I have drunk the Kool-Aid

[topaz]

Sorry, it's another political post.  Feel free to skip it.

Earlier this month I wrote that I would be okay with pretty much any of the Democratic candidates as the party nominee.  But it turns out that's not really the case.  I'm in Obama's camp now, and I find that every day I want more to see him win.

I remember when Obama gave the keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.  The next day a lot of people had commented that he'd just kicked off his campaign for the 2008 presidency.  I never did see that speech but I remember being surprised by how widely agreed everyone was on this point.  Obama was unquestionably the big star of the convention that year.

All last year I watched his campaign build up but I didn't pay very close attention.  keyne asked me who I thought I'd be voting for, and I told her I wasn't sure but I thought maybe Obama.  She asked me why.

"I'm not sure," I said frankly.  "I just like him."

I felt silly saying it even at the time.  It's the worst kind of reason to vote for someone for president.  But, dammit, I did just like him, even if I couldn't put my finger on why.

In the last couple of months it's become clearer to me why.  Obama's campaign has emerged from being a dark horse to a very serious contender, and it has brought out the worst in the next front-runner.  Clinton's campaign has responded with an absolutely appalling under-the-table attack.  I'm sorry: I wanted to like Hillary in this election, I really did, but I can't.  Since Iowa her entire campaign strategy has been shamefully divisive, from trying to exploit Black-Latino cultural tension to the completely inexcusable attempt to grab Michigan's and Florida's delegates back (after the party agreed not to seat them at the convention).  It has been nothing short of outrageous.

What I find so remarkable is that despite the increased acrimony of the campaign, Obama has not responded by counterattacking.  His message throughout his campaign has been about the extraordinary things that we could do, as a people, if we can do them together.  And even as the primary fight gets down and dirty, that continues to be his strategy.

And it's working.  The Gallup polls show Clinton's national support continuing to erode and Obama's continuing to rise.  People are rejecting the scorched-earth strategy that Clinton has brought to the table in favor of Obama.

That is what really floors me.  It's not just that Obama has a message of unity that's nice to hear.  It's that he appears to be someone who can actually make it happen.  There are a lot of things that we're doing wrong in this country, and I do believe that Obama's policies would represent a real step forward.  But not only that, I think he may be able to help bring the country together at a time when we have perhaps never been more partisan and fractured.

Here's an example.  Just one.  His name is Rod Dreher.  Dreher is a conservative columnist for the Dallas Morning News.  The day after South Carolina, he wrote this on his blog:

Look, I don't want a man who believes the things Barack Obama believes to be president. But I've got to confess, he makes me proud of my country. When's the last time you heard from a politician that made you proud of your country? (January 27, 2008)

And this from a conservative Republican, folks!  An honest to god conservative!

Dreher's comment is only one of hundreds that I've seen from all over the country.  Obama gives me hope again.  He's bringing people together.  I've seen my community unite around him like never before.  I've never voted for a Democrat in my life but I'm going to vote for him.  People are saying this over and over and over again.

I'm one of those people.  I have never seen a candidate like this and I don't think I ever expected to.  Hearing him speak, and reading how people feel about him, reminds me of what my parents used to say about Allard Lowenstein when they worked on his campaign in the 1970s.

I think that we are on the verge of, god help me, a transformative moment in American politics.  I think that we have an opportunity to make something truly extraordinary happen.  I hope you'll help me by voting for Barack Obama.

(But if you don't, don't worry, I'll still love you anyway. :-)

Comments

[laura47.livejournal.com]

donated. :)

why are you pimping the donate by midnight thing here? :)

[creidylad.livejournal.com]

The feel good stuff makes me nervous. I hate populism. I hate nationalism. Sure, I want to feel good about America, but because I think it's doing the right things. I don't think he wants to do all the right things.

He's a great orator.

But sometimes I get anxious he's the lefty Bush, with more brains but with just of a dangerous appeal to charisma rather than character and competence.

