Fired Up

So, I recently wrote a letter to a friend of mine explaining why I support Barack Obama and why the Clintons, whom I formerly liked, have been not only been losing my support, but agitating, irritating, aggravating and antagonizing me to the point where I've virtually lost all respect for them. Well, I mentioned this to some friends and they asked to see it. So I figured I'd post it here with some minor changes: 

WHY I LIKE OBAMA
Record/Positions
A common complaint against Obama is that he's all pretty talk and no substance. But it's a canard, something that ghoulish high school clique otherwise known as our Beltway media (with nary a brain's worth of critical thinking among them) likes to fit into their insipid narrative. He's got a great record and I like his stance of issues. Here are relevant links to illustrate:

• projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/issues/candidates/barack-obama/
• www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html

It's also a canard that he's not really a liberal. One of the big reasons I like him is that, like myself, he's politically progressive, but tempermentally moderate. Which is to say he's not a firebrand or a polemicist. Here are his Almanac of American Politics (2008) ratings in three key areas:

• His 2006 rating on Economic Policy is 87% liberal, 0% conservative. (2005: 87% liberal, 12% conservative.)

• His 2006 rating on Foreign Policy is 85% liberal, 12% conservative. (2005: 76% liberal, 15% conservative.)

• His 2006 rating on Social Policy is 77% liberal, 21% conservative. (2005: 77% liberal, 18% conservative.)

And this link shows how he voted on very specific issues: Vote Smart (One example: 2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 100 percent in 2006.)

Another key vote to my mind: Obama voted against the despicable Federal Marriage Amendment which would have defined marriage as between one man and one woman. Something neither Clinton can claim. (To the contrary, Bill vocally supported and signed the DOMA—Defense of Marriage Act—a garbage piece of legislation.)

Rhetoric
Every politician uses rhetoric. It's the lifeblood of the job. What's important is what's said and how well it's delivered. This should not be disregarded.

And Obama is a great orator. His languaging is positive and inclusive, forward looking, filled with hope. His speeches are rhythmic, with an electrifying cadence. (See his victory speech in Iowa and his concession speech in NH.) He's getting people excited and, dare I say, hopeful again (which is where the rhetoric and delivery come in). After the atrocity of the Bush administration, that's not to be undervalued.

And frankly, what wins presidential elections in this country isn't policy papers. It's creating a vision that people get excited about. (I mean how many goddamn Mondales, Dukakises, Gores and Kerrys do we need to prove this point? Bill Clinton got it. Obama gets it.) Of course, I care about substance, but I think vision is equally important. Rhetoric is how you convey that vision.

Additionally, he thinks well on his feet—he isn't completely scripted (asked to give an example of their weakness at the Nevada debate Tues. night, he was the only candidate to give a remotely honest answer).

Judgement
And then there's judgement, which is also an area where Obama excels. After all, he did vote against the war when it was extraordinarily difficult and unpopular to do so. Need anything else be said? That was exceedingly good judgement. Clinton can't even admit that her vote was a mistake, still trying to convince us (and herself?) that she was voting for the resolution, blah, blah, blah, and not to go to war. Please.

That's just one example. Another: the way he ran his campaign in Illinois in 03/04, which was shrewd and classy.

Character
This is a dicier subject since it's so subjective. But something intangible gets conveyed about a candidate during a campaign. So far, Obama is showing great character. And this area in particular is where Clinton is really losing me. (More on that below.)

The Generation Gap
There's a fascinating phenomenon showing up here. As Gen-Xers, my peers and I have had to put up with Boomer culture shoved down our throats our entire lives, from JFK to Vietnam to soft rock to The Big (lame ass) Chill. Now, this might not be so bad…if it weren't for the insufferable sanctimony and smugness that many Boomers tend to regard the world with. Which I may have been able to overlook if they didn't start a generational war years ago by beating up on Xers for not being "active" enough. Their criteria: we didn't march the streets, thumb our noses at the man, and burn our bras. 

