I meant to post this last month, but never got around to it, surprise surprise. It’s Barack Obama giving a roast at the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner. I like this side of him.
You can find part 2 here.
McCain’s wasn’t too bad either.
Change is here. For all of us. As I listened to President-elect Obama’s speech, I can’t help but notice a common undercurrent that’s been there since Day 1. Every other word is us or we or together. Has any other President spent as much time addressing those who oppose or disagree with him than Obama just did? If you interpret that observation as an insult, you clearly don’t understand half of Obama’s appeal. We all have a new President, not just 51% of us.
Maybe I’m naive. Maybe I’m drinking the Kool-Aid. Or maybe I’m simply not old enough to be jaded. I want to believe that hope can triumph over fear. I no longer want exclusiveness to rule the land. The idea of knowledge and service and sacrifice all come together to make this world a better place isn’t just appealing, it’s enough to get me out of bed every morning.
Tonight begins the first step of an excruciatingly long, uncertain, and difficult journey. But dammit if it’s not exciting.
Every generation deserves its Obama. He could turn out to be our Lincoln or he could wind up flopping into the history books next to Carter. Either way, I’m excited. For the first time in my adult life, the leader of my country is somebody whom I trust and respect. Right now, that’s good enough for me.
I actually read about the Sweden fact at least a year or so ago in Time or Newsweek or something similar. The fact that this is still such a big problem is downright shameful.
No? Alright, fine, then I guess it’s finally time for me to sit down and pick a candidate to support. Okay, fine, so I did this over two months ago, but you don’t have to know that.
I don’t like writing political posts because to me, politics should be something personal. It’s like sports, I can tell you why I love the Mariners or Packers, but I don’t actually expect a Yankees or Cowboys fan to read it and suddenly go, “Oh my God! I’ve been following the wrong sports team all these years!” So I guess that explains why, if you go back through Shyzer’s archives, you won’t find that many posts about sports or politics or anything else that I feel is pretty personal. But I feel obligated to at least put my thoughts and feelings on the issue out there and let people take what they want from it all. So, if you still have no clue who you’re supporting in the upcoming election, read along and I’ll let you know why I’m campaigning for my candidate of choice.
Within the Democratic party, it’s come down to the much publicized dead heat between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Now, if you watch much news, you’ll notice that pretty much every outlet not called FOX News enjoys figuratively sucking the part of Mr. Obama that rhymes with his first name. It’s like watching a 24-hour commercial for him. So we can’t really expect to get an unbiased opinion from them and thus have to, *gasp*, rely on ourselves, do a little research, and come up with an informed opinion on our own.
So the first question is, what the hell is the difference between these two candidates? In fact, the easier task is finding out what they both agree on. But don’t just expect Google to easily give you the results on this pressing question, because there’s not a single respected website out there that has such a comparison of the candidates. The New York Times? Nope. Washington Post? Nada. Hell, I’ll even lump in Wikipedia. Do they have a page comparing everybody in order to help Mr. Everyday Joe have an easier time processing all the information for this monumentally important upcoming Presidential election.? No, but they have a page listing changes between the original and rereleases of the Star Wars movies, which contains over 8500 words. Cue me bashing my head against the wall in three, two, one….
Fine, I’ll do this shit myself. Long story short and oversimplified, Clinton and Obama roughly agree on many big issues. On social issues, they’re pro stem-cell research, pro choice, pro civil unions for gays. In fact, they both buck the stereotypical Democrat on social matters over the same issue – marijuana (neither wants to legalize it.) What about economic policy? They both want a balanced budget, pro nuclear power, pro Kyoto protocol, pro alternative fuels, pro net neutrality, pro guest worker program for immigrants, anti Bush tax cuts, and a whole lot more. Also, they of course both want to end the war in Iraq. Aight, cool, I more or less agree with the basic principles of all those issues.
What about the issues they agree upon that I oppose? They’re both anti privatization on social security (give me my damn money and let me take care of myself, damnit!), anti gun, pro minimum wage hikes, pro Israeli, and anti school vouchers. Aight, that’s not too long of a list, I can deal with all that as none of those are huge deal breakers for me. Anyways, there’s no such thing as a perfect candidate, right?
So where the heck do they differ? Well, the most publicized split has been on health care, but even here it’s mainly over who qualifies for government health care (similar to welfare) and who simply qualifies for government sponsored health care at a low cost. Honestly, both plans are pretty similar. And….that’s it. Ok, not quite I guess. They each have different trade policies, which I don’t even pretend to understand or care about. Oh, and Obama supports more ethanol spending and research (ugh) while Clinton doesn’t. So now what? How the heck do I pick a candidate? Well, by looking at where each of them has had the balls to speak out on an issue while the other has been mum on it.
