Second Thoughts about Suitor Obama
When Barack Obama was courting me, I swooned over his velvety tones, his smoothly elegant style, and most of all, his seeming soul-deep promise of a better tomorrow.
Over and over, looking straight into my green, hopeful eyes, he asked me to trust him, and so I did.
But now that we're engaged, I'm having second thoughts. You see, my intended seems to be taking me for granted, even before we take our vows.
The promises my fiance made seem less important to him now... more like rehearsed lines to court me than authentic, honorable statements from the heart. And I'm wondering: should I still trust him and simply hope that our relationship gets better over time, or should I pipe up and force him to talk out our differences?
And if my intended continues to drift away from the bond we've so lovingly built, through good times and bad, over the past 17 months, should I cut ties, and fill the aching void with a new partner?
Or should I adjust my expectations that he'll fufill his silken words? Should I have known all along that courtship is merely a time of delightful foolishness, designed only to attract my vote... er, affections.
I'm asking myself: Was I the fool during courtship? Or am I the fool now for putting up with pretty lies and infuriating "puzzlement" that fall short of my suitor's oft-described vision of a better tomorrow?
And I wonder... does my fiance not value me anymore? Does he value another more than me?
Or is he one of those men my mother warned me about: despite his professed desire for another, in the end, he loves himself and his grand notions more?
We have seven weeks until the wedding, which is set for August 28, 2008.
I think, for now, I'll speak my piece and hope he truly hears my words and understands my disappointment. He's a bright, enchanting man, and I deeply hope we work things out.
But if my hard-earned trust continues to be shaken in Barack Obama, he needs to remember that there are other smart, passionate, progressive leaders... er, suitors ready and waiting in the wings.
(Photo taken on June 27, 2008 in Unity, New Hampshire: Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
Related Reading
New York Times editorial, July 4, 2008: New and Not Improved
New York Times, July 8, 2008: Lurching With Abandon by Bob Herbert
Washington Post, July 7, 2008: The Stand That Obama Can't Fudge by E.J. Dionne
Comments
Why are you surprised about any of this? I, for one, knew that Obama was going to do this. A radical left-wing politician (which was what he was in the Senate) simply cannot win the presidency. Heck, the only reason Bill Clinton won (besides the presence of Ross Perot) was the fact that he ran as a moderate Democrat.
And really, other than the fact that Obama has revealed himself as just another typical politician with these policy shifts, what’s the big deal? He supports gun ownership rights as guaranteed under the Second Amendment? The horror! He changed his mind on hanging telecom corporations to dry for what the Bush administration did? Say it aint so! He’s starting to see the successes being achieved in Iraq and might “refine” his originally irresponsible troop withdrawal strategy? Shame on him for adapting to changing circumstances!
One of the things that Obama advertised himself as early on in the primaries is his bipartisanship, despite having the most liberal voting record in the Senate. He was going to rise above petty partisan divides to solve problems, he kept telling us. Now that he is actually starting to do that, liberals are outraged.
LOL… I’ve already heard much of this from fellow About.com news channel guides. And you raise legitimate objections.
Truth is, though, Obama deliberately played directly to Democrats in the primary, asking them to personally trust him, etc. There’s always a backlash when one raises expectations too high.
I plan to address all of your concerns as we move through the summer, leading up to the convention. This post was dealing with the emotions of Obama’s tack to the center. Moving forward, I’ll do more analysis separating political facts and realities from the feelings.
One of the more interesting parts of liberal analysis this summer will be reconciling, or not reconciling, to Obama’s ideological departure from progressive values…. the same values he used to differentiate himself from Hillary Clinton.
THANKS for your comment!
Obama may swing back to the left if/when he gets elected. His reversal on the telecom bill was extremely disappointing.
To put it briefly – Obama’s part of the military industrial complex, which is addicted to war.
My wife’s sister’s daughter, an intelligent and educated young woman in her early twenties, recently visited the U.S. from a South American country. She asked me if Obama was change I could believe in (showing that she is aware of the use of this phrase as an advertising slogan). No, not really, I replied. On the one hand, an apparent willingness on the part of many Americans to vote for a man with some African ancestry is a sign of real social progress. On the other hand, America needs to reform, to repent, to face the truth about how it acts – not only towards non-whites within its borders, but towards the rest of the world – and a politician who wants to withdraw troops from Iraq, and yet send more to Afghanistan, is Hillary Clinton with a bit more melanin and a Y chromosome.
I hardly ever lie to this particular niece. She can stand hearing stuff like this because she’s a foreigner. Unlike the American public, she can handle the truth.
On July 12, the Financial Times had a letter to the editor titled “Militarism A Feature of US Socioeconomic System”, which said, in part: “I have concluded, with much sadness, that the American militarism that brought us war with Vietnam when I was young, and war with Iraq today, is not a flaw of our socioeconomic system, but a feature. I recommend to your writer, and to all interested readers, Eugene Jarecki’s documentary film, Why We Fight, which includes President Eisenhower’s warning about the influence of the ‘military-industrial complex’.
Until our political leaders lead the fight against these ‘masters of war’ (in Bob Dylan’s phrase), instead of speaking of US soldiers occupying foreign lands as ‘defending our freedom’, we can expect more war and ruinously expensive preparations for war.”
I have coined, and advocate the use of, a catchy acronym which builds on Eisenhower’s phrase (which will be taught in public school in the humane, reasonable USA that may yet come to pass, either in our future or in some parallel universe)- the MICFiC
M ilitary
I ndustrial
C ongressional
Fi nancial
C orporate Media Complex -
“A conspiracy to use, abuse, and confuse the people – to ‘milk, shear, and slaughter the sheeple’, figuratively speaking – except the slaughter is literal.