However, I am VERY VERY willing and ready and eager to be proven wrong.

[khedron.livejournal.com]

While it's necessarily a mark of competence, his background as a Con. Law professor at U. Chicago seems like a change in the right direction to me.

[docstrange.livejournal.com]

Lecturer, not professor, but that's a quibble. The man is very intelligent and has a tremendously good legal background. So does Hillary Clinton, however.

I am also troubled by the populist drive, the orchestration of his campaign by David Axelrod, and the careful obfuscation of his state voting record. He dodged a lot of votes in IL where his vote wouldn't matter either way, but where his voting RECORD could come back to bite him. To get both his state and his national seat, he first took a very low road during the state primaries: he worked to have his opponents' supporting signatures disqualified. Democratic voters. Was he a great choice for senator? You bet! But now he is being carefully, craftily painted way, way too holier-than-anyone when compared to his actual record.

[qwrrty.livejournal.com]

These are the most articulate and level-headed criticisms of Obama that I've read -- thanks for the food for thought.

I did read the background articles linked to the Wikipedia page for David Axelrod (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Axelrod_%28political_consultant%29), but I'm still not clear on why Axelrod's connection to Obama is a warning sign. He's been involved with some machine candidates in the past, but apparently is regarded by both Democratic and Republican operatives as uncommonly principled and idealistic for a political consultant.

I wasn't familiar at all with the story about disqualifying ballot signatures, and that story is probably the one I find most alarming of any that you raised. I did find this Tribune article about Obama's state Senate campaign: "Obama knows his way around a ballot" (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070403obama-ballot,1,57567.story). It's a troubling story, but I note that: there was no shortage of irregularities in that campaign on anyone's part; Obama went forward with striking the petition signatures but expressed substantial reservations about taking that route; and at least two of his opponents acknowledged in print that the signatures they collected were invalid. In that light, I'm not sure I agree that there's reason for serious ongoing concern about his political ethics. I'm open to hearing more, though. I'm trying to be as open as I can to reasons to be disillusioned about this guy.

[wolfkitn.livejournal.com]

interesting points... i've found myself in more than one not-good-for-me job situation which, in retrospect, i "liked" because of the charisma of the person who was interviewing me. it's a dangerous road to walk.

me? i have no idea who the heck i'm voting for. i'm *voting*, that much i know; but i have much to learn and decide on before tuesday.

[beowabbit]

However, I am VERY VERY willing and ready and eager to be proven wrong.

You might be interested to read his books. The first one (Dreams from My Father) was written well before he had presidential ambitions and therefore is probably less guarded.

I kind of want him to hurry up and get elected and get his eight years in the White House over with so he can return to his true calling as a writer. :-)

[slinkr.livejournal.com]

I really wanted to like Clinton when the campaign started, but it's becoming increasingly difficult. The Globe had an article about Obama campaigning in Kansas that left me pretty much ready to vote for him.

[jacflash.livejournal.com]

I haven't been able to abide the Clintons or any of their key people since 1994 or so. I'm so glad to have someone good to vote for next Tuesday.

[dbang.livejournal.com]

You not voting for Clinton the Second is like me not voting for Bush the Younger. *yawn*

[dbang.livejournal.com]

I like Obama.

But I'm feeling a little gunshy. He reminds me a lot of Deval Patrick, in his feel-good unity message and reject-politics-as-usual image.

I liked Deval Patrick enough to put some serious hours into his campaign.

And yet I've been underwhelmed by him as governor. I'm not ready to say I made a mistake -- perhaps great things are yet to come. I'll be patient. But I'm also a little cranky about it.

So like a lover seduced by a sweet tongue and then casually tossed aside, I'm holding back my adoration of the next sweet talkin' gentleman.

[beowabbit]

Well, I sure feel glad Patrick is in office, and not Kerry Healey. Obama won’t be the transcendent messiah his rhetoric makes us hope for either. The question in my mind is whether he would be a better president than Clinton (or McCain or Romney or Huckabee, which is an easy choice). And I think he would. (Mind you, I think she’d be a pretty good president too, despite the campaign nastiness.)

