Anyone out there who has read my posts on the 2008 election knows that I have been a persistent advocate for the candidacy of Wesley Clark. Like many of you I have been waiting for "the announcement" for months, and have maintained a hopeful attitude in the face of my own impatience, media apathy, and miserable poll numbers everywhere outside of the lefty blogosphere. In the meantime Edwards is exhibiting surprising strength among the traditional union base, and Obama is attracting media attention, impressive crowds, and lots of money--both appear sufficiently strong and qualified to be the "anti-Hillary" many of us have needed. Numerous large states are now clamoring to move up their primary dates to February, which makes the success of a dark horse candidacy increasingly doubtful. My impression now is that the best opportunity for a Clark candidacy has passed.
It is in this context that I am sharing with you both the rationale for my prior support of Clark, and for my embrace of Obama's candidacy now.
I am an Air Force brat with lefty leanings who is old enough to remember when Democrats were just as patriotic and pro-military as the Repugs. After all, FDR was damn near a socialist, yet vigorously pursued World War II, and nobody could credibly question his love of country or willingness to fight. Truman oversaw the Berlin airlift and initiated the Cold War, JFK ran to the right of Nixon on the alleged "missile gap", and LBJ was militaristic to a fault. Their policies were frequently questioned, but their will was not.
The schism between progressive ideals and a strong security policy is a peculiar product of the Vietnam debacle, which ironically was both started and ended by Democrats. Carter's seeming ambivalence regarding patriotism and his inept response to the Iran hostage crisis reaffirmed the image of Democrats as impotent on security issues, and in 1980 Ronald Reagan successfully stole the flag, and the trust of security-minded Americans, from the Democratic Party. Since then the Democrats have entered every election having to prove something that used to be a given--hence the ridiculous image of Dukakis in a tank, which seems to me to epitomize the perception of Democrats over these past three decades.
After 9/11, to be perceived as antimilitary has become more than merely foolhardy--it is political suicide. Kerry's muddled credentials, record, and speech on this issue only contributed to Americans' distrust, despite Bush's own dubious history of service. However the subsequent deterioration of America's security under Bush's leadership has exposed the Republicans' own weaknesses on an issue that they have politically owned, and created the opportunity for Democrats to rehabilitate themselves and relegate our post-Vietnam hangover to the past where it belongs.
In addition to his many admirable personal qualities, my support of Clark has been driven by the conviction that he would be the perfect candidate to rebrand the Democratic Party, and inoculate us against this persistent stain of perceived weakness. He is the definitive patriot, progressive, warrior, statesman, and intellectual, all wrapped up in a hunky, likeable package that as POTUS would reassure all but the fringiest of wingnuts. Unfortunately, he does not appear to be running, or at least not when he might have a chance. Maybe he never intended to, as Kos suggests. Or maybe he is still laboring under the idea that opportunity might yet arise, which I myself doubt. At any rate, I have decided to cast my lot elsewhere, simply because I am satisfied by a number of the available choices, unhappy with the prospect of a Clinton nomination--and at least moderately excited by the candidacy of Barack Obama.
Why Obama? Well you can cite most of the usual reasons--impressive intellect, impressive story, and of course an impressive early following. But it largely boils down to three decisive factors--the first of which is that I can hardly take issue with anything that I have heard him say on any subject. Sure, he has a lot of policy positions that need to be clarified--but I think his discretion is understandable at this early juncture, and could even be considered mature. A President can't know everything about everything--the last President who seemed to think that he did was Jimmy Carter, a bright man who had the unfortunate habit of repeatedly rejecting the counsel of experts (in numerous instances during the Iran hostage crisis, for example) and looking like an idiot as a result. (Bush seems to think that Cheney and Rove know everything.) A President needs to be bright and informed, but also needs to have a strong sense of what they don't know, and be willing and able to process the opinions of others more informed on a given subject. I believe that Obama demonstrates this precise quality, as revealed in the interview here. Add his consistent opposition to the Iraq War, and his judicious (IMHO) resistance to setting deadlines for withdrawal (consistent with Clark's stance, I might add), and Obama seems to me a man whose values are consistent, and whose judgment I can trust.
