In looking back on previous posts, it appears that my positions have changed. About Iraq and my feelings concerning Presidential candidates, a few things are noteworthy. One, everyone's perspective is limited to what media wants to tell us. For that reason, our vision -- our global perspective is skewed one way or another according to the information we receive. Another thing is that circumstances in the world change, requiring flexibility to change with them. One cannot grow and succeed if he cannot adapt. Finally, humans have a natural tendency of growing out of their previous beliefs as they see the world from different angles and understand that sometimes, an old opinion is not necessarily a good opinion. Thus, while it appears that I am a wishy-washy, flip-flopping, waffler, quite the opposite is true. The truth is that I consider how the world changes, I am adaptable to that change, and I am a human who believes that growth is part of change and that growth is conducive to success. Now, as the world changes, it does not always change for the better. As for Iraq, it may never be secure without an American presence, and a perpetual American presence is unrealistic.
As for presidential candidates, I have watched Obama grow politically since 2004, and the change has been only positive. I have watched Senator McCain grow since 2000, and the change has become somewhat troubling. He has become a spokesman for the far right, effectively alienating centrists like me. Also, either he has no vision concerning domestic affairs or he is reticent to vocalize that vision. Finally, some of his admissions have caused me to reconsider who I support. He has said that the economy is not an interesting topic, and he changes the subject to foreign affairs any time someone asks him about the economy. I believe Obama has a good sense about both foreign and domestic affairs, being extreme about neither. McCain has admitted that he is a manager and not a leader. I believe this country needs both, and Barack Obama is both. McCain has admitted that he is not concerned about how long we stay in Iraq as long as there are no American casualties. I believe that we should be concerned with both how long we stay and how many casualties we sustain.
There are other problems. How can we spend 9$ billion a month in Iraq when we Americans face an oncoming recession? How can we sustain a tax break for the wealthiest when we have to pay $9 billion a month for Iraq? How can we talk about privatizing healthcare or social security and, at the same time, discuss a recession and Iraq? Also, how can McCain and Clinton attack Obama by calling his words platitudinous and empty when the words McCain and Clinton attach to our world bear no hope for Americans? I don't believe talk is cheap. Franklin Delano Roosevelt believed in talk, that talk was how he kept Americans informed about his Administration. He was open and honest, which made Americans want to support Roosevelt's policies. In that way, Roosevelt turned talk into action. He knew there could be no action without talk. I suppose if Obama is about talk, and his talk is open and honest, then Obama also is about affecting change in America. I would suggest, then, that McCain and Clinton are misguided. If they don't believe in giving Americans hope, they can't possibly be concerned with affecting change. I cannot in good conscience support a candidate that chastises a human being for encouraging people to dream and to hope.