[dbang.livejournal.com]

I'm not comparing Patrick to Healy, but to his competitors in the primary, namely Gabrieli and whatshisface the state attorney. There's no way to know that either of them would have been better, but if you pick someone based on promises that then don't materialize it's hard to know if you picked wisely.

And there's no point in looking backwards except insofar as it guides future decisions like, say, which dem nominee to support for pres.

I too have been underwhelmed by Hillary's campaign but I'm not convinced that the quality of a campaign gives you any clue about the quality of someone's actual role in the office.

[crouchback.livejournal.com]

Well, I'd be happy if it turns out that all my suspicions about him are wrong, and he actually is the guy his campaign is making him out to be.

If he is the Dem nominee, he'll probably become President..and it'd be hard for him to be worse than the incumbent.

[harimad.livejournal.com]

Yup, you've drunk the kool-aid.

Myself, I think there are more important qualifications than "likability" in a presidential candidate. Competence, for example. A clue about economics. A distaste for populism. An eye toward the long run. Stamina. I prefer economic conservatives (not Conservatives) who are social liberals, but they're thin on the ground.

And I take a long, hard look at what the candidate did *before* anyone was really paying attention - that's when a person's true colors come out. Therefore I mostly discount what someone says during a campaign, with two exceptions. One, if the campaign statements are very different than what ze did while no one was looking (Romney), that's a strike against. Two, if ze says hard(er) truths to those who don't want to hear it (Bulworth), that's a point in favor.

I have a fairly good understanding of Clinton (and I hope her populist bent is a campaign ploy); I have more to learn about Obama.

[beowabbit]

And I take a long, hard look at what the candidate did *before* anyone was really paying attention - that's when a person's true colors come out.

That’s why I found it so useful to read Obama’s first book (Dreams from My Father). It doesn’t say a lot about politics, but the picture it gives me of him is very consistent with the picture he paints on the campaign trail.

[moominmolly.livejournal.com]

Mm. I just finished this a week or two ago, myself. It really did make me genuinely like him, and, yes, it feels very consistent with the image he's projecting right now.

[beowabbit]

Amen.

I sympathize a lot with the people who say that Clinton is a fighter, and a proud partisan, and that we need her to defeat the forces of evil.¹ And I understand that Obama’s collegial style (within and without the party) is at odds with that very appealing goal.

But George W. Bush (standing on Reagan’s shoulders) has assembled an imperial presidency, a stunningly powerful executive. And that’s the office that the next president is going to inherit. And I trust Obama more not to abuse that power, and not to oppose its erosion, than I trust Clinton. Having read both Obama’s books (and I admit that I haven’t read any of Clinton’s), I believe Obama is more comfortable leading a team by persuasion than by fiat. I believe Obama is a good listener, who thrives on honest disagreement and discussion.

Now, Hillary Clinton does not want to be George W. Bush; she doesn’t want to be empress. She would be a good president, and she would heal a lot of the damage of Il Duce’s two terms. But I feel much more comfortable with Obama’s instincts around the use of power and persuasion than I do with Clinton’s. I think Clinton would probably be more effective at getting her agenda through unchanged, but Obama would be better for the long-term health of American democracy.

(I also think somebody who has family ties in Africa and Asia has a very useful perspective, and could make a singularly effective American spokesperson on the world stage.)

---

¹ I.e., the Republican Party.

[harimad.livejournal.com]

Very interesting point, I shall have to ponder it further.

[rsc.livejournal.com]

And I trust Obama more not to abuse that power, and not to oppose its erosion, than I trust Clinton.

Well, maybe. Never underestimate the addictive properties of power.

