional.
Here’s a very good blog in which various economists discuss health insurance and it’s cost structure, health care and it’s associated costs, and the difference between the two. It’s one site for a rational look at a very hot button subject.
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/economics_health/index.html
I have focused on the Clinton’s plan here because they are putting it out that Obama’s plan is somehow less coverage inherently or he cares less about the issue than they do. None of that is true, in fact the opposite may be closer to the truth.
Obama’s plan is not perfect, to be sure, but it does not force us into a market that does nothing to deliver actual health CARE. His stance is that if we can’t have a true single payer system such as Medicare for all, it is better to focus on making what is available through the open market more affordable to all. There are plenty of income based programs available already through the state and federal government systems which can be expanded to help lower income people gain INSURANCE coverage. What we need to do is make those programs more accessible while at the same time figure out a system of health CARE delivery that is more equitable to all.
I don’t think either plan goes far enough, but my point here is that the Clinton’s plan is certainly not better and in fact could be a lot worse for the populace as a whole. We don’t need misrepresentation about an issue this important to all of us individually, not to mention our economy as a nation.
G Davis Thank you for that information.
I did not know the differences between their plans except Clinton’s would “force” people to buy and that she would consider garnishing wages. Which is not fair if people cannot “afford” it. You raised some very good points about costs now and later, etc… Considering insurance companies and lobbyists are some of her largest contributors it seems highly unlikely she would be willing to really fight against them for the people. Plus we would need to determine how any plan will affect the economy overall as well.
We all know something has to be done. There is no other way to do this except as a gradual process. IMHO That is why Obama’s plan reducing the costs so it is affordable makes more sense.
There is just no way insurance companies would agree to giving up their profits. Granted it will be quite a feat just to get them to agree to smaller profits so citizens can afford to pay for it, but I think if anyone can do that Obama can. If he does make in-roads that would be huge.
I do want to add that you are correct “fighting” rarely works. Unless someone is willing to bring everyone to the table and work through the issue — yes it will require compromise on all sides — otherwise nothing will get accomplished.
Furthermore as a community organizer Obama learned that making the negotiations public, the insurance companies will have to cooperate otherwise imagine the PR disaster!
Last but not least Hillary Clinton is too much like Bush. They have a penchant for misrepresenting issues to the public. It is what Hillary does not say that worries me!
Therein lies the difference between Hillary and Obama: one has a hidden agenda, the other doesn’t, respectively speaking.
Bottom line: It is a matter of trust. We don’t want to have to raise the hood and look inside to get the real story. Americans want to trust their President.
At this point in time Obama does not appear to have a “hidden” agenda. His words are supported by his actions. That is why I trust Obama.
I’m still struck by the robotic nature of the Clinton camp’s “dear Barack” letter, which appeared a day after our endorsement of Obama. There is no evidence that there is a real voice behind it, a person to address us as editors of this website or you as readers (thank you, as always!) one who might join the discussion. It is a form letter, a “robo” - a process-generated statement addressed not to people but to the machine of the blogosphere. The Clinton apparatus then takes the next-step of process: it assumes we are part a similar machine paid for or in cahoots with her opponent, and not independent, thinking people who simply see something in Barack Obama that we hope still exists within ourselves. How cold.
But isn’t it fair to say now that this is generally consistent with the Clinton approach to all sorts of issues? The health care mandate is a good example. It’s a switch to flick that is supposed to get us where we want to be as a caring society, but all it really does is attach a new gizmo to the tangled circuitry of an already broken health care system.
The impact on real people, or even that there are, in fact, real people at the end of the policy who would be impacted, isn’t taken into account. Nor is common sense, an often overlooked yet essential ingredient to any genuine populism - it builds trust.
The Clintons now seem to be struggling to find a process or strategy that builds all of these intangible things and puts them back in the White House. We better hope they don’t find it.
I find it curious how people are freaking out to Hillary’s health plan because it would potentially have people’s wages garnished to pay for their coverage. Well isn’t that the same thing is having additional income taxes taken out in order to pay for universal healthcare? Or do you just want to make the rich pay for all of us since they have the money?
“From each according to their ability to each according to their need”
No mikelover, it’s not the same.
Real universal healthcare is like the VA. Veterans are automatically enrolled in and get their healthcare directly from the VA without any insurance company and in most cases without any private sector doctors, hospitals, pharmacies, etc. Taxes, of course, pay for the VA system. This sort of system is what opponents like to call *socialized* medicine.
Medicare for all would also be a universal INSURANCE for health care we could all subscribe to automatically. In this sort of system taxes would pay for it, Medicare would pay all or most of our medical bills, but we would use private sector care providers…doctors, hospitals, pharmacies, etc. This is the sort of program I would like to see because it cuts out the cost of the private INSURANCE industry, allowing us to concentrate our dollars on more and better health CARE. All the care professionals would remain private-for profit so we don’t risk losing all the pluses of our health system in care, innovation, etc.
What Hillary is proposing is forcing us to buy INSURANCE from the private sector FOR-PROFIT insurance industry like Blue Cross, United Healthcare, etc. It does no more than Obama’s plan or what we have now really to improve our health CARE…it just makes it easier for the insurance industry to cover everyone and not lose their profits.
Obama’s plan is basically the same as Hillary’s except he isn’t trying to force us to buy expensive insurance.
I think Hillary’s plan is the opposite direction we should be going in. It just shores up the insurance industry mess that we all know about. I’d like to work toward cutting that part of our system out so we don’t have to sacrifice any in health CARE.
I also hate the idea of fining people, or worse yet, garnishing our wages to buy some company’s product that they are making money on. Since we’re not gaining anything in health care, I wonder if that’s even constitutional.
G Davis:
What you mean to say is that my taxes would pay for it. Like they would pay for all the other big plans in Obama’s goodie bag of hope. You seem to think that government agencies would deliver money to the point of service more efficiently than the private sector–yet I can’t name one instance where the draconian government meddling in a system has made the system run cheaper or more efficiently. Can you? Since profit drives the necessity of both innovation and efficiency, Obama’s plans will decrease both. Limit profits and you limit quality.
Christopher Thomas, I have no problem with profit, commerce, competition at all. In fact I own my own small business.
I do have a problem with the government forcing me to buy anything from another business that is making profit off of me.
You can’t have it both ways…you can’t be for free markets and support government dictating I buy a certain product from a list of their approved businesses.
At leats we’re both against ethanol, then.