Novick: Why I'll Be Voting for Obama

T.A. Barnhart

Steve Novick, running for the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate, has endorsed IL Sen Barack Obama:

As you may know, I'm running for the United States Senate in Oregon because I'm really worried about the direction of the country. We face an awe-inspiring quintuple challenge of ending the war, stopping global warming, combating runaway economic inequality, reforming the health care system, and preventing the national debt from soaring out of control. We need to get moving on all of those issues — and we need to do so yesterday. To meet those challenges, we need political leaders who will be willing to take risks, willing to call for sacrifice, and be able to persuade the American people that their sacrifices will not be in vain.

That's why I'm voting for Barack Obama.

He spends much of the post, found on his website, asserting what a great candidate Hillary Clinton is and what a great President she would be:

Now, I know there are excellent arguments for Hillary Clinton. She knows, possibly better than Obama, what's wrong with the country, and she knows what we need to do to fix it; January 21 New York Times article made that very clear. ... Rarely have I read anything so impressive about an American politician. I felt completely at home with that Hillary Clinton. She's read the same history I have. (Since she's a bit older than I am, she directly experienced more of it too.) She's come to the same conclusions. She knows this stuff. She could be a great President.

But in the end, now that his original candidate John Edwards has suspended his candidacy, Novick has decided Obama best represents what he is seeking from the next President:

I am voting for Barack Obama because I believe that he has the self-confidence to base his Presidency on hope, rather than fear. And because, even if I might ultimately be disappointed, I'd rather be disappointed in new ways, rather than the same old ways.

Read the entire statement, and comment, at Steve's website.

  • BCM (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The Merkley was for Obama before he was for Edwards. I'm sure he's following his tracks back to base camp as we speak...there is something to be said about his solidarity with a fellow son of a mill-worker though.

  • BCM (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The Merkley was for Obama before he was for Edwards. I'm sure he's following his tracks back to base camp as we speak...there is something to be said about his solidarity with a fellow son of a mill-worker though.

  • (Show?)

    I don't really care about Jeff Merkley's political odyssey of Presidential preference.

    As a diehard Edwards supporter, I'm struggling more with my own path right now.

    I am not at all surprised by Steve's choice. I can't join him there yet, though. I am working on it.

  • (Show?)

    that assessment of the two candidates is very close to how I view them, and why I choose Obama as well. I think there is the value of transcendance in his campaign. In Wisconsin he urges folks to remember that the president is not a miracle worker or a wizard, working alone and achieving merely by presence. He's right of course; we get the government we settle for, if not the one we demand. Obama's candidacy is fomenting the involvement and engagement with the process tahr can make hat happen.

    Good choice, Steve. And I was going to compliment the BlueO editors for Timely posting, but...

  • Katy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I realize this is off subject but it made me laugh out loud.

    I'm sure it'll get some nasty comments but I think it's time to inject a little humor into this!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmPS9VxD4eE

  • (Show?)

    Stephanie, I hope you take your time making your choice, but you must choose wisely, for while the true Grail will bring you life, the false Grail will take it from you....it sounds like I've heard that advice from someone before

  • (Show?)

    I'm not even sure I understand Brian's statement above about Jeff Merkley - but he was the chair of the Oregon for Edwards committee.

  • Betty (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I don't vote for empty rhetoric. They are pretty speeches with nice inspirational words, but nothing else. If it were an English essay I would give him a B+. But Obama has given me no reason to vote for him. I guess I have a brain and I'm planning to use it.

  • (Show?)

    I, too, was an Edwards supporter, although kind of in the "wait and see" camp. However, knowing that Edwards needed Iowa to keep trucking, Senator Obama had me convinced on January 3rd. He proved that he can truly unite the country and mobilize multitudes of first-time voters.

  • (Show?)

    Hey Betty , about empty rhetoric: In Andrew Simon's post on 2/17 "New Rasmussen Poll..." http://www.blueoregon.com/2008/02/new-rasmussen-r.html read Tracy Phillips' comments about HRC & BHO's Seante performance & voting records. This was the clincher for me.

