I don't care about the Rezko controversy. I understand how accusations and disclaimers can be spun in all directions concerning situations like these. You can read into it whatever you want.
I'm concerned more about the judgments he'll make as a leader. And there's a few positions he's taken that perplex me.
His main claim to progressive credentials seemed to stem from his stand against the Iraq war while in the Illinois state legislature, which came on the progressive radar after his inspiring speech at the Dem Convention.
His stand against the war was embraced by all of us who have been calling for its end from its very beginning. But what troubles me is why he chose to endorse Lieberman in his race against Lamont. I know Lieberman was Obama's mentor. But what principles were guiding Obama's judgement in this situation? Lieberman was acknowledged as a leading supporter of the war. Lamont became the national symbol for the war's opponents. Lieberman's victory was a setback to those efforts. Lieberman's victory has resulted in the single most effective detractor to capturing the majority in the Senate. Because of Lieberman, our majority is in name only, and virtually ineffective. It was predictable, yet Barack chose loyalty to Lieberman over the commitment that seemed to be expressed in his vote while in the state legislator. This was a matter of judgement. It indicates a compromising of loyalty over principle which is pretty typical within establishment party politics.
Barack voted for the Peru Trade Agreement. This troubles me, as appears he'll lead us further in that direction.
What really caught my attention was that Barack voted for legislation that emasculated class action lawsuits, giving corporations the advantage over collective individuals (something I had fought long and hard over with Senator Feinstein). I don't like where he sided on this one at all, and I can only wonder if he'll make similar judgements when he directs policy as a leader.
And he voted for the disastrous energy bill.
He's also expressed approval of pursuing nuclear energy because in his judgement it may be a temporary necessity to curtailing the effects of global climate change. I understand it would take approximately 10 years to get any new plants up and running. The resources expended would detract from the concentrated effort to produce clean energy and we'd be left with just another environmental problem in dealing with the nuclear waste that's left behind along with all the safety issues connected with operating nuclear plants.
Similar to Lieberman, Barack seems open to incorporating a privatizing element into the Social Security program. You can't divide the system and expect it to survive. There are multiple ways to fix it, most of which involve recapturing sources of income from the very rich. Removing the cap would go a long way toward fixing it.
Barack doesn't seem to understand the fundamental difference between a paper trail and an paper ballot in preserving the integrity of our voting system. (Edwards is the only one I've seen who's actually made note of this difference and poses further questions regarding electronic voting systems.) This issue is crucial to preserving the essence of our democracy.
These are all critical issues to me, and I don't see a pattern of judgement in Obama that leaves me confident or inspired.
I'm not looking to attack him, I just don't see anything special or different.