6 posts tagged “president”

The McFreeds, in the interest of equal time, post this speech from March 18, 2008 for your review...

This does not mean we are giving up on our support on Hillary Clinton, it means only that this speech is major enough to make available to our readers.

Sean and Stefan announce...

Well after Sean endorsed John Edwards a few weeks back only to have him withdraw from the Democratic Party race and Stefan being undecided up to the very end, The McFreeds finally made their selection, and voted in the Maryland primary last night.  We both voted for Hillary Clinton.  It was a long and tortuous decision (Sean's mom noted that this is the first time since he discovered politics as a passion that he had not selected a candidate before going into the voting booth); but in the end we voted with our minds and not our hearts.

Clinton convinced us that she is the best person to tackle the hard facts of Washington DC, not with oration, but with her sleeves rolled up ready to work on Day One.  America needs a working President, not just a cheerleader.  Our faith in her comes from her grit and determination in tackling mountains over her entire life, not just career. As a leader and a woman, she has overcome so many things you cannot deny her respect for figuring out how to survive and take it all - good and bad - in stride. She has made some mistakes and learned from them. But it is her commitment that can never be questioned. If elected, she will always have health care, education, and the family checkbook on her agenda. She has been consistent in that mission and in her desire to bring all Americans together to make our nation work for everyone. This is why we made the decision we did and why we hope she will eventually win the nomination.

This is not to say this that this was an easy decision. Barack Obama would make a better president than any of the the Republicans running, including the remaining foes John McCain and Mike Huckabee. Obama is an amazing speaker and personality. It is no wonder his fresh words and his very picture of change as the first truly viable African-American, or any minority for that matter, (with all do respect to Jesse Jackson and Shirley Chisholm) to have a real chance at being our nation's president. But for us, he just hasn't sealed the deal. There is substance lacking here. And if he does win the nomination, his ideas will be scrutinized in the general election harder than now. Sure the website is impressive in words. Obama's mention of gay and lesbian issues on it and in his speeches is most welcoming. Clinton's lack of mention on her website is discouraging, but her public words cancel that out. We know both of these people will do what they can for us, but it is really up to the states to make the changes we need, along with a federal cheerleader to hold the nation's hand as we make that change. But we choose a President for the whole package and this round she won with both of us.

Everyone wants a John F. Kennedy this year to sweep us into the wonder of a fairy tale; but lest we forget that even Kennedy had a tough fight to his election as well because of questions about his substance. Up until 2000, the 1960 election was the last election where it was too close to call. Richard Nixon was the candidate of substance that year. The whole reason Kennedy went to Texas that faithful day in November 1963 was to start his push for the 1964 election because it was going to be a tight one. But as it worked out, Kennedy's strong vision and Lyndon Johnson's initial brilliance at working the Congressional machine gave America the progress it needed to make major changes in how we dealt with ourselves. Unfortunately it took his death, Martin Luther King Jr's death, and his brother Robert Kennedy's death as well as many other martyrs to a greater cause of equality and economic championship for this to be accomplished.  But what if Kennedy lived? Would his vision have become a reality? Would he have compromised like he did in the first 2 years? We will never know. But this true look at history gives at least Sean pause when considering Obama. It is right to wonder if the emperor has new clothes when considering a President. And if anything Obama hasn't made his case in this first test to us.

Granted Obama won last night and this weekend, but whatever the media pushes does not silence the fact that it is still dead-even on delegate count. It will be on this division of opinion that the ability of our standard bearer to unify a party will make our choice either stronger or weaker when the time comes. We concede that who ever the nominee is for the Democrats will be our candidate in the general election, but our voice as well as others too should be heard to at least force Obama or Clinton to learn from why we didn't choose them the first time, not matter the size or % of the opposition. Because, if anything, we Democrats want to win in November, and we want to make sure we are united after the convention ends.

We are sure many of you will have opinons about our vote and our reasoning. Please be respectful as we are of your choice. Many of you showed us your passion and commitment to your choices up to this point and we are amazed at all of your dedication. Sean's friend Keith gave an impassioned plea in particular for Obama; Keith's trips to New Hampshire and South Carolina are truly something to be admired and celebrated. Stefan's brother, sister-in-law, and parents lobbied us hard on our vacation in Florida for Obama as well. Their arguments made it even harder to choose. And Sean's Mom and sister gave their own reasons for voting Hillary. We wish we could have mentioned you all that spoke including fellow bloggers (Quest and Wayward Son in particular) but the excitement about it all truly is encouraging that people are thinking and involving themselves in the right to vote in 2008.

Sean says...

John Edwards is my choice for the 2008 Democratic Party Presidential Nomination.

Change is not something you represent, it is something you do. This election season we Americans have the opportunity again to make a change in who is president of our nation. The challenge to select a candidate in 2008 is to choose one for who they are rather than who they are not. The other candidates physically represent change, but are they a change from the norm? Is what they are saying a strong vision? Are they offering valuable solutions to America's problems that are innovative or even correct? 