  • tl (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I wonder what Betty's motivation was in her posting? If it was to persuade others to join her side, it would seem more practical to: 1. state whom she supports 2. provide the evidence her brain analyzed to reach her conclusion 3. invite others to engage in thought and discussion of the issues, policies, and strategies for a successful campaign

    I think there is no candidate who could claim to have never employed "empty rhetoric", made "pretty speeches" or used "inspirational words". Betty intimates that she has a brain (and by extension that those who disagree with her have none). This is neither persuasive argument nor does it further the discussion.

    Having read Novick's entire posting, he speaks candidly (and in my view fairly) about the pros and cons of both Clinton and Obama, and his support (albeit tempered) of Obama mirrors mine. Neither was my first choice, but whomever gains the nomination will get my vote.

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Opponents of Steve Novick and Barack Obama will try to attack both on the grounds of lacking "experience." This is what David Ignatius had to say about experience in his Washington Post column of February 24:

    "When it comes to foreign policy, experience is a highly overrated asset." So says a former British foreign service officer named Jonathan Clarke, who has created a blog called Swoop ( http://theswoop.net) dedicated to undermining Washington's fondness for conventional wisdom.

    Here is another thought about experience. It isn't worth much if it includes malpractice.

  • (Show?)

    The "experience" sword cuts multiple ways. For example, the Shrub didn't have much experience in foreign policy either. Yet he managed to make a complete clusterfuck of America's foreign policy.

    I agree with Ignatius in that actual direct experience is often over-rated, frequently vastly so. Much, much more important, in my view, is a track record of well-reasoned conclussions in response to new information. An example would be Obama's near-prophetic analysis of what would result if the Shrub went ahead with his then-proposed Iraq War.

    IMHO the situation with a legislature is fundamentally different from a presidency. I think it something less than coincidence that legislators rarily get elected President, while their Gubernatorial peers much more often do get elected Prez. Very different skill sets are required and in a legislature direct experience functioning within a legislature can be very valuable.

  • (Show?)

    the reason congresspeople are rarely made President is generally attributed to their record of votes, which offer all manner of opportunity for distortion and framing.

  • Miles (unverified)
    (Show?)

    For example, the Shrub didn't have much experience in foreign policy either. Yet he managed to make a complete clusterfuck of America's foreign policy.

    What's also interesting about that is most people don't credit Bush as the one making decisions about the Iraq invasion. Cheney was driving the bus, and one thing that cannot be said about Cheney is that he lacks foreign policy experience. In the case of Iraq, that experience was a negative asset.

  • backbeat12 (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Here is another thought about experience. It isn't worth much if it includes malpractice.

    which leads me to this very on-topic subject, since you mentioned experience and malpractice. The National Republican Congressional Committee apparently stopped conducting independent audits of its finances five years ago, according to Republican sources and Federal Election Commission records.

    The NRCC will not confirm its audit history, citing an ongoing investigation into financial irregularities apparently centering on former Treasurer Christopher Ward. But the indication is that the committee did not conduct an independent audit at all during the 2003-2006 tenure of former Chairman Tom Reynolds (N.Y.) and his audit committee chairman, Rep. Greg Walden (Ore.).

    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/25/153820/067/921/463858

    Hey Walden, how's that experience and FISCAL RESPONSIBLITY working out for you?

    bwahahahahahahaha

  • Bill R. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Obama's surging in TX and OH. Pulling ahead in TX according to CNN poll by 4 pts today and four points behind in OH according to PPP. Some others have him further behind n OH but gaining. Gallup stand-alone poll (not daily tracking) now shows a nat. lead of 12 pts for Obama. Any bets on Clinton conceding soon? I bet on Mar. 5. Her latest effort at "finding her voice" seems not to have paid off. And apparently sending around a picture with Obama with a turban didn't move the numbers either. Neither did Harold Ickes' latest reference to Obama as "Jesse Jackson." You get a lot when you pay for a high priced strategist like Mark Penn.

  • backbeat12 (unverified)
    (Show?)

    She blew it coming out of the gate. Remember when she came to Oregon before launching and was raising $ for her own Senate campaign rather than helping Oregon Dems? We had to shame her into giving the DPO anything. Showed the selfishness of her campaign and approach.