As I look at the laundry list of positions I jotted down a while back, I notice that one candidate has far more scribblings under the Cons column than the other. For me, Obama doesn’t have any negative marks that Clinton doesn’t also have. Clinton? Well, she’s come out as being pro death penalty. She’s in favor of video game regulation (give me a break) and is in favor of continuing embargoes against nations such as North Korea and Cuba. That’s about as smart a policy as taking an alcoholic, locking him in a house full of booze, and telling him never to come out and interact with the rest of the world. I also can’t help but feel she completely flipped on the whole Iraq war and only started speaking out against it once it became unpopular.
Obama, on the other hand, has been with me from day one in saying this war was an abomination. In fact, he’s come out in favor for many things I agree with while Clinton has played it safe and not said anything. He’s made it clear he’s a fan of NATO. He’s also said he’ll sit down and talk to anybody, from Castro to Chavez to the ghost soul of Hitler, if that means there’s a chance to find a peaceful solution. Mad props for that. In fact, in the category of small issues that are important to me but few others, that’s right up there at the very top of the list. Blame it on the international politics buff inside of me. He wants to curtail the usage of the death penalty. He doesn’t mind old people getting on buses and driving to Canada to get cheaper drugs and while I’m not quite senile yet, I can’t help but think my back pains will only get worse as I grow older. Plus my family isn’t the spitting image of healthy.
Are any of these enough to tip me towards Obama? Not really, but they’re close. All I need is that X factor, something that can’t be measured in positions or policies. So I sat down one day and watched a few speeches by both Clinton and Obama. I don’t know about you, but when I listen to Obama, I feel good about myself. I don’t see a man who would use scare tactics like the current President. I don’t see a man who would resort to lying to the public. I see a man who looks to the other side of the aisle and thinks of the people there not as his opposition or enemies, but as his equals and potential allies.
Unfortunately for her, all I see in Clinton is another politician. She freaking moved to New York
Don’t think I simply overlooked the likely Republican runner, John McCain (and thank God it’s him, because I’m not sure I would have been able to calmly talk about any of the previous Republican candidates). There are some opinions and issues of his that I agree with, albeit, fewer ones than with Obama.
I used to be 100% behind the idea of McCains’s that since we’ve already effed up Iraq, we needed to stay and stabilize the place, even if that meant a complete rebuilding of the country similar to the Marshall Plan. I used to say if we left now, the place would become chaotic and violent beyond belief. Then Jon Stewart acutely asked one of his guests last year, “isn’t it already?” Touche.
McCain has some positions I agree with that neither Obama or Clinton has even broached. He is one of the few prominent Americans who will dare mention that Russia and Vladimir Putin need to be dealt with. Thanks to a little personal insight, he’s one of the few politicians who I trust when they say they’ll do everything in their power to ban torture. He is a staunch supporter of cutting excessive spending in politics and bringing back to the Republican party the ideals of smaller and less intrusive federal governments. There are far worse people to be running against than McCain and for that, I’m exceptionally grateful.
Had John McCain been running in 2004, he easily would have had my vote. I think I made it clear how inept John Kerry was back then. However this year the Democrats not only have a decent candidate in Hilary Clinton, who would most likely win in any similar election, but they also have a once in a generation type. A man who not only inspires and makes people feel good about themselves, but who also knows how to get things accomplished and plan for the future. A man who doesn’t just pander to his base, but who realizes we are more than just “blue” or “red” people. A man who understands that there are other people who don’t just happen to live within the comfortable confines of the United States. A man who respects the boundaries of laws yet who doesn’t stop an inch short of fixing any injustices he encounters. A man who, dare I say, actually instills a sense of hope in people.
In an environment such as todays, with nothing but fear and apocalyptic rhetoric spouted from the mouths of our leaders and where incompetence and failure has been set as the new acceptable level of achievement, such a man is not only refreshing, he’s downright heroic.
Come on Obama, win this damn thing.
I Refuse to Buy into the Obama Hype – Well researched and argumented article showing how Obama isn’t just hype but instead has a damn strong voting record to back up his ideals.
Clinton-Obama Differences Clear In Senate Votes – Some of these issues are pretty small to me in the grand scheme of things, but they’re there nonetheless.
Hey, South Carolina. Do me a favor and please don’t screw this up tomorrow.
Also, to everybody who commented in the post below, thanks. I honestly didn’t know that many of you still read Shyzer. You guys rock 
Edit: Welcome, CNN readers. Don’t bother reading this post, check out the good stuff.
Republican straw polls show Fred Thompson is something something something. Sorry, I zoned out there. What? Fred Thompson is still getting serious press coverage?
Look America, let me go ahead and let you in on a little secret. Thompson doesn’t stand a chance. Democrats should be praying to Jesus (with a television crew nearby to capture how religious they are, of course!) that he somehow ends up on the Presidential ticket. Because if he does, they can go ahead and nominate my idiotic puppy who enjoys pooping on my brother’s X-Box 360 power cord and still feel confident that they’ll win.
