| Opinion | Feb. 6, 2008 | 2:58 am |
Why does NU love Obama so much, anyway?
By
John McCain is halfway to a presidential nomination, our fair state still loves its junior senator, and a significant contingent of “Ron Paul crazies” on this campus think we’re all wrong. With Super Tuesday behind us and the Republican voice in pieces, the Chat Room asks, who do students love and what does that say about them? And where are all the Republicans hiding? You can also download the podcast to your computer by right-clicking and saving this link.
Listen to the conversation:
Matthew Leib said,
February 6, 2008 @ 2:10 pm
I honestly just got dumber. Also, Obama is Washington’s 8th most corrupt pol according to Judicial Watch. I don’t even see “crazy” Ron Paul on that list…also, NU students might be rich, white, and boarders, but we are no place to be comparing ourselves to New England prep schools.
Andrew Thompson said,
February 6, 2008 @ 10:09 pm
North by Northwestern:
Northwestern’s Ron Paul supporters are not only passionate “crazies”–to use your terminology–but we show-up to vote. We are not just in the business of painting the rock (though we did do that and it stood for a week, until Students for Obama painted it last Sunday and saw it melt away with rain by Monday morning) and holding rallies on campus (see link below): we get out the vote. Of the Republican candidates on the ballot, Ron Paul won the most votes in Evanston Ward 1, Precinct 6 with 37.5% of the vote. Voting in that precinct took place in Parkes Hall, with the precinct’s geographic boundaries including much of South campus–such as Allison, Willard, Foster Walker, etc..–and also the northern portions of downtown Evanston. Before you write-off the Ron Paul revolution at Northwestern–as well as the conservative/libertarian movement–I encourage you to speak with the many Ron Paul supporters on this campus. The movement is alive and well.
http://media.www.dailynorthwestern.com/media/storage/paper853/news/2008/02/06/Forum/Letters.To.The.Editor-3191276.shtml
Best,
Andrew Thompson
Founder and Leader
Northwestern Students for Ron Paul
Emily said,
February 6, 2008 @ 10:46 pm
Hey Matthew, if you notice, Clinton is right there at number one on that list. If we want change, and a Democrat in office, let’s go with one who will actually CHANGE politics and not just move in the same well worn grooves.
Matthew Leib said,
February 7, 2008 @ 1:45 am
Well said Andrew.
Emily, what I failed to notice before was that the Judicial Watch’s list was merely a sort of “ten worst” in alphabetical order, so yes Clinton appears at #1 and Obama at #8, but because of their last names. Never did I advocate for Clinton. I do not see how Obama so represents “CHANGE” other than he is younger and his skin is of a different color compared to the rest of the field and because of this young people think he is going to be this different and revolutionary politician.
This is all I hear when I speak with Obama supporters: “Change change change, Obama will bring change. End of argument. I hate to call people out, but prithee do tell, what “change” does Barack actually bring to the table? Every answer to that question I’ve received has been rather dodgy.
Aubrey Blanche said,
February 7, 2008 @ 12:22 pm
The change Obama will bring is a sincere effort to undermine partisan politics. This division of Republican versus Democrat has defeated legislation that is beneficial to all in the country, and has been defeated on the basis that a member of the opposing party brought forth the idea.
The country would be a much safer place with a new kind of politics. While it may not be completely possible, I see that Obama is committed to bringing people together and working for a more united America, something I think we can all agree would be a good thing.
Matthew Leib said,
February 7, 2008 @ 1:57 pm
I happen to think that apart from Dr. Paul, Obama is a palatable alternative. People voting Obama for Change over the Ron Paul Revolution is a bit like asking for the chef’s finest oatmeal instead of a juicy filet mignon. You are entitled order what you please, especially when the rest of the menus at Chez Hillary and Chez McCain offer nothing but stale biscuits and gruel. Some people just prefer some hearty oatmeal.
Aubrey, you are right in saying that the idea of a united and harmonious America is an enticing one, perhaps more easily enacted between the pages of Thomas More than in reality. Even so, I do not believe that there exists a certain set of shining legislation or a distinctly “correct” path partisan politics has been hindering all this time. As the sign in your local barbershop will probably attest, “you can’t please everybody all the time,” and I doubt America could or would unite behind Obama.
People “unite” under fascist or extremely nationalistic governments…Allow me an atrocious comparison, but in order to push forward and away from state squabbling, Hitler and Stalin advocated for more “united” countries too. People naturally divide and oppose in a democracy. The last thing I would want to see is an America united in uncontested support of a president’s policies or legislation (see how the government acted after 9/11 with an unquestioning [and fearful] populous behind it). “Unite” is a powerful word, and many people may want just that – a truly “united” state whose citizens share the same goals – but personally I’d prefer a confederation of states, not to mention opinions, over a truly united America any day.
Aubrey Blanche said,
February 7, 2008 @ 2:45 pm
Matthew, I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear about my position.
What I meant about changing partisan politics was that I despise the idea that voting for party is the only way to vote. I completely agree with you that it is real and necessary for people do disagree on issues, I just hate how everything is determined by party rather than personal stance in American today.
I believe that Obama is the candidate that will reach out to the Republicans and try to take the “Oh my gosh, I can’t agree with you because you’re from [insert you least favorite party here] party.”
Matthew Leib said,
February 7, 2008 @ 6:57 pm
Most of my previous comment can be chalked up to a free chunk of time in Norris this afternoon. Aubrey, I’m totally in agreement with you. I am equally distraught by people who insist on voting along party lines. The number of anti-war, anti-government, pro-decriminalization of marijuana people i’ve met who refuse to vote ron paul b/c he’s a republican and they can’t stomach their personal image of the “dirty and uncaring” GOP is stomach turning. I am sure the same goes for republicans who agree with obama but feel some sort of perverted loyalty to the GOP and vote mccain instead. gross.