  • petrichor (unverified)
    (Show?)

    as i said over on kos, (where steve's diary is currently on the rec list) the war vote is what got me . hillary's judgment was so wrong on iraq that i just can't take the risk of what her bad judgment might bring us in the future.

    i was never an edwards supporter (i liked dodd), i'm sure i'm in the minority here, but i always saw him as an opportunist with a bad track record as a conservative dem. obama's post feb 5th results have made me think that even if he is not the most progressive candidate we could have hoped for, at least he has a movement that will keep him in check if he strays too far--he'll still need them to get re-elected in the 2012 race against bobby jindahl.

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    as i said over on kos, (where steve's diary is currently on the rec list) the war vote is what got me . hillary's judgment was so wrong on iraq that i just can't take the risk of what her bad judgment might bring us in the future.

    i was never an edwards supporter (i liked dodd)

    If you were upset at Hillary voting for the war on Iraq, why did you like Dodd? He also voted for the war.

  • Opinionnated (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Watch this Hillary-ous segment by Tina Fey on SNL - "Bitch is the new Black"</a!

  • (Show?)

    I am voting for Barack Obama because I believe that he has the self-confidence to base his Presidency on hope, rather than fear.

    Ironic...

    And because, even if I might ultimately be disappointed, I'd rather be disappointed in new ways, rather than the same old ways.

    What a tepid endorsement. Particularly when compared to how glowingly he spoke of Hillary...

    Rarely have I read anything so impressive about an American politician. I felt completely at home with that Hillary Clinton. She's read the same history I have. (Since she's a bit older than I am, she directly experienced more of it too.) She's come to the same conclusions. She knows this stuff. She could be a great President.

    I know the press release says that he's endorsing Obama, but his words say otherwise.

    Hillary is "impressive."

    Obama might end in "disappointment."

    Hillary "would make a great president."

    Obama might end in "disappointment."

    He felt "completely at home with that Hillary Clinton."

    Obama might end up in "disappointment."

  • (Show?)

    Oh wait... I get it now. Novick's trying to be on both sides of the issue.

    Gee, don't we already have a Senator who tries to be on both sides of an issue?

  • (Show?)

    kev, you and Kari gotta stop skimming and start reading. Steve's point is that contrary to the CW, it's really Clinton who's all talk. What she says is what Steve likes; it's what she'll do that he's worried about. Plain hope doesn't get the job done by itself...but we know fear doesn't, and that's what Hillary's been peddling.

  • (Show?)

    At least Merkley had a positive reason for endorsing Obama. Novick endorsed the person he thinks understands the problems we face the least, supports bad health care, and is going to disappoint him. I don't know about you but I only endorse candidates I believe in and usually I don't hit them in the face with a frying pan first. I mean he repeats all the bogus Clinton attacks on Obama from health care to Reagan. With friends like these who needs enemies?

  • Daniel Spiro (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I have to admire Tina Fey for having the guts to piss off a large majority of her fans. Including me.

    I thought what she said was idiotic, but then again, this election is making a whole lot of us very passionate. I'm just hopeful that all this passion isn't going to pave the way for Mr. McCain to grab the election because of a split Democratic Party. We'll have to see what happens, won't we?

  • (Show?)
    Steve's point is that contrary to the CW, it's really Clinton who's all talk. What she says is what Steve likes; it's what she'll do that he's worried about.

    So you're saying that when Steve Novick said "She could be a great President" he meant to say that she's all talk?

    And you seriously think that's a believable explanation?

    Really?

  • (Show?)

    I mean he repeats all the bogus Clinton attacks on Obama from health care to Reagan. With friends like these who needs enemies?

    Exactly.

    It's like Steve was making an anti-endorsement of Obama. Otherwise why would he have praised Hillary and denigrated Obama?

    I'm sorry but it just feels like he's trying to be on both sides at the same time. If Hillary wins then he can point to his high praise of her and his denigration of Obama. If Obama wins then he can point to the bare technicality that he'd "endorsed" him while the race was still up for grabs and hope nobody remembers any of the details.

    Haven't we had our fill of politicians who hedge their bets so that no matter what happens they've got plausible deniability to fall back on?

