The New York times opines that if Barack Obama is elected, it will mark the first time that the president of the United States is a civil libertarian. Hmm…I’m not so sure.
Don’t get me wrong. There is no doubt that Obama stands closer to the ideal of individual freedom than either Clinton or McCain. But that’s not saying much. Clinton is the classic Liberal “let the government take care of you” Momma; McCain is more authoritarian than Rudy Giuliani and George Bush rolled into one (this is not to imply he will make a worse president than either of them).
Barack Obama on the other hand has displayed that at least on some issues (abortion, healthcare, Patriot Act, mandatory recording of interrogations), he favours choice and respects freedom. However, I will not go so far as to call him a civil libertarian. Not with this and this and this.
Nevertheless, as I have said before, I hope Obama wins. Yes, I disagree with him on many issues – but he is better than the rest.
There will be many firsts, if Obama muscles himself this nomination. It will also be the first time that a campaign was successful on applying and getting away with “race-baiting”. Next, the false claim of momentum, much of it media hype influenced and injected by campaign leader, Jesse Jackson Jr., who has scarred his father’s legacy of peaceful revolution. Jesse Jackson Jr. and campaign supporters have been threatening black senators, governors, and civil leaders with the loss of their supporters and their future positions, if they don’t jump on this dream bandwagon. Obama’s tactics are no more different than his cousin Odinga - Kenya’s ethnic cleansing leader. Obama will decide to whom the civil liberties will apply, because Obama believes they do not apply to all. Do not for a minute believe “The Change” Obama is touting, is for the good of all Americans, he never said that.
You say that Obama’s supporters have been ‘threatening’ other black leaders to support him. Do you have any evidence / links that connect Obama to these alleged ‘tactics’?