It's Obama

After a great deal of hand-wringing and soul-searching, I have decided to vote for Barack Obama for the nomination. In fact, since I will not be home on Super Tuesday, I already did so and mailed in my absentee ballot last week. I feel extremely comfortable with my choice, and I wanted to set out some of my reasoning here.

1. Electability: I have always viewed this factor as the most important consideration. But before I talk about why I feel that Obama is more electable than Clinton, I want to say a few words about my philosophy of voting, and why I place so much importance on the issue of electability.
There is, of course, the negative reason for considering electability, namely, the fact that a Republican victory is just too awful to consider. While McCain often gets portrayed in the media as a "moderate", that is far from true. He has always been staunchly anti-abortion, and I have every reason to believe that his Supreme Court nominees would be no more acceptable than Bush's. Indeed, in his desire to kow-tow to the religious right, I suspect that McCain would bend over backwards to make sure that his judicial nominees are as reactionary as possible. And, McCain's views on foreign policy are even more frightening than his positions on social issues. He has consistently aligned himself with the worst of the neo-conservatives, a group that I consider to be among the most dangerous people in the world. It is not an accident that Lieberman signed on to McCain's campaign as a very enthusiastic supporter at an early date, and it is even more telling that the neo-cons' original candidate of choice, Giuliani, jumped to McCain at the earliest opportunity. The candidate whose idea of humming a happy tune is to sing "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" simply cannot become President.
There is another, more positive reason why I think it is appropriate to treat electability as the principal consideration in deciding how to vote in a primary election. As Democrats, we are members of a kind of "club", a political organization called the Democratic Party. Voting is not just an exercise in self-expression, where we each vote for the candidate most consistent with our individual, subjective preferences. When we vote in a primary, we owe a responsibility to our "club", the Democratic Party, to try to select the candidate who will have the best chance of making our party victorious in the general election. In the old days, party insiders exercised that function within the confines of smoke-filled rooms. Today, we exercise that function in primary elections (or caucuses). But the purpose is the same - to select the strongest candidate for our Party.
In a general election against McCain, I believe that Obama will be a stronger candidate than Clinton. The one person who has helped me to see this over the past few weeks is none other than Bill Clinton. Clinton has reminded us that while Americans overwhelmingly supported the substantive accomplishments of his Presidency, there was a lot to dislike about him personally. He treated the Presidency as a personal plaything, and he caused unnecessary damage to the Democratic Party in the process. It took us 12 years to regain control of Congress - and I do blame him for having lost it in the first place. During this campaign, he has acted like a big baby who wants his favorite toy back, and is outraged that an upstart like Obama might prevent him from having it. In the general election, Bill Clinton will be an enormous albatross around Hillary's neck.
By contrast, Obama can make the Democratic case against McCain in ways that will simply be unavailable to Clinton. Obama can claim the benefits of the substantive achievements of Clinton's policies, without being burdened by Bill Clinton's personal baggage. Obama can credibly make the case that he is a true outsider, filled with new ideas untainted by the all of the crap inside of the Beltway. And his life story is that of a genuine idealist. Obama achieved a status which truly is the ultimate accomplishment of any law school graduate: the Presidency of the Harvard Law Review. That Obama chose to use that status not for personal gain but in order to fulfill a life of community service is virtually unprecedented. Obama really is - both in his words and in his actions - an inspiration to us all.
The general election is likely to be taking place during some very bad economic times. Clinton would be able to make strong economic appeals during the general election based upon the track-record of her husband's Presidency. But I believe that all Democrats will look very strong on economic issues when voters consider the Katrina-like condition of the American economy that the Bush Administration has created. Obama's mastery of economics - to describe him as a quick study is an understatement - will leave McCain in the dust, leaving him with nothing to do but to recite the meaningless Republican nostrums (cut taxes for the rich, less regulation, small government) that have created our current mess. Americans aren't going to buy it. In contrast, Obama will describe, with his unmatched eloquence, a Democratic program that makes sense to Americans: universal health care, relief for college tuitions, responsible fiscal policies, a fair tax system, and reform of the international monetary system. I feel very good about the outcome of that election.
It's also worth noting that Obama presents many original economic proposals, often challenging many aspects of liberal orthodoxy. His principal economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, is a Professor at the University of Chicago. While Goolsbee is far from being a Friedmanesque free-marketeer, he has often been willing to question traditional liberal thinking on issues such as trade and taxes. Another principal economic adviser is Karen Korbluh. Ms. Kornbluh was a deputy to Treasury Secretary Rubin during the Clinton Administration, and has become well-known for her writings on the "Mommy Track", advocating in favor of major improvements in child-care and parental leave policies in order to eliminate structural disparities in the economic status of men and women. Perhaps the most telling testament to Obama's qualifications to provide leadership on the subject of the economy is the fact that his candidacy has recently been endorsed by former Federal Reserve Chair Paul Volcker - the first time Volcker has ever taken a position in support of a candidate during the primary elections.


