Well, it's down to the wire for those of us participating in the Chesapeake Potomac Primaries tomorrow. Polls open in 10 hours. And after several months of listening to the candidates, watching some of the debates (only "some," because really, it's not humanly possible to have watched them all), listened to the criticisms for and against each candidate from both Republicans and Democrats (via shows like Washington Journal and the Sunday talkers), I've come down on one side of the fence. Tomorrow morning, I'll be filling in the circle connecting the arrow bits next to Senator Obama's name.
I've been on the fence quite a lot throughout this whole primary process and the months leading up to it. I would have liked Biden, Dodd and Richardson to have been able to last a little longer. I wish either Clinton or Obama had been able to augment their own messages with a little more flavor from Edwards' populism after his withdrawal. All of that said, I'll be pleased with whichever Senator we end up sending against Senator McCain in November.
But the pick I have to make now is between Clinton and Obama. And it's been a tough choice. My most important determining factors all came out a wash:
- Are either of them beholden to Bush? (No.)
- Are either of them a fan of the Unitary Executive policy, the anti-Constitutional signing statements, or any of the other ways in which the President has dismantled many of the civil liberties that have existed in our country since the Civil War? (No.)
- Will either of them be a puppet for a shadowy Vice-Presidential figure with a penchant for defense contractors and Armageddon? (No.)
And the list goes on.
The first time I started tilting in Obama's direction ever so slightly was last month between Iowa and New Hampshire. He gave a speech in which he hammered home the difference between him and Hillary, which was that he and Clinton's entire outlook on the world has been flavored by their upbringing - not just as politicians, but as people. They're not quite in different generations, just at
opposite ends of the Baby Boomers. Nonetheless, Hillary was in college in the counter-culture 60's. Barack was in early elementary school. Their fourteen year age difference is not great, but I know some folks just 10 years younger than myself who don't remember a time before the widespread use of the Internet or push-button telephones (without the "land-line" modifier) or any of those other things we've seen in email forwards about how awesome it is to be a GenXer. Obama's point in this speech was that Hillary sees things in a certain way, all colored by the formative 1960's culture and with a constant, almost subliminal backbeat of the Vietnam War. Obama didn't experience that. His very worldview is fundamentally different, where the political gradient of belief is not defined by Hawks and Doves, or even necessarily by the mentality of the Cold War. That mindset, and the recriminations that came from it, led to the long period of acrimony and lack of civility that has permeated the political culture since the 1980s and escalated dramatically in the mid-90s. From Obama's perspective, another President Clinton would only continue The Politics of Personal Destruction. What I took away from the speech was the need to cut the crap and start putting this nation back on sure footing without the baggage of demagoguery.
(To bolster his point, I have noticed a disconcerting amount of childishness coming from certain segments of the Hillary movement. There's a very weird level of anti-Obama vitriol there, replete with such effective
third-grader tactics as name-calling ("Bambi" for Obama) and unintentional irony ("If I even have to look at Bambi one more time, I’m going to lose it. If I hear the words “hope” “change”, “and “unity” one more time I am going to pour draino in my ears! And if have to try to inject one more ounce of reason into the minds of americans, I will pull out a gun and blow my own friggin’ head off!"). I mean, that's just plain weird. These are democrats talking about other democrats. Then again, I've always had a problem understanding fanaticism of any kind.
There are some legitimate complaints about Obama. There are some that I've heard that are, quite frankly, mysterious and impenetrable. I'll grant that his domestic policy points are nebulous and underemphasized, and helping an economy that (hopefully) is recovering from the 2008 recession will be one of the more important tasks any new president will face come 1-20-09. But there's an impressive array of foreign policy priorities he claims, including tough diplomacy with Iran (as opposed to just about every Republican in power or
those wanting to be), as well as what is probably my #1 issue: restoring the openness of government. I get that the US needs to keep secrets, and I don't begrudge those in charge with keeping those who would do us harm away from us. But there's no excuse for
partially de-funding the Archives so that FOIA requests can't be honored because there's no money to hire for the position.
I could go on. But seriously, go check his Ethics section.
What is perhaps the most persuasive argument for me, sitting here right now, is that in Senator Obama I see a leader. Not a manager - a leader. Someone who can rally America to a higher cause and restore the good feeling Americans -
all Americans, the purple staters - used to have about our country. Yes, it's a nebulous thing to champion. And perhaps it makes me shallow that I respond to "leadership" over wonkish detail. I don't think it does, though. I think he's smart enough to fill his government with absurdly smart people who get the wonkish details and can give him honest assessments and - the most important part -
he's going to listen to them.
So I'll be down at my polling place in less than twelve hours, doin' that thing we all should be doing.
