Return to the Free Liberal Homepage

« Not So Fast | Main | Paying for It »

Obama: The Best Antiwar Option Left

I remain part of the Ron Paul revolution. That said, of the three candidates left, I think Obama is the least evil. Justin Raimondo over at Antiwar.com expressed that sentiment in a new article.

Why should Free Liberals choose Obama? First and foremost, unlike Hillary he opposed the Iraq War from the outset and at least represents a somewhat different perspective on foreign policy that is not so doctrinaire and beholden to the War Party. Also, his health care proposal is not quite as repressive as Clinton's. Lastly, even though many of his supporters may be ignorant of the matter, Obama does have a major legislative accomplishment to his name (pro-freedom transparency legislation that he co-sponsored with Sen. Coburn). What has Hillary done?

Will the establishment strangle Obama's candidacy as it did Dean's candidacy 4 years ago? Only time will tell. But in my opinion, Obama is the best choice of Free Liberals at this point. That said, if former Congressman Bob Barr jumps into the race, his candidacy would be catnip to Ron Paul revolutionaries.

Posted by Paul Gessing on March 9, 2008 03:21 PM |

Comments

Obama just wants to shift troops from Iraq to Afghanistan and Pakistan. He's against the Iraq War, but it's false hope and false change like his other promises. The only true antiwar candidate not *officially* out of the race is Ron Paul. So it's better to keep supporting Paul out of principle, than to vote against your conscience by picking the lesser of the evils.

Posted by: Jim Morton | March 9, 2008 07:56 PM

Obama voted for the unPATRIOTic ACT as well the extension of same. Enough said.

Take a stand. Quit playing "their" game.

Ron Paul has not ended his campaign despite what you're hearing. He encourages his supporters to continue becoming precinct leaders and delegates. He has not conceded anything. This a revolution of ideas. Be a part of it.

Posted by: Dagny | March 9, 2008 11:18 PM

It would be relevant and interesting to you to take note of Rand Paul's statement
over at www.dailypaul dot com Paul has clearly NOT dropped out. He used the formulation - in the video - victory in the presidential race " by conventional means" does not seem possible, at this moment. This does not exclude the possibility of Paul getting the nomination by "unconventional" means, which could involve a number of McCain delegates (especially the anti-war among them) and other conservatives against McCain together with Paul delegates denying McCain the majority needed in the first round of voting, and then all is open. Of course, McCain could also torpedo his own nomination by a wrong statement, some revelation about his past/connections etc. (we have already seen signs of that lately, also his anger/short temperedness and economic illetaracy). The economic situation and/or change in Iraq situation could also contribute towards a Paul nomination.

Posted by: stefan | March 10, 2008 05:06 AM

John McCain has enough delegates and will likely get an overabundnace in the remaining primaries. Even if Paul were to lead a rump action of McCain peacenicks, it will likely not be enough.

As to "making a statement" by not voting for Obama because he is not perfect..GET REAL!

This election will be close. Standing on principle to avoid compromising ones principles has the moral hazard of allowing a greater evil to exist than otherwise would.

If you are uncomfortable with that, I suggest a monastic existence (although then you really see politics up close and personal).

Posted by: Michael Bindner | March 10, 2008 09:55 AM

I am confused that you mentioned a friend of Cheney and Bush, a Harvard guy who was raised with a silver spoon and a guy with one term in office as the best candidate.

The best candidate, and the best antiwar candidate is Cynthia McKinney, a six term congresswomen who spook out on many occasions, and protested at many rallies. She will bring justice to america by imprisoning those who did this to our country. http://mckinney2008.com

Posted by: Cynthia Mckinney is the Best candidate | March 10, 2008 04:10 PM

stefan,

Utilitarian logic is never moral. Voting for the best person is first and always the only right thing to do. Because the rest of the world wants to jump over the larger cliff and you can't stop it doesn't mean you go start shouting for the lesser cliff.

I will vote Libertarian this fall, and it will not be my fault that the rest of the people out there aren't smart enough to do that themselves.

Voting for someone who promises to take away people's rights is an immoral act. Faced with good and evil acts, choose good ones, period.

Posted by: BZ | March 10, 2008 09:06 PM

BZ, you are assuming that voting is an individual enterprise. It is not. It is a group enterprise. If a bloc, such as the LP, votes in such a way as a group to assure the election of a candidate who is a greater evil than the one otherwise elected, that bloc has performed an immoral act.

Posted by: Michael Bindner | March 11, 2008 09:22 AM

Hi Michael,

I'm astonished to have to point this out to a libertarian, but abstractions don't exist as such-- Plato and Marx notwithstanding.

Moreover, I thought we would agree that I have been endowed with rights and responsibilities that can not be governed by the LP, by others who agree with me on most things, or by anyone else. My soul and my choices are my own, and I am accountable for them alone. You are as well. You are not just a member of a group. You are an individual, with your own moral accountability. You are not accountable for the choices of others, nor do they do you credit.

Moreover, these majority decisions that come out of voting are, clearly enough, out of the immediate control of individuals. stephen's implication was that someone, if I vote for the lesser-evil candidate (even though a good candidate is available) and he still loses, I will still have done the right thing. That's clearly ludicrous, and I'll have no part of it. I pray you don't fall for it either.

Posted by: BZ | March 11, 2008 07:47 PM

Voting is ultimately a social act, therefore one must determine the likelihood that ones vote will be joined with others. For those of us that live in Virginia - which include many on the editorial staff of this zine, face the distinct possiblity of casting the vote that tilts the balance in Virginia.

If we act as a group, or if the LP acts, then it will have more of an impact.

If you are consciously in a group that consciously votes in a way that a greater evil candidate wins when a lesser evil candidate could have been elected, then the group and the individuals in the group are responsible for that action.

(and under the rules of vincible and invincible ignorance, if you weren't conscious of it before, you are now).

I am not saying you are not responsible for your vote. Quite the oppossite. You are quite responsible for it AND the implications which flow from it. It is not your vote that matters, but who gets elected. Sometimes, what amounts to a protest vote can be considered an evil act if that vote changes who gets elected.

Posted by: Michael Bindner | March 13, 2008 12:33 PM

Free-for-all (frfr-ôl) -- n. A disorderly fight, argument, or competition in which everyone present participates.

from Dictionary.com



Advertisement
Free For All -- The Free Liberal Blog