2. Iraq: Unlike many people, I have been willing to cut Clinton some slack on the issue of Iraq. It is quite obvious to me why Senator Clinton voted in favor of authorizing the war; it is the same reason why Senators Kerry and Edwards voted the same way. They all thought that it would be political suicide to vote otherwise. Realistically, it is difficult to fault that assessment. The Democratic Party was desperately seeking to avoid being tarred as "soft on terrorism", and Bush deliberately scheduled the vote on the authorization of military force in Iraq in October 2002, shortly before the mid-term elections, in order to put maximum pressure on Congressional Democrats. The war was enormously popular at the time, and had the war turned out to be the "cakewalk" that was predicted by Rumsfeld and virtually the entirety of the punditocracy, anyone who had opposed the war would have been irrevocably written off as a fool, and possibly a traitorous one at that.
If Barack Obama had been a U.S. Senator rather than an Illinois State Senator at the time, how would he have voted? Would he have been as courageous as he was, or would he have succumbed to expediency as Senators Clinton, Edwards, Kerry, and many others did? Obviously, we can never know, but I do believe that Obama's wise and prescient rejection of Iraq War fever back in 2003 is a consideration weighing heavily in his favor.
I remember going to the antiwar demonstration in New York City on Saturday, February 15, 2003 when we were penned in like cattle because we dared to dissent. I remember thinking: Where are the Democrats? There were hardly any political figures, at any level of government, who were willing to speak out against the insanity of Bush's war. The fact that Obama was one of the few who was willing to do so, for me, has earned him a level of respect that I can't ignore.
What I also admire is the way in which Obama opposed the war. When I first read his now-famous antiwar speech from October 2002, I felt as though I could have written it myself, because it expressed everything I was thinking. His statement - I am not opposed to all wars, just dumb wars - is so right! It encapsulates perfectly exactly the kind of thinking we will desperately need from our next President. The fact is, that international terrorism does present a serious danger to our country (I am a New Yorker, and I watched the towers fall). Isolationism is not an option. There is genocide taking place throughout the world, and America is going to be forced to take action, possibly including military action, to stop it, lest we be confronted with the creation of breeding grounds for the production of even more terrorists who will bring down scores of future 9-11s upon us.
Obama understands that world better than any American political figure I know of. It is not surprising that he has chosen Samantha Power, someone whom I admire greatly for her extensive writings on genocide, as one of his closest foreign policy advisers. It may be a cliche, but I believe that Obama is the person who can best establish an American foreign policy for the 21st Century.
Again, the contrast to McCain will be stark. Many Americans will undoubtedly choose McCain for his military experience, and we can count on the Republicans to do everything in their power to instill a fear of terrorism. The voters who might be moved by such appeals would probably vote for neither Clinton nor Obama. But the voters who are looking for something else, the ones who are seeking a President who can take the lead in establishing a new and better role for America in the world, have found precisely that leader in Barack Obama.
Notably, many younger military officers have expressed enthusiasm for Obama's candidacy. They are on the front lines, and they have first-hand experience with the debacle of Bush's policies. I recently saw Bono speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, and he recounted a conversation he had had with a Marine officer. The officer noted that he was willing to give his life for a good cause, but he did not want to die simply because many people in the world hate Americans. He noted that America has the world's highest-priced military hardware stationed in the Mediterranean, but nevertheless, we cannot compete with Hezbollah because they are building schools. This is precisely the message that Obama has been articulating.


3. Race : I have often expressed the concern that American racism will make Obama unelectable. When I have raised that concern, Obama supporters have usually shouted me down, even to the point of accusing me of being a racist myself. At first, I thought they were being ostriches, burying their heads in the sand and denying the reality of American racism. But I have tried to step back and think about this - have my own baby boomer origins in America's past warped my judgment and clouded my perceptions?
I have finally come to an understanding of what Obama and his supporters are doing on this subject - they just don't talk about race. What Obama is telling us is that if we speak as though race does not matter, and we think as though race does not matter, and we act as though race does not matter, then guess what: race will not matter. Is this just Tinkerbellish thinking? Perhaps, but I don't think so.
What Obama is doing here is not only morally right, it is tactically wise. After all, what is there to say about race that could possibly make any difference? For those who might be inclined to vote in favor of Obama because of race, anything he might say is irrelevant. And for those who might be inclined to vote against Obama because of race, anything that might be said is also irrelevant. So Obama is right: let's just take race out of the equation altogether.
In any evolutionary process, there is a specific point in time when change actually happens. The Roman Empire may have been in decline for centuries, but there was a specific date when Rome was sacked and the Empire fell. Similarly, America has been in the process of evolving away from its racist origins for centuries. There will inevitably be a specific moment when America changes from being a racist society to being a society in which race does not matter. Obama is telling us that that moment is now. I am willing to take the leap of faith that he is right.


4. Relax : Ultimately, what made this decision very difficult for me is the fact that I truly believe that we have two great candidates. I very much admire Hillary Clinton, for her intellect, her remarkable grasp of policy issues, and most important of all, for the fact that she has chosen to use her talents to promote what is fundamentally a progressive agenda. Just as Obama has convinced me that racism has no place at all in our political discourse - even as a subject of concern - so too has Clinton made it clear that the days of sexism are over. If she does earn our nomination, I will support her enthusiastically. She will make a great President.
And let's not be afraid of McCain. Even the Republicans aren't really crazy about him. A few months ago, he was being written off as a dinosaur. And for good reason - he has nothing to offer America except failed policies and a discredited and dangerous view of the world.
I honestly do feel as though I am looking at the future when I look at Obama, and I like what I see. I think I am going to change the name of this blog after this post. Let's all put the nightmare of George Bush's Presidency in the past. Let's build something better. I look forward to celebrating Barack Obama's inauguration next January.