Thursday, January 24, 2008

Why I Support Barack Obama

by Chase Whiteside

As most of you know, I have been a staunch Hillary Clinton supporter for months now.  My support for her was genuine and based on sound reasoning and logic--I wasn't a mindless supporter (for which all candidates have many). I do not believe she is any more power hungry than the next politician, and I believe that she holds genuine positions, beliefs, and--as a human--feelings and emotions.  It is her indelible strength and endless knowledge of policy intricacies which make her twice as good as even her husband was when he was campaigning for office, and her too often unseen wit and personal charm which has made her a powerful and effective senator--a leader of the Armed Services committee who has worked successfully and grudgelessly across the aisle with Republicans Lindsay Graham and Trent Lott, both of whom championed her husband's impeachment.  As a senator, she has a proven record of methodical and strategic successes, and little showboating.  I still believe that she would make an excellent president, that she would beat her Republican challenger in the general election, and that her policy positions are the most politically sound and achievable. 

If she gets the Democratic nomination, I will support her with the greatest enthusiasm.  I hope and suspect that any reasonable Obama or Edward supporter would do the same.  It is simply idiotic to think that if Obama loses to Hillary in the primary, you wouldn't support her.  That is to say that because the candidate who agrees with you 95% of the time was beaten by the candidate who agrees with you 90% of the time, you will not support them, and thereby aid a Republican candidate who agrees with you 5% of the time.  As with any close primary race, the positions between the Hillary and Obama are being amplified to the greatest of distortions, and in actuality they are negligible in contrast to the positions of any of the Republicans, even Ron Paul (whose policy positions are so fundamentally flawed that a Facebook note couldn't possibly explain to his misguided supporters just how wrong they are, indeed, for that a pop-up book would be best).  It would be an incredible loss to the Democratic Party, and, ultimately, to the country to lose even half of the enthusiasm, excitement, and energy of Clinton, Edwards, and especially Obama supporters in the general election.  No matter who wins the primary, we are, as Obama himself put it, all on the same team--we're just voting for quarterback.  And so when the dust settles, and the votes are all in, I hope we will rally as one powerful voice--one powerful voice that demands an end to the Iraq war, one powerful voice that demands universal health care for every American, and one powerful voice that is determined to reverse the destructive policies of the Bush administration.  Our unity is more imperative now than ever; we simply cannot risk four or (god forbid) eight more years of Republicanism. 

And we have no reason to be anything but excited and proud as Democrats.  How great it is that Obama or Clinton could be our second choice!  All three of our leading candidates are excellent, and all three of them have a similar vision for the future of the country.  Even our second-tier candidates, many of whom have dropped out, are better than the leading Republicans.  The jumble of Republican contenders has become a joke.  The three leading candidates each represent a leg of the Reagan stool--Huckabee the social conservative, Romney the fiscal conservative, and McCain the military conservative--working overtime to compensate for what area of conservatism they are lacking in (McCain on immigration, Huckabee on taxes, Giuliani on abortion, and Romney on, well, the hundred or so positions he's changed in the past year or so). The party sends a mixed and confused message, if any message at all.  And most sadly, their rejection of Bush-style government has been either absent or barely audible.  Meanwhile, many Republicans feel completely disillusioned with their party.  In 1994, Newt Gingrich led Republicans in their takeover of the House and Senate on the promise of cleaning up Washington and reducing federal spending.  Instead, Republicans brought with them the corrupt interest of big business, and, apparently, some closeted gay men--pedophiles, bathroom solicitors, or otherwise.  Instead, Republicans spent recklessly, especially under Bush, who was elected in part on the promise of unifying the country.  Instead, he divided it more than ever--and in doing so, has vilified immigrants, homosexuals, and anyone opposed to his disregard for civil liberties.  Many Republicans feel disenfranchised with their party, and are looking for what is shaping up to be the word of the year, change.  And it is obvious they aren't going to see that change in the current field of Republicans, which is perhaps why none of their candidates has especially taken the lead.  The remaining Bush Republicans are the Republicans who aren't paying attention.

This brings me to my reasoning for becoming an Obama supporter.  It isn't what's wrong with Hillary, or that I feel she is in any way a bad candidate.  It is what is right about Obama, and why he is a great candidate.  It is what is possible with him, which is impossible with her.  And that, specifically, is turning Republicans, especially those on the fence who feel embarrassed or unproud of their party in recent years, into Democrats.  These on-the-fence Republicans will never support Hillary.  Frankly, they haven't any solid reason not to.  But the reality is that they won't.  Perhaps it is the tens of millions of dollars Republicans have spent attacking her in anticipation of her presidential run, perhaps it is the inherent sexism of conservatism, perhaps it is her combative (some Hillary-haters say "paranoid") attitude towards Republicans, or perhaps it is because they simply think--without any reason--that they shouldn't.  In any case, non-Democrats who are flirting with the possibility of becoming a Democrat are not likely to be persuaded by Hillary to crossover, much as they didn't for Al Gore or John Kerry.  I believe this phenomenon is exclusive to Barack Obama.  Obama Republicans?  They are all ready appearing.  Hillary Republicans?  Yeah, right.