  • NEL (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I think most of that SNL episode was meant to counter-balance Lorne Michaels' quote that Obama was so inspirational it would be hard to make fun of him. Comedians and satirists have to go against the grain, not just pile on the already unpopular, or they become stale echo chambers of conventional wisdom. Maybe Tina Fey actually feels that way, but their first priority was to escape the charge of bias toward Obama that surely would have plagued them throughout the race (and beyond?) following his statement.

  • (Show?)

    Kevin: I was surprised by this comment as well:

    And because, even if I might ultimately be disappointed, I'd rather be disappointed in new ways, rather than the same old ways.

    Wait a minute, isn't disappointment the same whether it's by new or old ways? I just didn't get that. It wasn't a glowing endorsement IMO.

    I will admit, I would have a really hard time writing an endorsement piece. I am still not sold on either Obama or Hillary, and will refrain from endorsing anyone until I've firmly made my decision.

  • (Show?)

    Count me in as another (former?) Edwards supporter who is still on the fence. I go back and forth between the two of them, Clinton and Obama, and just when I think that I've chosen one, they do something that sours me to them. I'm getting close to being resigned to being hopelessly undecided between them.

    I'll support whichever one wins the nomination, the phrase "President McCain" sends shivers down my spine and quite literally jolted me out of a dream I had one night. Either one would be an improvement over the disaster of a "leader" we've had for the last 7 years, and McCain would just me more of the same.

  • (Show?)

    no Sarah, there are always variations in how emotion plays on our lives. is every happiness you've experienced the same? i feel quite different depending on if i'm happy to find a bathroom (at last) or i see one of my sons again (at last).

    you miss the point of Steve's wordplay. we know what we'll get with Hillary; that is much of her appeal, after all. with Obama, we know we won't get that, and we know we'll get an attempt to do a different type of politics -- his appeal. what will that mean? what will the results be? will the world be saved, or will new disasters strike that simply overwhelm? or will too many politicians and too many citizens cling to old ways and stop this opportunity for progress?

    if we reach the end of 4 (or 8) years of an Obama presidency and look back in disappointment, it won't be the same disappointment we suffered under Bill, and surely not the same we'd suffer (possibly) under Hillary. if nothing else, if there is disappointment at the end of his presidency (and it's up to us to make sure that doesn't happen, but that's another story), it will be the disappointment that comes from trying a new way to do politics and not that of 90s-era politics.

    (and i'm sure both Obama and Hillary will find a way to persevere until you declare....jk)

  • Katy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Daniel Spiro - Are you serious? IT WAS FUNNY! Let's not lose our sense of humor please?

  • Opinionated (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Well, maybe in the humor of Tina Fey there was a whole of truth we can't see because right now there is passion, a fire burning for Obama our savior from all the perils, all the trials and tribulations we face, all our problems of these terrible years of the Bush rule.. he is the savior and channeler of the change we all are striving for. I have heard that before.... change doesnt come that easy...I have seen it before, the first 90 days of Bill Clinton!

  • (Show?)

    I almost forgot to pass this along...

    Where my family lives in Texas they've had Saturday and Sunday early voting because of the high turnout (there has been long lines at my home town's voting location, which typically only happens sometimes on Election Day itself).

    So yesterday my family filled the car and headed to the county building to vote. My nephew, who is 5, got all excited when he heard they were going to vote. He yelled loud and proud: "I'm voting for Barack Obama!"

    The entire time they were there, he was telling everyone he was voting today (mom explained to him ahead of time that they could get in trouble if he talked about who he wanted to vote for while they were there).

    He got disappointed when he didn't get a sheet showing him he voted. Although he was excited about helping the family learn how to use the voting machines (my parents weren't too comfortable asking a Republican how to vote on the machines).

    I just thought it was so cute that my nephew was running around saying he was voting for Obama. It's not like he got that from the house - everyone there are Hillary supporters.

    It's great to see little kids so excited about voting. When my parents started voting in the early 90s, they took us with them, and they continue that now with my nieces and nephews. And Abby always watches us vote our ballots. Nothing like getting kids excited about candidates and voting early so they'll want to vote when they're 18.

