Today I did something that I never thought I'd do. I voted for Barack Obama in the Massachusetts Democratic primary.
I've been relatively inactive on DKos for a while (real life has an annoying habit of getting in the way) but people who've read my rantings in the past may recall that I was an early, and fairly vocal, Obama opponent. I felt that the Illinois senator was too green, too naive, and too prone to drift off into lofty but ultimately meaningless rhetoric that was designed to appeal to the wine-and-cheese liberal set without addressing the real-world concerns of people who don't have graduate degrees and drive hybrid SUVs.
Some of those concerns continue to nag at me. I still believe, for example, that "The Audacity of Hope" sounds more like something that a pretentious teenage girl would come up with than the title of a serious work of statesmanship. And I hold fast to the idea that Oprah Winfrey's presence does more harm than good with swing voters. But overall, my opinion of Obama has changed. I've come around. And here's why:
Barack Obama can beat John McCain.
Now, this is not to say that Hillary Clinton can't beat McCain. I think she can. But it's how she would have to do so that highlights the difference between a Hillary candidacy and an Obama candidacy. In my opinion, the only way Hilldog beats McCain is by using Karl Rovian methods. She will have to target the base and get out their vote while simultaneously playing hardball and suppressing McCain's turnout. It's doable, but it's an ugly way to win. And if it's successful, it would likely result in the kind of 50.1/49.9 split that we as Democrats should want to avoid. Sure, a win's a win, but a win that's achieved by playing the polarization card is a Pyrrhic victory. It isn't good for our party, and it isn't good for our country.
A Hillary Clinton candidacy, and a Hillary Clinton presidency, would mean a return to the old baggage, the old arguments, and the old divisions of the 1990's. Sure, the 90's were great economically, but does anyone seriously think that the 90's boom was solely attributable to Bill Clinton? Or that a Clinton Restoration automatically heralds a return to those halcyon days? Give me a break.
Hillary Clinton is undoubtedly smart and competent and experienced. But smart and competent and experienced aren't all it takes to win. If you don't believe me, just ask John Kerry. Smart and competent and experienced will only get you so far. Americans have proven again and again that in the end they vote for who they like better. And I have a hard time believing that they will like Hillary Clinton better than John McCain.
Barack Obama is smart and competent, too. And, while he doesn't have the same experience on the national as some of the other candidates, he's no kid, either. But Obama has something more. People like him, and, maybe more important, they are inspired by him. He gives people hope. You can see it on the faces of the crowd at his rallies. Hell, you can practically feel it pulsating through the TV screen. He has an energy that the American electorate hasn't felt since before many of us were born. Bill Clinton, at his best, could move audiences with his words. But even Bill Clinton never won a majority of the popular vote. For all his skill, he could never inspire the way Barack Obama can. Bill Clinton may have come from a "Town Called Hope," but it is Barack Obama who brings hope home.
The bottom line, to me, is that the Clintons, for all their years of dedicated public service, represent the past. Barack Obama represents the future. That's why I voted for Barack Obama in the Massachusetts primary, and that's why I hope to cast my vote in November for Barack Obama to be the next President of the United States.