The results of the ‘Super Tuesday’ primary will already be in by the time you read this column, so this week I will discuss some other important distinctions between Barack Obama and the other candidates, which involves the role the next US President can and should play as a world leader.
Since Obama speaks on these subjects so eloquently, I will quote him directly: “If, as President, I travel to a poor country to talk to leaders there, they will know I have a grandmother in a small village in Africa without running water, devastated by malaria and Aids. What that allows me to do is talk honestly not only about our need to help them, but about poor countries’ obligation to help themselves. There are cousins of mine in Kenya who can’t get a job without paying an exorbitant bribe to some midlevel functionary. I can talk about that.”
In discussing pseudo-religious Islamic political violence and terrorism, Obama notes: “I have lived in [Indonesia,] the most populous Muslim country in the world, [and] had relatives who practiced Islam. I am a Christian, but I can say I understand your worldview, although I may not agree with how Islam has evolved. I can speak forcefully about the need for Muslim countries to reconcile themselves to modernity in ways they have failed to do.”
Now I ask you to consider, what other US Presidential candidate – or European leader, for that matter – can travel around the world and talk like this to the political leaders of countries in Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America?
I see some interesting parallels between Senator Obama’s upbringing as an only child from a broken home, who was shuttled from one place to another while he was growing up, and the Western targets chosen by al-Qaeda for their pseudo-religious political terrorism attacks. I might also note that none of the other Republican or Democratic presidential candidates come from such backgrounds, nor have any of them been as honest and forthcoming about their past use and abuse of alcohol and drugs as Obama has been.
But thus far, four members of the Clinton campaign have attempted to use or twist public information Obama has provided regarding his past to cast doubts about his fitness to be President. I find such elitist, holier-than-thou attitudes on the part of Clinton’s state and national campaign staffers extremely disturbing, and a harbinger of what Obama can expect from the Republicans should he win the Democratic nomination. Such veiled attacks, which Clinton has repeatedly disavowed any knowledge of, nonetheless point to why I – and many other Americans – view Hillary and her supporters as a divisive rather than unifying force in US national politics.
Regarding the need for the US to finally take action and effectively deal with issues involving global warming and climate change, Obama says: “As gas prices keep rising, the Middle East grows ever more unstable, and the ice caps continue to melt, we face a now-or-never, once-in-a-generation opportunity to set this country on a different course.
“Such a course is not only possible, it’s already being pursued in other places around the world. Countries like Japan are creating jobs and slowing oil consumption by churning out and buying millions of fuel-efficient cars. Brazil, a nation that once relied on foreign countries to import 80 per cent of its crude oil, will now be entirely self-sufficient in a few years thanks to its investment in [clean] biofuels. So why can’t we do this? The answer is, with the right leadership, we can.”
Obama has also taken a progressive stance regarding the divisive issue of immigration reform. He supports attempts by Democrats to strike some sort of compromise with sympathetic Republicans such as Senator John McCain on new legislation to more effectively deal with this problem, despite opposition from right-wing Republican TV and radio talk show hosts.
While it is only a small step towards immigration reform, allowing states to issue drivers’ licences to illegal immigrants will nonetheless allow them to report crimes against themselves and other legal US citizens, while Congress debates how to develop immigration reforms that realistically deal with this problem.
Obama also scores points for this summary of Hill-ary Clinton’s Sen-ate voting record and her propensity for “thinking that the only way to look tough on national security is by talking and acting and voting like George Bush Republicans. When I am this party’s nominee, my opponent will not be able to say that I voted for the war in Iraq, or that I gave George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran, or that I supported Bush-Cheney policies of not talking to leaders we don’t like. I don’t want to see more American lives put at risk because no one had the judgment or the courage to stand up against a misguided war before we sent our troops in to fight.”
Clinton’s argument that she is more “ready” to assume the US Presidency than Obama simply because she has more experience in Congress just doesn’t cut it with me. The US President controls the most powerful armed forces in the world, which means the President’s judgement, insight and wisdom are all much more important in a crisis than any amount of legislative experience.
We are not talking about passing legislation here. We are talking about when, where, why and how to use the United States awesome military capabilities. By her actions in support of President Bush, Clinton has shown that she doesn’t have the requisite judgement, insight or wisdom that Obama has.
So on that note, I believe I will now rest my case for Obama as the next US Pres-ident.
Charles Laffiteau is a lifelong US Republican from Dallas, Texas, and has recently completed DCU's postgraduate programme in Globalisation, International Relations and Conflict