  • petrichor (unverified)
    (Show?)

    bill bodden,

    i know dodd voted for the war. he also said he made a mistake, that he regreted his vote and that he wished he could take it back. hillary just says "if i knew then what i know now..."

    but i was supporting dodd because of his leadership in congress, knowing full well he would never get the nomination. thanks for your concern.

  • (Show?)
    if we reach the end of 4 (or 8) years of an Obama presidency and look back in disappointment, it won't be the same disappointment we suffered under Bill, and surely not the same we'd suffer (possibly) under Hillary. if nothing else, if there is disappointment at the end of his presidency (and it's up to us to make sure that doesn't happen, but that's another story), it will be the disappointment that comes from trying a new way to do politics and not that of 90s-era politics.

    I can sum up how the disappointment is qualitatively different, with an old saying:

    "Tis better to have loved and lost, than never to have loved before."

    Or perhaps the Maryland Lotto: You Gotta Play to Win.

  • (Show?)

    Oh, and for you stalwart Merkley defending regulars (you know who you are)--you DO realize your argument boils down to "Steve endorsed Barack, but Jeff endorses him more!", right? Especially given its followup nature to Novick's endorsement, it sounds remarkably like one-upmanship on the level of "infinity plus one."

  • (Show?)
    it sounds remarkably like one-upmanship on the level of "infinity plus one."

    I'll turn the vote up to eleven!

  • Daniel Spiro (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Katy,

    Thanks for reminding me of the humor in Fey's piece on SNL. Yes, I understood the comic element to it, but your response was well taken. I was probably in a bad mood when I saw it (after watching her candidate attempt to skewer Obama, which of course will merely backfire, but I still found it off-putting).

    "Idiotic" was an inappropriate word for me to use. Unfortunately, I was projecting -- what I think is idiotic is the way Hillary is ending her campaign, by going as negative as she possibly can. When her supporters distributed photos of Barack wearing what appeared to be Muslim garb (but wasn't) in Africa, that was the last straw. I want to respect Hillary as much as Steve and Tina Fey do, but I can't.

  • (Show?)

    Bitch is the new black! I loved it. It was hilarious. And no, I still haven't made up my mind.

  • (Show?)
    Bitch is the new black! I loved it. It was hilarious.

    I don't know. As a humor piece it seemed a mite tepid. Certainly not as sarcastic as this A. Whitney Brown "Weekend Update" commentary from 1986. And Fey sort of had to skirt the whole Iraq war vote thing as a reason at least some people don't support Clinton(s). Two heads may be better than one, but not if they're competent at doing the wrong things.

  • (Show?)
    Posted by: torridjoe | Feb 25, 2008 11:24:39 PM Oh, and for you stalwart Merkley defending regulars (you know who you are)--you DO realize your argument boils down to "Steve endorsed Barack, but Jeff endorses him more!", right?

    You mean like how you keep saying that Merkley is progressive but Novick is more progressive?

    Were you born without the capacity to understand irony?

    Jeff endorsed Obama. Period. Steve sent out an endorsement of somebody and then, unlike Jeff, proceeded to pump it everywhere he could.

  • (Show?)

    "You mean like how you keep saying that Merkley is progressive but Novick is more progressive?"

    No--given that you CAN actually be more progressive than another candidate. But you can't endorse -more- than someone else; you either are endorsing, or you're not. Both men are endorsing Barack Obama for President, the Merkley campaign's witless attempts to claim otherwise notwithstanding.

  • (Show?)

    One endorsed Obama in no uncertain terms and the other did his best to cover his bets so that no matter who wins the nomination he can point back to either high praise for Hillary or an Obama endorsement, even if the endorsement appears to be nothing more than a technicality. A classic example of the very long political tradition of "plausible deniability." And of course if Ralph Nader somehow pulls off the impossible, Steve can point back to both a prior statement in support of Nader AND a wishy-washy faux endorsement as evidence that he was behind Nader all along.

    Isn't Gordo known for trying to play all sides of an issue too?

  • (Show?)

    Just not working for you, Kev. Take a nap until the next witless dispatch from Merkley oppo research gets faxed to you...

connect with blueoregon