[dancingwolfgrrl.livejournal.com]

Yeah, he has got the charisma going on, and I don't feel too bad about it: so did the much-compared-to JFK, and also Clinton. To be blunt, I think charisma might be what Democrats need to get someone in the White House, and that's something I'd like, even if (as one of the students who works for me put it) the campaign for me is about who pisses me off the least :)

[dr-memory.livejournal.com]

If Richardson had still been in the race by the time the CA primary rolled around, I would probably have voted for him. But Obama vs Hillary? Not even fucking close. Never forget, never forgive (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237).

[keyne.livejournal.com]

Richardson voted for DOMA, though he claimed it was for strategic reasons :/

[vespid-interest.livejournal.com]

I think a big part of why I'm not thrilled with Hilliary is because of how she picked New York as her "home state" to become senator in. She didn't pick it because she cared about the people there but because it was good for *her*. I guess I respect someone going out and getting what they want, but it seems disingenuous and it shapes a lot of my idea of her.

[weegoddess.livejournal.com]

I agree with you 100% on this. I don't trust Hillary to put the country's interests above her own. I think that she is quite savvy and directed and would be able to get things done, which admittedly are good things for a president to be. But speaking as someone who is watching all this from outside and knowing at least some of the world's view of the US, we need someone who will improve goodwill abroad. We've had plenty of the 'get it done' type president and that's not what people over here care about anymore. They care about having the US become trustworthy again. I believe that Obama can do this.

Hillary may appear to have more individual clue and experience, but that's what a cabinet is there to help with. Clearly, 'clue' is sadly lacking in this current president and yet he gets things done for his own agenda. What this administration lacks is heart and integrity; I fear that Hillary lacks them too.

qwrrty, I do appreciate that you posted about this. It helps to get more details about what folks over there are thinking.

[keyne.livejournal.com]

I've never voted for a Democrat in my life but I'm going to vote for him.

Y'know, you might want to put quotes around that. :}

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

I admit, I had to reread that line twice, but then I'm still wobbly on my feet. I think anyone who's known qwrrty more than like five minutes should be able to suss out what's going on here.

[rsc.livejournal.com]

I would probably have voted for Edwards if he'd survived. There are aspects of Obama that make me nervous -- I'm not sure how much "there" there really is there -- but the Clintons are and always have been DLC centrists (at least since Bill lost his second run for governor because he came across as too liberal for Arkansas). I will cheerfully, perhaps even enthusiastically, vote for Clinton if she gets the nomination, but overall I think Obama is the better candidate. One of the things that's been striking in the recent debates is how little difference there is between their stated positions on pretty much every issue. Another thing I noticed (and that everybody seems to have noticed) is that they mostly laid off each other last night, despite Wolf Blitzer's efforts to get them to be nasty. I suspect that Clinton noticed that her attacks weren't being received favorably.

I remember when Obama gave the keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. The next day a lot of people had commented that he'd just kicked off his campaign for the 2008 presidency.

It worked for Bill Clinton in 1988.

[innerdoggie.livejournal.com]

And that even when Bill Clinton's speech was criticized for being overly long.

[lhn.livejournal.com]

I remember when Obama gave the keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. The next day a lot of people had commented that he'd just kicked off his campaign for the 2008 presidency.

As I recall, they were saying 2012. Though that may have had as much to do with hopes for a two-term Kerry presidency as with Obama's relative inexperience.

[innerdoggie.livejournal.com]

I didn't see last night's debates, but the secondary literature claims that Clinton and Obama were trying hard to be nice to each other.

If the harsh tones end, will that influence anybody's vote?

[isotopeblue.livejournal.com]

Back to the original theme, I feel much the same way. I've felt vague uneasiness about Hillary Clinton for a long time, but figured I could be happy with her as the nominee if it came to that. The Clintons' race-baiting South Carolina strategy ended that, along with ending any residual respect I had for Bill Clinton.

E and I had done some volunteering for Obama a while back, but I had been wimping out lately while E had been continuing. But I'm back to it again, and sending another donation too.

For the record, Joe Biden was my original favorite, and I'd still love to see him as VP.