As a political cynic, I tend not to be "inspired" by any candidate, no matter how eloquent.  I tend not to believe in any of the more bold promises, such as Obama's message of putting red states into play, or his assertion that he can change politics in Washington.  And this approach has served me well--do you remember Ned Lamont?  Or Howard Dean?  I am a political realist who advocates incremental change, and tends to vote and support what I believe will be the most beneficial to the party.  Traditional party wisdom, then, aligns me with Clintonian-style politics.  And, as such, I aligned myself with Hillary.  Had I believed all along that what Obama was promising was possible, then--with certainty--I would have supported him all along.  Needless to say, I didn't believe it was possible.  And now I do.  Why the sudden change?  Well, because it's happening.  My father, who is a fiscally conservative Republican, supports Barack Obama.  While he voted for Bush twice, his supporting a Democrat isn't unprecedented, as he had previously voted for Bill Clinton in 1996.  But he isn't just going to vote for Barack Obama, he is officially registering himself (and considering himself) as a Democrat.  My grandparents, on the other hand, have voted Republican their entire lives.  Never, for any office, have they voted for a Democrat.  Recently, they decided that they, too, were going to support Barack Obama for the presidency.  This is truly remarkable.  What Obama has claimed--that he could and would appeal not just to independents, but to Republicans too--is all ready happening.  And he hasn't even campaigned nor run an ad in Ohio yet.  I can't say I understand how Obama, who is just as liberal as his challengers for the Democratic nomination, seems to transcend party lines, but strangely, he does.  So, then, as someone who votes less idealistically, and very much with concern for the party, Hillary might actually not be the best choice--under her, the party likely would not grow at all.  Even the unhappy Republicans, the low hanging fruit, if you will, will be unattainable at a time when there are more of them than ever.  I believe that Hillary would win the general election, sure, but probably how the polarizing Bush did in 2004--by a percentage point or two.  Meanwhile, I believe that Obama has the potential to win in a landslide.  And if he is successful in bringing people into the Democratic Party, and solidifying a majority, he could keep progressive government in power for years to come.  This, of course, would force the Republican Party and, ultimately, the country to move to the left.  Now, perhaps, I'm being idealistic.  Perhaps, like many young Obama supporters, I'm being outright giddy.  But the vote to strengthen the party looks more and more like a vote for Obama.

Many Clinton supporters believe we need the Clinton's and their campaign style and tactics to beat the Republicans in the general election.  It does, indeed, remain a concern of mine, especially if the following scenario occurs:  In 2004, Bush was more polarizing than even Hillary, but all of the criticism that would ever be lobbed against him had all ready been thrown at him for the four years he was in office.  Meanwhile, John Kerry was a fresh face on the national scene, and plenty of new criticisms and attacks--many of them lies--were thrown at him.  Politics, of course, is all about momentum.  The momentum in 2004 was that there was nothing new being said about Bush, and suddenly there were all these bad things we never knew about Kerry.  As we all know, Bush won.  So, then, the thinking is that while nothing new can be lobbed at Hillary--she's been under the same old attacks for over 15 years--there will be plenty of criticism to throw at Obama, whether it be true or not.  And while people think that Hillary has been using unethical campaign tactics in the primary to win, they will be in for a rude awakening come the general election.  This primary spat is lightweight.  But if Obama can't handle it in the primary, he surely won't be able to handle it in the general elections.  We know that the Republicans are ruthless and dirty campaigners and that all options will be on the table against Obama:  his drug use, his middle name, his foreign heritage, his race, and the often repeated and false claim that he is a Muslim.  Republicans were shameless enough to suggest that Kerry's heroism in Vietnam was made up, and they will have no problem using similar tactics against Obama.  But if Obama beats Clinton in the primary--knowing that the Clinton's are ruthless campaigners as well--then he will have proven himself worthy for the general election battle.  Here's to Obama playing nice enough with Republicans to steal some of their party members, and playing rough enough with them to kick some serious Electoral College ass.

My concerns about Obama remain.  I do wish Obama's healthcare plan called for a mandate (which I believe will keep insurance lobbyists at bay, and make such coverage politically achievable), I worry about his ability to withstand Republican attacks and election trickery, and his relatively small amount of national experience makes his potential administration a tad unpredictable.  I hope there will be suggestions in the coming weeks as to who might fill his cabinet positions.

And to Hillary supporters:  I believe in Hillary, and I think that she is an incredible woman and an incredible politician.  I believe she would make an excellent president.  When she announced her candidacy, it was as if, like being innocent until proven guilty, she was the nominee until proven otherwise.  And I thought that would be impossible.  But--against all odds--I now believe there is a better candidate.  A more inclusive candidate who has indeed proven that he can match her campaign without going negative, match her fundraising without the aid of lobbyist donations, and all the while bring Republicans, Independents, and people previously detached from the whole process into our shared progressive agenda.  That candidate is Barack Obama.

And to Obama supporters:  Let's not act like Ron Paul supporters and become some elitist clique, where we pretend non-Obama supporters must not be as intelligent.  Or that somehow, they're wrong.  Let's not attack Bill or Hillary, and let's not divide nor hurt the party.  Hillary supporters have all ready heard every attack that has ever been thrown against her, and they support her nonetheless.  So attacking Hillary as a means to get her supporters to switch to Barack will not work.  As a previously strong Clinton supporter, it was not her faults or weaknesses--of which I find few--that made me change my mind.  Rather, it was the potential and strength of Obama.  Let's champion that.

And to the cynics, a group I belonged to only hours ago before I discovered with great shock that my staunchly conservative family was not just going to vote for Obama, but actually become Democrats as a result of his candidacy; to the cynics, who believe it is impossible for a Democrat to win over Republicans and put red states in play; to the cynics, who believe Clinton is the inevitable nominee of our party and that Obama cannot beat her campaign; and to the cynics, who believe that a black man cannot possibly win the nomination of a major party, and certainly not the presidency, I say: 

Yes, we can.