Instead, of course, we created or joined organizations and NGOs, doing the tough work it takes to actually do something productive (which IMO affected more real change than a bunch of overgrown children burning their draft cards and growing out their hair, man). 

Look, I loved Boomer culture growing up. What's not to love about Hendrix, the Beatles, Leary, etc.? But after time, most of them merely turned into smug versions of their parents. Which is fine. Perfectly natural. But when they threw the first punch generationally speaking, by dissing Xers as somehow less than, it was more than I could stand. Since then, I've had little good to say about Boomers.

(Important Caveat: Of course, I have many, many Boomer friends, whom I love and adore and I don't mean this point to be hurtful. But I'm not talking about individuals here. I'm talking collectively, as a generational cohort.)

A better illustration of this phenomenon is in an Atlantic Monthly essay written by Andrew Sullivan. The article is long but well worth it. It nails on the head many just-below-the-surface feelings and concerns I had before reading it, particularly . Honestly, it makes what I think is the best case for Obama I've read. I highly recommend it.

Really, I don't take the generational warfare too seriously. But it does have some effect. And I think that's why the article rang true for me. I think you see that playing out in exit polling, where a lot of 30-somethings are voicing increasing dislike of Clinton for similar reasons. It's time to move beyond the tired old battles of the Boomer's Culture War. Please. Please. Pleeeease.

Politics
There are countless stories of liberals who report that their diehard Repub relatives are saying they'd vote for Obama. They're fed up with Bush and aren't thrilled with their field of candidates. But Clinton is so damn polarizing, it will invigorate a rapidly dissolving conservative coalition to hold their nose and vote for a Rep. they don't like to keep a Clinton that they hate from getting in. Obama doesn't come close to inciting this passion and hatred.

Conversely, Clinton's race baiting and dirty pool is alienating huge swaths of black voters on our side. They're campaigning against a fellow Democrat no differently than they'd campaign against Gingrich. And it's pissing people off. 

One recent example of what I'm hearing a lot of: "I live in Las Vegas, Saturday was my first caucus. I went to support Obama. I brought 18 voters including friends and family. All Obama supporters. Early in the campaign most of us thought we'd hope for Obama now and still vote for Hillary in November if she wins the nomination. Not now. No chance. We got the Barack-bashing phone calls. We got bullied by out-of-state Hillary workers at the caucus site telling us we were 'on the dark side of the party'. We've seen Bill Clinton all over the local news looking more like a Karl Rove political hack than a distinguished former president. We've seen them try to destroy the local party and unions. In the fall if she's on the ballot it's not just blacks who will stay home. I know 19 white people who showed up today but won't be there in the general election. And if we do it'll be for McCain or Bloomberg."

Another: "I am a black male that voted for Bill Clinton in 1996, the first year I could vote. I will under zero circumstances vote for Hillary in the GE if she gets the nom. Most of my African-American friends think the same. We feel so personally disrespected by the Clinton campaign it would be an act of self-loathing to support them."

Frankly, I'm beginning to feel the same way, except for the black male and self-loathing parts. As I said, these sentiments are popping up all over the place.

WHY HILL'S LOSING ME
Since there is so little daylight between their positions on many major issues, I'll focus on the intangibles.

Judgement
See voting for Iraq War. See voting for stupid bill to list Revolutionary Guard as terrorist organization, thereby unnecessarily antagonizing Iran. See voting for horrible bankruptcy bill, though she claims she thought it was a bad bill, but knew it wasn't going to pass anyway, so decided to vote for it, presumably so she could have political cover and thereby having it both ways. See screwing up health care reform in '93 with her secrecy and arrogance. Hell, see staying with a serial philanderer as a career move.

