Cross-posted in my blog.
Friends and relatives have chastised me, as a woman, for passing over Senator Hillary Clinton. They’ve questioned my feminism. They’ve laughed at my "naivete" and cited my youth as evidence. I may be 25 years old, but I’ve already worked on a presidential campaign, as a communications coordinator for the Kerry/Edwards campaign in 2004. I worked at the Washington, D.C., headquarters alongside some of the finest political strategists, and the experience has served me well. When I recount the experience for people today, they assume that, because I was 21 at the time, I must’ve been a volunteer or unpaid intern. Actually, I was a full-time salaried member of the campaign staff, and anyone who has worked a campaign of any sort knows that volunteers and interns work just as hard as any paid staffer, and without their help, no candidate would get elected.
I recently turned down a wonderful opportunity with Hillary Clinton’s campaign, at a time when I still wasn’t 100% certain which candidate I would be voting for in the primaries. Friends called me crazy. After all, it would be the opportunity of a lifetime, to work for possibly the first woman President of the United States, and she was undisputedly the front runner at the time.
I learned from the 2004 primaries, when I initially supported Howard Dean for the nomination, that being a front runner so early in an election cycle does not a shoo-in guarantee. When Kerry surged in the primaries and images of Dean’s enthusiasm was blown out of proportion and replayed endlessly on cable news networks, Democrats threw their weight behind the man they hoped could bring cap the Bush administration’s reign of terror at four miserable years. Kerry, it turned out, wasn’t that man. Would Dean have been? We’ll never know.
In 2008, we don’t need to choose the lesser of the evils; this time around, it’s the GOP voters who find themselves in that position. Democrats have a field of qualified, experienced, intelligent, viable candidates, while Republicans are scrambling to determine whose skeletons are least likely to fall out of the closet before the general election.
The Clinton campaign has made a big to-do about Obama’s supposed lack of experience, and his relatively short tenure in Washington, D.C.
Given the corruption that runneth over in the nation’s capitol, I’m not entirely certain that lack of years in Washington is a negative quality. In fact, I think it’s one of Barack’s strongest advantages.
Barack Obama is a candidate that the average American voter can relate to. He wasn’t born into wealth, or a political family, or big business. His mother and grandparents were from Kansas, his father a student from Africa, and he was born in Hawaii, a state known even in the tumultuous 1960s for its tolerance and acceptance of diversity. Like most of us, he went through a phase in which he partied and experimented with drugs, but ultimately his intelligence and drive led him on a path away from temptation and towards great academic success. He was the first African American editor of the prestigious Harvard Law Review. He established himself as a civil rights lawyer, and taught at the University of Chicago. He got elected to the state legislature in Illinois, fighting for health care and welfare reform and an end to racial profiling by law officers. He won his U.S. Senate seat with 70% of the vote and became a household name after his moving speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.
He didn’t spend eight years in the White House as the spouse of the President. He’s been in the Senate only four years shorter than Hillary. He didn’t tour the world as Hillary did in her role as First Lady, he lived abroad, in Indonesia. There’s something to be said of experience, the kind of experience that Senators Biden and Dodd have after decades in the Senate. But Hillary’s attacks on Barack’s experience are unfounded, particularly when her own experience is not so involved as she often makes it seem. There is a great deal to be said for real world experience, the kind that Barack had while Hillary’s husband (not Hillary) ran this country from 1992-2000. Indeed, Hillary has served in the Senate a few years more. But Barack has served as an elected official since 1997, and his understanding of the political process is every bit as developed as hers.
Real world vs. Washington experience is why I believe Barack is the best candidate for the Democratic nomination. Hillary has been in the public eye and Washington for 15 years, and with that comes a degree of protection that makes walking down the street impossible. Barack has spent more time, more recently, with everyday people. Before 2004, he was everyday people. His anti-lobbying stance has helped him elude the number of special interest friends and enemies the Clintons and other Washingtonian politicos have made.
I think Barack Obama is the candidate most likely to bring a fresh, untainted perspective to the presidency. We need that, in this day and age where all the friends in high places and experience cannot guarantee our safety from our enemies or a balanced budget. I’m tired of the old establishment. I don’t feel 20+ years of Bush and Clinton presidencies will bring about any significant degree of change in the way the rest of the world views our nation, or peace in the Middle East. If Hillary Clinton is such a foreign policy expert, why have many of Clinton’s advisors decided to lend their support to Barack Obama and not their former boss’s wife?
Hillary’s campaign has taken ugly turn after ugly turn since Obama’s recent surge in the polls, and I’m not a fan of Democrats who focus to much of their attack on their Democratic colleagues in the primaries. The big picture is, can you beat Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, and Fred Thompson? Many feel Hillary has the best chance because of her noteriety across America. I think she is vulnerable to attacks from the GOP that will make the Swift Boat ad look like child’s play.
Republicans HATE the Clintons. They sought to destroy everything the Clintons stood for during Bill’s administration, and they will stop at nothing to destroy Hillary’s chances at the presidency. If she is elected, she will face the same music Bush did, a Congress unwilling to sign blank checks at the president’s bidding. Even if the Democrats maintain a slight majority, it’s clear that a slight majority in Congress, especially if Joe Lieberman is considered part of that majority, is worth little when it comes to controversial legislation.
Barack Obama conducts himself with a calm, collected, level-headed demeanor. He speaks openly and honestly, admitting to past mistakes like his drug use with a frankness Americans aren’t used to hearing from their leaders. He is a deliberate debator, and while many consider the pauses in his speech to be a sign of unpreparedness or stage fright, I believe he is the kind of candidate who likes to think about what he’s saying to you. He’s not spewing talking points hashed by a team of advisors and debate prep staff. He listens, he thinks, and then he talks. He doesn’t have the rapid-fire responses Hillary has, and I believe that helps him avoid damaging missteps in debates and Q&As.
I like that he’s young. I like that he’s new. I like his open-mindedness, his honesty, his sense of humor, his intelligence, his diverse background which has given him an original perspective. I like him, which is a lot more than I can say about many politicians in Washington.
Simply because I’m not supporting Hillary Clinton doesn’t mean I don’t want a woman in the White House someday. But America is at a critical junction, and so much is at stake in this election. I believe now isn’t the time to vote based on gender, race, or religion. It’s time to vote for a change. Out of the entire candidate pool, GOP and Democratic, I feel Obama is the one most likely to bring about change for our nation.
On February 5, 2007, in the Illinois primary, I will proudly cast my vote for Barack Obama, and I encourage each and every one of you to do the same.