Friday, January 4, 2008

A Reply to Stephen Teles' Thoughts on Obama - or - Are You People Insane?

The notion that getting 38% of the votes cast in a strangely undemocratic process, by roughly 13% of the population of a state that is hardly representative of the US as a whole, and which will eventually represent but 7 votes in the electoral college, (a disaster best left for another time and place) versus 30% and 29% for your two main rivals is a convincing win seems a stretch at best and quite possibly simply ridiculous.

Mr. Teles and his colleagues at seem to have drunk the Obama kool aid. If someone could explain to me why it should follow that the residents of New Hampshire will mimic the voting trends of Iowans I would greatly appreciate it.

Mr. Obama did well in the Iowa Caucus, great, good for him, how about we wait and see what primary voters in the rest of the country think before we rush to a coronation?

Mr. Teles on the other hand says that it is all over and that Mr. Obama will surely win all other primaries and the nomination, based on what exactly may I ask?

What is really disturbing about Mr. Teles' rhetoric and that of Mr. Obama's supporters by and large today is their insistence, or at least suggestion, that all of the other Democratic candidates should acquiesce to Obama's awesomeness for the good of the party and the country.

Excuse me, but I do not support Barack Obama or his policies, particularly the fantastical notion that reconciliation can mend our broken political system. I want a candidate who supports my constitutionally endowed rights and freedoms and who is willing to go to the mat for them. They are my rights and they are not to be bargained with. The whole twisted notion of a primary election is too choose amongst the different candidates, to be presented with options and choices.

Mr. Teles claims that Mr. Obama is the candidate that Republicans least want to run against, because he is so middle of the road that they will have trouble generating and real opposition to his campaign. And that therefore, Democrats should support him without question and that Mr. Edwards and Mrs. Clinton should not disparage Mr. Obama and his awesomeness.

Think about that for a minute. Obama will generate the least vehemence from the Republicans because a lot of them like him and his positions are less objectionable to the right wing. Therefore he will be the best Democratic candidate for President.

That's correct, Mr. Teles does not want you to pick a candidate whose positions you support, or who promises to fight for the changes that are needed in our Country. Any candidate who would actually manage or at least attempt to take on the status quo will be deified by the Republicans and is therefore unsupportable. So don't vote for the person who you think will do the best job, but the one the opposition likes the best.

That logic is twisted, pathetic, and sad.

Mr. Teles and his colleagues are part of the problem, not part of the solution, right down to the detail where they do not allow comments on their blog. Oh, I'm sorry that would allow someone to say something objectionable. Or even, heaven forbid, question their or Mr. Obama's awesomeness.

1 comment:

  1. You are obviously suffering from severe constipation or a bad case of the hemorrhoids.

    First of all, Obama got 38% of the delegates to the state convention. Not 38% of the votes cast. Given the skewing of the delegate counts to small rural precincts, it is likely that Obama got over 45% of the votes cast, and probably closer to 50%.

    Second, you miss the historic significance of a BLACK man winning a primary in a white state, with the enthusiasm of many who cross demographic, economic, and racial lines.

    Third, just because someone can negotiate well does not mean that they are a sell out. Even in the BEST case scenario, a new Democratic president will face formidable obstacles from the Republican minority in the Senate. Remember, this is a federal legislature, not a parliamentary system. Did you learn NOTHING from the failure of Hillary's health care initiative?

    Fourth, YOU missed the point of Teles et al. They just point out the transformational nature of Obama's campaign, his real world experience much derided by the Clintonistas, and the value of being able to negotiate and persuade, much to the consternation of the Edwardians.

    I am greatly disappointed in the hateful rant that you have posted. You are capable of much better.

    Now. Read. Learn. Get to work!!!