Edwards has always swayed me since 2004 with his talk of the Two Americas. Under President George W. Bush, our nation has focused on national security issues because of the reaction to the horrible disaster on September 11, 2001. However, the struggle of every American to realize their American dream economically immediately took a back seat.  It took the tragedy of New Orleans to expose us to the tragedy of our own economic strata. And it has taken the collapse of our housing market nationwide to realize that Americans are thinking more about consumption than future.  It is Edwards who saw this in 2004 and he continues to build on it as the nation and the world is ravaged by economic change.  He is the true inheritor of Robert F. Kennedy's mantle. 

Bobby Kennedy said once, "Some men see things as they are and say 'Why?' I dream things that never were and say, 'Why not?'" I beleive John Edwards emulates this visionary statement George Bernard Shaw penned and Bobby Kennedy strived to make us follow. Bobby was struck down before his moment was realized, but its John's time now. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are the exciting candidates of the media and are unfortunately catching the curiosity of the camera.  But John is still there fighting. It is his belief in his own message, himself, and the nature of the discriminating voter that John Edwards will build his coalition and take the prize. 

Why does John deserve to be OUR president?

1) An economic plan that makes sense and is integrated with real numbers and real goals that meshes agriculture, energy, health care, and trade into a sensible idea that includes all Americans.

2) A renewed call for a war on poverty to improve ours and our neighbors lives and opportunities for our children's future. (If you watch any clip this is the one to help you decide if he is good enough.)

3) A strong commitment to ending the war in Iraq.

But how does he help families like Stefan and mine? Edwards is for civil unions but understands that our issues are more than just some sort of legal partnership, dare I say legally recognized marriage. It is about job discrimination and financial security that our gay and lesbian community require to also survive not unlike the greater community does. But what about his "journey" and comfortability with gay and lesbians in general that many have asked questions about? How does he differ from the other candidates?  He differs because he is questioning his own faith and soul about the issue of marriage in general. How many presidents really have said that?  And with the fact that he surrounds himself with people like his wife Elizabeth and others who support our causes, I beleive he is getting closer in his decision. But in the overall stance on our issues, my own faith tells me that he will be the one to lead our nation into changing more than the others. Humility of self is more important in my president.

We all have to make a choice. Some might feel that Edwards should just give it up based on recent results. But we still have many states to go through and many tests to meet over the next month. Great oration without substance does not a great president make. Edwards has the oration and substance to inspire us and lead us to greatness. It is recognizing that leadership over the directing of who matters in this race by the media that will lead to change. I hope you will change with me and vote John Edwards for President.    

...my campaign for Edwards now begins by trying to convince Stefan who is still undecided.

 

 

Sean says...

As I posted before here, Stefan and I are trying to figure out who to support on the Democratic side and so we have been watching the debates when we can. Hence, we watched the Democratic debate in Nevada this week. I could post the whole debate here to be a little more inclusive, but I will be "bad" and do some editing on my own. I thought this was a great debate in terms of telling what the candidates are about. I am reposting about it to link the parts of the debate I felt moved me toward Clinton and Edwards and further away from Obama.  I will say I will support the Democratic nominee regardless, unless an viable independent alternative is made available.  Stefan, I believe, will as well.

This is the part of the debate that I think really swayed my thinking. Unfortunately, you can't forward to the specific parts easily so start the first video at the 3 minute mark and let run. Start the second video from beginning. The points bridge across the end of Part 3 and the beignning of Part 4 of the segments. (Further segments are also available on YouTube.) These parts deal with how these three would run the country.  Perspective and method are big failings of our current commander-in-chief and I think we need to ask these questions about how he or she will approach the position and judge for ourselves, like in an interview, who is the best candidate to hire.

 

 

Sean says...

Stefan and I watched the Nevada Democratic Presidential Debate the other night and was struck by the real substance that was discussed here. In both our minds Hillary Clinton was the most commanding. Edwards did a great job of contrasting although NBC's/MSNBC's Tim Russert and Brian Williams were unfair with their distribution of questions, mainly leaving him out through the first portion mainly (this was the portion where the two hosts were taking on Clinton and Obama with the race discussion).  What questioning struck me the most was the discussion on what the candidates strengths and weaknesses are and the discussion of whether the president should be a chief operating officer of the government.

Obama said he was a great visionary and coordinator of disparate sides while being weak in his own personal organizational skills, requiring assistance in managing paper and details around his desk. Hillary said she was a passionate champion for many causes and knew how to organize efforts to move things along, but her weakness was her vigilence was sometimes seen as too impatience and inconsiderate of others speed in acting on their commitments in moving forward. Edwards said he was a born fighter. He was someone who fought all his life to get where he is from menial beginnings, but he thought his weakness is that he is too empathetic of those he meets one-on-one and it makes him more angry when he tries and pursues change. I thought this was very honest and very true of each. Each is a leader even though you may have a different opinion. However, Obama has some substance issues, Hillary is seen as too strident, and Edwards is scene as too much of a pitbull lawyer.

