Tuesday, February 05, 2008

Another Democratic Endorsement: A Slightly Different Take

This guest endorsement is courtesy of Prince Philip Ramon, aka Philip, my boyfriend. OK, so both being liberal, young, white kids, our endorsements perhaps aren't much of a surprise (as Philip says). But I can truthfully say I don't know anyone who's pro-Hilary, so you're stuck with two opinions, though very different, about Senator Barack Obama. If you like his writing, Philip will be starting his own blog soon; you can find it here.

Maybe it's symptomatic of the dull workday of an office drone, but the 2008 Presidential Primary is the first time I've truly engaged myself in the political process. Since the summer, I've drowned my career sorrows in the race for a job that I'm woefully underqualified to hold, whilst performing a job for which I'm clock-slowingly overqualified. My week is punctuated with Slate political gab, Daily Kos diatribes and Ken Rudin (NPR's Political Junkie) delivering puns that Mike Huckabee wouldn't touch. With such a historic, conventional-wisdom-defying primary season, there has been no shortage of destinations for my internet wanderings. In brief, I picked a hell of year to become politically aware.

Still, I've ultimately been a spectator in this affair. That is, until today. Living in one of the twenty-two states holding its primary on Feb. 5th, I went to large stone church down the street from my apartment and cast my ballot for Barack Obama. As a white-male, age 23, I don't suppose this is much of a shock. But I haven't always been an Obama supporter. Back when the debates were a seven (sometimes eight) candidate affair, I was mostly interested in Richardson or Biden. Richardson impressed me with his resume. In the debates, Biden routinely came off as the adult in the room when talking about foreign policy, making the other candidates' look like undergrads reaching for an adequate exam answer. Alas, he never made it past round one. Richardson folded soon after, not even holding on until a western contest.

It wasn't long until Democrats were left with the Big Three. Three senators, three passionate speakers, three candidates who made up for their lack of political experience with the promise of change in the lives of ordinary Americans. Let's face it. Policy-wise Clinton, Edwards and Obama are all pretty much identical. Sure the health care plans have different strategies, Iraq troop withdrawal timetables vary slightly, and the figures change depending on the stimulus package. But the goals are uniform; get out of Iraq safely, make universal health care a reality, turn back the economic tide of the last eight years that did not lift all boats. In this policy stale mate, we've seen some interesting arguments emerge for why we should vote for one candidate over another. Edwards has been a fighter "all his life," except in 2004 when he took a break to run as the nice guy (or Obama lite). Clinton acquired 35 years of experience that she didn't seem to have when Biden and Richardson were still in the fray (perhaps because it would've been a laughable comparison). What's interesting is that Obama's message didn't change. Some say it's his weakness, he doesn't veer from his inspirational rhetoric enough to show he's got the specifics worked out. I see it as his strength. It's a sign that he makes those speeches because he believes them, not because they will have the maximum impact on that day's newscycle.

Clinton said in her infamous diner tear-up that for her, this election is personal. I believe it. The tone of her campaign makes me think that this is as much about righting the country as it is about restoring the Clinton dynasty. On her husband's presidency, it annoys me that Clinton wants to have her cake and eat it to. She says she's running on her own record, but then comes out with a line like "it took a Clinton to clean up after the first Bush" when confronted with the question of her serving Bill's third term. For me, it's a lose-lose proposition. If she wants to claim the Clinton presidency as part of her experience, then I'd rather not repeat the bitter partisanship of the late 90s. If she truly wants to be judged on her record and hers alone, then she and Obama are essentially evenly matched.

Something very interesting surfaced in one the debates last month. It's a difference that I think is a legitimate issue when deciding between the two remaining contenders. When asked what his greatest weakness is, Obama gave an honest reply. He can't keep his paperwork organized. Clinton gave a nonresponse to the question, but jumped on Obama's self-effacing answer. She proclaimed herself a bureaucratic superstar. A distinction was drawn that I think goes to the heart of these two candidacies. Clinton's MLK comment and Teddy's endorsement made the point even clearer. Obama is like JFK. Clinton is like LBJ. I'm a little dubious that Clinton is the master executive she claims to be, considering she has no personal executive experience to speak of. But I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. At this moment, I think we need the former. For the past eight years, we've been united in our collective embarrassment of having Homer Simpson run our country (with Mr. Burns as VP!). It's time to be united under a positive, trans formative figure. We've had enough of the politics of "us vs. them." Obama wants to engage the Republicans, engage the insurance companies, engage the Iranians. I think this is the only way to get meaningful progress. Rather than letting the pendulum swing from one extreme to the other every ten years, I'd like to see a United States in which individuals feel represented and encouraged to help in finding solutions.

Some say that they'd vote for Obama, but not now. He should wait eight or twelve years. I disagree. Look what long careers in the Senate did for Biden and Dodd. They couldn't generate anywhere near the same amount of excitement for their candidacies. Obama could only run this kind of campaign now. After a decade in the Senate he would grow stale. Like McCain, he would go from maverick to establishment. Whereas if Obama is sworn in next year, I'll watch enthusiastically as the torch is passed to the new generation, rather than sing in my head those classic Who lyrics, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." If Obama becomes President, I don't think I'll be the only one looking back on this campaign as the first time I was genuinely excited and inspired by an election cycle.

No comments: