We Want Obama – for the Supreme Court
Anything is better than this. After living through the continuing agony of the Democratic primary race, I have come to the conclusion that we may have been better off utilizing the old boss system to select candidates. The return of Tammany Hall to Democratic politics wouldn’t be such a bad idea. Those were the good old days – days of smoke-filled rooms and back room deals; days of patronage and the engineering of elections. Barack Obama’s once too cozy relationship with corrupt real estate mover and political operative Tony Rezko, and Hillary Clinton’s questionable ties to Asian and Saudi financial interests demonstrate that the ethics of boss Tweed are still alive in one form or another anyway. Why not make it official?
The Democratic Party simply needs to come up with an alternative to Obama and Clinton whose well-managed hit-man campaigns have unfortunately turned them both into clowns. The fact that a majority of the country will not be able to identify with either of the two candidates hasn’t quite dawned on the powerbrokers of the party. Hillary Clinton downing a shot of whiskey and a beer does not make her equivalent to the “common man” in the eyes of blue collar America – it makes her equivalent to Michael Dukakis driving a tank. The fact that competence, intelligence, oratorical skills and policy mastery has little meaning to most Americans should have sunk in after the swift-boating of John Kerry; but this seems to have little meaning to Barak Obama’s campaign. They deny the most devastating statistic to come out of the Pennsylvania primary: Senator Obama is not capable of carrying white, male, over forty, blue collar, minimally educated voters – a significant and crucial portion of the electorate.
It has become clear to me that the only way to advance progressive values in the upcoming election, the only way to offer real change, will be to change the presumptive location of Senator Obama’s office from the White House to the courthouse. The gentleman from Illinois belongs on the Supreme Court. We need him on the Supreme Court. His expertise as a Constitutional law professor and his astute liberal bias would bring much needed balance to a court that will clearly turn further to the right if John McCain wins the White House. Court observers have pointed out that several moderate or liberal justices could retire after the election. Most agree that, at the very least, 88 year-old John Paul Stevens, who just reversed his long-standing support of the constitutionality of the death penalty, will likely turn in his robe. Conservative Antonin Scalia and moderate Ruth Bader Ginsburg are other probable candidates for retirement. This means that at least two moderate voices – and possible swing votes on a host of critical issues – will be gone at a time when the government has assaulted the Constitution in numerous ways, posing unprecedented threats to Americans’ fundamental civil liberties.
Barack Obama is 46 years old. With his confirmation on the Supreme Court, the nation could benefit from his public service for at least another 30 years, rather than the 4-8 years afforded a sitting president. Granted, the country would lose something of value because Senator Obama wouldn’t be in the public eye where he has been an inspiration to many. Yet, his oratorical skills translated into written judicial opinions would have long-lasting meaning for the nation. As a justice he would be one of those select few who have ultimate responsibility for the republic, those who have the final say over whether America is truly living according to its stated principles.
Supporting Obama for Supreme Court justice is not an endorsement for Hillary Clinton’s presidential aspirations. Her campaign has been more successful at cultivating the political dirt that has allowed the irresponsible sycophants and side-show barkers in the news media to hound both candidates with meaningless inanities rather than focus on substantive issues. In trying to carve out a position for herself as a centrist and presumed common sense alternative to two extreme competitors, Hillary has proven that she would be willing to destroy the chances of a Democrat being elected to the presidency in 2008. Alienating one’s base is not a good strategy for her long-term viability as a national political figure. Her tactics are bordering on the insane and should be soundly rejected as detrimental to the interests of the party.
What Democrats need is a candidate that they can be certain will beat John McCain on national security, in addition to the all-important issues of the economy, health care and the environment – someone that doesn’t come with the high-risk baggage of Clinton and Obama. Al Gore is the obvious choice. He is the only candidate with the unquestioned credibility, prestige and experience to assure a victory in November. With the ongoing civil war between Obama and Clinton promising to alienate more and more voters there is simply no other logical course to take.
Hoping that America will overcome racism, sexism, fear of terrorism and disdain for negative politics by the fall won’t win the White House. A deal struck behind the scenes that would have Gore ascend to the nomination and put Obama on the Supreme Court must be considered by those who care about the future of the country and the world as a whole. A fantasy you say? Presidential history would tell us such deal making is not without precedent. If Al Gore can be denied the presidency by the Supreme Court in 2000, why can he not have the office restored by a brokered arrangement in 2008?
Anything is better than this. After living through the continuing agony of the Democratic primary race, I have come to the conclusion that we may have been better off utilizing the old boss system to select candidates. The return of Tammany Hall to Democratic politics wouldn’t be such a bad idea. Those were the good old days – days of smoke-filled rooms and back room deals; days of patronage and the engineering of elections. Barack Obama’s once too cozy relationship with corrupt real estate mover and political operative Tony Rezko, and Hillary Clinton’s questionable ties to Asian and Saudi financial interests demonstrate that the ethics of boss Tweed are still alive in one form or another anyway. Why not make it official?
The Democratic Party simply needs to come up with an alternative to Obama and Clinton whose well-managed hit-man campaigns have unfortunately turned them both into clowns. The fact that a majority of the country will not be able to identify with either of the two candidates hasn’t quite dawned on the powerbrokers of the party. Hillary Clinton downing a shot of whiskey and a beer does not make her equivalent to the “common man” in the eyes of blue collar America – it makes her equivalent to Michael Dukakis driving a tank. The fact that competence, intelligence, oratorical skills and policy mastery has little meaning to most Americans should have sunk in after the swift-boating of John Kerry; but this seems to have little meaning to Barak Obama’s campaign. They deny the most devastating statistic to come out of the Pennsylvania primary: Senator Obama is not capable of carrying white, male, over forty, blue collar, minimally educated voters – a significant and crucial portion of the electorate.
It has become clear to me that the only way to advance progressive values in the upcoming election, the only way to offer real change, will be to change the presumptive location of Senator Obama’s office from the White House to the courthouse. The gentleman from Illinois belongs on the Supreme Court. We need him on the Supreme Court. His expertise as a Constitutional law professor and his astute liberal bias would bring much needed balance to a court that will clearly turn further to the right if John McCain wins the White House. Court observers have pointed out that several moderate or liberal justices could retire after the election. Most agree that, at the very least, 88 year-old John Paul Stevens, who just reversed his long-standing support of the constitutionality of the death penalty, will likely turn in his robe. Conservative Antonin Scalia and moderate Ruth Bader Ginsburg are other probable candidates for retirement. This means that at least two moderate voices – and possible swing votes on a host of critical issues – will be gone at a time when the government has assaulted the Constitution in numerous ways, posing unprecedented threats to Americans’ fundamental civil liberties.
Barack Obama is 46 years old. With his confirmation on the Supreme Court, the nation could benefit from his public service for at least another 30 years, rather than the 4-8 years afforded a sitting president. Granted, the country would lose something of value because Senator Obama wouldn’t be in the public eye where he has been an inspiration to many. Yet, his oratorical skills translated into written judicial opinions would have long-lasting meaning for the nation. As a justice he would be one of those select few who have ultimate responsibility for the republic, those who have the final say over whether America is truly living according to its stated principles.
Supporting Obama for Supreme Court justice is not an endorsement for Hillary Clinton’s presidential aspirations. Her campaign has been more successful at cultivating the political dirt that has allowed the irresponsible sycophants and side-show barkers in the news media to hound both candidates with meaningless inanities rather than focus on substantive issues. In trying to carve out a position for herself as a centrist and presumed common sense alternative to two extreme competitors, Hillary has proven that she would be willing to destroy the chances of a Democrat being elected to the presidency in 2008. Alienating one’s base is not a good strategy for her long-term viability as a national political figure. Her tactics are bordering on the insane and should be soundly rejected as detrimental to the interests of the party.
What Democrats need is a candidate that they can be certain will beat John McCain on national security, in addition to the all-important issues of the economy, health care and the environment – someone that doesn’t come with the high-risk baggage of Clinton and Obama. Al Gore is the obvious choice. He is the only candidate with the unquestioned credibility, prestige and experience to assure a victory in November. With the ongoing civil war between Obama and Clinton promising to alienate more and more voters there is simply no other logical course to take.
Hoping that America will overcome racism, sexism, fear of terrorism and disdain for negative politics by the fall won’t win the White House. A deal struck behind the scenes that would have Gore ascend to the nomination and put Obama on the Supreme Court must be considered by those who care about the future of the country and the world as a whole. A fantasy you say? Presidential history would tell us such deal making is not without precedent. If Al Gore can be denied the presidency by the Supreme Court in 2000, why can he not have the office restored by a brokered arrangement in 2008?
Comments