Does change mean replacing an administration that is morally bankrupt? An administration that took a surplus and turned it into the largest deficit in history; that stomps the Constitution into the ground whenever possible; that believes faith is a justification for preventing sound scientific research?
Or do we just want change, with no clear definition of what that means?
There are two candidates who offer the most dramatic change ever -- Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. An African American man and a woman. You won't find any other candidate that offers more dramatic "change" than that.
Before 2008 it was unthinkable that an African American or a woman would be considered viable presidential candidates, and here we are with both.
Anyone looking for "change" has two viable options. So now how do we decide?
I was struck by something I read this morning, and I want to share it with you here:
About a year ago, I had dinner with a friend who knew Barack Obama in law school. He thinks very highly of Obama, and is supporting him strongly in the campaign. So as an undecided Democrat, I asked him, "Okay. What is the centerpiece of the agenda for the first 100 days of the Obama Administration? What's the thing in his gut that he really cares about and is going to fight for?" And my friend answered, "I don't know."I want someone ready to lead from day one. Someone who won't have a deer-in-the-headlights look when faced with commenting on the death of a world leader. Someone who has withstood the Republican attack machine and not backed down. I want someone ready for prime time ... I want someone ready to run.
I suppose that's why I've always leaned towards Edwards. I don't agree with him on everything, but I know that he cares a lot about poverty and the uninsured. (These are not causes that figure to win you the Presidency, so you'd better believe in them if you're going to run with them at the heart of your campaign.). The centerpiece of the Edwards Administration would be universal health coverage.
It's not good enough to cite policy proposals. I want to know what the candidate really cares about. I think that's why people are still wondering about Obama.
Now that Edwards seems fatally wounded, I'm still wondering whom I should vote for. So I'll ask it again: what is at the center of the Obama Administration's first 100 days?
Does anyone know? And how do they know it?
5 comments:
In answer to the question, Barack doesn't have a "first 100 days" plan. That is 100% true. But, as the head of the executive branch, you don't set government policy, you enforce it. You can ask Congress, the legislative branch, to work on laws that you want passed, but they don't have to work on your time table, if they work on it at all.
Barack does lay out very specific, direct initiatives that he does want put in place during his administration. You can see them broken into nineteen large topic groups that you can view at his site (follow the link, going direct to his website will only take you to a sign up form... *grumble grumble bad usability grumble*).
I think any of these candidates (grudgingly I will admit even many of the Republican candidates) will be more ready than are last (not quite) elected president and as ready, if not more ready, than the one before that.
I would disagree that presidents don't come in with plans, from Reagan to Bush 2 each president has come in with a plan. Some get the policy they want, and some don't ... but we have an idea going in what they want.
BAC
Concerning a potential President's agenda, here's one data point. Hillary Clinton has said that immediately upon taking office, she would rescind all of Bush's restrictions on stem-cell research.
That's an issue which ranks very high with me. Considering the range of medical conditions which animal models show could be treated by stem-cell-derived therapies, the amount of human suffering and death which would be at stake from another four years' delay in serious US commitment to progress in this field is probably larger than the amount of suffering and death which is at stake from possible differences in policy on the Iraq conflict.
Another point not referring to a specific agenda but still very important: I think any of the three major Democrats, as President, would choose Supreme Court judges who would defend Roe vs. Wade. All five major Republicans, even Giuliani, are committed to the opposite. Losing Roe vs. Wade would throw abortion rights back into the laps of the state legislatures, so a basic personal freedom of millions of people in the more fundamentalist-dominated states of the US would be at stake there. That's not a minor issue.
And, BAC, Obama is coming in with a plan; I linked to it. He just isn't giving hollow promises he knows the president has no direct ability to deliver on. I personally am biased against the sort of promise that you are calling for. The Democrats elected to the House of Representatives did the same thing. While the House was able to deliver on it, only one of the (was it 12?) items was signed into law in the first six months, give or take. It is very easy to promise something when you can blame someone else for your promise falling through.
As far as stem cell research goes, he hasn't explicitly stated that he would immediately remove Bush's restrictions, but he has helped pass legislation on the state level that funded stem cell research in Illinois (I can't find a link to the actual legislation, just numerous references to it). Judging by that, I would expect Obama to have the same position. The other problem with that is that Bush's policy is to not fund, on a federal level, stem cell research. This means he will veto any bills that contain stem cell funding. Any future president still needs to get the funding from Congress before Bush's policy is officially dropped.
Infidel - stem cell research has bipartisan support in Congress and more than 70% support across the nation. Bush vetoed the bill for religious reasons, which is a travisty. Clinton will have no problem getting this done if she wins the election. And selecting Supreme Court Justices is very important. Roberts and Alito are a disaster. One more of their ilk and we are doomed for a generation.
John -- Speaker Pelosi went in with a 100 hours plan, and actually accomplished it with time to spare. Where the Dems in Congress went wrong, in my opinion, was not forcing the Republicans into a full-blown filibuster on key bills.
Republicans are on track to have three times the filibusters that have occured in any other Congress. Unfortunately, the public is blaming the Democrats, when they should be pointing their finger at Republicans. The Republicans are just better at attack and spin.
BAC
Post a Comment