|
Edited on Wed Feb-27-08 04:59 PM by SteveM
After all, Michelle O. said Barack can get "snorey and stinky."
My reasons: while Obama has a bad record on the Second Amendment, he does seem more open to change as evidenced by his recognition of 2A as an individual right. Of course, this leaves open the "common sense" regulations which often mask the most grotesque forms of gun control, and leaves open a kind of "states' rights" fall back to excuse the gun control measures of D.C. and Chicago. But Obama must realize (and all of us must concede) that once you accept the individual right position, then regulations cannot be anymore onerous than those on, say, the First Amendment. There is an apples/oranges question as to what constitutes regulation from right to right; but one could say that about any right in the BOR. The problem anyone has with this question is that the Second is unique in that an icon or object (arm), is involved, whereas the other rights are concepts which defy regulation, save for another concept. (The "press" may be an exception, but even here, this icon dissolves into pixel dust.)
Obama must also realize that the 14th Amendment (1868), largely concerned with the systematic disarmament of African-Americans, can be brought to bear upon any state, or locality acting in inferior partnership with a state, which seeks to (re)impose significant infringements upon the Second Amendment. While D.C. may argue that since it is not a state and the 14th does not apply, I see no reason why D.C., in its regrettable non-state status, should not be DIRECTLY subject to the Second, being, as it were, an entity of the United States. Put another way, perhaps the 14th is not needed in D.C.'s case.
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has long imbued herself in anti-gun politics, and aggressively so. Her deep cultural identity with gun-controllers makes her less likely, IMO, to change her stance, lest she upset her relationship with the more hoary elements of the gun prohibitionist cause. If she makes no significant change in her position -- even as president -- the Second Amendment will once again surface as a significant issue in future presidential elections. Obama, on the other hand, has the flexibility to change or "grow" on the issue and thereby temper any reaction to gun-control efforts by Congress. Ironically, Clinton's criticism of Obama as inexperienced may in fact hurt her.
Finally, above and beyond the Second, Obama's strongest card is a superior campaign. Face it, even knowledgeable and active citizens learn very little from the campaign rhetoric of any candidate; we can only judge how a candidate will fare in office based on how his/her campaign is organized. I am struck by the speed and effectiveness of Obama in answering the increased number of attacks launched on him. Today, for example, McCain came down on Obama for supposedly not knowing that Al'qaida was operating in Iraq, and Obama -- within a few hours -- came right back, attacking McCain for not knowing that the terrorist group was NOT in Iraq before our invasion of that country. This is the kind of superior hard-hitting speed heretofore missing in Democratic candidates' campaigns. I'm afraid Hillary Clinton is part of the "don't make a move, don't make a ripple" milieu which breeds defeat and casts Democrats as unwilling to fight, unwilling to act quickly and decisively.
Having said that, Obama could be a complete failure, but we won't know that for a few years should he be elected. We are dealing with failure enough as it is. Sorry for the length of this.
|