clammyc asks a good, serious question... and I can only give it a good serious reply in diary form. Too much for comments. Here goes - Why Support Obama:
To begin with, I'd love to convince someone here, but that's not a big issue. We'll have a lot more luck convincing ordinary voters to come pull the lever for a well-spoken, inspiring progressive over the alternatives (including the "stay home" alternative), than we can hope to have convincing partisan, progressive activists to give up a choice they've already considered and found reason to commit to.
But I do want to explain the case that convinced me for Obama - and maybe this perspective will sway some of the undecideds left here on dkos, and maybe it won't.
First, the negatives for Obama: 1) He gets and is apparently influenced by special interest money more than I am comfortable with, and less than Edwards seems to do. 2) His experience and record are largely confined to the area of local activism and state-level legislating. 3) His U.S. Senate record includes a couple of bad votes on economic issues, and a less-than-stellar leadership role on important civil liberties issues. I think that covers the high points. Now, the positives.
- His policy - it lines up very closely with Edwards' and Clinton's policies. There are minor differences - maybe a single major one on health mandates - but overall, his is very similar to theirs, and they are all very good policies on the issues that matter.
- The other side of his record is very good. He showed that he can organize and empower people on the community level in Chicago. He passed healthcare for all children in Illinois. He fought and won against unconscionable prosecutorial tactics on death penalty cases in Illinois. While a state politician (with possible thoughts about national office in the future), he took an unpopular and correct position on the war, loudly and publicly, when he did not have to take a position at all. In the U.S. Senate, he had a remarkably progressive voting record (a couple of mistakes otherwise mentioned already aside), and got legislation passed that will help reduce the impact of special interest money on the political process (and which some say led to Trent Lott's early retirement).
- He understands. He was a scholar of constitutional law. He is smart enough to see what is going on in this country, and he understands and respects our Democratic system of government.
- He has paid his dues. He has worked all his life to teach and empower for the public good, when he could have taken shortcuts to a lucrative business career, or gone straight from a private career to state or national government. He has proven not only that he cares about people and about our system of government, but also that he is willing to get dirt under his fingernails to work for what he cares about, and that he is able to accomplish big things by doing it.
- The stuff about being able to use his gifts of inspirational charisma and inclusive rhetoric to build a movement and a framework under which progressive ideals can truly become an entrenched part of our national thinking and our government's structure... that is to say the "empty, naive hope" aspect that we're not supposed to care much about.
- He would make history as the first black President. If Hillary gets props for "change" for being the first woman, then Barack gets the same props for being the first black person. And honestly, it's something I want to see. I want to see that we've come that far (recognizing fully that "that far" still isn't nearly far enough).
I contrast him with my other options (of the viable candidates):
Hillary Clinton: Her positives are very good, too. Her work for special needs children really touches me. She has a good senate voting record on domestic issues. She would be the first woman President, and honestly, that's something that I want to see, too - recognizing that it isn't nearly far enough.
Her negatives include her Iraq war vote and her Iran war vote (my shorthand for Kyle-Lieberman). Those failures of judgment (and the failure to take responsibility for them and promise to improve in the future) just put her outside of my comfort zone. While there are alternatives that are less hawkish and more prudent in their foreign-policy viewpoints, I cannot support her.
John Edwards: His positives are very good, too. He has a good Senate voting record on domestic issues. His policies are as polished as they come, and he puts real passion behind them. If he could go to the White House and implement just half of his agenda, the country would be a much better place.
The negatives I see in him also have to do with my comfort zone. Not so much on the war - where he appears to have learned his lesson... I don't feel good about trusting him to govern well. A politician doesn't just have to have good policies - he has to be willing to hear and consider points of view that critique those policies. He has to be willing to sell his policies - not just to his base, but to the people he expects to live under them, and to the people whose help he will need to enact them. I don't see him able to work on that level as well as I would like. I don't see him able to make the average American feel comfortable with the idea of being forced to buy insurance (with or without subsidies for the very poor). I don't see that he really and truly cares whether the average American is comfortable with his policies, so long as he can get them to become law. That's the big point. If he would convince me that I am wrong on that viewpoint, I would be more enthusiastic about him.
The smaller point is that I'm not sure he will do the kind of work necessary to accomplish his agenda. He's spent the last five years polishing his resume and building a support base to run for President. Prior to his public commitment, he was in private practice... that's not to say he didn't do damn good things in his private practice... just to say that he was very well compensated for those good things, and he doesn't have a history of getting dirt under his fingernails for the good of the people and for the country he cares about. This isn't a deal-breaker... but...
The case for Obama can't be all "why Obama". It has to be "why Obama, and not someone else who might be better." It is because in the areas important to me, Obama has shown the kind of leadership, care, and ability that I need to see.
If not Obama, then Edwards, by all means. At least give him a chance to build the society he envisions, because it is a wonderful vision. And, I think that we can trust him - if nothing else - to learn from his mistakes.
If not Obama or Edwards, then Clinton. No one else can win the nomination. Everyone in the GOP race is worse where I find I can't trust her, so why not take her not-as-bad foreign policy record with her good mainly progressive domestic agenda and record?
That's my case. "Hope" it isn't too insubstantive.
By the way, I recognize there are other negatives than what I mentioned for the candidates, but I think they are mainly either 1) unimportant, or 2) just as bad in each candidate (for instance... none of our big 3 supports gay marriage the way they should).