Kameelah blogs about Obama and her struggles on being a Black woman but also seeing that Obama, for her, is not a candidate she can support:
I want–no NEED a candidate I can genuinely be excited about. I need to be passionate about this leader as I am about I want someone who can challenge the very values of this nation, and dare I say capitalism itself. I don’t think I will see that candidate before I pass from this Dunya. When I say he does not present something radically different from those who came before him, I am trying with all delicacy, but conviction to say that Obama like the other candidates does not challenge the fundamental values, relationships and tragedies reproduced by capitalism. And, I can’t expect that he does–no one would ever support him. It is not my intention to present a heterodox narrative/desire/dream for the sake of the pompus and self-aggrandizing exercise of being a contrarian; I sincerely believe in what I write here.
So far as I know Kucinich doesn’t “challenge the very values of this nation, and dare I say capitalism itself.”. Most Americans, for all their discontent, recognize that with only a slightly broader perspective we have it very very good. So we don’t want to tear up the entire system for something new. Also, most Americans (afaik) like some flavor of capitalism. The debates over how much mixed we need. Not what the new method of rationing should be.
Good for her, I recently blogged about how disgusted I am that people are voting for party/race/sex/religion/union/contrarian lines… I encouraged all those that read my blog to vote, but do so with THEIR views in mind, even if it means using up two hours of a Saturday afternoon. The whole point of our process is to make sure that they hear the opinions of you, not whoever you kinda agree with that sends you a voting guide.
A little investigation into Obama’s history here in Illinois will quickly disabuse people of any idea that he is all that different from most other politicians. It’s well known that in the last election cycle he endorsed “machine” candidates over “progressive” candidates in Illinois in general and the Chicago area specifically. I’d post a link, but I haven’t figured out a way to do a search on “Obama endorsement” or “Obama support” that doesn’t overwhelm with all the people endorsing him rather than the people he has endorsed.
NOW isn’t too impressed either:
Now, I don’t agree with NOW on a number of issues. But it supports an accusation that I’ve been hearing a lot; he’s ducked controversial votes a lot. Why I can’t say for sure; the suspicion is that it was a calculated effort to keep fuel out of the hands of his opponents. Be that as it may, he doesn’t strike me as the kind of guy to stand up for anything on principle in any kind of effective fashion. His political career seems much more marked by expediency.
The point to me is that while he claims to be an agent of change, he hasn’t done too much to act as one when he’s had the opportunity.
A recent gallup poll found that over 80% of Americans are happy with their lives. Sure there are problems here and there, but those disgruntled few should realize that the capitalist system generally works pretty well. I doubt that there will be very much support for wholesale radical change any time soon.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/103483/Most-Americans-Very-Satisfied-Their-Personal-Lives.aspx
On the NOW/pro-choice issue–Planned Parenthood is saying that those votes were what they asked for, were part of their strategy, and achieved the goal of keeping the legislation from passing.
Interesting, then, that NOW and PP disagree on the strategy. Me, I think that “providing political cover” isn’t what we’re looking for in a President.