Many people have remarked that Barack Obama attracts unprecedented support from young voters. But this 16-year old Democrat (in spirit, as he is too young to register) supported John Edwards' candidacy until he suspended his campaign.
I started becoming interested in politics because of the Iraq war. I remember first learning of Obama during the summer of 2004, reading of his address during the Democratic National Convention. I remember reading of his record and marveling that such a liberal person could be elected into the Senate by such an overwhelming margin. I remember watching him stand up and speak for voting integrity in Ohio only a few days of being swore into the Senate. I remember reading Dreams from my Father a year ago, and the feeling of inspiration I received from his story. And so it was, when Edwards left, I supported Obama over Clinton by the slightest of margins.
What did I like about Edwards that caused me to support him? I respected his focus on poverty, on health care, on the environment, and in each case he led the policy proposals of the other two candidates. Most of all, I respected his fighting spirit, his positive message that we could and would overcome the problems of the country. I think I trusted him to carry out his proposals, to not later reject them in the spirit of 'compromise.' After all the defeats we've suffered in Congress over the past years, I am tired of hearing of 'compromise.' For how do you compromise between war and peace, between life and death, between truth and lies, between right and wrong?
I have accounts at both Dailykos and here; I've been lurking on both sites for a long time, and this is the first diary I have ever posted. I only started posting comments in significant quantity since around Super Tuesday, and surprisingly, I have attained trusted user status on both sites. I do not think that Barack Obama is the messiah, or that Hillary Clinton is the devil. I think that they are both great candidates, with minor problems, as all candidates tend to have - my first choice was actually Russ Feingold, and I only switched to Edwards after he decided against running. I think that either one of these candidates will become our next president (unless Gore is somehow nominated at the convention), and though its perfectly alright to point out their problems, it is not to just throw already-debunked smears at them.
Which brings me to my main point. I've been reading MyDD for a few years now, and I'm not sure exactly when it happened, but for some reason it's became filled with anti-Obama partisans now. In fact, I only registered here to in order to debunk a diary ridiculing Obama's Super Tuesday caucus wins by confusing state delegate totals and actual votes. Only to see that other people had done so several times already and been ignored.
I know that many people of you have little respect for Dailykos since you believe its filled with anti-Clinton partisans... but really, let me compare the two. What do we have on the Recommended page right now?
So, by a conservative measure, 2/5 or 40% of the diaries on the recommended section here (#2 and #4) are pretty much anti-Obama smears. The rest are either anti-Obama in general or pro-Clinton at least.
Dailykos, on the other hand, has on its recommended section a mix of pro-Obama diaries and non-candidate personal stories. And at least on Dailykos, pro-Clinton diaries can make it onto the recommended section. Here, the reverse is quite obviously not the case.
Really, your bashing of Obama has only caused me to distance myself from Clinton. I try to like her, and succeed whenever I stay on Dailykos, but whenever I come here and read all the stupid junk you throw at Obama, its like an instinctive response to distance myself from a candidate who attracts such support. I realize that you feel very passionate about her, but your efforts are pretty much counteractive; you just haven't noticed yet since most people here agree with you. But I think I speak for many former Edwards supporters in my statement.
I have two other pet peeves that I'll cover before I end this diary:
1. Michigan and Florida:
As someone who lives in Michigan, I feel that our delegates should not be counted, that we should hold new caucuses that function as primaries, and our superdelegates should be stripped. The same should go for Florida.
I have been accused of only favoring this option because I support Obama. Actually, I opposed all efforts to move our primary from the beginning, and my views have not changed. Without any way for our national party to punish rulebreakers, there will be nothing to stop our next presidential candidate to be selected by 2009.
The notion that these two contests were truly democratic is also a bit questionable. As has been shown, turnout in Michigan was around 40% of the average, and that of Florida was around 75%. Especially in Michigan, I know many people (including my brother) who did not vote as they knew that their votes would be meaningless, that it was nothing but a glorified straw poll. Even the honorable Senator from New York accepted beforehand that the vote "is not going to count for anything." The exit polls show that many people who would normally have voted for Edwards or Obama voted for Clinton instead. I am not as familiar with Florida, but the same arguments apply. Seating the delegates would be comparable to having the national Republican party declare Ron Paul the winner of their primaries as he won the most straw polls.
Holding a new caucus would solve all these problems. To those who say that Obama has an unfair advantage in caucuses, I point out that it is perfectly possible to have caucus rules be the same as primaries - as was in New Mexico. Stripping away the superdelegates of both states would punish the state party leaders who were actually responsible for this mess. I'll preempt certain arguments by noting that the Florida legislature voted overwhelmingly with bipartisan support to change the date, and in Michigan, the Dingells (who unfortunately represent me) and Carl Levin were the driving force behind moving the date.
2. The national popular vote:
Contrary to claims by many Clinton supporters, Obama is winning the overall national popular vote so far. A tally of the results is below:
Iowa estimate (percentage multiplied by turnout):
Obama - 89828
Clinton - 70429
Obama total is probably underestimated since his strongholds were in the city, which had much less delegates than rural areas.
Nevada estimate:
Clinton - 59635
Obama - 53153
Obama total is probably overestimated since his strongholds here were in the rural areas, which (I assume) had more delegates than urban areas.
So, to simplify matters, I'll assume they cancel out.
New Hampshire:
Clinton: 112,251
Obama: 104,772
South Carolina:
Obama: 295,214
Clinton: 141,217
Super Tuesday primary states (including NM):
Clinton: 7,366,633
Obama: 7,158,261
Super Tuesday caucus states:
Obama - 283,062
Clinton - 129,297
Subtotal:
Obama: 7,984,290
Clinton: 7,879,462
As you can see, even before yesterday, Obama was winning the popular vote by more than 100k votes.
Louisiana:
Obama 220,588
Clinton 136,959
Washington:
I estimated this by multiplying percentages with the estimated turnout of 200,000
Obama: 135,249
Clinton: 62,481
Nebraska:
From caucus turnout estimates, it looks like CNN is reporting actual votes instead of state delegates.
Obama: 25,986
Clinton: 12,396
Total:
Clinton: 8,091,447
Obama: 8,367,885
As shown, Obama is ahead in the popular vote by more than 300,000 votes.
Fortunately enough, most Clinton and Obama supporters would not have any problems voting for the other candidate. But in any case, I would advise you to cool your dislike for Obama - after all, there's around a 50% chance that he will become our next candidate.
UPDATE: Added results from the Virgin Islands to the national vote tally.|
|
|
Permalink :: 17 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
