Back in 2007, the person who I thought would be best qualified to be the next President of the United States was Al Gore. Had Gore entered the race, he'd have had my vote. But Gore did not enter the race.
Next, I looked at all the candidates running and I felt that John Edwards would be the best President. But the bottom line is that Edwards finished 2nd in Iowa, 3rd in New Hampshire, trails in Nevada, trails badly in South Carolina and trails in virtually every Super Tuesday state. If Edwards can't win his birth state of South Carolina, he can't win the Democratic nomination. (If things change dramatically in the next 3 weeks I'll reconsinder.)
So the only two people left who appear to be able toreasonably get the Democratic nomination when it is my turn to vote are Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. And because Obama is clearly the better choice over Hillary I will cast my vote for him on February 5th, 2008 absent a dramatic Edwards turnaround.
Part of what factors into my decision is reason and maturity. I could be a petulant spoiled brat, whine and whine some more, and cry sour grapes about why my first two choices (Gore and Edwards) are not going to be President, etc... but I saw what several thousand self righteous Nader supporting whiners did in Florida in 2000 and that will not be me. By not being me this only applies to me. There is no equating of Edwards primary voters and Nader voters of 2000. But I feel I have a clear choice, Obama or Clinton. So I'll make it.
Next, my endorsement of Obama does not make Hillary Clinton a bad person nor does it make her unqualified to be President. Her voting record has many commonalities with Obama and she would be a far better President than any of the Republican wingnuts seeking the office. She has done many terrific things throughout her life and as Senator from New York, she can continue to do so. But she's a 7 on a scale of 1-10. Obama would be at least a 9. So why should I vote for the 7 when I can choose a 9? It's common sense.
My endorsement of Obama is indeed partly rooted in how Senator Clinton has chosen to run her campaign for President. It is fair to point out that how any candidate runs a campaign and who that candidates surrounds himself or herself with is a reflection, or at the very least provides insight, into what kind of President that candidate would be. Thus when I see Mark Penn and Terry McAuliffe calling shots in your campaign, I should hold it against you. When I see these desperate attacks against Obama, it factors into my decision. When I see the Clinton people trying to suppress culinary and teacher union members from voting how they want, (Instead of simply agreeing to disagree) it factors into my decision. Hillary Clinton loves America and 80% of what she'd do as President would be good for America. But my instincts (which aren't always right) tell me that she is too calculating, that she is more about power than helping people, that she would sell out to certain special interests if given the opportunity, and that some of her convictions, while aligned with many of mine, are simply convictions of opportunism and convenience.
But my endorsement of Obama is primarily about Obama. It's about Obama's terrific character, his ability to inspire beyond wonkish details, his message of positive change, his ability to bring Republicans and independents into our big tent, his enunciated positions on the issues, and yes his experience. Let me break these down one by one.
One, Obama is a man of very high character. There's not a scandalous or corrupt bone in his body. His personal life is terrific.
Two, Obama can inspire people. The ability to inspire does not mean one is vacuous on issues. As someone who taught in public schools for almost a decade, my best lessons and most impactful lessons were the ones where I inspired and often deviated from the intended detailed plans of the lesson. These lessons were never on the test but I'll bet they stayed with my former students to this day. Being able to inspire matters. Obama can do it, Hillary can't do it as well.
Three, Obama's message is about positive change. It's not about what we can't do but what we can do. And after 8 years of Halliburton/PNAC first foreign policy, economically disasterous policies, destruction of our domestic infrastructure, and erosion of our freedoms and liberties under Bush and the Republicans, we need positive change. And that's Obama's narrative and message.
Four, Obama can bring more Republicans and independents to our side than Hillary can. I know of many Republicans who said they will vote for Obama but there is no way they would vote for Hillary. I'm sure you all do too. So with the stakes so high and the need to send Republicans the way of the Whigs, why would we risk our nomination on a candidate who would keep voters home while simultaneously mobilizing others to go to the polls specifically to vote against Hillary? Here we can have the more electable candidate and the better candidate. And since even the Hillary supporters will acknowledge that both candidates are fairly close on most issues, why should this reasoning offend them?
Fifth, the insinuations that Obama does not talk about issues are false. Again I'll use a teaching analogy. If I were to spend 20 minutes giving my students dry rote recitations of how to solve a math problem, they'd be asleep after 5 minutes. Effective communication involves both specifics and broad themes. Obama delivers on both.
Obama has clearly laid out his positions on the issues. (Hillary has too.) Obama has talked about a living wage, health care, education, foreign policy, tax reform and he HAS given multitudes of specifics. And his positions are in tune with a supermajority of Americans who want change.
Sixth, Obama has the right experience to be President. I'll defer to Bill Clinton on this one when Clinton spoke in 1992 about the right kind of experience when he compared his record to then President George Herbert Walker Bush. Clearly GHWB had more "experience" but President Bill Clinton had the better experience and the better views. Given the choice between a progressive with zero years of public service and Dick Cheney, with over 30 years of public service, all of us would choose the former.
President Bill Clinton was correct when he talked about experience in 1992 and his words are correct now. Obama's experience of being a community organizer, a state Senator, a US Senator, and the entire package he brings to the table is better experience than Hillary Clinton's experience. Is Obama perfect? Nobody is. But he's the best person to be the next President of the United States.
UPDATE - I've slightly edited about 2 sentences in my intro to clarify a couple of things. And by no means should others feel the need not to vote for Edwards in NV or SC. If John wins both those states, the game changes as would my vote. Unfortunately, all indicators are he's a distant 3rd right now and in my mind, when 2/5/08 rolls around, a vote for him would not be practical. The differences between Obama and Edwards are negligible. We all have lines in the sand. Neitehr Obama nor Edwards is anywhere near that line. (Harold Ford, Joe Lieberman, Musgrave, and a few others are clearly over it.)
UPDATE 2 - I would also love to see Obama and Edwards team up. If it is clear after SC that it is the 2 horse race it appears to be now, then if Obama doesn't choose Edwards as his VP running mate, I'd LOVE to see John Edwards either as Attorney General or get this, the next Supreme Court Justice of the United States.