Why Barack Obama is an Excellent Choice To Be President

Randy Inman is an extremely prolific and popular AC Producer and writer. In addition to his material on AC, he writes for several websites and blogs, all of which are eminently readable. Because of my admiration for Randy's abilities, I was honored to receive a message suggesting that we write a number of articles in conjunction with each other, taking opposing points of view and presenting these views in a quasi-debate, without rancor and with mutual respect. The problem was that neither Randy nor I view most social or political issues as black or white but rather in shades of gray. Then, Randy wrote despairingly about Barack Obama; what follows is the first salvo from me!

Why I Hope to have Senator Obama as our Next President

On other pages, last August I wrote that in about 14 months and a week or so, on November 4, 2008, I will go to the First United Methodist Church of Lutz, just west of the Public Library, enter the polling place designated for Precinct 591, and participate in the choosing of those men and women who assert they will perform with honesty, honor and courage. At the time, I admired all three of the contending Democrat candidates, Senators Clinton, Obama and (former) Edwards. Any of the three would, in my opinion, make a fine Chief Executive of this nation, a country ill served by the outgoing Administration.

Since that time last fall, Senator Edwards has left the field and the Senators from New York and Illinois are in an increasingly nasty and negative intramural fight, one that is both distressing to a liberal/libertarian such as I but also illuminating. It has, perhaps, contrary to the intentions of Senator Clinton, who has in fact allowed her campaign to degenerate into negativity, that I am strongly supporting Barack Obama.

In the 13 elections in which I played a role, with one exception which will be explained forthwith, I voted for the Democratic candidate for president. I did so out of my belief in social-progressive-liberalism that I have described many times on these pages. The "exception" about which I mentioned was in 1980. Faced with a Ronald Reagan-Jimmy Carter race, one in which there was no way to choose the better of the two candidates or, perhaps, the less objectionable, I threw my vote away and pulled the lever for John Anderson, a third-party candidate, a former Republican in its later repudiated moderate wing. Mr. Anderson had no chance whatsoever and his support came from independents, moderate Republicans of the "Rockefeller Wing" of that party, Doonesbury and the Village Voice. Anderson ended up with 7% of the vote and failed to carry my and every other precinct in the country.

It is, in my opinion, vital that Republicans do not remain in the White House. During the next several years, it is likely that Justices Ginsburg, Stevens and Souter, each of whom is moderate in his or her views, may leave the Supreme Court. During the past eight years, civil liberties have been narrowed by the President and allowed to be restricted by the Court. Using terrorist threats as a justification for encroaching on the liberties of decent, patriotic Americans, President Bush and his appointees to the Supreme Court have diminished essential freedom. This must not continue and a Democrat President is likely to reverse the trend.

The far-right core of the Republican party has run its course. It has, in demanding positions far distant and estranged from the essential values of moderate Americans destroyed itself much as a parasite devouring its host. The inability of Democrats in Congress to capitalize in its supremacy, however, reflects the shameful state of our political leaders - of both parties. The Republican hexarchy has sold its soul to the extreme radical conservative block; the Democrats squabble among themselves, equally entwined in the lobbyist-influence peddling- fund raising race.

So what's a voter to do?

Who is capable to bringing a fresh outlook, "change" if you will? I submit we need a break from the past with a new spokesman of and for the future.

The President has few powers that are his (or her) to execute on his (or her) own. At least that is the way it's supposed to be; the Constitution intentionally framed an inefficient system of government that would allow checks and balances and, over all, an independent Judiciary. The President has, however, one power that can be the strongest of all: the President can and should lead the people, should be able to persuade, to motivate, to lift the people to greatness.

In the midst of the Great Depression, President Roosevelt proclaimed that we must not allow ourselves to be driven by "fear", in the Second World War, Churchill rallied the British people by promising them that they would endure "blood, sweat and tears" but would prevail, in the 1960's, President Kennedy urged everyone to do for their country and the Peace Corps was born.

Barack Obama has, during this campaign, shown his ability to lead the parade.

I have heard the argument that Senator Obama has no "experience". I am not certain what experience makes a person equal to the task of being President. Years ago, a man ran for President having no executive or foreign experience. He had been a state legislator with no outstanding record of accomplishments. He had been a member of Congress for one term. And, in spite of the lack of real experience, Abraham Lincoln made a good, if not great, President! On the other hand, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George Bush (43) were governors of their respective states and both Republicans and Democrats will find problems with their presidencies.

The next president must lead, must insist on a more equitable tax system, universal health care, better educational opportunities for all children, a realistic foreign policy, all the time bringing our financial affairs into order and balance. In the eight years of the Bush (43) presidency, we have squandered a budget surplus of $ 236 Billion and now have an annual deficit of $ 496 Billion - at last count. We have mortgaged our property, assets and future, and that of our children and grandchildren for generations to come. We have sold our country to China and the Saudis in return for money and oil. We have enriched a handful of corporations to the detriment of our own citizens. Exxon boasts of income greater than the gross income of many nations; children in the United States go hungry have inadequate health care and schools. We need a leader who can take a fresh and unencumbered approach to have us at least address the problems, even if they cannot be solved in a month! Or a decade!

Who is going to bring change?

Senator Clinton stresses her role in her husband's administration and I am an admirer of President Clinton and that which he accomplished, or would have accomplished had his political enemies not been so all encompassing. But Senator Clinton, because of her long political association with Democratic party leaders, is in no position to repudiate the patterns of the past and strike out for a new different future.

The political views of Senators Clinton and Obama are not that dissimilar. In fact, in many areas, they are virtually the same. I will explore those views and positions in a later article, but first I have to explain why I would prefer the gentleman from Illinois. Senator Clinton, for better or worse, has high negative ratings. Much of these negatives are not justified, many have no rational nexus; they do, however, exist. Some criticism flows from displeasure with her husband and his moral lapses while President, some dislike her because she is a "strong" woman (although why strength is a negative to a presidential candidate is puzzling), some have no reason that they can articulate but nonetheless rate her poorly. Senator Obama, at least at this moment, displays a remarkable charisma and ability to lead through persuasion. Again, it may not be totally rational, but it's there.

The next word will come from Randy. And others are hereby invited to join the fray.