Josh Marshall wrote an outstanding essay yesterday on his disappointment that Obama has not seemed to be able to rally a challenge to Clinton in the Democratic primary race (Pretty much everything Marshall writes is outstanding in my book).
As someone initially inclined towards Obama, Josh pretty much summed up my feelings as well. We're now almost six weeks into the "real" primary election and Obama is running out of time to make his move, at least with voters like me.
more -->
I'm the type of voter who's inclined to like Obama. I like his talk about comity and bipartisanship. I like the idea of compromise, especially when many of my ideas are in the national minority. I like the fact that he has a "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" approach in reminding people of their responsibilities in addition to their rights. And, although I realize some people consider this a form of racism in itself, I would be extremely excited to help elect a black man President of the United States.
But I also like a certain amount of steel in my candidate. I want a candidate who, while calm and polite, takes the fight to the enemy every day. And I want a candidate who is going to play the political game to win, not to win the also-ran prize and be voted "nicest candidate".
Unlike many here, I actually like comity between the two parties -- it's possible to have different opinions about policy, and to advance your own opinions, without necessarily going to war with the other side.
On the other hand, I don't like naivety. I want my candidate to state clearly that, while the other side is entitled to their opinions, their opinions are wrong and so are they. Many people believe that primaries are about talking on your fellow Democrats, leaving Republicans for the general election. But that's not true. Primaries are for convincing people like me why you're best able to take on the Republicans. Republicans themselves understand this which is why they compete in their primaries to attack Democrats, following Reagan's eleventh commandment ("Thou shalt not attack a Republican").
I spent the 1990 election out of the country and largely out of touch with politics. But I did get to see (while hanging out in the seventh underground level of a parking garage in Sydney, Australia) one of the debates between Bill Clinton and George Bush. There was a moment there when Bush made some statement about Arkansas, and Clinton interrupted to counter it. The moderator told Clinton he'd have a turn to respond in a minute, but Clinton just talked over him saying (I paraphrase from memory) "Now, wait a minute. He (Bush) interrupted before when he felt the honor of the country was at stake. Well, this is about the honor of my State. Arkansas may not lead in every measurement but the difference is that Arkansas is going in the right direction and this country is going in the wrong direction." It was at that moment that I thought "hey, this guy really has something."
I like Obama's positions, but frankly (a lot of people here don't understand this) positions do not win elections. Obama's positions are great, but so far, to my surprise, he hasn't shown me the "spark" that would light my enthusiasm for him.
While solid liberal positions, the ability to think clearly and deeply about issues of public policy, and the ability to work across the aisle are all great attributes, without that spark Obama seems to me to essentially be Hillary Clinton with less experience and an untested oppo research team (if any at all). My choice is largely between the two (although I'll have to take a serious look at Dodd before deciding) and between them Obama's given me no reason to choose him over Clinton.