On the question of the Chief Operating Officer, Obama began the answering which was precipitated by his own comments to a newspaper board in Reno. Obama felt that the president should be a visionary leader who sets the bar to reach and selects the right people to manage it. The president isn't a micromanager. Clinton disagreed and said teh president is a visionary leader, a goal setter, and the manager of the bureaucracy - because vision goes no where unless you manage the bureaucracy to change and hold it accountable. Edwards followed with Hillary's line of answering.

This in my mind was a HUGE tell of who I am voting for. Hillary began to look presidential to me here and continued with that strength the rest of the debate. She really impressed me more than she ever has. Edwards also has pulled me along. I like how Edwards is a fighter and Hillary is an advocate. I just don't see from looking at Obama's past how he is either. Incredible oration does not a president make - just ask William Jennings Bryan. Plus in survey after survey I seem to be trending Edwards in blind questions about candidate positions. However, Hillary got me with her experience debate and the thought of "Nixon opening China" belief.  So what I am saying is that I think Obama does not have a chance at my vote in the primary period at this point. Maryland votes Feb 12, so I will pick my final choice at that time regardless of who has momentum.

Stefan will I am sure post his own thoughts in a separate blog... I am just he mouthiest of the two of us on politics. (smirk followed by dimple twist to the cheek).

 

Side note: I saw this comment by David Gergen on CNN.com after this debate. I thought this was a great sign that he and others will seek the death of a hated military practice to the gay community.  

A post-script to last night's Democratic debate: Clinton, Edwards and Obama each told Tim Russert they would enforce laws requiring universities to allow military recruiters on campus. As a long-time advocate of restoring ROTC to major universities, I just want to add that a huge stumbling block now is the "don't ask, don't tell" policy of the military, which is seen at many schools as highly discriminatory against gays and lesbians. If that is amended -- as growing numbers in the military think should happen -- we will have a much better chance of persuading schools to honor service in the armed forces in the ways that they should.

Sean says...

My political past has me all in a tizzy today about the 2008 Presidential Campaign beginning in Iowa today, but it also finds me still wondering who is worth my vote.  Obviously, Stefan and I will be voting Democratic. Stefan's parents would only expect that choice with only my (Sean) dad questioning where I went wrong. But who should we choose?

A few friends keep pointing me toward Barack Obama, but I feel as luke warm to him as I did when he got started last year. As a political junkie, I am one of those who continuously look up the candidates online and follow those political shows once and a while. But I find myself feeling famished after Obama speaks. Sure he is very articulate and an exciting orator. But having been in the "business," he leaves me unimpressed.

Hillary Clinton is an admirable person. She has worked hard and taken her lumps. I believe she wants to help the world, the question is can she lead it?  I like her point that the president cannot be a neophyte to the "game" that is Washington. Being that I work next to the White House and am aware of the "game" in town, she has a point and knowing how to go through the minefield is much more valuable than saying the easy line of Washington needing to be "taken back."  Bureaucracy is better tamed than challenged in my experience and the strategy to take it on is picking your battles and bunching small victories together strategically in order to force true change. And I think this is where Hillary is going; her vision is one I can agree with. The question though is "she the one to lead the change and can she?" That is what I am uneasy about and that is why I am not on her bandwagon yet.

John Edwards is one I thought I wouldn't fall behind but according to this Washington Post Questionnaire he should be my man... in the presidential race that is.  Edwards has something the others are not truly exhibiting now, a man with humility willing to show strength of conviction as well as his thought process on things he is not sure of. Gay rights and marriage is my "clever" issue this year (for good reason - and Bill Richardson felt it squarely on his head back this summer after saying being gay is a choice); and Edwards has shown great growth and strength of character in how he has shown his journey in understanding it. That is the kind of president who will help the nation truly become comfortable with this group of issues rather than an outright supporter.  The best way to phrase it is by saying Richard Nixon was the right one to open China to the West. Elizabeth Edwards ceratinly is on "our" side, and showing his comfort with working with a diverse set of opinions and allowing them to be voiced certainly gives me hope of moving passed the stubborn, one-mindedness of our current failure.

But what is truly rallying me to Edwards cause is his ideas on economic diversity. Hillary and he have it right, a piecemeal approach is the right course of action. But Edwards has a terrific focus on poverty which is reminiscent of Bobby Kennedy, my personal political hero.  And in fact that comparison has hit me time and again with Edwards since 2004. Kennedy was a skeptic who with exposure evolved and became a stronger visionary because he embraced humility as well as honed his vision of a better world.  Now Edwards isn't all the way there yet but he is moving that direction. But yet I am still not sold because of some of his strident comments and criticisms about others. "Can he get people to work with him even if he disagrees with them?" is my question for him.

Lastly, Joe Biden has impressed me with his brilliant mind. However, as a leader I do not know if he can inspire and truly show the way. He knows what he is talking about but his manner and temper just turn you the wrong way. He would be a truly wonk president but I see a potential Jimmy Carter malaise speech coming out of him in a cardigan sweater some night in October.

Well we will see who breaks out of the pack tonight and then see who stays in to fight on. In the end its strategy, money, and on the ground success that will truly pull our next president through to the end. I hope we just pick a good one, we are totally due.