Why I've Decided to Support Barack Obama

[Hope And Change]

Why I've Decided to Support Barack Obama


Posted December 26, 2007 | 02:16 AM (EST)

Michael Medavoy


Dear Arianna,

On March 15 of 2007, I http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-medavoy/what-we-need-in-our-next-_b_43530.html">wrote you a letter at your request based on our discussions about what qualities I think our next President should have. At that time, I told you that it was still too early in the race and that I still had a number of questions and that therefore it would take me some time to really look at the field and make up my mind. As you know, I have a number of people whom I consider friends in the race and I certainly didn't want to be disrespectful to any of them.

I also told you that I am only one vote and that I doubted that anybody really cared. Quite frankly, I was surprised at the reaction to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-medavoy/what-we-need-in-our-next-_b_43530.html">my article that you published on the Huffington Post

In that article, I enumerated a number of criteria upon which I would make my decision as to what candidate I would support in the presidential elections. I wrote that while I have a number of personal reasons to support my friends, I would come to a conclusion after listening carefully to all the various parties, and that only then would I present my thoughts to you. I wrote that I would arrive at a decision that, while still bearing some emotional taint, would best represent my thoughts on who should be President.

My first criterion is trust. Trust is the basis of every relationship and clearly, the American people s trust and faith in our government have been eroded by the past seven years of the Bush/Cheney administration. There has been a distinct lack of independent thinking in the Judicial, Executive and Legislative branches of our government. I know about compromises, but some of this has gone beyond compromise.

Politics has become an ugly game. During the Clinton administration, America's image was that of a strong, confident and kind world leader. Today, that image has been deeply soiled both in the eyes of the world at large, and in those of our own citizens.

more...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-medavoy/why-ive-decided-to-suppo_b_78247.html

[Alizaryn]

1. I''m glad you posted this, I was about to.

What a well written explanation that mirrors my own feelings.

[Nimrod2005]

2. Thank you for sharing....nt

[MethuenProgressive]

3. "There's an air of eloquent naivete about him."

Barack Obama's soaring, inspirational message seems to work its magic on most voters in his audiences, sending them off with a warm and fuzzy we-can-change-the-world feeling.

Not Stan Potratz.

"There's just an air of eloquent naivete about him," Potratz, 62, said after a town hall meeting here last week.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2007/12/26/2007-12-26_barack_obama_still_faces_doubts.html

[PurityOfEssence]

4. Sophisticated Obliviousness? This is a virtue?

Yes, and this is part of the real problem I have with Senator Obama: he cuts straight through the reality and mechanisms and goes straight for the feeling, hence the religion and race-appeal.

Naivete is not a virtue; it's an extreme failing in the realm of power. It's a peculiar word with sweet connotations, that allies itself with the self-congratulatory assumption that knowledge is somehow a poisoning and cynicising influence, and to be a pristine soul, one needs this blessed ignorance. Little Bo Peep would get defeated in a landslide, and that's the way it should be: politics and government are not about JUST the dewy-eyed niceties of the world, they're about the complete human condition, good and bad.

The grotesquely transparent bigotry of allying himelf with Mary Mary and Donnie McClurkin is such a heart-stopper that it clouds one's view of the overall ugliness of the whole 40 Days of Snake Oil Sales: it was an appeal to race and religion to pull voters away from Clinton, and the unpleasant baggage of endemic homophobia was cheerily accomodated and endorsed to ease it on down the road.

Americans have always detested intellectuals in politics, and the victory usually goes to the one with the more gut-level approach. The slithering here is on par with the best, and it's reflected in the polling, but that doesn't make it noble. There's a meanness and cold calculation here that is quite at odds with the flowers and joy of the politics of hope, and those who have no problem with this have a problem.

Lauding the guy for being blithe and cheery while being well-spoken and ignorant is a curious mix of silliness, and it's nothing to be rewarded. This all hearkens back to the deeply held American dream: getting away with something.

Right is not what you can get away with, and wrong is not nullified by being "hopeful" and cheery. When it comes down to it, a president's big smeary analog pronouncements are important, but all accomplishments are done in the staid, grubby digital world of laws and specific actions.

I don't want to vote for an adjective. I want to vote for a noun who has a stack of verbs ready to use.