Another overriding reason to support Obama came to me when I read this article. It's the phenomenon that is Obama, the ability to draw 15,000 plus on a rainy February day in Austin, and over 100,000 entries to his Facebook webpage. Obama is the electrifying candidate of our era, and anyone that is going to defeat him in this primary is going to have to take the wind out of his sails. But how does one do it? And more importantly, is it in the interests of the Democratic Party to do so? The potential of Obama to motivate the youth vote, to say nothing of the black vote, hasn't been seen since Bobby Kennedy's brief run--and may likely exceed that precedent. Do we really want to stop this freight train--or do we hop on board instead?
I have decided on the latter, since I can't think of one compelling reason not to. Sure, his resume is somewhat thin, but his political experience in the Illinois state legislature is more significant than he is credited for, and neither Clinton's nor Edwards' experience impresses me more. And maybe he will indeed fizzle out in the extended campaign, as some say--but my money says that this guy is around to stay, and his appeal is only going to expand as we get more familiar with him. The more excitement he draws to the Democratic Party, the more excited I am.
For a significant minority of the electorate, more apolitical than you and I, the vote for POTUS is no more about issues than our vote for class president was in high school--it's about who they like, and who they want to see on TV for the next four years. Obama is the ultimate "cool kid that everybody likes", and his blackness only compounds it since some will want to be seen liking him in order to be "cool" themselves. I know all this shit isn't very deep and frustrates the hell out of many political junkies like ourselves, but it's a plain fact of presidential politics--it's part American Idol, where it takes more than good pipes to win the votes. That "class president" group is a significant portion of the swing vote, maybe the largest portion there is, and expands when you have a particularly electrifying candidate. The good news is that this election's "it" guy is a Democrat this time, and he is clearly brighter than either Reagan was or Bush is. In short, Obama is lightning in a bottle, and he's OURS.
Finally, there is the question of toughness and political savvy. Surprisingly one of the knocks on Obama has been that he is too nice to Republicans, trying too hard to make everybody like him. Well, you could say the same thing about Bill Clinton, who was rarely heard saying a a harsh word about his opponent, yet didn't do too badly for himself or the Democratic Party. You could also point out that Edwards exhibited the same problem in his namby-pamby run as a Vice-Presidential candidate. But my concerns about Obama were largely put to rest in the recent flap with Hillary over the statements by David Geffen. As a fan of bare-knuckle politics, I admired the way in which Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs smacked down Hillary--then Obama asked why he should apologize for Geffen's statements--and then Obama publicly repudiated Gibbs' comments. The Machiavellian in me smiled contentedly--hired help smashes mouth, Obama issues bland defense of donor, then rebukes employee with no further consequences. Now THAT'S what I call presidential politics! Frankly, Wes has yet to demonstrate the devious streak that winning the election will no doubt require--he may be too nice, but Obama evidently isn't.
Wes has a lot of proven experience and judgment, but he isn't in the fight now when I think he should be, and he may simply not have the fire in the belly that a presidential run requires. As it is Obama seems likely to have better judgment than Bill Clinton did when he took office in 1993--I recall a number of foolhardy moves (not the least of which was appointing his wife to oversee universal health care), and Obama at least will have the benefit of Bill's experience. My guess is that he would be a lot like John Kennedy--intelligent, well-spoken, but somewhat more inclined to seek out informed advice on issues than Bill was. My hope now is that Wes will be in Obama's inner circle--maybe National Security Advisor, with Richard Holbrooke as Secretary of State--which seems to me like a much more achievable fantasy than Wes for Pres now.
As much as we each love our presidential favorites, we need to recognize all the possibilities that we have to move forward towards our common goals. All of our candidates support the idea of universal health coverage, all of them are economic populists relative to the Republicans, all are motivated toward greater civil rights, and all will provide a foreign policy preferable to our current Administration. Wes will always be a hero of mine, and I will do whatever I can to advance his views within whatever administration we elect, including support to his presidential campaign if he does enter so that his opinion will be heard. However, for now I am letting go of one dream scenario for another, more achievable one--and after this national nightmare we have all shared, it's still a damned good dream!
Note: When I initially posted this diary, I cited the recent Kos post that erroneously alleged that Clark was postponing a decision for three months. I have edited the diary content since, but am unable to edit the poll accordingly.