It almost goes without saying, though that won't stop me, that Barack Obama is a singularly gifted politician and brilliant man with a remarkable story and American experience. But that's not why I'm voting for him.
He has extraordinary crossover appeal and his candidacy is historic both in its success to date and its breakout potential: We could be witnessing the rise of the liberal Reagan. A new FDR. Call it what you like, the prospect is irresistible. We're talking realignment here. But even this is not what will be driving me to the voting booth tomorrow.
After seven years of astonishing abuse of the levers of government by a criminal administration, after having nominated Shrum-powered loser in 2004, and having suffered the consequences both as a nation and in each of our own little ways, all of us recognize a need for change. Change we can believe in. Now each of our candidates would certainly represent a change in Washington, at least from the past seven years of it. Each has articulated his or her own vision of change, with some visions more compelling than others. When you look at their records, their personalities and temperaments, it seems to me Obama is the one offering the most compelling vision of that change I so want to believe in.
Yet even this is such ephemeral talk, so divorced, as some say, from actual questions of policy. Indeed, it could rightly be said Hillary and Obama are very nearly the same when it comes to actual policy positions. Can any reasonable person really be staking out a claim that there's a substantive difference in policy? One that will actual survive the sausage grinder of the legislative process? It's a joke, really, a piece of cleverness concocted to meet the political demands of the moment.
No, I'm not so wonky nor so gullible as to put much stock in such things. My reasons for voting for Barack (may I call him "Barack"?) are simple, concrete, a matter of public record clear enough that it can hardly be denied.
You see, a year ago when my interest in this race was first kindled, I was naive and undecided, unsure what the ensuing months would bring, what issues would prove critical, what matters of character and policy might come to light that would inevitably factor into my decision. Through the rough and tumble of the dKos primary season, my impressions slowly crystallized. My interactions with Edwards and Clinton supporters ultimately proved decisive.
As they say, character counts -- the sort of people who support a candidate, ultimately, reflect who that candidate really is. Who he or she appeals to is ultimately the only sure way to understand his or her message.
Two instances stand out in my mind: The first pertains to the front page. As was common in the early part of last year, there were several front page stories based on incomplete or outright misquotes of Obama in very pieces in the press (principally the AP). The stories invariably came out of the Hillary wing of the blogosphere (often MyDD) and were met with vehement denunciations of Obama by frothing Edwards supporters. Accusations of being "Republican-lite" and so forth, precisely the sorts of criticisms one would expect to see leveled against Hillary in view of her record, flew. Screaming diatribes and highly partisan moderation were the rule.
The second is, to my mind, far more disturbing. After an ill-fated concert tour in South Carolina, a dKos user, whose name I won't mention, wrote what can only be described as an unspeakably racist and disgusting diary featuring a black-face image and caricaturing captions written in minstrel dialect not only attacking Obama, but shocking the conscience of an entire website. Of this user, I will only say that he was until recently a rather rabid Edwards partisan. Of course, now he's pulling for Hillary.
(Disturbing aside: The perpetrator of the minstrel show diary is in fact still active, after issuing a fairly half-assed "sorry you were offended" apology, and is actually vocally supported in some circles here to this day.)
For my part, I'll never quite understand the Edwards supporters I saw in action, as their candidate seemed like an alright guy by and large. Hillary makes a lot of sense. Her blogging supporters engaged in all sorts of gotcha-style unfair and occasionally race baiting attacks (see the fellow from example two), just as her campaign has in the past few weeks (indeed, the diary list features an account of push polling, if not associated with her campaign, then at least in its favor).
So it seems to me, the conduct of supporters does ultimately reflect at least the way campaigns and surrogates will conduct themselves. Hell, that's practically a truism. In any case, I think my approach to the primary has led me to the right guy.