Monday, March 03, 2008


The Final Countdown

I'm for Obama.

On Tuesday, March 4, he's got four primary contests - Texas, Rhode Island, Ohio, and Vermont. I'm hoping he wins all four of them, basically putting to rest questions about whether his nomination is certain or merely almost certain. I find it hard to blame Clinton for wanting to continue, even with a 20% chance (randomly picked number) of winning. After all, she's been working towards this for a decade - why give up when you're so close? I don't even really blame her from being so darn negative. Unlike some Obama supporters, I don't believe Clinton's attacks hurt the party, or the candidate, all that much. I think Obama is remarkably resilient, and assuming he does get the nod, I don't doubt that Clinton's backers will jump on the bandwagon. I also trust Clinton not to try to improperly seat delagates from vanity elections in Florida or Michigan, which would tear the party apart. Oh, I also think the country is ready to united behind a leader with true vision, charisma, and smarts - i.e., a landslide in November.

Since you were wondering, here are my top 10 reasons for supporting the guy in the primary, besides the whole Chicago thing:

10. Obama is solid - and in tune with the rest of the country - on most issues. He can articulate these without being boring or sounding condescending. And, of course, his stance on the war has been correct from the beginning.

9. He's a Democrat through and through, but is not averse to working with political opponents, even those who have previously vilified him - I mean, he doesn't really make enemies over the long-haul, even those who are jealous of him (see Bobby Rush). When he says that Democrats don't have a monopoly on being right - well, frankly , that's flat-out true. And a good sign for someone who's willing to work across the aisle.

8. I met him in a completely unguarded moment and had the "audacity" to introduce myself, when he was in anti-politician mode, and he was cool. (I was a dork.)

7. His campaign *has* been positive. Being positive doesn't mean not attacking other candidates. You can point out your good votes and contrast them with their bad votes. In fact, you must. But you shouldn't stoop to tearing them down as people. Barack hasn't doen that. I feel like Hillary has been on the verge of doing that.

6. On the rare occasion that things haven't gone well for him, he hasn't whined. Ever. As a whiner at heart, I find that refreshing.

5. I think he's mean so much more for down-ticket races than Clinton possibly could. The first Clinton helped make possible the worst of the GOP Congresses. I think a lot of senatorial and gubenatorial candidates, particularly in red states, would *love* to run with Obama - not so much Clinton.

4. Bush/Clinton/Bush was bad enough. I don't want the history books to read /Clinton after that. This ain't Dynasty.

3. He's a rational thinker. We need that right now.

2. He's an excellent campaigner. He has come from behind to be the favorite. If he wins, it will be one of the most significant upsets in modern political history, but right now he's thought of as the "front runner." And whether in the lead or behind, he just doesn't have major hiccups. His organization is tight and well run. He has an excellent ground game. He believes in the 50-state strategy. And he's done little to alienate his fellow Dems, unlike his primary opponent. Like I said before, he's the only possibility of winning in November with anything resembling a true mandate, which is what the Dems could use right now.

1. If not for him, this blog wouldn't have a name.

Except for your reasoning for #4, I'm right there with you. Unlike the reprise of "Bush" in the presidential last name series, I actually believe that the second potential "Clinton" might well have managed her way to her current position without family influence. In fact, it might have been more likely that the first Clinton couldn't have done it without her.

But all things considered, I want the big O, too.
Thanks for the comment, davicon. I guess what I'm saying is, I don't care if it's Hillary, Chelsea, Roger, or George; and I don't care if it's Bush, Clinton, or Kennedy, I have a problem with the entire philosophy of dynastic families in the U.S. It's inevitable to have some of it, and the Democrats have definitely used it to their advantage over the years. But Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton is just too much! Fortunately, there's a great alternative.
I generally agree.

Thanks for the thoughtful post in the first place! Go, go, gObama!
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?