Channel Mike

I'm one of the people you hear about that has been enamored of Barack Obama's speeches for the last few years. I was hoping he'd run for president before he made it official. But, I have tried to temper that excitement for his charisma with a realistic idea of what he'd be able to achieve as president and what he wouldn't. Throughout that same time period, I had also been a fan of Hilary Clinton. They have similar policy positions on the important issues of health care, economic policy, foreign policy, and education. They haven't played up the less important wedge issues of abortion, gay marriage and immigration, but they mostly agree on those, too. Until about a month ago, I would have been happy to vote for either candidate in November. But, now, I am a full Obama supporter.

Some reasons for my shift

• Barack Obama has had a more organized, more disciplined, more positive campaign from the start. Hilary Clinton did not plan well, and has admitted that she thought it would be over on Super Tuesday. This sounds a lot like the Bush Cheney assumptions about Iraq. Even if their assumptions seemed logical at the time, no contingency? Give me a well-prepared, well-disciplined organization over an ill-prepared one any day. It makes it even worse that Clinton advertises herself to be the one who knows how to get things done and will be ready on day one. It really doesn't look that way.

• Hilary Clinton, or her surrogates, have not only been negative, but have been pettily negative for at least a month, now. Bill Clinton started the decline by comparing Barack Obama to Jesse Jackson in South Carolina. This served the political purpose of painting him as a one-dimensional black token, but it had no basis in reality. It was no more than name-calling. Both before and after that comment Bill Clinton referred to Obama's campaign as a fairy-tale. This, again, is no more than name-calling, intended to diminish the content and stature of Obama's campaign. Now, we have Clinton, trailing in states won, popular vote, and delegates, offering the vice presidency to Obama, while at the same time saying that he's not qualified to be president? Again, a transparent play to plant subconscious thoughts in the voters' heads that he is not presidential. The next play was the picture on the Drudge report of Obama showing a foreign country respect by dressing in its traditional garb. Of course, because it looks more like the cultures of the terrorists than our own, it can be one more meaningless, substanceless attack on the subconsciences of the voters. While Clinton denies she had anything to do with this, the Drudge report names a staffer from her campaign as its source. This morning, I read several articles about Geraldine Ferraro's comments about Obama. These were the triggers for this post. Ferraro is not just a former politician, she's Clinton's finance chair on her campaign team. Ferraro claimed that Obama is only where he is because he is black. I will be fair to her that I don't think she is racist or bigoted. Her point is to claim a consistency between her story and his. She was selected as Walter Mondale's running mate partially because she was a woman when Mondale needed the female vote. This comparison does not hold up in the case of Obama. The only people selecting Obama are "the people." There is no presidential candidate trying to win the black vote with him. He is campaigning hard without bringing up the race issue. The only words he has said about race fall into two classes. The first, that it is irrelevant to his campaign; and the second, defending the race-baiting attacks of Hilary Clinton's campaign. I don't mind negative campaigning when there is something legitimately negative about your opponent that needs pointing out. But the consistent theme of Clinton's campaign recently has not been to disagree with Obama, but to throw underhanded Rove-balls at him and hope one of them sticks. It's pathetic and maddening. And through all of this, Obama has kept his composure, gone negative only on Clinton's positions, not her person, and defended himself by defending his positions. In short, he's acted tremendously presidential in the face of her juvenile punches.

• Has anyone noticed that in the last two primary contests in Wyoming and Mississippi that both candidates talk about Obama? Obama stumps about how we need the change he can bring and the unity that he has been bringing. Clinton talks about how she doesn't think Obama can change anything. I hope that this lack of anyone talking about Clinton, even herself, except in the context of the latest cheap shot she's thrown at Obama, is a sign of the end for her. I hate to say it because prior to a month ago, I was a fan of both Clintons. But they both seem like substanceless politicians now. And it's not because they've been attacked, but because of their own actions and choices that I feel that way. This is reflected in the way my post about Obama is mostly about Clinton. :-) Obama has maintained his stature in my perception, but Clinton is sinking quickly; and this post is about her descent.

• Hilary Clinton is hated by the right. I don't hold this against her because I don't think it's her fault. The right-wing attack machine went after her and her husband for over a decade. Even while she was doing a great job of winning friends from the right in the senate, the conservative media outlets were throwing out the same attacks. While this is not her fault, and it's unfortunate, it is baggage that she must carry as a candidate. Right now, there are a bunch of conservatives who don't care much for McCain, but would still vote for him over a nameless Democrat. But, if you give the Democrat the name, Clinton, those same voters would become rabid McCain supporters. I don't want to give them that. Most of them would still probably vote for McCain over Obama, but would not spend their time organizing for him, wouldn't put his signs up on their lawns, and may find something better to do on Nov 7th than get out and vote. I'm happy to rob the right-wingers of their passion by supporting Obama. Eventually, of course, he'll be attacked by the right, and most of it will be the substanceless bombs like those being thrown by Clinton right now. But, if Clinton is nominated, we'll have nearly a year of attack and defense and bitter counterattack. Yuck. Partisan politics as usual.

• Clinton is well-connected in Washington. This can certainly be a benefit for her, but I prefer the idea of a new candidate who has not already developed a relationship with the lobbyists. I hesitate to trot out the well-worn ideas of big pharma and big oil conspiring to run our government, but I will trot out the idea that they have influence. Perhaps all of the lobbyists will be entrenched with Obama after a year of his presidency. At that point, maybe they'd have all the access and enhanced freedom of speech they would enjoy "on day one" with Clinton. But it would give us a strong year, the most important year, of policies and ideas less influenced by the existing power structure. If we really want change, that's the obvious way to go. Either candidate would give us a change of style from Bush, but a change in policy only results from a change in their advisors and favored lobbyists.

So, bring on Barack Obama. Lets have planning in the white house. Lets bring organization and discipline. Lets bring hope and positive ideas to displace the politics of fear of the last six years. Lets have a debate about health care. Lets talk about the environment. Let's do something about energy independence, not just the price of oil or messing up food markets with ethanol, but real sustainable energy production at home. Let's discuss and debate issues with people of all different opinions and come up with good solutions to our problems. And, finally, let's hope that Obama can move this country forward rather than spend his entire presidency cleaning up after Bush, Jr.