2008 Woodie Awards
Letter to the Editor
Is Obama Really an Agent of Change? Yes.
Issue date: 1/25/08 Section: Opinions & Editorials
Dear Editor,
Mr. Flynn's comments about Sen. Obama's stance on the Iraq war were [intentionally?] misleading. Obama's quote from 2004 was a specific reference to the idea that "as the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down," NOT about the war generally. In fact, the Iraqis are ready to "stand up," but we must use our withdrawal as leverage to encourage this. Furthermore, it would be irresponsible to 'end' the war by cutting off funding. The President conducts the war (Article II, Sec. 2), Congress declares it (Article III, Sec. 8). The time for checks and balances was in 2002, when Sens. Clinton and Edwards voted for the war and then-Senatorial candidate Obama opposed it. I see nothing inconsistent with opposing the authorization of a war, but then approving funding 3 years into the conflict. Indeed, Obama's "change" has less to do with issues than it does with governing style. But isn't this aspect of a candidate equally important? Clinton appears to revel in the idea of 'fighting' Republicans. Haven't 16 years of hyper-partisanship and scorched earth politics only made our problems worse? Nonetheless, when it comes to policies, there is a clear contrast between Sens. Obama and Clinton. Obama's plans for universal healthcare, solving the mortgage crisis, and reducing carbon emissions rely heavily on creating incentives for private business to change its behavior. Clinton, on the other hand, appears to prefer using the state to force change -- e.g., those who don't buy health insurance will pay a penalty; she proposed 'freezing' mortgage rates for five years. I see a clear choice between these two approaches. I won't even go into all the psycho family drama that would typify a Clinton presidency or the stomach-turning character of a democracy that produces 'dynasties.' Nor will I tackle the bunk argument that Clinton is 'experienced' (never held a security clearance, never sat in on NSC meetings, never engaged in negotiations abroad). Instead, I just want to say that Mr. Flynn's article -- which accuses his fellow Lawrentians of na'veté; but offers no alternative -- and reeks of the sort of politics we need to leave behind us in this election.
Go Obama!
Jesse Heath, '05
heath.jesse *at* gmail.com
Mr. Flynn's comments about Sen. Obama's stance on the Iraq war were [intentionally?] misleading. Obama's quote from 2004 was a specific reference to the idea that "as the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down," NOT about the war generally. In fact, the Iraqis are ready to "stand up," but we must use our withdrawal as leverage to encourage this. Furthermore, it would be irresponsible to 'end' the war by cutting off funding. The President conducts the war (Article II, Sec. 2), Congress declares it (Article III, Sec. 8). The time for checks and balances was in 2002, when Sens. Clinton and Edwards voted for the war and then-Senatorial candidate Obama opposed it. I see nothing inconsistent with opposing the authorization of a war, but then approving funding 3 years into the conflict. Indeed, Obama's "change" has less to do with issues than it does with governing style. But isn't this aspect of a candidate equally important? Clinton appears to revel in the idea of 'fighting' Republicans. Haven't 16 years of hyper-partisanship and scorched earth politics only made our problems worse? Nonetheless, when it comes to policies, there is a clear contrast between Sens. Obama and Clinton. Obama's plans for universal healthcare, solving the mortgage crisis, and reducing carbon emissions rely heavily on creating incentives for private business to change its behavior. Clinton, on the other hand, appears to prefer using the state to force change -- e.g., those who don't buy health insurance will pay a penalty; she proposed 'freezing' mortgage rates for five years. I see a clear choice between these two approaches. I won't even go into all the psycho family drama that would typify a Clinton presidency or the stomach-turning character of a democracy that produces 'dynasties.' Nor will I tackle the bunk argument that Clinton is 'experienced' (never held a security clearance, never sat in on NSC meetings, never engaged in negotiations abroad). Instead, I just want to say that Mr. Flynn's article -- which accuses his fellow Lawrentians of na'veté; but offers no alternative -- and reeks of the sort of politics we need to leave behind us in this election.
Go Obama!
Jesse Heath, '05
heath.jesse *at* gmail.com
Be the first to comment on this story