Eye to Eye with… Michael Moore?

I was more than a little astonished yesterday to discover myself not only on the same side of an issue with Michael Moore but to actually be in complete agreement with him. Never before has such a thing happened, but such are the times.

 

Moore posted on his blog a plea to the residents of Pennsylvania to vote for Barack Obama, partly because Moore himself lives in Michigan and was not able to take part in the Democratic primary, but mostly because it's in their best interest.

 

In fact, I believe that out of the many who are sick of the way this country's been run over the past eight years, there is only one real candidate and anyone who hasn't figured that out yet hasn't really been paying attention. Hillary has some solid politicians on her side (including the Governor of Pennsylvania and the Mayor of Philadelphia), and that's probably part of the reason why she appeals so broadly to working class Americans but I see those endorsements as a good reason to run the other way.

 

The biggest political difference between Clinton and Obama is that Clinton wants to continue old-school Washington politics, where politicians get funded by corporations, corporations get contracts and favorable legislation passed, politicians claim there's no connection between the two and the American people suffer.

 

Obama, on the other hand, wants to clean up the process and make the politicians accountable to the people who elected them again. He wants to get rid of the ridiculous talking points that have nothing to do with the issues and are in-fact being used to divert voters' attention away from the issues that really matter. Obama has had many opportunities to slam Clinton over many such issues but he has opted to keep it to actual political issues rather than release commercials explaining to voters that Clinton clearly must think they're stupid to lie to their faces repeatedly about Bosnia and then say it was because she "misspoke" even though she was reading straight from prepared remarks.

 

Many celebrities who have spoken out for the working class their entire careers, such as Michael Moore and Brice Springsteen, believe Obama is the better candidate. Meanwhile Hillary supporters still seem to believe their own deliberate misrepresentation of Obama's remarks about working class Americans clinging to guns and religion. Barack Obama built his career around Churches as a community organizer and is a deeply religious man — it's completely disingenuous to claim he was belittling people for their religion, and if they really believe that then they're blinding themselves to reality.

 

In fact, it was clear to people who actually attended that fund raiser and heard him speak those words that he meant working class Americans have been given the short-end of the economy for so long that they only vote on their core values (guns, religion, etc) because they don't believe anyone in Washington is ever really going to do anything to help them economically. In short, he is saying that a lot of working class Americans are voting Republican when it's economically against their best interest to do so, simply because they feel at least the Republicans will do *something* they agree with.

 

But given the choice between better jobs with better pay and banning gay marriage, Barack is confident that all of these little issues that divide us will go back to where they belong — the background of politics instead of the forefront. No one needs to be messing with gun laws, one way or the other, when we have communities that have been suffering economically for decades. These issues may be very important, but they are not nearly as important as making sure every American has a fair shake.

 

So if you're reading this and you live in Indiana, North Carolina, or one of the other remaining states yet to have your Democratic Primary, I implore you to take a close look at both Senator Clinton's and Senator Obama's candidacies. People criticize Obama for not having concrete plans, but his plans are just as concrete as Hillary's — and with differences significant enough that you'll begin to get a sense of his personality and guiding ethics vs. hers.  For instance, they both believe that every American is entitled to health care, but Clinton's plan forces every American to pay for it (much of that money goes into the private healthcare industry that has donated millions of dollars to her over the past decade) where Obama's plan doesn't, but fails to cover 15 million Americans. Senator Clinton uses that number to scare people, but really that means Obama's plan will cost less and provide more benefits to more than 95% of all Americans. 100% would be nice, but for a first attempt at national healthcare which approach do you like better?

 

Clinton claims years of experience, well frankly we have three Senators running for the Executive office of the Presidency and none of their Senatorial experience is really relevant. Clinton cites her time as First Lady, but really how relevant is that either? She's already proven her willingness to inflate her Presidential Resume by lying about her trip to Bosnia. Frankly, the only real Executive position — running a large organization — that any of them have to-date is running their campaigns, and how has that been going? 

 

Hillary's campaign has been taking tons of lobbyist money and she's in debt to the tune of more than $10 million, not counting the millions of dollars she lent her campaign out of her own pocket. McCain's campaign has raised even less money, and despite running on an anti-earmark platform he's still taking lobbyist money. Obama has outraised the both of them combined and he's done it taking no lobbyist money, taking an entirely new approach getting only campaign contributions from average Americans. He's raised over $100 million with an average donation of $109. He's also, as mentioned earlier, run a clean campaign that attacks his opponents only on the issues and never personal attacks like the ones he has weathered.

 

So it would seem the most successful executive, with the most experience in an executive position, is the one both candidates criticize as having too little experience. Certainly he has less experience as a "Washington Insider" but then he is running on a platform of getting rid of  the "Washington Insider Politics" and he makes many, many excellent cases how it has benefited companies in bed with the government at the expense of average Americans.

 

Hillary stands for some good things, but she's a proven liar, she's made bad decisions (like voting for the Iraq war and arranging multiple meetings to convince congress to vote for NAFTA) that she pretends didn't matter or somehow weren't her fault.

 

She also seems rather suspect on her opinion of lobbyists and their contributions to politicians. Clinton unashamedly says she's proud to take their money and she will keep taking their money because they're ordinary Americans too (they're not) and they deserve to have their voice heard. When asked if the contributions influence her in any way she says what most politicians say when asked this question: Of course not, that's silly. How they deserve to be heard but not listened to is beyond me, but I think it's just one more example of why we need to get the lobbyists out of our government, NOW.

 

As for her criticisms of Obama — pay attention and you'll see how much smoke she blows. Within the past couple of months she whined about media coverage, complained that debates were biased against her, and even accused Obama of using tactics "straight out of Karl Rove's playbook".  After the last debate suddenly she accused Obama of "whining" (the closest he came to whining was to say how ridiculous it was that Americans had to wait 45 minutes before a single question about any issue that mattered was asked, and that many issues such as Afghanistan were never brought up because of this wasted time) and she suddenly embraced using "Karl Rove" tactics (against Obama) because "that's what the Republicans will do in a general election".

 

For the record, the tactic Obama used when Clinton accused him of "Karl Rove" tactics was sending mailers to people's homes criticizing her healthcare plan in a way she thought was unfair. What Clinton did to Obama last week was try to take a number of controversial figures (such as Louis Farrakhan) and build tenuous links between them and Obama. In other words, Obama is guilty of saying, "I don't think you're going to like her health plan" and Clinton is guilty of saying, "Let me tell you white people why you should be afraid of the black man".

 

Hillary Clinton is a disgustingly ambitious woman who is so convinced of her own ability to lead this country that would tear it to pieces with manufactured hatred, controversy and lies if that's what it took for her to get the Presidency. Don't take my word for it. Look at both candidates, really look at them, and see for yourself.