I won’t waste much breath on this since it’s still so early, but if we reach March 2008 and people are still talking about this guy, I’ll delve a little deeper. But for now, I just want the rest of you to know that when I start saying “I told you so,” I wasn’t rewriting the past.
Mark my words. I’m telling you now. Fred Thompson is a joke. He will not come even remotely close to being elected President.
And I wish I was joking about my puppy.
It’s kind of humorous, a bit puzzling, and largely disappointing to watch people like Rep. Virgil Goode of Virginia and conservative talk show host Dennis Prager continually denounce newly elected Rep. Keith Ellison for choosing to swear upon a Quran in place of a Bible during his oath of office. Upon learning of Ellison’s decision to use the Muslim holy text at his ceremony, Prager issued a statement claiming “insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don’t serve in Congress.”
Of course, at first glance, one might cast Prager’s comments aside as the ramblings of some loony talk show host. Yet faster than you could call for a jihad, Prager suddenly found an ally in Congressman Virgil Goode, who penned a letter denouncing illegal immigration and stating “if American citizens don’t wake up and adopt (my) position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Quran.” Both fools men have now found even more supporters, some of which are calling for a new law requiring all officials to use the Holy Bible during their swearing in. Apparently those people hate that little annoyance known as Article VI of the Constitution.
Of course, Goode seems to ignore the fact that Ellison was born and raised in Detroit, a city that has always been right here in America, no matter how hard we wish the opposite. Yet what’s even more jarring is how so many people seem to be motivated by fear more than anything else these days.
You didn’t hear any uproar when Rep. Debbie Wasserman of Florida used a Hebrew Bible without the New Testament two years ago. Nor did anybody make a peep when a Catholic Missal was used when Lyndon B. Johnson assumed the Presidency. All was quiet when President John Quincy Adams used a legal book in honor of his background in law or when President Theodore Roosevelt and Herbert Hoover both swore upon no text at all. President Franklin Pierce went so far as to decline any sworn oath whatsoever and instead simply affirmed his oath and nobody batted an eyelash or gave it a second thought.
Yet when the nation’s first Muslim elected to Congress decides to use a Quran, the zealots on the religious right pull out the guns and start firing across the bow of USS Tolerance. In fact, seeing as how all members are sworn in earlier at a different session before pulling out the Bibles for a ceremony designed for maximum publicity, this debate is essentially moot. Yet people like Prager have for some reason adopted a stance of never letting an opportunity pass where they can remind Americans that we were attacked by Muslims on 9/11 and then scaring them into agreeing with whatever retarded goal they have.
We get it. A handful of Muslims attacked our nation over five years ago. That doesn’t mean we have to sink to their level and become just as close minded as those few individuals were. There’s a reason black people don’t hold every white person responsible for hate crimes committed by members of the KKK. It’s because they understand that just because a small group of idiots hate blacks, that doesn’t mean that all white men and women hate blacks as well! They are able to make what’s called an intelligent assumption – just because a small group of people looks or act a certain way, that does not mean the entire race or sect does so as well.
The day we let fear of the different and unknown rule our lives is the day we stop being American. In fact, we not only would sink beneath our own morals, but would sink beneath those who Prager and Goode are so deathly afraid of. Countries like Iran, who have some of the most narrow minded views on foreign policy in the world (ie, death to Israel!!) still allow Jews to serve in their government. Morris Motamed, a Jewish member, has served in the Iranian parliament for years without having to swear upon the Quran. In fact, when quized as to why this was allowed, Tehran University professor Hossein Bashiriyeh explained that “an oath taken with a holy book other than one’s own cannot be religiousl and morally ‘binding.’…in effect, it will amount to not taking an oath at all.” You know you’re in bad shape when officials in a country like Iran are making more than sense that your own.
One of the many lessons I’ve learned from studying history is that America’s strength has nothing to do with our (somewhat) Christian heritage, but in our respect for individual choice, freedom, and rule of law. People like Prager and Goode would benefit greatly from remembering that.
Seriously, I used to adore him. A self-made man in politic who speaks not only the truth, but his mind, is quite appealing to most people, regardless of their political affiliation.
Now? Not so much love anymore. It’s amusing to me how misinformed some of the nation’s leading legislatures can be about important topics. For as we all know, the Internet is just a series of tubes.
If a customer walks into Wal Mart and starts shouting slanderous comments against Paris Hilton, would Wal Mart be held responsible? Ok, maybe trashing Paris wouldn’t disturb anybody into action, but you get the point. The same goes for blog comments. Some websites can get hundreds of comments per post with multiple posts daily. Holding the authors responsible for a third parties’ views on a subject is not only idiotic, it’s unrealistic.