Character
Nasty campaign tactics. Hilary has been running a really nasty campaign. Her comments about MLK and LBJ were despicable. Having her surrogates like NH campaign co-chair, Bill Shaheen, chief strategist Mark Penn, and sleazy businessman Robert Johnson (CEO of BET) bring up Obama's drug use as a teen is tasteless and divisive. Her display of emotion in NH was (to my mind) manipulative and creepy. And Bill wagging his finger and giving us lectures on how unfair their media treatment is and losing his temper is just irritating (my pet theory: he's pissed because he's losing his mantle as the best Demo orator. The lawsuit and possible vote suppressing in NV was disheartening ( www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/19/162953/644/790/439573). The garbage about Obama's kindergarten aspirations just pathetic (projection anyone?).

The…um…"truth stretching". Yes, Bill was against the Iraq War all along. Now, I remember. 

Hill telling us that she'd disavow anyone referencing Obama's past but doesn't when it comes to billionaire Johnson's remarks. Then claiming he apologized, days before he actually did. 

She looks in to the camera and says she didn't decide whether to run for president until Jan. 2007. With a straight face. (HA!)

And this 35 years of experience thing. Ugh. She's been in an elected position for six years (this compared to Obama's 11). How her time in the Rose Law firm counts as part of her 35 years of public service is beyond me. And do the White House years really count?

I'm just scratching the surface here. I just don't trust a single thing out of either of their mouths anymore. I've just had it with their cynicism.

Fear. She reeks of political fear. She came of age during the conservative ascendancy when liberals were in retreat. I think deep down she believes that the country isn't liberal on policy issues (belied by just about every poll for the past seven years) and that she has to trick the country into lib policies. (Hence the reflexive triangulation.) 

Obama is of a different time. The conservative coalition is falling apart and their "policies" have been shown to be vacant shells. He's apparently far more confident in his liberalism and less apt to reflexively cave to the VRWC. Again, a much better explication of this is in Sullivan's Atlantic essay.

Her staff and compatriots. The people she surrounds herself with really speak volumes for both her character and her judgement. Four prime examples: the oily Terry McAuliffe (chair of HC for Pres. committee), the reprehensible Howard Wolfson (communications director), the porcine Mark Penn (chief strategist), the sleazy BET CEO Johnson (friend, major contributor), etc. These skeeves are so ethically challenged and generally icky they make me wonder: why bother trading in one set of Roves for another?

Air of entitlement. I think she thought she was just going to cruise to victory—that she felt a sense of entitlement to the coronat…er, nomination. Consequently, Obama's giving her a tough race is bringing the worst out in her.

Honestly, the longer this campaign drags on, the more I wonder whether I'll be able to vote for Clinton(s) in November should she/they end up winning the nomination. And that's just weird. And painful. I mean, I was looking forward to possibly voting for her/them at the beginning of this campaign, hell, what good liberal wouldn't love to elect the first woman president?

But not just any woman. I wouldn't vote for Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Phyllis Schlafly, Elizabeth Dole just because they're women. And IMO, Hillary is running headlong into that camp—except not based on ideology, but character, judgement and trust.

We've got a vibrant and growing liberal/progressive movement in this country for the first time in years—for the first time in our lifetimes. It's not enough for me anymore to settle for someone just because they're a little better than Republicans. (In the way that Bill was settling. I mean, wasn't he in effect merely the best Republican president we've had since, say Lincoln? Constantly playing defense or triangulating or sneaking conservative policy in under a DLC guise: i.e., Welfare reform.) Well, I'm not willing to settle for a cynical Blue State version of the Bush administration out of desperation, at least in the primaries. Because I see a real alternative.

We'll see what happens. There's an eternity to go before the general. If Clinton wins—and she's got party machinery, tenacity, soulless ambition in her favor—she'll have a lot of work to do to repair the intra-party damage she's played a huge part in creating. But it's doable, I suppose. 

And hell, faced with a choice between her and Romney or Huckabee, I can see perhaps letting go of all of this, holding my nose (with a vice grip), and voting for her. (Although, I'm sure she's counting on just that kind of thing and that pisses me off even more.)

Meantime Obama's still in this race and I'm pulling for him.