Barack Obama For President

I am no longer an undecided  voter. Barack Obama not only deserves to be our next president, he gives America the best chance for success in the future. 

Obama ran a supreme campaign. He managed a 500 person, mutli-thousand volunteer, $650 million dollar organization for two years. Over that period of extreme pressure, expectations and consequences the Obama organization was nearly flawless. 

Not only did the Obama organization shatter fund raising records, it redefined what a top-notch campaign looks like. If Obama can be such a capable leader of our federal government we are in good hands indeed.

Moreover, Obama was able to clearly build on his compelling biography with a singular and consistent narrative; people are more similar than they are different, and a president should unite all people not divide Americans into warring factions.

He outlined why he wanted to be president, and why he should be president. He then persevered through the longest primary contest on record, one in which all 50 states cast important votes. He was therefore vetted by the American voters through that process and was found to be the best democratic candidate.

In the general campaign he filled in the super structure of his primary policy proposals and promises. 

His foreign policy; a plan to draw down forces in Iraq, transfer forces to Afghanistan, reinforce diplomacy with rogue nations and develop a long term energy policy positions America for long term success abroad. This mix of orthodox liberal policies and new pragmatic alternatives is, in my view, the best combination as we try to recover from the Bush years.

Domestically, Obama has the most realistic view of the challenges facing America over the next decade. Americans spend the most money on health care per capita in the world, yet do not have the healthiest population by any measure. Our system needs fundamental reform. 

Health care is a human right, until we adopt policies that provide health care for all people we are failing as country. Obama acknowledges this as an expression of the Biblical teachings of Christ, "That what we do to the least of these, is what we do to Him".

In addition, the culture of debt that has taken over both individuals and government will plague us  for years to come. Barack Obama proposes to raise taxes in a few different ways, this reflects the need to shrink the national debt. Moreover, he has proposed direct revenue streams or cost savings options to pay for new government programs. This pay-as-you-go model is the only way forward.

Environmental and energy policy may become the most important issues facing America over the next 10 years. Obama has proposed a cap-and-trade carbon emissions system. This system would generate billions in government revenue that could not only pay down debt, but it can also be used to invest in new infrastructure projects, clean energy subsidies, public-private partnerships and other job creating projects. 

Such a system would not only define an Obama presidency domestically, it would position America to move away from Middle Eastern oil which would have direct ramifications on national security issues.

Lastly, Obama has run a democratic campaign to be the next president of the United States without turning to traditional hot-bottom issues as abortion, affirmative action, or religion to polarize the electorate into two distinct factions. 

Instead as he said in 2004 at John Kerry's convention he would seek to build "Not a red America or a blue America, but a United States of America". 

To this end Obama has campaigned in and is leading in many traditional red states. This has not only redefined electoral math, it has been done by design so that a president Obama can claim a mandate from all Americans, not just a coalition of liberal states plus strategic swing state voters.

For these and other reasons I will vote for Barack Obama.

today's Friedman

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/22/opinion/22friedman.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

will climate change cause wars?

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,579265,00.html

the unintended conseqeunces of climate change

(Rob, the headline was meant to get your goat...calm down)

the need for environmentalism

http://outside.away.com/outside/culture/200810/politics-drilling-us-west-1.html

this isn't as technical as it could be, but is was written for Outside Magazine. but this is a good look at some of the environmental issues facing our region under the next president, who ever he is.

stewardship of our resources will be a major issue in the next 8 years, conservatives (hard core types) will still argue global climate change is a natural occurrence or at least we can't prove human causality plus God gave us dominion of the earth, so let's use it. not only is that idea short sighted, it totally misrepresents why God gave us dominion over the earth. not mention its just throws out good science (science is the problem, remember?). 

when it comes to environment, science and religion i won't throw around the word fact, but i will say, that the consensus of world experts strongly suggests humans have impacted climate change significantly since the industrial revolution (Dickens was on to something). not mention our consumption is at a minimum wasteful and therefore arguably sinful, and by no responsible definition does it represent biblical stewardship.

under the Bush administration public land has been under assault. it doesn't help when oil company execs are shaping our environmental policy (not to say oil execs are trolls, but to say conservation and preservation are counter to their vested interests). the value of clean, clear open space has been devalued as a matter of ideology by conservatives. preserving forests, mountains, plains, wetlands, marshlands, breeding grounds, migration by-ways, have become an unimportant part of living on earth. not that they are liberal causes, they just don't matter.

that is sinful.

longer term stewardship, let alone coherent policy has simply been off the radar, it has been an alien concept since 1994. not to mention the groups that do advocate for environmental  issues have simply become havens for the far left to stash their most militant foot soldiers. 

the Sierra Club was founded by John Muir, the greatest environmentalism and outdoorsmen that this country has known (he was foreign so, he can't the greatest we've had). he would be disgraced by the current composition of the environmental movement in America. but that does not absolve conservatives of responsibility for presiding over a government for 32 of the last 40 years in which the environment and science have been pushed out of sight and out of mind.

are carbons caps, subsides for clean energy and MPG standards really the evils we should be fighting at this point? the other side of these issues escape me. sure there is bad environmental legislation on the books. there is bad legislation of all types on the books. we've had a terrible farm  bill for decades yet it's the bain of no politician, don't fall into the trap that says. "we've been burned by wacko environmentalists before" so anything pro environment is bad.

there are many sensible measure that can and should be in place to preserve and conserve. first, public land should be a tightly held commodity.  second, preserving National Parks, National Forests, State Park and State Forests is as important as any other domestic issue, if not more important. third, conserving our resources through clean energy, responsible drilling and mining, public awareness and sound policy is not optional, it is imperative. and lastly, these are the exact issues in which government should take an active role. while public/private partnerships are ideal, where none can be developed government has the resources and responsibility to take an active role in preserving our environment and conserving our natural resources.

where does your candidate stand on the enviroment?

http://www.grist.org/candidate_chart_08.html

check it out.