02.13.08

Why I’m For Barack Obama

Posted in 2008 Primary, Around The Nation, Around The State, Commentary, Presidential Election at 11:24 am by wcnews

I will begin by saying that no matter who wins the Democratic nomination for president, the most important thing for this country is that a Democratic president be sworn in January of 2009. Along with many more Democratic members of the US House and Senate. That is the only way we can reverse the destruction of this Bush presidency.

I’ve stayed away from blogging about the presidential primary, just taking it all in. John Edwards was my first choice and his struggles deciding if/who to endorse are similar to mine. I’m strong for single-payer health care and none of the “Big Three” on the Democratic Party support that. Some of my reasoning for my choice is what I call baby boomer, aka the destructive generation, backlash, and agree with this post, (Selling Out) My Generation. I can’t say either of the two candidates really reaches out and grabs me, but one does stand out over the other and that’s Barack Obama.

This article by Christopher Hayes in The Nation, The Choice, comes the closest to my sentiments on choosing Obama, (excerpts to follow).

Insofar as the issues discussed during a presidential campaign are circumscribed by the taboos and pieties of the political and media establishments, they tend to be dispiriting for those of us on the left. Neither front-runner is calling for the nation to renounce its decades-old imperial posture or to end the prison-industrial complex; neither is saying that America’s suburbs and car culture are not sustainable modes of living in an era of expensive oil and global warming or pointing out that the “war on drugs” has been a moral disaster and strategic failure, with casualties borne most violently and destructively by society’s most marginalized and–a word you won’t be hearing from either candidate–oppressed. And yet, this election is far more encouraging (dare I say hopeful?) than any in recent memory. The policy agenda for the Democratic front-runners is significantly further to the left on the war, climate change and healthcare than that of John Kerry in 2004. The ideological implosion of conservatism, the failures of the Bush Administration and, perhaps most important, the shifts in public opinion in a leftward direction on war, the economy, civil liberties and civil rights are all coming together at the same time, providing progressives with the rare and historic opportunity to elect a President with a progressive majority and an actual mandate for progressive change.

The question then becomes this: which of the two Democratic candidates is more likely to bring to fruition a new progressive majority? I believe, passionately and deeply, if occasionally waveringly, that it’s Barack Obama.

And I believe that Obama with greater congressional majorities would be more willing and able to sell that new progressive message much better. Obama will be able to bring along many Independents to support his, and hopefully our, policy agenda. Clinton with her baggage, deserved or not, just won’t be given a chance by many outside the Democratic Party. I hope Obama does not take his message of inclusion too far though. He does not need to worry about the far right, they will never give him a chance. Make an offer once, and that’s about it. As often happens in the presidential race the real issues that the many, what might be called minor or deeper issues, get pushed aside.

Hayes’ article continues:

Clinton’s fundamentally defensive conception of how to defuse the Republicans on national security (neutralizing their hawkishness with one’s own) is an example of a larger problem, rooted in the fact that so many of her circle served in her husband’s Administration. Their political identities were formed in the crucible of crisis, from the Gingrich insurgency to the Ken Starr inquisition. The overriding imperative was survival against massive odds, often with a hostile public, press or both. Like an animal caught in a trap that chews off its leg to wriggle away, the Clinton crew by the end of its tenure had hardly any limbs left to propel an agenda. The benefit of this experience, much touted by the Clintons, is that they know how to fight and how to survive. But the cost has been high: those who lived through those years are habituated to playing defense and fighting rear-guard actions. We know how progressives fared under Clintonism: they were the bloodied limbs left in the trap. Clintonism, in other words, is the devil we know.

Which brings us to the one we don’t. A President cannot build a movement, but he can be its messenger, as was Reagan. Part of what tantalizes and frustrates about Obama is that he seems to have the potential to be such a messenger and yet shies away from speaking in ideological terms. When he invokes union organizers facing Pinkerton thugs to give us our forty-hour week, or says we are bound to one another as “our brother’s keeper…our sister’s keeper,” he is articulating the deepest progressive values: solidarity and community and collective action. But he places more rhetorical emphasis on a politics of “unity” that, read uncharitably, seems to fetishize bipartisanship as an end in itself and reinforce lame and deceptive myths that the parties are equally responsible for the “bickering” and “divisiveness” in Washington. It appears sometimes that his diagnosis of what’s wrong with politics is the way it is conducted rather than for whom.

