I never got on the Barack Obama bandwagon as long as there were other, better candidates available -- namely John Edwards and Chris Dodd. But now that we're down to two, I have gravitated to Obama -- and it was not a particularly difficult decision. Barack Obama might not be a perfect candidate -- he's flawed in many ways -- but he not just represents our best chance to win the White House, but an Obama presidency can lay the foundation for a true progressive revival in America the way a Hillary Clinton never will.
Hillary Clinton has her virtues. She's tough and battle-tested. She's extremely intelligent and knowledgeable, which would be a HUGE improvement over what we've had to put up with in the White House over the last eight years. There is no doubt in my mind that a Hillary Clinton presidency would be an effective one in terms of undoing some of the enormous damage the Bush administration has wrought upon our nation.
But Barack Obama is something else altogether. And there are nine reasons I prefer Barack to Hillary as our nominee, as you can see after the flip...
9. Past vs. future. Barack Obama represents the future of the Democratic Party. Hillary Clinton represents the past. While there are many who would like to relive the Clinton years, the conditions simply aren't there for that to happen. With that in mind, it's time for a new approach.
8. Experience is overrated. Hillary Clinton has touted her experience, and no doubt that it can be an asset on occasion, but remember that it was "experienced" politicians who wrecked our economy, who got us into Iraq, and who rolled over to Bush's every whim and demand. Maybe there's something to be said for a candidate who DOESN'T have a whole lot of DC experience -- there's little evidence that it helps all that much.
7. Baggage. It's not her fault, but Hillary Clinton is a a highly polarizing figure, and a Clinton candidacy would resurrect all the silly innuendo and witch hunts that plagued her husband's terms in office. At best, these things are a distraction; at worst, they can sabotage her presidency. Bill Clinton had to focus so much on self-preservation while in office that he accomplished precious few progressive goals. Hillary's going to have to deal with similar roadblocks.
6. Mark Penn. That a Democratic campaign would hire an individual with a track record of busting unions is extremely troubling, and it speaks to either poor judgment on the campaign's part, or (worse) to an actual antipathy to labor. Such an attitude betrays the very reason for the Democratic Party's existence, and is no way to attract the votes of working-class Americans, who are desperately looking for leadership from SOMEWHERE.
5. Vision vs. details. Hillary Clinton is an extremely detail-oriented candidate, with thorough, well-thought-out ideas on how to deal with the various issues confronting our nation, from health care to Iraq. That certainly sounds good, and it's an asset when actually governing, but it doesn't win elections, as John Kerry can attest. Barack Obama is more of a visionary, and while his kumbaya post-partisan rhetoric can sound naive and annoying at times, there's no doubt that it's the kind of talk that moves votes. Hundred-point-plans don't win elections.
4. DLC. Hillary Clinton is the DLC candidate. Barack Obama isn't. A vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for the whole DLC apparatus that virtually destroyed the party as an entity distinct from the Republicans. The running fiasco that the current Congress has been is a letter-perfect reflection of the DLC's toxic influence on the Democratic Party. The prosecution rests.
3. Ability to expand the voter base. Young people have been registering to vote in droves as Obama's campaign has picked up steam. Many of them weren't politically aware or involved until now. Many independents have also crossed over to register support for Obama, which makes for a critical antidote against faux-maverick John McCain. We all know McCain is a fraud, but that information hasn't seeped out enough for it to be a factor.
2. Charisma. It sucks, but the reality is that charismatic candidates DO draw more support than noncharismatic ones. We would all like elections to be about issues and platforms, but the real world doesn't work that way. Hillary Clinton isn't a stiff or anything, but Barack Obama is a once-in-a-generation political figure, and he's on OUR side. Obama is young, vibrant, dynamic, and visionary. John McCain is a pathetic, cranky, bitter old man. It would be Kennedy vs. Nixon, squared.
1. Iraq. The Iraq war is the defining issue of the first decade of the twenty-first century. Obama was right, and Clinton was wrong. It doesn't matter WHY either candidate took the position he or she did -- whether it was good/bad judgment, political calculation, or extreme naivete in believing that Bush was acting in good faith -- the bottom line is that Hillary Clinton is a part-owner of this debacle, and Barack Obama is not. An Obama nomination would offer a tremendous opportunity to reframe the Iraq discussion around a "was the war right or wrong" narrative, instead of the "was the war conducted well or poorly" narrative, which concedes the Iraq frame to the Republicans, and didn't work for John Kerry.
I'm just another guy here on Kos. I'm just describing where I'm coming from, for whatever it's worth. I don't believe either candidate is the optimal one, but this is the hand we've been dealt. And there is little doubt in my mind that Obama would be a much sounder choice for the nomination.