In its totality, though, Obama’s rhetoric tells a story of politics that is distinct from both the one told by Beltway devotees of bipartisanship and comity and from the progressive activists’ story of a ceaseless battle between the forces of progress and those of reaction. If it differs from what I like to hear, it is also unfailingly targeted at building the coalition that is the raison d’être of Obama’s candidacy. Consider this passage from Obama’s stump speech:

I’ve learned in my life that you can stand firm in your principles while still reaching out to those who might not always agree with you. And although the Republican operatives in Washington might not be interested in hearing what we have to say, I think Republican and independent voters outside of Washington are. That’s the once-in-a-generation opportunity we have in this election.

I believe Obama can get 60% of the nation to go along with him on many things, those moderate Republicans and Independents, that Clinton can’t. And that part of his speech above shows that while he willing to include those that want to join, he’s not going to try to hard to bring the “Republican operatives”, and wing-nuts into the fold, nor should he.

And last:

The question of who can best build popular support for a progressive governing agenda is related to, but distinct from, the question of electability. Given a certain ceiling on Clinton’s appeal (due largely to years of unhinged attacks from the “vast right-wing conspiracy”), her campaign seems well prepared to run a 50 percent + 1 campaign, a rerun of 2004 but with a state or two switching columns: Florida, maybe, or Ohio. Obama is aiming for something bigger: a landmark sea-change election, with the kind of high favorability and approval ratings that can drive an agenda forward. Why should we think he can do it?

The short answer is that Obama is simply one of the most talented and appealing politicians in recent memory. Perhaps the most. Pollster.com shows a series of polls taken in the Democratic campaign. The graphs plotting national polling numbers as well as those in the first four states show a remarkably consistent pattern. Hillary Clinton starts out with either a modest or, more commonly, a massive lead, owing to her superior name recognition and the popularity of the Clinton brand. As the campaign goes forward Clinton’s support either climbs slowly, plateaus or dips. But as the actual contest approaches, and voters start paying attention, Obama’s support suddenly begins to grow exponentially.

In addition to persuading those who already vote, Obama has also delivered on one of the hoariest promises in politics: to bring in new voters (especially the young). It’s a phenomenon that, if it were to continue with him as nominee, could completely alter the electoral math. Young people are by far the most progressive voters of any age cohort, and they overwhelmingly favor Barack Obama by stunning margins. Their enthusiasm has translated into massive increases in youth turnout in the early contests.

Bringing in many new voters, and bringing back the Independents, is the prescription for a landslide. That’s the potential that Obama has that no one else in the race, in either party, has.

I also don’t worry about either candidate winning the general election, especially if John McCain is the nominee. Once Iraq heats up again this summer, and with the rotting dead chicken around his neck, his campaign will be all but over. (Not to mention the tired old man, vs. the hopeulf young man, which was evident last night, will hurt him). The death toll for December was about as low as possible, and will only continue rising from there. I also don’t buy the down-ballot horror many think will occur in Clinton is the nominee.

I too want change in the White House and that’s one reason I’m not supporting Clinton. It’s time for someone other than a Bush or Clinton to be our president. I know it may sound crass, but that’s one reason why I’ve never really thought I would vote for her in the primary. I’m not the only one who feels that way, and that is at the heart of the change that many are seeking in this election, something different. That would be more than 20 years with someone from one of those two families in the White House if she served only one term. And, who knows, she might be running against Jeb in ’12.

I think this is an amazing race for the nomination. I can remember after John Kerry’s loss in 2004, listening to a women in her advanced years, speaking with certainty that Hillary Clinton will win the nomination in 2008. She wanted to see someone of her gender be president in her lifetime. And it made me think what a truly amazing change for the better that would be. But I also couldn’t have thought then that we’d not only have the opportunity to elect a woman, but an African-American too. Not matter which of these candidates wins the primary, and becomes president, it can only help our image around the country. It will prove that not only white men can run this great country, and begin mending our image around the world.

I wasn’t around when JFK ran in 1960 but from what my mother has told me, that was the first election she vote in, the way young people are reacting to Obama is very similar. Obama is not perfect nor is he our only hope. No president can do it alone, and will need many quality people to help him govern. There is much work to be done in Senate, House state legislative, and local races that’s just as important, if no more, than this race. We cannot let this primary divide.

Therefore I believe that electing more and better Democrats, along with Barack Obama as our next president is our best hope, and endorse him for president.

Permalink